Customer Reviews

Redeeming Science: A God-Centered Approach

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

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.

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.

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.

I read this book hoping it would add to my understanding of "Faith and Science," especially in the questions of evolution and creation. I was disappointed to find little useful or persuasive information.

What I appreciated most was Poythress' careful exposition of the fact that God is the ongoing ground of all creation, so that it is impossible to separate scientific laws from God, nature from God, natural processes from divine processes, and so on. Thus whether they recognize it or not, scientists are studying God's truth, indeed his character.

The author pushes quite hard against materialistic scientists who are blind to this, but, unfortunately, he touches only very gingerly on the other side of the same equation, i.e. believers who fail to see that a naturalistic explanation of something does not exclude God as its primary cause, since he is the ground of everything in an immanent way, not in a deistic sense. He does in fact mention this, as when he points out that God could have originated caused the bacterial flagellum by from nothing, from existing matter, or even through evolution and it would not diminish his role as creator.

The book is very weak on scientific issues such as the age of the universe, geological history, and evolution, and is not worth reading for those perspectives. Young earth flood geology and "mainline" geology are spoken of as if they are on the same footing, though with stronger the evidence for the latter. The geological evidence itself is not discussed.

Regarding evolution, the book echoes a Discovery Institute ID approach (indeed being endorsed by Hugh Ross and Fazale Rana) without precluding anything from 7-day creation to evolutionary creationism. It repeats a few of the standard arguments such as the irreducible complexity of the flagellum, but in no way engages criticisms of ID.

The book does speak rather approvingly of something I had not heard before, "ideal time," a twist on the apparent-age argument. So called "ideal time," perhaps better named "virtual time," refers to the entire apparent history of the universe embedded at the time of creation to make it look mature. In this view, God not only created the universe with apparent age, but also with an entire, coherent history: "The universe appears to be 14 billion years old because God created it mature. Moreover, the universe is coherently mature, in the sense that estimates of age deriving from different methods arrive at similar results" (p.116).

So far, this is just an extended statement of apparent age. The interesting part is next: "But then the fossils do not represent the remains of animals or plants that were actually alive millions of years ago. They represent a coherent mature structure that shows how God would have worked, millions of years ago, if he had started back then creating and extinguishing various kinds of animals over long periods of time" (p. 116). This is what the author calls "ideal time," the way history would have been if God had not fast-forwarded.

Whoa, wait just a minute, how is that again? The omnipotent, eternal, omniscient Creator is expressing a counter-factual situation, "How I would have created the universe if I had done it differently," then embedding all of that into a real universe? I suppose it could be the most efficient way of instantiating a new universe ... why wait for billions of years for actual state transitions of matter when you can simply start with one of the advanced states?

Fascinatingly, the book then goes on to approve of scientists who study this "ideal" history! Referring to geologist Davis Young's complaint that the mature history view would imply he is wasting time studying the geological past, Poythress says, "All his effort is quite meaningful as an investigation of the processes that he is seeing in ideal time. The coherence of processes in ideal time is also an aspect of the display of God's wisdom, and Young makes a genuine contribution by studying this wisdom." Perhaps this makes prehistoric geology comparable to literary criticism: geologists are important because they reveal the themes in God's novel of what he would have done.

In any case, this all seems pointless since there is, by definition, no way to distinguish real and ideal time. Rather, it's simply a device that allows one to accept a 14-billion year old universe concurrently with a recent creation: "Yes, the universe is 14 billion years old, but God actually started it at the 13.99999 billion year point, 10 thousand years ago."

Nor does the author explain how this in any way helps reconcile any view of Genesis with any view of science. Suppose, for example, you believe in 7-day creation with all the sea animals created together, but are not sure how that fits with geological evidence. What does it mean to say that geology shows "how God would have worked," i.e. totally differently? Why would have God worked completely differently than he did? What does that even mean? Why would he leave evidence that he acted differently than he actually did? It is certainly not something I could ever explain in an discussion with an unbeliever, and it is certainly not something that would help me personally.

In the end, the book is probably most useful for people with strong Reformed backgrounds who are interested in faith-science issues, and those with the same background who hold to a strict young earth creationism but are willing to consider alternatives proposed by someone else with Reformed credentials. (I know, I didn't go into the aspects of the book that make it strongly Reformed, but it is.)

This is the first time I have read Vern Poythress and he is delightful. His style is measured and I have enjoyed the humility with which he approaches this sometimes volatile topic. He stresses that we are sinful humans with our own predjudice and bias and we need to recognise that before we start. Then he stresses his view of the inerrancy of scripture from the one true God who has revealed himself to mankind.
In introducing science Poythress appeals to the reader to recognise that the pursuit of science assumes an underlying belief in order and systematic development, which the Christian recognises as the creative hand of God. Where science and the bible appear to contradict one another he asks us to ask ourselves:
a. is the scientific evidence credible?
b. have we created the contradiction by mis-interpreting the scientific evidence?
c. have we created the contradiction by mis-interpreting the bible?

I notice some reviewers object to this, preferring their own dogmatic views (I'm being volatile ;-) ), but this sounds like a pretty sensible approach to me. Vern Poythress believes the bible to be the true Word of God, but he suggests that we must read it within its own literary context....poems were never meant to textbooks.

There are extensive footnotes to the text which will point the interested reader off to deeper discussions of various issues. It is a pleasure to read a well thought out conservative evangelical theologian who can engage deeply with modern science.

Recently, I was in a class on astronomy in order to fulfill the requirements
for my major in business. All throughout the course, a huge amount of
information was provided to prove that the earth's age is ancient. This
belief went against the young earth idea that I grew up with. There seemed to
be an insurmountable amount of evidence against the idea that the earth
indeed was only a few thousand years old.
A difficult phase in a young theologian's life is when two sources are

received and they contradict.

-The Bible teaches a young earth.
-Science makes a claim for an ancient earth.

The class made an argument that my hermeneutic was wrong in my
interpretation of scripture. If there truly is that much evidence for an old
earth and my innate presupposition that the Bible is correct, then it must
be my interpretation of scripture that is flawed.

Vern Poythress wrote Redeeming Science for me and other of my friends who are
struggling connecting science and the Bible. Poythress is well aware of
these intellectual battles and seeks to provide answers for a struggling
thinker in a scientific culture that is rabid in its denunciation of
scripture.

Poythress begins by establishing the presupposition that God exists and that
he chose to speak to us through the Bible. The information in the Bible is
100% accurate and worthy of respect. After making his initial point he
begins to establish a logical framework.
Science is underneath scripture; it is not outside. If any issues in science
contradict scripture, then science is wrong.

Once this is established he begins to put scientific ideas through the
filter of scripture to see if they prove to be correct.
He works through the young earth/old earth controversy by exegeting Genesis
1. Was it the author's intent to speak allegorically in Genesis 1? This does
not seem to be the case.

Is there a separation between 1:1 and 1:2? There are no textual proofs of
such a division, so why should a theological concept creep into our
interpretation? Genesis 1 must be examined in the same literary vein as the
rest of Genesis. Same form. Same interpretation.

If the scientific ideal lies within the range of scripture, then by no means
is it wrong to hold to the position. Poythress lists a variety of views that
fit in with what scripture teaches such as the 24 hour day view as well as
the mature creation view. Both of these views can be seen through scripture.
Poythress does have his druthers with which one of these he thinks is more
scientifically accurate and more Biblical, but it does not make either
position necessarily wrong.

Poythress also brings to light the hermeneutical truth that what was written
years ago cannot mean something new for those of us who read it in the future.
This fallacy especially influences our understanding of the Old Testament.
He gave for an example that when a person from ancient history thought the
word "world", he thought region not the entire globe. He was not aware that
there was more out there. Modern science reads back into ancient history and
thinks that man has always known that the earth is in the shape of a globe.

The real danger comes when Christians throw out science altogether and do
not wrestle with difficult issues. It just makes the church look foolish, like
our eyes are closed, when we do not even try to make a defense of our
faith. There is no separation between science and religion, and if we ignore
science that is what the church is saying. Therefore, as the title of the
book says, science needs to be redeemed.

"The Christian view of the world affirms the legitimacy and value of science
in an emphatic way, and shows that far from being inimical to science, the
Bible encourages the godly person through love of God to come to love God's
wisdom and love to reflect about the wonders of God's world. Doing so may
honor God, and if done well may even attract the attention and admiration
and wonder of others who do not know the true God who revealed himself
uniquely to Israel."

Vern Poythress's book on the Bible and science is more philosophical and wishy-washy than most popular books on the subject, and the philosophical portions seem more wordy than necessary. He tries too hard to draw analogies between physical laws and the character of God (p. 307, etc.). It was not clear what his chapter on "A Christian Approach to Mathematics" addded to the debate.

Poythress indicates a preference for analogical days and a local flood, although he is symphetic to the Young Earth Creationism and Intelligent Design positions. He keeps saying, "We can't know for certain." In support of Intelligent Design, he cites the irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum, which was refuted by, among others, Kenneth Miller in Dembski & Ruse's "Debating Design," which was published two years earlier.

In spite of the above comments, the book does have a number of good insights, an extensive bibliography, subject index and scripture index, and the footnotes are at the bottom of the page on which they occur, which ought to be mandated in book publishing.

Vern Poythress has written a book on science that a non-scientist like myself can understand with a little effort. I am grateful for his "big picture" approach to general revelation and his even-handed treatment of the early chapters of Genesis. His book is marked by the best kind of humility, not a false humility which denies the truth, but a real acknowledgment of divergent views that shows respect for those views which have biblical merit. Poythress does not ultimately advocate a young earth view, and this will disappoint some of his readers so much that they won't benefit from the rest of the excellent material in the book. Of particular interest to me were the closing chapters of the book, highlighting evidence of design in chemistry and physics and mathematics. These chapters were a gold mine of inspiring truth about the created world. The early chapters of the book set up a proper philosophical framework, acknowledging the dependence of all scientists, Christian and non-Christian alike, on God.

No matter your view of life, whether you are an atheist or an old earth or young earth creationist, this book is worth your time. It will make you think. I am happy to recommend Redeeming Science as an important contribution to the current debate on science and faith.

Overall I enjoyed the main message of the book, and I'll take away a better understanding of science-as-a-discipline, its foundation, its practice, its weaknesses, its value, and its ability to glorify God -- all great things to be able to take away from a reading of a single book!

But I did find some of the sections a little difficult to get through (his talk on imaging was pretty difficult to grasp on one reading). I also think Dr. Poythress was a little inconsistent in some of his views. For instance, on the one hand, he maintains that the Bible was written in simple language to be understood by all cultures, and it was not written (especially Genesis 1 and 2) to be a science textbook with technical details on how God created the world. But then later he makes great strains, in technical language, to show that the 'Analogical Day Theory' makes more sense than the '24-Hour Day Theory' based on his 'analogical' hermeneutic, which I find hard to believe was used by the original audience.

Regarding the creation account in Genesis it seems he has not read many primary sources on the 24-Hour Day Theory, but simply operates on the premise that "if C. John Collins addresses the issue, it's best just to agree with him." As good and philosophical and interesting as Poythress' work was in this area, I think it still leaves much to be clarified. In the end he ends up being a six-day creationist (or does he?) with some caveats: "We are nearly, but not quite, saying the same thing as the modern 24-hour-day viewpoint" (p. 222). So really he's not a six-day creationist, but again there's much to be clarified.

This book is really interesting, and his arguments are quite convincing in some areas; but at the same time they don't always seem to coincide with what he originally said about the nature of God's Word and how it is to be interpreted. But there are also areas where his arguments don't seem to be convincing at all! For a very critical review on his work regarding the creation account and also the flood, see [...](I do agree with some of the points this review brings up - especially those pertaining to the creation and the flood; however, I think there is more to be said for this work than just Dr. Poythress' regrettably unbalanced view of these two areas). There is also an excellent review regarding Dr. Poythress' treatment of the young earth creationist viewpoint, right on Amazon:[...]
Whatever one's position though Dr. Poythress certainly challenges all to think through their position more deeply and make sharper, Biblically-based distinctions (even if he himself does not seem to do it). And creation is certainly not the only thing his book addresses. Poythress writes on the necessity of God for 'science' even to be possible (a transcendental argument for the existence of God). He addresses the basis of science found in the cultural mandate given to Adam, how Christ has redeemed science in becoming the last-Adam, and how Christians can continue to redeem science by operating it under the authority of God's Word and applying it to His glory. He deals with the nature of reality, the nature of truth. He writes on a Christ-centered approach to physics, chemistry, mathematics, and other disciplines, and he touches on a host of other interesting topics as they pertain to investigative science and how it is to be used to the glory of God. He also gives some insightful demonstrations on the science of beauty and art - based on proportionalites given in God's Word!

Poythress is extremely intelligent and also very humble. His writing can push the reader to the limit in thinking, but he is gracious in encouraging the reader that abstract concepts really are a difficult matter. However, all the while he somehow gets across his knowledge and ever points the reader to Christ as the final and absolute source and interpreter of any and every science.

While one may not always agree with what Poythress states or concludes, this book is definitely going to make one think. It can get very technical at times and is not intended for every audience.

But I would certainly recommend it to:

(a) Pastors who want to know more about the philosophy of science and be able to stir about in their flocks a love for glorifying God in all they do,

(b) Educated layman in the church who have a desire to learn about the nature and philosophy of science from a Christian point of view, and

(c) All Christian science teachers who want to know the foundations of what it is that they teach and the implications of it, which can so strongly improve their ability to bring everything back to God's Word and upward to God's glory.

HOWEVER, because of Dr. Poythress' views on the creation week and the flood, I would also very STRONGLY recommend to the same audience several other books by six-day creationists (24-Hour-Day-View advocates), which will provide a more balanced approach to that topic. These would include books by authors like Douglas F. Kelly, John C. Whitcomb, Henry Morris, Jason Lisle, Donald DeYoung, Jonathan Sarfati, Paul G. Humber, as well as many other folks who write or have written for organizations such as 'Answers in Genesis,' 'Creation Ministries International,' or 'The Creation Research Institute.'

Also, the previously mentioned review really is pretty helpful regarding Dr. Poythress' views on the creation week: [...]

Some would say that science and theology are antagonistic to each other, especially since the 19th century's movements of higher criticism in theology and naturalism in science. To some degree, this reflects a larger issue in Western Civilization, that of a loss of unifying purposes that has been lost. Some would prefer to ignore any relation between science and theology, saying they take up such completely different spheres, you cannot even speak of them at the same time, one belongs in the classroom and laboratory, the other belongs in the sanctuary. Dr. Vern Poythress has taken what can be called a more traditional approach to understanding the role of science as a way to understand God, take care of creation and help man, almost hearkening back to the scientific revolution of the late 17th century.

Poythress has math degrees from Cal. Tech and Harvard, and college teaching experience; and for the last 25 years he has been a New Testament professor at Westminster Seminary, so he brings a unique perspective in how he understands scientific thought and theology, at a high level. His goal in Redeeming Science is two fold. He wants the reader to understand scientific philosophy and inquiry as a good thing, that as a Christian he wants the reader to embrace science as a way to adventure, govern and take care of a creation that God is actively cultivating. He also wants to call for a higher, unifying element in how we understand knowledge and inquiry, that individuals would see all true knowledge as God's knowledge.

Poythress begins his book with a clear worldview statement, that all scientists, whether proclaimed atheists or traditional Christians, believe in God, because he says you have to operate with certain assumptions in how the universe works and how you perceive it to work, that flow out worldview consistent with how God describes himself in the pages of the Bible. So he says there is no such thing as neutrality, no position that allows the observer of nature to stand apart and make statements.

Due to its large importance, especially since the rise of scientific naturalism in the 19th century, Poythress spends several chapters discussing different theories for understanding creation, and with a sound attempt at a hermeneutical analysis of Genesis 1 and 2. Poythress takes an analogical view of understanding creation. He does a fine job of pointing out the strengths and weaknesses of various understandings of how we understand creation, but is most of all concerned with not making the Bible say things it does not say, nor making our understanding of creation inconsistent with what we know about God.

Where the book is its strongest, is Poythress' explanation of why science should have the influence of the redeeming effect of Christ. He takes a traditional understanding of the effects of sin, and points to how that distortion makes knowledge murky and hard to comprehend. Poythress makes the case that Christ came to fulfill the creation mandate - to restore the natural world, the cultural mandate - to redeem human relations and how people understand the world and he calls Christ the "final scientist", that is the goal of science is to understand creation with wisdom and dominion, and since Christ has achieved final rule over wisdom and over creation, he is the final archetype of what true science should pursue, on principle and philosophy especially.

Poythress is a fair writer about his subject, and towards other views other than his own. He has written, in about 350 pages, a good overview of a philosophy of science, based on Biblical theology, that he argues should drive everyone's understanding, manipulation and exploration of the world around them. Some of the subjects that he attempts to overview, such as theological approaches to physics and chemistry are probably a bit too scientifically complex for the general reader, years removed from their secondary science classes. Yet, anyone with a solid foundation in science and a desire to understand an overarching Christian theological framework, based on first principles, should find Redeeming Science a welcome addition. He is not adding to an inter or intra religious and scientific debate per se, but is simply describing, exegeting and developing conclusions based on applied theology. What he most wants the informed reader to take away is that God's calls people to explore and rule over his creation, largely for the sense of discovering how big and great God is as a part of the divinely given privilege.