The authors are professors in Biblical studies (Old Testament) and the natural sciences (physics), and the book offers a bit of biographical information about its authors early on. Both are conservative Evangelicals who affirm their commitment to inerrancy as defined in the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (p.15). And so hopefully their affirmation of a high view of Scripture will allow them to get a hearing among Evangelicals where others might be ignored.
The authors write early on of the possibility of “reconciling” modern science and Christian faith (p.11). But as they soon go on to clarify, they do not mean by this either an attempt to force natural science into a framework dictated by the Bible, nor an attempt to read modern science into the Bible. Rather, their understanding is that the Bible offers a worldview statement that expresses ancient Israel’s theological viewpoint in language appropriate to that time and place, but which neither agrees with, nor should be used as a reason for disagreeing with, the findings of scientists (p.14). And so their aim can also be expressed in other words as ending what the authors see as unnecessary conflict between faith and science (p.18).
Although the precise views of these two authors are not my own, I greatly appreciate the way they articulate their faith and its compatibility with accepting mainstream science. The former is said more than once to address the question “why” while the latter concerns itself with “how.” In presenting an overview of science, the authors emphasize a number of crucial points which address false claims made by young-earth creationists and other proponents of pseudoscience. For instance, several pages are devoted to the way that science has drawn conclusions which have flown in the face of common sense, and thus common sense is not a valid guide to what is true (pp.33-45). Scientists are said to generally be honest and careful, and so their conclusions, while not infallible, ought to be taken very seriously. But this applies to their statements about their domains of expertise, and the fact that someone has expertise in physics or biology does not mean that they can speak authoritatively or even knowledgeably about matters of theology or philosophy (p.48). When they do so, they are moving from science to metaphysics, and overstepping their bounds.
In discussing the Bible in relation to the book’s theme, many important points are made. Correctly identifying genre is shown to be crucial. Touchy subjects like myth are tackled, with help from C. S. Lewis and J. R. R. Tolkien, among others. The Bible is viewed “incarnationally,” and this allows a comparison with their understanding of Jesus which, even if it runs the risk of bibliolatry, allows the author to make a crucial and powerful point: Jesus used fictional stories to teach important truths, and this seems to completely undercut any possible objection Christians might have to the notion that the Bible itself can only contain factual stories or can only communicate its central points by means of narrative accounts that correspond to the way things actually transpired (p.61).
Other parts of the Bible that relate to creation are surveyed, in addition to Genesis 1-2. When it comes to the Genesis creation stories, emphasis is placed on the fact that there is more than one story, and the details are conflicting when treated completely literally. And so this is treated as an indication that a literalistic approach is not the correct way to interpret these texts. And so even apart from considerations related to the natural sciences, it is emphasized that these texts include within themselves indications that they should not be treated as straightforward factual accounts, since they conflict on factual details with one another, and not merely with outside observable data or other external considerations.
The Genesis creation accounts give us both ancient Israel’s theology and ancient Israel’s understanding of the natural world. Against the background of the thinking of the time, the former is something special and the latter is nothing special (p.122). The authors even point out what would have been involved had God in fact wanted to inspire the Biblical authors with modern scientific information – in essence, they would have had to take dictation of words that made no sense to them (pp.124-125). In addition to seeming inherently implausible and at odds with what we actually find in the text, this would also be at odds with Carlson and Longman’s emphasis on the incarnational character of the Bible. It speaks the language of its time.
There are details on which the book is open to criticism – in particular, when the authors move outside of their domains of expertise into the domain of the New Testament, there is some christological anachronism, some over-interpretation of the meaning of Greek words, and even language that suggests the authors think that we have fragments of the original manuscripts of the New Testament (p.53). And those who do not share the authors’ theological assumptions and framework will have other questions they may be left with – such as why we should assume that progress can be made in our understanding of the natural world, but not also in comparable ways in the realm of theology. In fact, when Carlson and Longman read New Testament christological passages as speaking of “the second person of the Trinity,” or Psalm 33 and Genesis 1 as indicating creatio ex nihilo, they are in fact reflecting developments in theology that go beyond what is explicit in the Bible – and in the view of some, beyond what is even implicit there.
Nevertheless, the book provides an extremely helpful overview of this issue and makes its points in a way that should be accessible to those who most need to hear its message. Excellent helpful illustrations are used – such as when the authors suggest that science is no more “atheistic” for not mentioning God than is a book that explains how to use Adobe Photoshop is “atheistic” for not mentioning God (p131). Metaphysical naturalism is not a necessary implication of science, while methodological naturalism – in relation to biology, physics, or learning to use Microsoft Word – is simply a matter of staying on topic.
The book concludes with a survey of “gains” and “losses” if one adopts the authors’ stance, approach, and conclusions. Gains include the removal of hurdles that prevent educated people from taking Christianity seriously. Losses include abandoning the assumption that literalism is always the best way of approaching Biblical texts, and the realization that a simplistic, prooftexting approach will not be adequate (pp.140-141). Presumably these are things that will seem like losses to many, but they are not genuine losses. They are simply implications of another key point the authors make, and which seems like a good place to end this review. For all the importance the Bible is said to have for many people today, astonishingly few who say it is important for them have received anything that could be called “training” in how to interpret it (p.139). When we study any subject, simplistic misunderstandings have to be abandoned, but that is not a “loss” but rather a sign of progress. We may at times miss the simplicity of our earlier, less well informed days, but most will acknowledge that it is better to understand more – even if it means discovering that our earlier sense of things being simple was illusory. And this book provides just that – some basic training in the way that science and Biblical interpretation work. I hope that those who say they consider the Bible important to their faith will take advantage of the instruction these authors offer – and indeed, will move on from this introduction to an even more advanced exploration of the issues it raises and the topics it discusses.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In