Redeeming Science: A God-Centered Approach [Paperback]

Vern Sheridan Poythress (Author)

Book Description

Publication Date: October 13, 2006

Many people think science is antagonistic to Christian belief. Science, it is said, shows that the universe is billions of years old, while the Bible says it is only thousands of years old. And some claim that science shows supernatural miracles are impossible. These and other points of contention cause some Christians to view science as a threat to their beliefs.

Redeeming Science attempts to kindle our appreciation for science as it ought to be-science that could serve as a path for praising God and serving fellow human beings. Through examining the wonderfully complex and immutable laws of nature, author Vern Poythress explains, we ought to recognize the wisdom, care, and beauty of God. A Christian worldview restores a true response to science, where we praise the God who created nature and cares for it.

Editorial Reviews

Review

"Poythress shows how a proper understanding of biblical theology makes possible not just one but many credible harmonizations of biblical and scientific truth. Along the way, he provides an insightful defense of the theory of intelligent design as a viable scientific research program. His examination of the mathematical beauty inherent in the universe gives yet another compelling reason to acknowledge the wisdom and design that lie behind physical reality." Stephen C. Meyer, Director, Center for Science and Culture, Discovery Institute "With doctorates in both New Testament and mathematics, and with a solid commitment to orthodox Reformed theology, Vern Poythress is uniquely qualified to write on the theology of science. This is by far the most important book you can read on this subject. I recommend it without reservation." John Frame, Professor of Systematic Theology and Philosophy, Reformed Theological Seminary, Orlando "Poythress demonstrates just how natural the partnership is between science and Christianity. Using examples from a variety of scientific disciplines, he gives a prescription for how science and the Christian faith can interact in a way that mutually benefits both." Fazale Rana, Vice President of Science Apologetics, Reasons to Believe "Not only does this book offer a theological perspective rooted in the historic Reformation, it also attends to strategies of interpretation of Bible texts concerning nature and history that underwrite doctrine but are often left out of the dialogue." Jitse van der Meer, Professor of Biology and History and Philosophy of Science, Redeemer University College, Ancaster, Ontario "Sound theology meets sound science in this book as Vern Poythress shows us how to see the beauty of God's character revealed in everything that scientists study in the created universe." Wayne Grudem, Research Professor of Theology and Bible, Phoenix Seminary, Scottsdale, Arizona --This text refers to the Kindle Edition edition.

Review

"Poythress shows how a proper understanding of biblical theology makes possible not just one but many credible harmonizations of biblical and scientific truth. Along the way, he provides an insightful defense of the theory of intelligent design as a viable scientific research program. His examination of the mathematical beauty inherent in the universe gives yet another compelling reason to acknowledge the wisdom and design that lie behind physical reality."
—Stephen C. Meyer, Director, Center for Science and Culture, Discovery Institute

"With doctorates in both New Testament and mathematics, and with a solid commitment to orthodox Reformed theology, Vern Poythress is uniquely qualified to write on the theology of science. This is by far the most important book you can read on this subject. I recommend it without reservation."
—John M. Frame, J. D. Trimble Chair of Systematic Theology and Philosophy, Reformed Theological Seminary, Orlando, Florida

"Poythress demonstrates just how natural the partnership is between science and Christianity. Using examples from a variety of scientific disciplines, he gives a prescription for how science and the Christian faith can interact in a way that mutually benefits both."
—Fazale Rana, Vice President of Science Apologetics, Reasons to Believe

"Not only does this book offer a theological perspective rooted in the historic Reformation, it also attends to strategies of interpretation of Bible texts concerning nature and history that underwrite doctrine but are often left out of the dialogue."
—Jitse van der Meer, Professor of Biology and History and Philosophy of Science, Redeemer University College, Ancaster, Ontario

"Sound theology meets sound science in this book as Vern Poythress shows us how to see the beauty of God's character revealed in everything that scientists study in the created universe."
—Wayne Grudem, Research Professor of Bible and Theology, Phoenix Seminary

"Poythress's analysis of the relationship between science and faith proceeds from an unapologetic, undisguised confession of belief in Christ, clear-minded evaluation of the nature of science, careful analysis of Scripture, and honest reflection on the present state of this debate."
—T. M. Moore, Pastor of Teaching Ministries, Cedar Springs Presbyterian Church, Knoxville, Tennessee; Author, Consider the Lilies: A Plea for Creational Theology

Product Details

• Paperback: 384 pages
• Publisher: Crossway (October 13, 2006)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 1581347316
• ISBN-13: 978-1581347319
• Product Dimensions: 9.1 x 5.8 x 1 inches
• Shipping Weight: 4.8 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 3.9 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (12 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #264,341 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Vern Sheridan Poythress is professor of New Testament interpretation at Westminster Theological Seminary. He has six earned degrees, including a PhD from Harvard University and a ThD from the University of Stellenbosch. He is the author of numerous books on aspects of biblical interpretation and science.

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

50 of 55 people found the following review helpful

4.0 out of 5 stars A valuable contribution to the Reformed tradition December 29, 2006

By B. C. Richards

Format:Paperback|Amazon Verified Purchase

I am very pleased with this book. The first thing to know is that while Dr. Poythress is a seminary professor, he also holds a PhD in mathematics from Harvard University in addition to his PhD in New Testament. He has a sophisticated grasp of the ideas behind science and mathematics, as well as theology. Being a scientist myself, I sometimes get nervous when non-scientists draw philosophical or theological conclusions from things they don't understand, for instance Heisenberg's uncertainty relation, but we do not have this problem with Dr. Poythress. Nevertheless, he has aimed this book at laymen, and I believe that the majority of the material should be easily accessible to most readers.

The book seeks to develop a self-consciously Biblical view of science. In the opening chapters he discusses the divine attributes of scientific law, such as omnipresence and immutability, and the questions of the Bible and authority in their relation to the scientific enterprise. It is in these opening chapters that he develops the Van Tillian epistemological framework for understanding science, and shows the radical contrast between this and atheistic worldviews. He shows that all scientists must operate under the assumptions of a Biblical worldview, (rational order to the universe, reliability of physical law, etc.) even though the worldviews they profess to believe may not be able to justify such assumptions.

Chapters four through ten tackle the issues surrounding the interpretation of the early chapters of Genesis. Here I think Poythress has done a masterful job of attempting to maintain the absolute authority of the Bible as divine revelation, while helping us, who read the Bible with a modern scientific mindset, to really get to the bottom of what God's Word is and is not asserting.... This subtlety is what seems to have eluded a previous reviewer.

Chapters eleven through thirteen deal with some of the more specifically theological issues, the role of man (such as image of God and cultural mandate), the role of Christ (perfectly fulfilling cultural mandate), and the role of God's Word (scientific law as God's Word ruling the physical universe).

Chapters fourteen through seventeen consider some of the more epistemological and philosophical questions involved in science, such as the nature of truth, reality, scientific knowledge, and ordinary experience. Here, as throughout the book, the idea of the unity between different aspects of reality as well as the different ways we can look at reality in terms of the being of God is especially helpful. I also appreciated his discussion of miracles, in terms of primary and secondary causes, and in terms of the rationality of both miracles and physical laws as equally reflecting God's sovereign rule of the universe.

Chapters eighteen and nineteen deal with the questions of life, evolution, and intelligent design, and I think give a very nice overview of some of the issues that are involved in these discussions, as well as the ideological problems that will almost always completely overwhelm the actual scientific evidence. The final four chapters conclude appropriately with some specific examples of seeing the beauty and majesty of our God revealed in the physical and mathematical reality that we encounter.

As you can see, Dr. Poythress covers an ambitious amount of ground in this book. As you may imagine, in a 350 page book, several of the discussions are somewhat limited in terms of their depth, but there are certainly plenty of references for further study if you have the interest. Incidentally, the extensive bibliography at the end is alone worth the price of the book. It is unlikely that anyone will agree with all of Dr. Poythress' conclusions; I did not, but he certainly is making a serious attempt to deal with the issues, and the obvious humility and tentativeness he exhibits on matters that may admit more than one interpretation is an attitude that I wish was more characteristic of people who claim to stand in the Reformed tradition.

Perhaps in a later edition we may hope for a chapter on quantum mechanics, which in my opinion must surely reveal some interesting things about God that were perhaps not so obvious in the years, following Newton, of seemingly total physical determinism. Additionally, I would have liked to have seen a chapter outlining how the historical rise of science was squarely grounded in the specifically Biblical worldview of the reformation, as well as the contemporary near-infinite ideological chasm existing between the (unbelieving) practitioners of physical science (the only truth is scientific truth) and the other academic disciplines (there is no truth) as a result of the abandonment of a Christian consensus. But you can't do everything at once. The book is an enjoyable and edifying read, and with so much breadth of subject matter, there's never a dull moment. Dr. Poythress has given us a valuable contribution to developing a specifically reformed view of faith and science, and I certainly hope that his book will receive the attention and the consideration that it deserves. Read more ›

61 of 70 people found the following review helpful

3.0 out of 5 stars Is Westminster Theological Seminary Compromising September 15, 2010

By Paul G. Humber

Format:Kindle Edition

Is Westminster Theological Seminary Compromising the Word of God with Respect to the Age-of-the-Earth Question?

Dr. Vern S. Poythress seems to be, in matters relating to science, the current, number-one spokesman for Westminster Theological Seminary (WTS--original campus), and the first part of his book, Redeeming Science, deals with the age-of-the-earth issue.

He and I have some things in common. Both of us "love" mathematics. I taught the subject for over thirty years but never got a PhD in the subject like him.

We also both attended Westminster about the same time. My years were from '69 to '72. I remember him, but he may not remember me from those years. We, nevertheless, have corresponded since, and he knows me. Our mutual correspondence has been cordial.

Two things in God's providence have happened recently which make me want to address publically my concern for what I perceive as Westminster's lack of faithfulness in the area of biblical creation--especially as it relates to the matter of chronology and beginnings.

On 9/9/2010, I received an unsolicited copy of Dr. Poythress' book from two people, Westminster's President and also the Director of Student Development. (See endnote #1.) I decided to give more attention to the book.

Also, some months prior, I had attended a conference at WTS concerning Science and Faith and was quite disappointed that there was not one person on the panel who spoke from a "Young Earth Creation" (YEC) perspective.

This last statement, in my view, is sad. Why? WTS represents itself as being more or less faithful to the views of the Westminster "Divines," but every one of them, I believe, were YEC.

I do not know for sure, but I strongly suspect that Dr. John H.... Skilton,(see endnote #2) a New Testament Professor at WTS when I was there, may have favored the YEC view , and I have been informed recently that there are some current professors at WTS who are YEC. I think I may know of one but would be pleased to learn of others.

Now I intend to be critical of some of Dr. Poythress' words in what follows, but this should not be viewed as my questioning his brother-in-Christ-status. I view him as my Christian brother, but there is also a strong biblical basis for rebuking a brother in love. If Dr. Poythress wants to rebuke me in return, he is welcome to.

I also intend to send this directly to Dr. Poythress, but his book is also public. Thus, this too will be public. I intend to share my perspectives, in other words, with others.

There are many commendable things about the book. For example, on p. 10, Dr. Poythress laments the fact that all too often TV-shows praise "Nature" or "'Mother Nature' as the source of wisdom, care, and beauty." He wrote that we need a "God-centered worldview." I wholeheartedly agree.

His first sentence of chapter 1 is excellent: "All scientists--including agnostics and atheists--believe in God." In context, he added, "They have to in order to do their work." But Dr. Poythress is also aware of Paul's words in Romans 1:20ff, which affirm the same truth.

He also reminded me on p. 28 of Dr. Van Til's train-incident (about the grandchild, sitting on the grandfather's lap, slapping the grandfather in his face). I also remember Dr. Van Til's illustration, his point being that the grandchild needed to be held by the grandfather in order to slap him. Correspondingly, the so-called atheist can deny God's existence because the Creator gives him life and breathe to do so. The atheist sits on God's lap, as it were, but without Divine support, the atheist could not exist.

What about the Age Issue?

There are many other helpful insights, but now I want to jump to Evaluating Modern Science on the Age of the Earth (pp. 99ff). The author refers to "the main stream viewpoint" that the universe is "billions of years old" (p. 101). In context, he is writing about galaxies being "several billion light-years away."

The sad thing about this is that Dr. Poythress, later in the book, seems to accommodate this "main stream viewpoint," but I do not believe he needs to! He seems to be under the impression that this is a pretty clear scientific fact. IT IS NOT! See below.

Dr. Poythress says, on page 103, that Dr. Humphreys, in defending the YEC view, misapplied the mathematics of general relativity in his efforts to account for the starlight matter and billions of years. Using "less than honest means does not honor God," says Dr. Poythress on the next page, but the Scriptures also warn that the one who thinks he stands should take heed lest he fall. I am not aware of any technical journal where Dr. Poythress published his criticisms of Dr. Humphreys' mathematics.

In his footnote #15 (p. 103), Dr. Poythress wrote, in criticism of Dr. Humphreys: "there are no gargantuan gravitational fields in the line of sight to Andromeda," but it does not depend on gravitational field (force per unit mass). Instead, it depends on gravitational potential (energy per unit mass). [See Dr. Humphreys' Starlight and Time, pages 100-103.]

Dr. Humphreys believes that there is no direct way to measure the cosmic gravitational potential in our part of the universe, but there may be an indirect way. In an article entitled, Creationist cosmologies explain the anomalous acceleration of Pioneer spacecraft, Dr. Humphreys wrote: "the Pioneer effect supports the essentials of several creationist cosmologies: a centre of mass, expansion of space and recent time dilation. Big bang theorists, whose cosmology does not have a centre of mass, cannot use this explanation. As yet, they have no alternative theory upon which they agree." See Journal of Creation 21(2):61-70, August 2007, and [...].

It is important for readers of Dr. Poythress to know that there are now four relativistic creation cosmologies dealing with time dilation. The Westminster author deals with only the first of four. Dr. Humphreys has two valid cosmologies, but Dr. Poythress deals with the first (1994). He also seems dependent on an article on OEC Hugh Ross' website ("The Unraveling of Starlight and Time," see [...]).

The principal author Dr. Poythress seems dependent on from Ross' website is a former M.I.T. astrophysics grad student named Samuel Conner. The date of the final revision of the article was in 1999, more than a year before the final round of a four-year published scientific debate between Dr. Humphreys and the followers of Hugh Ross. [See Dr. Humphreys published article at the Creation Ministries International (CMI) website. The article, "Starlight Wars", may be found here: [...] and references technical articles in the debate. The followers of Hugh Ross have not responded to Dr. Humphreys' final reply (summer of 2000). In short, it seems unwise for Dr. Poythress to assume that Hugh Ross and his followers have written the final word.]

Something Remarkable

Then, something rather remarkable has happened since. Two (secular?) mathematicians, Joel Smoller and Blake Temple, introduced a white-hole cosmology much like Dr. Humphreys in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). Dr. Humphreys talks about this in his Prestigious Journal Endorses Basics of Creationist Cosmology article. Here is the first sentence: "A prestigious scientific journal, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), has just published an article using the same foundations and starting scenario as the "white-hole" creationist cosmology I published in 1994." See [...].

Smoller and Temple did not acknowledge Dr. Humphreys' work, but an interviewer's question (Popular Science 265(3):154-155, September 2004) prompted Smoller to admit some similar work by creationists. Thus, for Dr. Poythress to reject Dr. Humphreys cosmology with "misapplies" seems weak.

On top of this, Temple and Smoller published an even newer white-hole cosmology in 2009--putting the earth at the center. See PNAS 2009 106:14213-14218, published online before print on August 17, 2009) at [...].

Dr. Humphreys believe his 1994 cosmology is still generally correct but that it does not give enough time dilation for nearby galaxies. Thus, he has developed a newer one. See the December 2008 issue of Journal of Creation. A review may be found here: [...]. (There are also two other relativistic creation cosmologies, but I choose not to discuss them here.)

Badge of Honor?

Continuing with Dr. Poythress' book, on page 115 he contemplates that "The 24-hour-day view becomes a badge of honor, proving they are pure." This contemplation may be true for some, but many YEC do not enjoy the ridicule and scorn that comes their way not only from atheists and secularist--but also from brothers-in-Christ. Many are not trying to be "pure" as much as they are trying to honor the Lord by believing His words. The Lord said that Adam & Eve were at the beginning of creation--not billions of years after the beginning, and He, being the Creator, knows the facts and, being the Word, can communicate them.

Dr. Poythress fooled me for awhile. On p. 116, he seemed to accept the "mature creation" view (a YEC view). In fact, on 9/10/10, I wrote the following words to others: "Dr. Poythress seems to be a YEC of the `mature creation' type. His view seems to be that if God created Adam `mature', why not the universe? He deals with objections to this view. ... He says the wine-from-water Jesus made was probably wine that could be verified as such under a microscope--with grape particles, etc. It was real wine--not just a wine look-a-like. I have to give the man credit for trying to be YEC because that's what the Scriptural chronology seems to require. Whereas I disagree with some of his statements (and plan to write him about some of them), I also appreciate that he seems willing to take the heat of old-earthers."

It turns out that my assessment was premature. See below.

Mature Creation?

I myself am not attracted to the "mature creation" view because it seems nonsensical. Dr. Poythress contemplated remains of animals in the fossil record that never really existed (cf. p. 116). If God can make a mature Adam, then what would preclude His making a mature fossil record, the author argued?

The parallel breaks down, however. I very much doubt that the Lord made Adam with a scar from a cut that never happened, for example. In the same way, I do not believe God made a fossil record that never happened or evidence of exploding stars that never exploded.

The statement on p. 118 is misleading: "In fact, if the 24-hour-day reading of Genesis 1 is correct, God has undertaken in Genesis to inform us that the earth is actually young."

Good for Dr. Poythress, but in view of things that he wrote later in his book, I wonder if he realizes the weight of the conclusion of his quoted words.

Essentially all Christians, Reformed and non-Reformed alike, up until perhaps 1800 AD, affirmed the earth was less than 10,000 years old. That alone should caution Dr. Poythress against being too glib about YEC people wanting to prove themselves "pure."

Also, isn't there something in the Reformed tradition about the perspicuity of Scriptures? Are "Reformed" people more intelligent than their predecessors? The very novelty of the Old Earth Creation (OEC) view should caution against it.

Dr. Poythress himself cautions on p. 120--against assuming that the "mature creation" view is untrue, but Dr. Poythress seems himself to have diminished it as the best solution to the chronology issue and seems to favor instead a view more friendly toward the billions of years concept. I ask, "Why prop evolution?" Take billions of years away from evolutionists, and some get almost hysterical. Why? Old-age is one "prop"-for-evolution evolutionists desperately need, but why allow them to keep it? Evolution does not have even this one leg to stand on!

Animal Deaths?

The author goes on to affirm "that we do not have any firm basis for saying that animal death started only after the fall of man" (p. 122), but Roman 8: 20-22 seems pretty firm to me: "For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time."

There are many other passages, too, like thorns, thistles, and cattle in Nineveh (Jonah 4:11c--the last few words of the prophecy spoken by the Lord Himself).

Dr. Poythress refers to Dr. Davis Young, who was very influential in promoting the OEC view. His father was a key Professor at WTS in the early years. I appreciate that fact the Dr. Poythress was willing to challenge this son on p. 123, for I believe he was way off base and far too influential at WTS.

Radiometric Dating?

Dr. Poythress believes "the mainstream geologists are doing better in technical explanation, partly because the key area of radiometric dating supports them" (p. 130).

I strongly disagree. Helium in deep granite challenges the conventional, radiometric dating of rocks. Its leak-rate from zircon crystals points to an earth only thousands of years old, not billions. Thus, two different readings relative to rock-age in the very same rock strongly suggest that at least one is wrong. To put it differently, conflicting chronometers in the same rock give evidence that nuclear decay may have been much more rapid than conventionally assumed. It is unwise, therefore, to put our full weight for an OEC view on this one, rather shaky prop.

Additionally, radiohalos are rings of color formed around microscopic bits of radioactive minerals in rock crystals. They are fossil evidence of radioactive decay. "Squashed" Polonium-210 radiohalos indicate that Jurassic, Triassic, and Eocene formations in the Colorado plateau were deposited within months of one another, not hundreds of millions of years apart as required by the conventional time scale. "Orphan" Polonium-218 radiohalos, having no evidence of their mother elements, imply accelerated nuclear decay and very rapid formation of associated minerals.

Carbon 14?

Also, "the mainstream geologists" would say that dinosaur bones cannot be dated using Carbon 14 techniques because no Carbon 14 should remain after 200,000 years (or even less). Nonetheless, residual Carbon 14 has been found not only in dinosaur bones but in all animal fossils, coal, and even diamonds, assumed by evolutionists to be many millions of years old. These have been tested using state-of-the-art accelerated mass spectrometry. Evolutionists have theorized that the Carbon 14 is produced by neutrons resulting from alpha particles (from uranium or thorium decay in nearby rocks) hitting silicon or other light nuclei. However, in the case of coal, it would take a coal seam made up of almost entirely of Uranium-238 to create the concentration of Carbon 14 found in coal. The presence of Carbon 14 in fossils, coal, and diamonds is consistent with a YEC model and clashes with the OEC view.

On page 146, Dr. Poythress sets forth two "attractive theories." In addition to the "mature creation" view, he also likes the "analogical day theory." Of the second, he says that "we have good reason to believe that the apparent ages found in astronomy are also real ages" (p. 147), but some time ago, I encouraged Dr. Poythress to get Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth. I wonder if he has read Volume II; it is 819 pages. The RATE II "results" are in, and it is online for free: [...].

According to Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, gravity warps time so that distant clocks run faster than those near the center of a gravitational field. This theory may support a young earth view. If the earth is near the center of the entire cosmos (not the same thing as saying the earth is the center of our solar system), then clocks on earth would be running much more slowly than clocks near the expanding edges.

In the past, when the cosmos was smaller, the effect could have been very significant. Light which traveled 15 billion years, "Cosmos Edge Time," would have done the distance in 6,000 to 10,000 years, "Earth Standard Time." This model, therefore, could account for light, traveling from extremely distant regions, actually arriving on earth, a 6-10K years old planet.

Dr. Poythress may be skeptical about Dr. Humphreys' math, the one who proposed the above understanding about starlight and time, but on the basis of a young planetary model, Dr. Russell Humphreys predicted in 1984 that Uranus' magnetic dipole moment would be "of the order of 1024" Joule/Tesla. In January of `86, Voyager 2 passed by the planet. The measured results were consistent with Dr. Humphreys' prediction. Additionally, Voyager 2 passed by Neptune in August of `89, and its magnetic moment was "in the middle" of Dr. Humphreys' prediction.

But how did old-age predictions fit the data? The models, involving millions and billions of years, were way off. For example, the prediction for Uranus was 100,000 times too low. This demonstrates that the young solar system model is capable of specific, verifiable, and, at least in this case, accurate predictions. If earth's solar system is young, then earth is young. Has Dr. Poythress made any scientific predictions that months later were confirmed by data?

Saturn's moon, Enceladus, is spraying ice out from a huge geyser on its south pole, but it should have cooled off and quieted down billions of years ago: "Scientists are shocked by this volcanic activity on what should be a small, quiet moon." See [...].

There are many more reasons for holding to a YEC view. Persons who would like to receive 50 reasons may ask for a "pdf" attachment of Reasons to Affirm a Young Earth. Write to paulhumber at verizon dot net.

Endnotes:

1. Someone had sent me copies of pages from the book about 2.5 years ago, but I did not receive at that time the whole book. I think perhaps also I may have received the book at the conference as part of my registration fee. In any case, this is another commonality involving Dr. Poythress and me. We both have books about science published in 2006. Mine is called Evolution Exposed and is available at Amazon.com.

2. He and I were (still are) very close friends, and I served for years as Founding President of Skilton House Ministries. Dr. Skilton actually supported and encouraged YEC teaching at a Reformed Bible Institute week in Ocean City, NJ, taught by Dr. David Livingston, a YEC proponent. I attended, as did "Dr. John," who was serving as Dean. Dr. Skilton also encouraged me personally in my pro-creation (anti-evolution) writings and endeavors. Read more ›

20 of 27 people found the following review helpful

4.0 out of 5 stars Thought-provoking! December 23, 2006

By S. Garcia

Format:Paperback

I have only read chapter 10 of this book so far, in dealing with the framework view and the analogical day theory view (and have skimmed through other chapters as well) and so far I believe it to be an excellent and deeply insightful book.

What Poythress tries to do is challenge our assumptions. In the case of Noah's flood, he asks why we assume that "water" has a liquid form. "But how does one know this?" says Poythress, "Is it not possible that, on the mountains we might find snow, sleet, and ice? The water might cover this area, and snuff out the life of animals, whether it took liquid or solid form. The later receding of the waters (Gen. 8:3) might include melting." His point is that grant that the flood was a supernatural act of the Triune God, how are we so sure that it all took place exactly how we imagine it?

I believe that Vern is correct in pointing out that our modern glasses cloud the way we view Scripture. We might quickly assume that Genesis 1:1 is talking about the globe we live on when it speaks of God creating the "heavens and the earth." But the Hebrew is literally land, and Moses and his audience may have merely understood "God created everything" rather than "space, clouds, and this globe I am currently standing on." It is a faulty assumption to say that the ancient peoples understood things in this vein, and it is an illegitimate expectation to have God speak to his people through terms and imagery that they wouldn't understand. In theology, this is called phenomological language; the sun rises, the sun sets, the waters covered the land. All within their understanding.

Though you may not agree with Poythress, he will challenge your assumptions to their core.