"Redeeming Science: A God-Centered Approach" by Vern Poythress

sastark · #1 (**permalink**) 05-14-2008, 03:27 PM

Has anyone read this? Any comments?

I have not read it, only came across it for the first time today. Is it worth reading?

Dogfreid · #2 (**permalink**) 05-14-2008, 03:30 PM

Triablogue: "Redeeming Science"

jaybird0827 · #3 (**permalink**) 05-14-2008, 03:31 PM

I have not read the book.

I want to add a question. I understand that Poythress is a mathematician. Is there anything in there about redeeming math?

sastark · #4 (**permalink**) 05-14-2008, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dogfreid

Triablogue: "Redeeming Science"

In this review, the reviewer quotes Poythress as saying:

Quote:

God really did create the world in six-days. That is to say, when we speak in everyday human terms…because we are thinking of days within an interactive orientation. Only within the technical sphere of consistent clock orientation and calculation do we develop another, complementary perspective on time. Within that sphere, where we define ‘time’ in an unusual, precise way that separates it from human rhythms, we obtain a figure of 14 billions years

Am I correct in understanding this to mean that Poythress is advocating a 14 billion year old universe? Just seeking clarification.

victorbravo · #5 (**permalink**) 05-14-2008, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sastark

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dogfreid

Triablogue: "Redeeming Science"

In this review, the reviewer quotes Poythress as saying:

Quote:

God really did create the world in six-days. That is to say, when we speak in everyday human terms…because we are thinking of days within an interactive orientation. Only within the technical sphere of consistent clock orientation and calculation do we develop another, complementary perspective on time. Within that sphere, where we define ‘time’ in an unusual, precise way that separates it from human rhythms, we obtain a figure of 14 billions years

Am I correct in understanding this to mean that Poythress is advocating a 14 billion year old universe? Just seeking clarification.

I take it that he is trying to finesse the issue. He seems to favor mature creation but doesn't want to pin it down with a stopwatch.

Another way of putting it (according to how I understand Poythress) would be to say that it was a six day creation, but those six days would look something like 14 billion years to us if we used a current atomic clock.

When you get into the question of whether time has a constant value, you can end up in some pretty strange places. The problem is, we have observed that time is relative.