ExegetingNature and Scripture:

                                                        Hermeneuticsand Reality

                                                               RobertC. Newman

 

            Thischapter could have been titled "Interpreting Nature and Scripture:  Principles and Reality."  Instead, I used the theo­logicalterms "exegeting" and "hermeneutics" even though I don'tlike jargon.  "Hermeneu­tics"is derived from a Greek word meaning to interpret, explain or translate.  In English, the term is used todesignate theo­ries, principles or approaches for interpreting a writtentext or spoken utterance. "Exegeting" comes from another Greek word meaning to tell,explain, make known or reveal. This term in English designates the actual practice of interpreting atext or utterance.  I have usedthese technical terms to point to paral­lels between inter­pretingnature and interpreting Scrip­ture and to suggest that both activi­tiesare theological in character.[1]

 

Sources of Information: a Spectrum

 

            Inseeking to determine what reality is like, there are many proposedmethods.  For this discussion, wewill follow more or less empirical approach­es.  We will further confine our­selves to those views whichuse as sources of information either or both the physi­cal world and theBible, leaving out those which add or substi­tute some other sacred writingsuch as the Qur'an, the Book of Mormon, or the Bhaghavad-Gita.

 

            Withinour restricted set, we may organize the various views into a spectrum based onhow they regard the value and reli­ability of these two sources.  At the left end of the spec­trum isathe­ism, which sees the Bible as merely the (largely erroneous) ideas ofthe ancients.  Thus atheists makeno use of Scrip­ture in con­structing either their science or theol­ogy,except as an example of various ideas people have had about both.  Typically they deny God's existence andclaim that nature is not a created reality.[2]

 

            Tothe right of atheism is liberal theism. Like atheists, liberals wouldn't think of exegeting Scripture for whatto believe about scientific matters. Unlike atheists, they do use the Bible for theological input but don'taccept all it teaches.  Liberalssee the Bible as giving us the theological insights of its human authors, someof which are valid, some mistaken. Typically liberals recognize the existence of a God with some of thecharac­ter­istics presented in Scripture, and see nature as made by Godusing (almost) purely natural processes.[3]

 

            Furtherto the right is a position we will call evolutionary evangelicalism for lack ofa standard term.  Here the Bible,though seen as generally accurate or even inerrant, was not written to provideany scientific detail.  Naturealone must be exegeted to answer scientific questions.  The Bible, however, gives the truetheological significance not only of strictly theological matters but ofscientific ones as well.  Typicallythey see the God of the Bible as creating through evolu­tionary processes,and Scrip­ture as giving theological truths in the language of ancientcosmologies.[4]

 

            Nextis old‑earth creationism, which sees nature and Scrip­ture as eachinerrant revelations of God.  Bothsources provide accurate information about reality, and neither is to be arbi­trarilyrestricted in its subject matter. Nature may tell us about theology as well as science, and the Bibleabout science as well as theology. As a result, both sources need to be exegeted together for a proper viewof reali­ty.  Typically theyhave God creating by a combina­tion of miraculous intervention and provi­dentialprocesses over a long period of time. Usually biological macroevolution is denied.[5]

 

            Beyondthis view is young‑earth creationism.  Like the former, it views both nature and Scripture asrevela­tions from God but tends to downplay the inerrancy of nature.  For the repeatable (experimental,laboratory) sciences, nature is allowed to judge what statements in Scriptureare to be taken figurative­ly. But for the non‑repeata­ble (historical) sciences, theexegesis of Scripture takes priority over exegesis of nature and controlsdecision-making.  Typically they seeGod creating the heavens and earth a few thousand years ago with such appear­anceof age as is necessary to fit geological and astronom­ical data.[6]

 

            Atthe right end of this spectrum (or so far as we will go here) is what we maycall Ptolemaic creationism.  Thesimplest exegesis of Scripture is given complete priority over the exege­sisof nature, not only for the historical sciences but for the experimental onesas well.  Typical results are a Godwho created the earth a few thousand years ago, not only with an appearance ofage, but with the sun and stars circling the earth once a day in spite of thecontradictory claims of modern science.[7]

 

Some Hermeneutical Issues

 

            Eventhis brief sketch suggests many ques­tions regarding method and validity ininterpretation.  How reliable arethese two sources, nature and Scripture? Is there any way we can test their reliability?  Given that one or both is reliable, howclear is the message provided? What was the intention of the human author of a particular Scripturepassage?  What the inten­tionof the divine author of that pas­sage?  What the inten­tion of the divine author of some"passage" in nature?  Howsuccessful have interpreters been in decoding the messages of thesesources?  How active has God beenin nature and in Scrip­ture? What is the character of his activity in these realms?  Has it been only providential or has itbeen partly miraculous intervention? Has the character of his activity been different in one source than inthe other?  In Scripture, does thehuman author never say more than he or his contemporaries could have discoveredon their own?  Does the divineauthor ever influence the production of the text so that it conveys more thanthe human author actually knew? How would we recognize a paral­lel between the biblical cosmologyand other ancient cosmologies?  Howa parallel between biblical cosmology and modern?   How are various interpretive options tested?  How tested in literature? How inscience? 

 

            Thesequestions cannot be answered in a mere chapter, and only God knows the answerto some of them.  Here we attemptto discuss several and to argue that the fourth option ­­Cold-earth creationism C seems the best alternative.

 

            Considerthe first option, atheism.  Thisapproach has had a powerful influence in society today, far beyond the numberof its proponents.  Yet, even if weignore Scripture, a straight‑forward exegesis of nature seems to makethis option a desperate choice in which worldview commitments are distortingthe evidence.[8]

 

            Considerliberal theism.  This view, alongwith such options as advocate other sacred writings than the Bible as sources,face serious difficulties incorporating the evi­dence Scrip­ture pro­videsthat it really is an accurate revela­tion from the God who ex­ists.[9]

 

            Inthis chapter we will concern our­selves mainly with options to the right ofliberal theism, all of which can be classed as varieties of orthodox orevangelical methodology.

 

God's Intentions in Nature andScripture

 

            Amongthese alternatives, the main questions which divide the views turn on theintention of the divine author. Did God intend nature to teach any theol­ogy?  Did he intend Scripture to teach anyscience?  Are nature and Scriptureinerrant revela­tions?  Did heintend that one source take prece­dence over the other, either in generalor in some particular area? Further, does God's providential upholding and guidance of nature allowroom for his miraculous intervention? And does God's guidance of the human authors of Scripture allow formiraculous revela­tion?

 

            Accordingto Scripture, God did intend nature to teach some theology.  Psalm 19 tells us that the heavensdeclare God's glory and craftsmanship. Romans 1 affirms that certain invisible characteristics of God Chis deity and eternal power C are made known by what he has made, andthat humans are without excuse for reaching wrong conclusions about these.  The Bible cer­tain­ly claimsthat nature teaches theological truth. This does not answer the question regarding how much theology natureteaches, which has been debated for centuries.  But it would not be unreason­able to think this shouldbe solved by actually looking at nature and seeing what sort of case can bemade for various alterna­tives.

 

            WhetherGod intended Scripture to teach any science can be debated, and turns to someextent on our definition of "science" as content or method.[10]  A number of passages in the Bible cer­tain­lylook like it was God's intent to teach some of the content of sci­ence.  For instance, the creation account inGenesis 1-2, no matter how figuratively expressed, appears to be sayingsomething detailed about the objects of God's creative activity, giving atleast a partial list of what they are, and claiming that they have not always existed.  The amount and nature of the detailthis passage gives also suggests it teaches even more than this.  That this additional teaching might besomething about means and se­quence is explic­itly warranted by theaccount.  The common view that thedetail provides a polemic against pagan polytheism, though a reasonable guess,is by contrast only an inference.[11]

 

            TheProverbs 8 creation passage is also explicit about a begin­ning, beforewhich these created objects did not exist.  A major teaching of the passage is that wisdom was presentin all God's cre­ative activity. This suggests that phenomena character­istic of skill and craftsman­shipshould be discernable in na­ture.[12]  So it seems that Scripture does teachsome science as well as theology, and that we impose arbitrary limitations onthe Bible when we insist that it may only tell us the "who" and"why" of creation but nothing of the "what,""how," and "when." The extent of its teaching on science is apparently another ques­tionwhich must be answered by an actual examination of the phenomena of Scripture.

 

            Arenature and Scripture inerrant revela­tions of God?  I believe this is the claim of theBible itself.  The evidenceprovided for Scripture being a revelation of the God who exists, together withits own claims regarding its inerrancy suffice for the one side.[13]  Opponents of the inerrancy of Scrip­­turecan, of course, raise various empirical objections, and dismiss attempts toanswer these as misguided; but exactly the same sort of arguments can be raisedabout the goodness of God and the sin­lessness of Christ.  If biblical Christianity is true, itseems that these three theological claims stand together. 

 

            Asfor the inerrancy of nature, Scripture's own state­ments that nature is arevela­tion of God and that God is unable to lie seem to me to suffice.[14]  Here, too, one could argue that man­kind'sfall and the resulting curse somehow cancel this, but I do not see any evidencefor this in Scripture.  Of course,humans now have a strong tendency to distort data to justify themselves, butthey will do this with Scripture just as they will with nature.  More evidence than this can­not, Ithink, be provided for us humans, since we are unable to escape the uni­verseand see it from the outside for our­selves.

 

            DidGod intend one of these sources C nature or Scripture Cto take precedence over the other, either in general or in some particulararea?  Here our four views moststrongly part company.  Thoseholding an evolutionary evangelical view often compart­mentalize the twosources, allowing nature to take prece­dence in scientific areas andScripture in theological areas.[15]  The young-earth option gives theprecedence to Scripture for both science and theology in historical matters,[16]and the Ptolemaic version gives Scripture precedence in all cases.[17]

 

            Theold-earth creation alternative involves some variety here (as do all theseviews), but our discussion will become too complex if we continually takeaccount of this.  The particularversion we advocate sees both nature and Scripture as revela­tions fromGod, both inerrant, both speaking to science and theology, and both to be takenseriously in each of these areas. Thus in general neither has precedence over the other. 

 

            Thisneeds to be somewhat qualified, however, due to the distinct nature of the tworevela­tions.  Scripture andnature have differ­ing but overlapping subject matter.  The Bible is presented in humanlanguage (directly in the ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek; more remotely insubsequent translation); nature tran­scends human language (Ps19:2-4).  Scripture is rathersuccinct (a typical Bible has perhaps 1500 pages when printed in a modern,standard-size typeface); nature over­whelms us with the mass of data it pro­vides.  This suggests that perhaps nature willtake prece­dence over Scripture in some cases, as it may often carry mostof the shaping informa­tion.

 

            Onthe other hand, God has already put Scripture into human languag­e, whileour interpre­tation of nature is infer­ence from a prelinguisticform.  And in Scripture Godpresents a selec­tion of the data that we especially need in order to beequipped for every good work (2 Tim 3:16).  This suggests that Scrip­ture should have priori­tywhere it speaks especially to human needs.  And since "teach­ing" and "every goodwork" may be quite broad, it should probably be given priority wherever itseems to speak explicitly to the subject at hand.  However, we need to be very cautious in pressing its si­lencesor making great leaps of infer­ence from it.  Any explicit information from one source should not besteam-rollered by allegedly simplest interpreta­tions of the other source.

 

            Thelanguage of Scripture, like ordinary speech, is some­times literal andsometimes figura­tive.  Jesus'example in his teaching technique shows that God has no qualms about usingeither.  Yet we inter­pret­erssometimes have diffi­culty deciding which is being used in a particu­larcase.  Does anything likefigurative language occur in nature? Perhaps when the data give an initial impres­sion that diff­ersfrom the actual facts of the matter. For instance, matter looks quite solid on the macroscop­ic level,but rather empty on the sub-atomic scale. Perhaps something of figurative language in nature is also suggested inthe concept of cre­ation with the appear­ance of age.  Adam looked like he was (say)twenty-five years old, but he was created just a few moments before.  Perhaps the wine Jesus created tastedlike it was aged, though it really wasn't.  Are such different impres­sions at differ­entsize-scales in nature more or less common than figura­tive lan­guage inScripture?  How common is creationwith apparent age?  In both natureand Scripture, the very character of revelation as communication would suggestthat some kind of definite evidence is needed to justify opting for figurativeinterpre­tation.

 

            Theupshot of all of this is to suggest that neither nature nor Scripture takesprecedence in any mechanical sense. Both sources need to be treated carefully and even-handedly on acase-by-case basis.  And wherenature and Scripture appear to dis­agree, then (if orthodox Christianity istrue) we are doing something wrong in our interpretation of one or bothsources.

 

The God of the Gaps

 

            Howmuch of what happens in nature and history is God's providential workingthrough natural law, and how much is his miraculous interven­tion?  This is the so-called "God of thegaps" question.  Evan­geli­calshave typically suggested he has worked innumerable miracles both at creationand since then.  Deistic attacks onmiracle in the eighteenth century, plus Darwin's work in the nineteenthproposing connections by natural descent between all living things, put pressureon this view.  Later it wasseverely ridi­culed by Andrew Dickson White in his History of theWarfare of Science with Theology in Chris­tendom.[18]  White gave many examples from churchhistory where Chris­tians saw direct miracu­lous causation for eventswe now have good reason to believe are explicable by natural laws.

 

            Asa result, evangelicals today are sometimes quite reluc­tant to invoke a"God of the gaps."  Some(such as Howard Van Till) go so far as to argue that God has made nature with a"functional integri­ty" such that he almost never miracu­louslyintervenes in its opera­tions, not even in cre­ation.  The only exceptions would be theoriginal cre­ation of matter-energy and the miracles associ­ated withredemption recounted in the Old and New Testa­ments.[19]

 

            Butin fleeing ridicule we can easily fall into the oppo­site error if we donot watch where we are going. Admittedly, Chris­tians in the past as competent as Isaac Newtonhave mistak­enly plugged God's direct action into what later turned out tobe merely gaps in their knowledge of natural law.[20]  It does not follow from this, however,that all gaps in our knowledge will eventually be filled by natural law.  This is the other extreme, the"natural law of the gaps" assumption; it is cur­rent­ly onlya worldview or a research program, not an experimental result.

 

            Inthis life there will always be gaps in our knowledge of reality.  How, from inside the universe, could weever tell when we had finally gotten to the bottom of things?  And some of the gaps we do know aboutlook far more serious than just adding decimal places to physical con­stants.  We certainly do not know (except bydefinition) that the "cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever willbe," as even several cosmolo­gists are reluc­tantly admit­ting.[21]  We do know that the micro­structureof mat­ter de­scends through atoms to nuclei to neutrons and protons toquarks, but we don't have any idea whether this last level is the meta­physicalbasement or not.  And the gaps innatural law that surround the origins of universe, life and mind look like thesort that mindless princi­ples cannot handle.[22]  So there seems to be good evidence forgaps that natural law alone cannot fill.

 

            Ofcourse, Scripture, too, has gaps in its revelation that we sometimes fillwithout even realizing it.  Besidesthe classic assump­tions that there were three wise men,[23]and that Methuse­lah was the oldest person ever to live,[24]we often forget that the Bible tells us almost nothing about the creation of an­gels,[25]the rebellion of Sa­tan,[26]and whether or not there was animal death before Adam sinned.[27]  One reason for so much di­ver­sityamong inter­preters of Genesis, even among those with the same viewpoint,is that the biblical account is under­specified rela­tive to the largenumber of things that must have actually happened.  Here, too, mistakes in filling gaps can cause trouble infinding a match between nature and Scripture.

 

            Anothertype of gap needs to be considered in connection with Scripture.  Evangelical Christians agree that Godcan miraculously reveal things to Scripture characters or writers that theyother­wise would not know. Thus Jacob is given insight into what will happen to his descendants(Gen 49).  Isaiah is told that theSuffering Servant will be punished for our sins, have his grave with a rich manrather than the wicked, and prolong his days after giving himself as a guiltoffering (Isa 53), all marvelously fulfilled in Jesus.  Both of these examples were apparentlyrecorded more for the benefit of later genera­tions than for the originalhearers.  Is it possible that Godhas done something similar with items of scientific knowledge in theBible?  Without explicit claims bythe Bible one way or the other, it would seem that only an investigation of thephenomena of Scripture could settle this question.

 

            Somewhatrelated to this is the question whether a text of Scripture could properly meansomething that was not in the mind of the human author.  That is, could the divine authorprovide infor­mation that the human author did not intend or was evenunaware of?  This has been debatedboth within and outside evangelical cir­cles.  The Bible answers this question in the affirmative, withoutcommitting itself on how much such material we should expect.  For instance, John 11:47-52 tells usthat Caiaphas, the high priest at the time of Jesus' crucifixion, spoke morethan he knew when he said it was expedient that one man should die for thepeople rather than the whole nation be de­stroyed, and that this wasactually a prophecy given him in respect of his office.  Simi­larly, 1 Peter 1:10-12 tellsus that the Old Testament prophets who predicted the coming and work of Christdid not themselves understand everything they received, but it was revealed tothem that they were serving generations to come.  Might there not, then, be examples of preknowledge ofscience in Scripture that were intended for modern generations and notdetectable until recently (or even still undetected)?  If God is the ultimate author of Scripture, why shouldparallels between biblical cosmology and modern be un­thinkable, whereasparallels between biblical cosmology and ancient pagan be emphasized?  Again, the exis­tence and nature ofsuch material can only be established by arguments based on the actual data ofthe text.

 

Theology Squelching Research

 

            Doestheology interfere with scientific research?  Yes, it often does. But not just orthodox theology. As Thomas Kuhn has pointed out in his book, The Structure ofScientific Revolutions,scientists will investi­gate what they are interested in, and they willlook where they think they might get significant results.[28]  No one will intentionally waste time oninvestigations that lead to dead ends. Whether an individual scien­tist is an atheist or a funda­mental­istwill strongly influence what kind of research is thought profit­able.  And to a signifi­cant extent, thesame can be said for group choices, whether that of the scientific community asa whole, the individual disciplines therein, or the publica­tion decisionsof scientific journals in partic­ular.

 

            Thereis also the matter of funding. Before about 1850, most scientists were amateurs and worked on whatinterested them.  Some of thesewere supported by wealthy patrons and so spent part of their time on what thepatron wanted.  By con­trast,most science done in the twenti­eth century has been funded by govern­mentsor founda­tions.  Scientiststoday work on what the funding organiza­tion (or some subgroup thereof)thinks worth­while.  Natu­rallyan organization will not want to fund research that under­cuts its owntheol­ogical agenda.  So theTychon­ian Society doesn't fund research likely to prove the earth goesaround the sun.  The Cre­ationResearch Society won't support studies favor­able to evolu­tion.  The Ameri­can Tobacco Institutewill not encourage research showing a strong linkage between smoking andcancer.  The US government won'tmake grants for pro­jects looking for intelligent design in nature.  In fact, the current inter­preta­tionof the US Constitution on church-state relations and the politi­cal cor­rectnessmovement can be just as effec­tive in keeping research from being funded asany denomi­na­tional state­ment of faith, and there is typicallymuch more money at stake.

 

            Whethera particular theological outlook will actually hinder or help research in agiven field depends on whether the theological position agrees with orcontradicts reality in that particular area.  Several historians have noted that Christian theology wasfavorable to the rise of modern sci­ence.[29]  Most would agree that the assimilationof Christian the­ol­ogy to Ptolemaic astronomy in the 1600s inter­feredwith Gali­leo's research and publication activities.[30]  Many feel that the com­mit­mentof some evangelical groups to an age of the earth of only a few thousand yearshas stifled geological and astronom­ical research and education among theiradherents.[31]  It seems to me that commitment to a"blind watchmaker" form of evolution has had comparable effects on amuch wider scale because of rampant secular­ism in the groups fundingscientific re­search.[32]  If we really want to find out howthings actually are, a prema­ture commitment to certain details, tospecific hermeneutical princi­ples, or even to whole worldviews may inter­ferewith our goal.

 

Some Hermeneutical Suggestions

 

            Well,then, how are we to exegete nature and Scripture?  Cautiously C since we are finite and sinful humans,and our God is a God of surprises. But not so cautiously as never to reach the conclu­sions we need toreach in this life.  If we believeorthodox Chris­tianity is actually true, then the existence of God and someof his attrib­utes are sufficiently clear that we will have no one to blamebut ourselves if we do not acknowledge this and act appro­priately uponit.  One of these characteristicsis that God is the creator of the universe and of ourselves in particu­lar.

 

            Itcan be dangerous to construct too detailed a set of hermeneutical principles,lest by means of these principles we distort what the source is actuallytelling us.  On the other hand, ifwe never decide where to look for truth, we probably won't find any.  Some principles, like the law of non-contradic­tion,or that seeking truth is worthwhile, are necessary even to begin.

 

            Inemphasizing the similarity between nature and Scripture as sources ofinformation about both science and theology, it is well to keep in mind thatScripture is a text of fixed length, to which we are probably not to expect anyadditions until Jesus returns.  Nature, too, is presumably fixed in extent (assum­ing theexpansion of the universe does not add any informa­tion to it), but eachtime we build a larger telescope, a more power­ful microscope, or a devicefor detecting more of the electromag­netic spectrum, we open a new page ofnature we have never seen before. It should not be surprising, then, that we will fre­quently have tore-examine our harmonizations of nature and Scripture, and usually that will bebecause our knowledge of the former rather than the latter has expanded. 

 

            TheBible is very explicit about the existence of an unseen spiritu­al realm inaddition to the world we can study with our senses.  This spiritual realm is not just the world of ideas proposedby Plato, but includes personal beings higher than humans and lower thanGod.  These are given a variety ofnames in Scripture, but we commonly lump them into the two categories angelsand demons.  It should not beassumed that these beings had nothing to do with creation, or at least with theway the world looks today.  Unfortu­nately,this provides another source of causation we need to take into account butdon't have enough information on how to do so.  It adds considerable uncer­tainty whether, in aparticular case, we have a full explanation of a given event.

 

            Morecould be said.  The task ofinterpreting nature and Scripture is a daunting one,  but it is one which God has laid upon us.  We can do no better than to apply themaxim of the prophet Micah (6:8), "What does the Lord require of you, butto do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with our God?"

 

References:

 


 


Annotated Bibliography

 

Bauman,Michael, ed.  Man andCreation:  Perspectives on Scienceand Philosophy.  Hillsdale, MI:  Hillsdale College Press, 1993.

Richard Bube, Owen Gingerich, and HowardVan Till square off against Michael Bauman, Phillip Johnson and J. P. Morelandon whether science and theology should operate in a basically comple­mentary,non-overlapping way, or whether both have some­thing very important to sayabout the same questions and sub­jects.

 

Brooke, JohnHedley.  Science andReligion:  Some HistoricalPerspectives.  Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press, 1991.

A historical study of the mutualinteractions of science and religion in the West, showing that an emphasis onconflict between them gives only part of the story, and needs to besupplemented by recognizing that they sometimes function in a complementary way(answering different questions), and at other times interact in ways that aremutually helpful.

 

Clouser, RoyA. The Myth of Religious Neutrality: An Essay on the Hidden Role of Religious Belief in Theories. Notre Dame:  University ofNotre Dame Press, 1991. 

Defines religious belief broadly as"belief in something or other as divine," namely "having thestatus of not depending on any­thing else."  In this sense, religious belief underlies alltheorizing.  Gives examples frommathematics, physics and psy­chology. Promotes a distinctively Christian mode of theorizing as developed byphilosopher Herman Dooyeweerd.

 

Hirsch, E. D.,Jr.  Validity in Interpretation. New Haven:  Yale UniversityPress, 1967. 

Advocates objective criteria by which tounderstand a literary text.  Avalid interpretation is not necessarily one which is certainly correct (if weare not the author), but one which has a high probability of being correctsince it is built on a respon­si­ble handling of the internal andexternal evidence.

 

Kuhn, ThomasS.  The Structure of ScientificRevolutions.  Chica­go:  University of Chicago Press, 1961.

Revolutionized discussions of thephilosophy of science by distinguishing, for any particular discipline, timesin which "normal science" is operating under the influence of acontrol­ling paradigm from other times in which two or more paradigms arecompet­ing for the allegiance of the investigators.

 

Maatman,Russell.  The Impact ofEvolutionary Theory:  A Chris­tianView.  Sioux Center, IA:  Dordt College Press, 1993.

Coverage is much broader than the titlemight indicate.  Deals withevidence for and objections to design, the problems that arise in explainingthe origin of life and its present diversity naturalis­tically.  Excellent discussions on general andspecial revelation, the Bible and science, and what science is.  Inter­acts with Stek and Van Till.

 

McIver,Tom.  Anti-Evolution:  An Annotated Bibliography. Jeffer­son, NC:  McFarland and Co., 1988.

An annotated bibliography of over 1850books that have an anti-evolutionary perspective, mostly from a conservativeChristian perspective, but including agnostics and occultists as well.  Has indices of names, titles andsubjects.  Recently reprinted byJohns Hopkins University Press.

 

Pearcey, NancyR. and Charles B. Thaxton.  TheSoul of Science:  Christian Faithand Natural Philosophy.  Wheaton:  Crossway Books, 1994.

A distinguished and readable tour of thehistory of modern science, showing how Christianity has been a major playeramong the worldviews which have shaped science.

 

Poythress,Vern S. Science and Hermeneutics: Implications of Scientific Method for Biblical Interpretation. Grand Rap­ids: Academie, 1988. 

Sees some striking parallels betweenBiblical interpretation and science, especially as the latter is viewed byThomas Kuhn.  Emphasizes theinfluence of paradigm on interpretive choices, and how this can be taken intoaccount by awareness of other para­digms.

 

Ramm,Bernard.  A Christian View ofScience and Scripture.  Grand Rapids:  Eerdmans, 1954.

A good tour of historical, theologicaland scientific materials relevant to the subject, well-assimilated, with manyexcellent suggestions regarding a Christian response and synthesis.  After explaining why Christiansshouldn't be concerned about evolution as such, his section on anthropologysuggests the situation is more serious than this. 

 

Wright,Richard T.  Biology Through theEyes of Faith.  San Francisco:  Harper and Row, 1989.

Written as a supplement to collegebiology texts by an evangeli­cal evolutionist.  Discusses worldviews, God and his world, relating scienceand Christianity, origins (favors a complemen­tarian approach, usingBlocher's framework hypothesis, non-committal on evolution of humans). Alsointroduces biblical teaching on our stewardship responsibility to theenvironment, and the biomedical and genetic revolutions.


[1]. See Vern S.Poythress, Science and Hermeneutics (Grand Rapids: Academie, 1988) for parallels betweenscience and biblical interpretation; see Roy A. Clouser, The Myth ofReligious Neu­trali­ty (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1991) forthe pervasive influence of religious belief in all theorizing.

[2]. George GaylordSimpson, The Meaning of Evolution (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1949); Isaac Asimov, Asimov's Guide to theBible,2 vol. (New York:  Avon, 1971);Carl Sagan, Cosmos (New York: Random House, 1980); Richard Dawkins, TheBlind Watchmaker (New York: Norton, 1986); Stephen Jay Gould, WonderfulLife(New York: Norton, 1989).

[3]. Gerhard von Rad, Genesis:A Commentary (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1961); Walter Bruegemann, Genesis  (Atlanta:  John Know, 1982); Claus Westermann, Genesis 1-11:  A Commentary (Minneapolis:  Augsburg, 1984); Conrad Hyers, TheMeaning of Creation (Atlanta: John Knox, 1984).

[4]. Richard H. Bube,ed. The Encounter Between Christianity and Science (GrandRapids:  Eerdmans, 1968); RichardT. Wright, Biology Through the Eyes of Faith (SanFrancisco:  Harper and Row, 1989);Howard J. Van Till, Robert E. Snow, John H. Stek, and Davis A. Young, Portraitsof Creation:  Biblical andScientific Perspectives on the World's Formation (GrandRapids:  Eerdmans, 1990).

[5]. J. Oliver Buswell,Jr., A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion (GrandRapids:  Zondervan, 1962); RobertC. Newman and Herman J. Eckelmann, Jr., Genesis One and the Origin of theEarth(Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity, 1977; reprint, IBRI, 1991); Pattle P. T.Pun, Evolution: Nature and Scripture in Conflict? (GrandRapids:  Academie, 1982); John L.Wiester, The Genesis Connec­tion (Nashville:  Thomas Nelson, 1983; reprint, IBRI, 1992); Russell Maatman, TheImpact of Evolutionary Theory:  AChristian View (Sioux Center, IA:  DordtCollege Press, 1993).  Not alladvocates of this position are Christians, e.g., Nathan Aviezer, In theBeginning:  Biblical Creation andScience (Hobok­en, NJ: KTAV, 1990).

[6]. Henry M. Morris, TheGenesis Record (Grand Rapids:  Baker,1976); Weston W. Fields, Unformed and Unfilled (Nutley, NJ:  Presbyterian and Reformed, 1976); AllenP. Ross, Creation and Blessing: A Guide to the Study and Exposition of Genesis  (Grand Rapids:  Baker, 1988).  Not all proponents of this approach are Christians, either;see Yaakov Kornreich, ed.,  AScience and Torah Reader (New York: National Conference of Synagogue Youth, 1970).

[7]. Edward F. Hills, SpaceAge Science, 2nd ed. (Des Moines, IA: Creation Research Press, 1979); James Hanson, A New Interest inGeocentricity (Minneapolis: Bible-Science Association, 1979); Geerhardus Bouw, With Every Wind ofDoctrine:  Biblical, Histori­caland Scientific Perspectives on Geocentricity (Cleveland:  Tychonian Society, 1984).

[8]. See J. P.Moreland, ed. The Creation Hypothesis (Downers Grove:  Inter-Varsity, 1994); Hugh Ross, TheCreator and the Cosmos (Colorado Springs:  NavPress, 1993); William Lane Craig, ReasonableFaith:  Christian Truth andApologetics (Wheaton, IL:  Crossway,1994).  See also R. C. Sproul, ThePsychology of Atheism (Minneapo­lis:  Bethany House, 1974); Robert A. Morey, The New Atheismand the Erosion of Freedom (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1986; reprint Phillipsburg, NJ:  Presbyterian and Reformed, 1994); Ravi Zachari­as, AShattered Visage:  The Real Face ofAtheism (Grand Rapids:  Baker,1990).

[9]. See, e.g., RobertC. Newman, ed., Evidence of Prophecy: Fulfilled Prediction as a Testimony to the Truth of Christianity (Hatfield, PA:Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute, 1990); John Warwick Montgomery,ed., Evidence for Faith: Deciding the God Question (Dallas: Probe/Word, 1991); Eta Linnemann, Historical Criticism of theBible:  Methodology or Ideology?  (Grand Rapids:  Baker, 1990); Josh McDowell and BillWilson, He Walked Among Us: Evidence for the Historical Jesus (San Bernar­dino, CA: Here's Life, 1988); Craig, Reasonable Faith; William Campbell,The Qur'an and the Bible in the Light of History and Science (n.p.:  Middle East Resources, 1992); VishalMangal­wadi, The World of Gurus: A Critical Look at the Philosophies of India's Influential Gurus andMystics  (Chicago:  Cornerstone, 1992).

[10]. We pursue the contentof science in the text.  Regardingmethod, no specific professional class of scientists existed in ancient Israelor the early church.  However,Scripture does not encourage blind faith (due to the existence of evilspiritual beings and human charlatans), and it emphasizes the importance ofmultiple, consistent, eyewitness testimony in judicial matters and thenecessity of testing spiritual claims.

[11]. See discussions,pro and con, on this in The Genesis Debate, ed. Ronald F. Youngblood(Nashville:  Thomas Nelson,1986).  Also Henri Blocher, Inthe Beginning:  The OpeningChapters of Genesis (Leicester/Downers Grove:  Inter-Varsity, 1989).

[12]. And they are,though one of the goals of atheistic versions of evolution has been to banishdesign arguments, e.g., Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (New York:  Norton, 1986); but see J. P. Moreland,ed., The Creation Hypothe­sis, especially the chapter by William Dembski.

[13]. See, e.g., John W.Wenham, Christ and the Bible (Downers Grove, IL:  InterVarsity, 1972).

[14]. Scripture onnature as revelation: Ps 19:1-4; Acts 14:16-17; Rom 1:18-20; that God cannotlie: Ex 34:6; Num 23:19; 2 Sam 7:28; Ps 31:5; Isa 65:16; Tit 1:2; Heb 6:18.

[15]. According toWright, Biology Through the Eyes of Faith, pp. 65-66, Scripture may provide"framing principles" for science, but not data or theories.  According to Richard H. Bube,"Seven Patterns for Relating Science and Theology," in Man andCreation:  Perspec­tives onScience and Theology, ed. Michael Bauman (Hillsdale, MI:  Hillsdale College Press, 1993), pp.96-101, "theology is incapable of providing mechanistic information aboutthe 'how' questions of the physical universe."

[16]. As Marvin L.Lubenow, in Bones of Contention: A Creationist Assessment of Human Fossils (Grand Rapids:  Baker, 1992), pp. 145-146, characterizesit, the Bible provides information about the past, science only providesinformation about the present.

[17]. "We hold thatthe only absolutely trustworthy information about origin and purpose of allthat exists and happens is given by God . . . in His infallible Word, theBible.  All scientific endeavourwhich does not accept this Revelation from on High without any reservations,literary, philosophical or whatsoever, we reject as already condemned in itsun-provable first assumptions.  Webelieve in a Creation completed in six twenty-four hour days and in a world notolder than about six thousand years, but beyond that we maintain that the Bibleteaches us an Earth that cannot be moved, at rest with respect to the Throne ofHim, Who called it into existence, and hence absolutely at rest in the centreof the Universe."  Fromannouncement of "Biblical Cosmology and Geocen­tricity," aconference to be given at Cleveland State University, June 5-7, 1978,apparently sponsored by the Tyconian Society and the Bible-Science Association.

[18]. Andrew DicksonWhite, A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, 2 vols. (1896;reprint, New York:  Dover, 1960).

[19]. Howard J. VanTill, "When Faith and Reason Meet," in Man and Creation, ed. Bauman, pp.141-164.

[20]. Richard H. Bube,"The Failure of the God-of-the-Gaps," in Horizons of Science, ed. Carl F. H.Henry (New York:  Harper and Row,1978), pp. 27-29.

[21]. Some cosmologistsare moving to a scheme in which our universe is imbedded in an infinite one;e.g. Richard Gott, "Creation of Open Universes from de Sitter Space,"Nature 295 (1982): 304-307.

[22]. See Moreland, CreationHypothesis; also Michael J. Behe, "Experimental Support for RegardingFunctional Classes of Proteins to Be Highly Isolated from Each Other," Darwinism:  Science or Philosophy? ed. Jon Buell andVirginia Hearn (Richardson, TX: Foundation for Thought and Ethics, 1994), pp. 60-71; and William A.Dembski, "The Incompleteness of Science Naturalism," in ibid., pp.79-94.

[23]. Matt 2:1-12; theirnumber is not specified in the text, and was later supplied by tradition (alongwith names) from who knows what source.

[24]. Gen 5:25-27; thisis the greatest age at death recorded for anyone in the Bible, but no hint isgiven that no one ever lived longer than this.

[25]. Angels arementioned as created beings in a few places (e.g., Neh 9:6, Col 1:16), but nonarrative of their creation is given. The Pseudepigraphal Book of Jubilees assigns this to first day ofcreation (Jub 2:2).  Scripture,however, seems to hint that their creation preceded that of our universe;consider the reference in Heb 9:11 to the heavenly tabernacle not being of thiscreation.

[26]. Here, too, justhints: perhaps Ezek 28:12-19; condemnation of the Devil, 1 Tim 3:6; rebellionof the dragon, Rev 12:4.

[27]. This is awatershed issue between young-earth and old-earth views.

[28]. Thomas S. Kuhn, TheStructure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961), e.g., chaps 2 and 3; see alsoClouser, Myth of Religious Neutrality, chap 4.

[29]. R. Hookas, Religionand the Rise of Modern Science (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972); Stanley L. Jaki, TheOrigin of Science and the Science of its Origin (Edinburgh:Scottish Academic Press, 1978); John Hedley Brooke, Science andReligion:  Some HistoricalPerspectives (Cambridge:  CambridgeUniversity Press, 1991); Nancy R. Pearcey and Charles B. Thaxton, The Soulof Science:  Christian Faith andNatural Philosophy (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1994).

[30]. Charles Hummel, TheGalileo Connection  (DownersGrove, IL:  Inter-Varsity, 1986);James Reston, Jr., Galileo:  ALife(New York:  Harper Collins, 1994).

[31]. See  Ronald L. Numbers, The Creationists (New York:  Knopf, 1992); Daniel E. Wonderly, Neglectof Geologic Data: Sedimentary Strata Compared with Young-Earth CreationistWritings (Hatfield, PA: Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute, 1987, 1993).

[32]. Phillip E.Johnson, "What is Darwinism?" in Man and Creation, pp. 177-199;Clouser, Myth of Religious Neutrali­ty.