Sie sind auf Seite 1von 3

God and Cosmos: A Christian View of Time, Space, and the Universe, by JOHN BYL .

Edinburgh, Scotland and Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2001. Pages xii + 243. ISBN 0-85151-800-1. [Review published in Presbyterion: Covenant Seminary Review 29:1 (Spring 2003), 56-59. Used with permission.] This book, by a professor of mathematics at Trinity Western University in Langley, British Columbia, aims to provide Christians with a way of looking at modern cosmology, especially at its dominant theory for the origin of the universe, the Big Bang. Byl believes that the Bible asserts unequivocally that God made the world about 6,000 years ago and that under no circumstances can the Bible be harmonized with the Big Bang. Hence one of his targets among Christians is Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe. Byls chapters follow a logical sequence: He begins in Chapter 1 by setting out what he thinks are the basic philosophical and theological questions; he goes on in Chapter 2 to give an historical sketch of cosmological theories before the Big Bang became dominant; and Chapter 3 is his exposition of the Big Bang theory. Chapters 4-6 describe some of the theological problems that he finds in the Big Bang: It fails really to support the cosmological argument for Gods existence (and Byl, by the way, does not like this argument anyhow); it suggests that the universe will end in a whimper, rather than with Gods intervention; and it is incompatible with traditional Christian views of God. In Chapter 7 Byl discusses the Bible on cosmology, and in Chapter 8 he examines some proposed Biblical cosmologies. Chapter 9, titled Conclusions, begins with a very convenient and accurate summary of the contents of the book and finishes with four concluding remarks on the limits of human knowledge, on the supremacy of Gods word, and on the choice of worldviews that we face, as well as a plea for Christians to be consistent with their theology in their stance toward science. The overall argument of this book is based on Byls views of epistemology and of Biblical hermeneuticsviews that he asserts but does not subject to evaluation. For example, he tells us that, in the contemporary climate of the philosophy of science, the origin of scientific theories is now considered to be largely subjective (3). This being so, we are free to choose our starting point as we see fit. Now, it is true that some philosophers think so; but many do notnor do most scientists. Further, Byl offers no discussion of whether we ought to have a warrant for our choice of starting point. He leaves me wondering whether he thinks that the choice is irrationaland wondering, as well, just what he thinks faith is (he doesnt say). It gets worse: He follows the implications of this to a basic stance of anti-realism in science; that is, he thinks it unlikely that a scientific theory is true. This especially applies to his view of the historical inference involved in describing the ancient past. He tells us that the cultural mandate (Gn 1:28) puts its emphasis on practical application rather than theoretical knowledge and he goes on to write that:
[T]he text implies that mans ultimate task in science is not to speculate on a hidden reality but to provide useful results. Thus operation science is certainly justified by the cultural mandate, in so far as its goal is that of useful application. Origin science, on the other hand, is chiefly concerned with conjectures about the distant past. Given the questionable, unverifiable nature of its theories, I question its value. In the absence of objective, valid epistemological criteria that would enable us to detect true theories of origins, origin science can be rated little better than an amusing intellectual parlour game: fun to play, perhaps, but hardly deserving of too much devotion. I would suggest that scientists concentrate on operation science, with the prime aim of developing useful technology. (213-214)

COLLINS, REVIEW OF B YL, GOD AND COSMOS , PAGE 1

This is tied to his epistemological assertion that a Christian epistemology should give prime weight to Scripture, deductive logic, and observation (215-216). This has no place for historical inference at all, which the Bible supportshow else would anyone ever obey Deuteronomy 21:1-9 (handling an unsolved murder; one has to be able to infer that a murder was the cause of death, and this also implies that some murders can be solved), let alone infer that a miracle had taken place (one has to know something about nature in order to know that its powers have been transcended)? I would also say that Romans 1:19-20 supports the idea that people can infer Gods existence and power from the creation, but Byl claims (without argument) that the verse refers to immediate perception (111). Well, it may, but he has done nothing to prove it. Hermeneutically, Byl seems to assume that the Bibles meaning is transparent. His final paragraph says it all:
In this life we must acknowledge our human limitations, particularly with regard to scientific knowledge. Since the Bible is our only source of absolute truth, it is better to take it too seriouslyif that can ever be done!than to risk compromising it, however good our intentions may be. (225)

Byl shows no awareness as to what manner of problems he has swept under the rug here. Do not our human limitations come into play when we interpret the Bible? And what insights from hermeneutics will keep this from becoming an endless circle of skepticism? As a consequence, when Byl wishes to discuss biblical passages, his treatment is superficial in the extreme. For example, on pages 159-162 when he considers the creation account of Genesis 1, he cites the Bible from the AV without any reference to the Hebrew. Even worse, though he cites several authors (James Jordan, Douglas Kelly, Henry Morris, Russ Humphreys, Gerardus Bouw and Hugh Ross as his sole opposing voice), not a one of them is an exegete. I get the impression that he does not know how much he does not know. If his reading of the passage is the right one, he has not shown it. And finally, his analysis of the Big Bang itself is poor. He lists a number of problems that contemporary researchers have with the theory but does not provide us with the wherewithal to assess these. How serious are they, and what ideology motivates the critics? How do Big Bang proponents answer these? (At least he acknowledges that the Big Bang has fewer problems than its chief competitors.) He also does not distinguish between the Big Bang as a theory in physics and some of the uses to which people have put it; that is, he does not show that these consequences (such as process theology) necessarily follow from the theory (I doubt that they do). The bibliography is shockingly bad. You will not find the work of Dutch stalwart theologian Herman Bavinck on creation, nor will you find a qualified exegete who differs from Byls take on Genesis, nor will you find Pearcey and Thaxton, Russell or Lindberg and Numbers on the history of science and religion. The absence of J. P. Moreland on the Christian philosophy of science (or Del Ratzsch at a more basic level) is inexcusable. Well, I could say much more, but I have said enough to give the reader the picture. I think that the editorial staff at Banner of Truth should have required Byl to make his case more solidly. They should have perceived the logical and theological shortcomings of this book. A book like this, in the hands of the unwary or uninformed, could do a great deal of damage. The book does have one redeeming feature that makes it important: Byl seems to think that a Biblical literalist must resort to anti-realism in order to maintain his literalism.

COLLINS, REVIEW OF B YL, GOD AND COSMOS , PAGE 2

That someone will admit this is a great point gained; it strikes at the heart of young earth creation science. It also strengthens the hands of those who believe that the Bible is true and who also think the Bible requires a stance of qualified realism. Maybe then the literalism is not so secure after all. The churches need help in forming a Christian mind regarding the sciences to know how to handle their apparent challenges to our faith but also to know how to think properly about them and to engage in them and claim them for the service of Christ. This book, unfortunately, fails to meet that need. C. John Collins Professor of Old Testament Covenant Theological Seminary

COLLINS, REVIEW OF B YL, GOD AND COSMOS , PAGE 3

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen