A Worldview Approach to Science and Scripture
Authors: Hill Carol 
Published: November 2022

A WORLDVIEW APPROACH TO SCIENCE AND SCRIPTURE by Carol Hill. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2019. 240 pages. Hardcover; $29.99. ISBN: 9780825446146. *On February 4, 2014, Bill Nye and Ken Ham debated matters of creation, science, and faith. Because this encounter pitted two very public figures against each other--a famous PBS personality and a very flamboyant creationist--this event was highly anticipated. Unfortunately, the results were frustratingly inconsequential. The debate, however, did crystalize the irritations that often gravitate around debates of science and faith. So often, the participants talk past each other instead of engaging each other. The person of faith will often lament the scientist's narrow-mindedness and fallaciousness because they ignore variables valued by positions of faith. Conversely, the person of science will likely mock the faithful as naive simpletons who cling to their texts and ignore data that confronts their vested interests. Such tendencies are tragic since both sides perpetuate discord and prevent any substantive collaboration. *In the book reviewed here, Carol Hill offers another crack at navigating the chasm between science and the Christian faith. Thus, Hill's work is not necessarily novel or innovative. And it is certainly not the first to boast an author who is globally accomplished in their field of scientific inquiry and a committed Christian (e.g., Francis S. Collins, The Language of God [New York: Free Press, 2006]). However, the potency of this book exists in how she allows the data points, both scientific and textual, to speak for themselves. To facilitate this, she employs a hermeneutical lens described as a "worldview approach." While she struggles in the opening chapter to effectively articulate what this approach means, she ultimately does enough throughout the presentation to paint a picture of what she is utilizing. She describes an interpretive posture that adopts, to the extent that it can, an overarching conceptual framework born out of the authoring culture. Essentially, the claims of the biblical text need to be considered in light of an Iron Age, ancient Near Eastern society. Therefore, using the biblical text to answer specific questions forged out of modern scientific discussions is ultimately asking the text to bear a weight that it is not designed to bear. Rather, ancient Near Eastern texts, of which the Bible is one, are concerned with questions of function and order when speaking to fundamental realities of the cosmos, not questions of precise mechanisms and timelines. This allows Hill to responsibly summarize the Bible's foundation that in turn informs specific convergences between science and scripture. "God/Christ is the creator of the universe and all that is in it, and by him all things consist (hold together). According to the Bible, the universe and life did not happen by chance, but was created, directed, and sustained by God" (p. 159). *This is an important premise. On the one hand, Hill's work acknowledges a fundamental reality about scripture. It is a text that is ancient; therefore, it is influenced by conventions and assumptions very foreign to modern people on this side of the industrial and scientific revolutions. On the other hand, it frames discussions that may produce irenic debate between science and faith. Or, to put it another way, a worldview approach or anything similar, allows the text, along with its intentions, to define the boundaries of the conversation, and it is within these boundaries that scientific musings may flourish and inform the larger dialogue. If this sounds like a push to allow the text to take the lead in debates of science and faith, that is the suggestion. Christians believe that ancient Israel, with its experiences and authoritative texts (i.e., the Old and New Testaments), is a chief mechanism for communicating God's cosmic intentions for humanity. Science has something to say, but it just doesn't enjoy the level of sanction that the text does. *Nevertheless, Hill gets boxed in occasionally by her worldview approach. For example, "The basic premise of a Worldview Approach is that the Bible in its original context records historical events if considered from the worldview of the biblical authors who wrote it" (pp. 12-13, emphasis original). The implications of this statement unnecessarily complicate things. If one is committed to considering an author's worldview, cognitive framework, and ancient literary conventions when attempting to understand the claims of scripture, then one should allow ancient canons to dictate. This inevitably raises a question. To what extent are these literary accounts making claims about real people, space, and time? There is reason to believe, based largely on comparative analyses that pit ancient Near Eastern texts against the biblical texts of the same or similar genre, that Genesis 1-11 may be making nonhistorical (e.g., polemical) claims. Thus, is the pursuit of Eden's location, or of a chronological context for Adam and Eve, or of the dynamics of a regional flood, really a moot point? Certainly, not all texts of Genesis are of the same ilk, for Genesis 12-50 is a different type than Genesis 1-11. But Hill stymies the possibilities of her own approach by a commitment to discussing everything historically. *I am a biblical scholar who is convinced that God sanctioned ancient Israel, with its Messiah and text, to be the authoritative channel for revealing his divine intentions. And so, I write this review with these confessions. Ultimately, I applaud Hill for her work. It embodies a balance that respects the Bible for what it is--a text given by an ancient society that enjoys divine sanction as God's authoritative revelation while not being capable of precisely informing highly technical and nuanced issues illuminated by the developments of modern scientific research. I suspect that if both Nye and Ham had recognized this, the infamous debate of 2014 would not be another example of fruitless endeavors tarnished by entrenched rigidity, but rather it would stand as a watershed moment in irenic debate between traditional antagonists. *Reviewed by David Schreiner, Wesley Biblical Seminary, Ridgeland, MS 39157.