Science & Christianity: Four Views

Rating:
Summary: Dissappointing
Review: Science & Christianity: Four Views is a well-conceived attempt to cover the spectrum of Christian thought concerning the proper interaction of theology and science as realms of knowledge. These interacting viewpoint books are a great idea but they are difficult to pull-off because at least one viewpoint usually suffers. In this book, Creationism in particular is not well represented. Since this view is a historical cornerstone in the discussion, the overall book suffers as a result.

Frair and Patterson represent the Creationist viewpoint (young and old-earth views are essentially combined in this book). Their opening position statement, as expected, emphasizes the priority of an inerrant Scripture as the authority in human knowledge though they also encourage vigorous scientific inquiry and believe the two ultimately converge into one reality. But, their interactions with other viewpoints throughout the book tend to miss the point by avoiding any contrast/conflict. This avoidance hurts the value of the book and depth of their presentation.

Pond represents what is called the Independence view, which is often ignored in these discussions. Independence asserts that theology and science are two completely different areas of knowledge with no appreciable overlap in describing reality. If there is a question about the actual physical history of earth, it is resolved solely by science. Likewise, if there is a question of human spirituality it is resolved solely in the area of religion (Christianity for Pond). Pond says she considers scripture one more facet of information, which is to be considered along with church tradition (Episcopal in her case), and human reason depending upon the subject at hand. In the case of physical earth history, she sees no role for the Bible. She does not accept the notion that the scripture is inerrant and asks for a definition of the term (FYI Feinberg provides a great one in "Inerrancy" edited by Geisler). In place of inerrancy Ponds promotes the NOMA principle popularized by Stephen Jay Gould. Pond is eloquent for her position and interacts with other viewpoints in a consistent manner that provides some color to what is generally a bland book. Aside from the color she adds to the discussion, I find her view of scripture and science (along with NOMA) to be an elaborate cop-out that gives total precedence to science at every point in the discussion carrying any significance for discovering physical reality. Pond (and NOMA) seem to overlook the turbulent nature of scientific theories throughout history while discounting the possibility that the Bible has a divine author capable of giving a general but accurate description of physical reality that science is yet to fully discover.

The Qualified Agreement viewpoint is covered by Meyer and basically says that we should accept a highly interactive view of both scripture and science on a case-by-case basis where there are no hard and fast rules as to which will take precedence beforehand. After tracing the history of earlier intelligent design efforts by Paley and others, Meyer provides an onslaught of physical evidence from various fields of science. This chapter has so many well-known examples of design that the overall method (inference to the best explanation) does not receive the attention it deserves. Meyer is consistent throughout the book making most of his arguments from contemporary scientific evidence suggesting design, rather than from scripture. Meyer footnotes his evidence well and provides a veritable who's who of intelligent design authors such as Dembski, Behe, Ross and Denton.

Van Till provides the Partnership view, which says that science and Christian theology can go hand in hand without conflict. This view emphasizes a possible harmony between the two fields of knowledge and seeks to explain it with what Van Till calls the Robust Formation Economy (RFE). He prefers RFE to theistic evolution, which is more often used as a category for his viewpoint. The RFE basically says God created the universe as an amazing evolutionary machine that is capable of unfolding in the way modern evolutionary sciences say it does with no further intervention from God. Van Till feels this view ascribes more glory to God than the interventionist views held by Creationists or Qualified Agreement camps (Independence would seem to agree more with Van Till though it has no identifiable position as to interaction). Van Till's position is open to the critique (attempted but not adequately made in this book) that he is just playing games with words. Renaming deism to RFE doesn't really help things very much. His position counters scripture in a number of areas that indicate God is actively involved in the daily workings of nature, not just the macro architect from billions of years ago. Partnership ends up being a cop-out theory like Independence, it's just dressed up with fancier words and ideas, but not strong arguments based upon theological and scientific data.

This is a mediocre book that had the potential to be excellent but did not achieve that goal. There actually aren't that many intermediate books available in the area of philosophy of science and Christianity, but this is one. If you just want one book in this area choose Three Views on Creation and Evolution by Moreland and Reynolds; it is somewhat better than this book.

Rating:
Summary: Absence of true Creationist position made this dialog bland
Review: There are four positions here, and I will address them in the order that they are presented in the book:

1. The Creationism position (for some reason the only position that is an "ism") was blandly proclaimed in a lengthy and mostly uninspired essay by Wayne Friar and Gary D. Patterson. Although I had never heard of them, I suspect they are part of some mutual admiration society overusing phrases in their supposedly critical response essays like "we commend", "we join", "we agree that" and "we share." They sacrificed the sharp sword of intellectual debate for the blunt instrument of patronizing accolades.
2. Jean Pond's position of Independence is ridiculous -- she plainly stated that belief in Christ "requires faith beyond reason" (p. 242) when taken in context implies that faith is not reasonable. Additionally she quotes Sagan, Dawkins and Gould with respect normally granted only to the Pope. She gives particular credence to Gould's NOMA principle (loosely put: an intellectual wall of separation between science and 'religion'.) She quotes Dawkins and Gould effectively stating that theology is the study of nothing (maybe the wall is a fence to keep God out?). Pond gently reminds the readers that they are the exception rather than the rule, but then doesn't follow through by affirming that the study of theology is the study of anything. She seems to throw up her arms in confusion because of the proliferation of denominations and the use of the Scriptures for both sides of crucial issues like homosexuality and the ordination of women.
3. I like Stephen Meyer's philosophical approach in the Qualified Agreement position -- at least he had guts to disagree with Pond and Van Till, something that Friar and Patterson were reticent to do. He exposes the Independence and Mutual Partnership's (see below) acceptance and promotion of what I call the "myth of religious/metaphysical neutrality." Additionally Meyers is strong when discussing the classical proofs of God and how those arguments can be resurrected by new discoveries, particularly in the area of information science.
4. Lastly, Van Till propounds the Mutual Partnership position where science and Christian theology are "partners in theorizing." Although his position is solidly evolutionary, I found his principle of robust formational economy (RFE) [Jean Pond found that phrase to be a mouthful -- one might say "say that three times fast."] interesting although not convincing. His desire is to take a razor blade to the idea of 'creation' by separating them into two distinct phases or arenas: the initial concept (dare I say 'design') and the actual formation or creating (read naturalistic evolution). Therefore, if I'm reading him correctly, Van Till gives all the credit to God for designing a system that is self-creating. Obviously God kicked off the process, but He's just watching it unfold perhaps like some Cosmic Couch-Potato Deity. Stephen Meyer is correct in his assessment that this is close to, if not fully developed, Deism. In advocating the RFE principle, Van Till rejects the artisan, craftsman or builder concepts. I think he does so to the detriment of the Holy Scriptures where God compares Himself to the Potter and we his creatures to the clay pot. The Potter doesn't just intellectually design His creation, but intimately molds his creation.

All of the contributors to this volume, including the editor, for the most part ignore important points in the first few chapters of Genesis. 1) God speaking the creation into existence; 2) the Fall and it's ramifications (the various curses and introduction of death); 3) the supposedly historically accurate reports of great life spans prior to the Flood; 4) the Judgment of Yahweh on sin in the Flood (and by extension the Apostle Peter's reminder of a future judgment by fire); and 5) the divine origin of human languages. One item worth noting is the simple, yet interesting, chart on the classification of the sciences by Arthur Peacocke (Theology for a Scientific Age) as modified by Nancey Murphy (Reconciling Theology and Science) -- perhaps their books will shed more light on the topic of Science and Christianity than this work compiled by Richard F. Carlson.

Rating:
Summary: Great views!!
Review: This book is exciting as well as informative. Steve Meyer's essay is extraordinary! Great info! I can't wait to read it again!!