46 of 50 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
A valuable contribution to the Reformed tradition, December 29, 2006
This review is from: Redeeming Science: A God-Centered Approach (Paperback)
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.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
49 of 55 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Is Westminster Theological Seminary Compromising, September 15, 2010
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...
Read more ›
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
20 of 25 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
I want to study at Westminster just for this guy!, December 23, 2006
This review is from: Redeeming Science: A God-Centered Approach (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.
In response to the above review, I have to say that the whoever wrote that review seems to have read the book with in unchangeable bias. I can almost guarantee that he is a young-earther and maybe even believes that Scripture "always trumps" our understanding of general revelation (whatever that means).
But 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.
I know this is a bit long-winded, but I just get steamed having to read bad reviews about excellent authors/theologians written by those who do not care to sift through the facts with an open mind. Though you may not agree with Poythress, he will challenge your assumptions to their core.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
