God and Cosmos: A Christian View of Time, Space, and the Universe

by John Byl

In his book A Brief History of Time, the famous Cambridge cosmologist Stephen Hawking held out the prospect of a complete theory of the universe by means of which we would know'why it is that we and the universe exist...then we would know the mind of God.' Christian mathematicican John Byl 'Hawking overestimates the value of a Theory-of-Everything, while underestimating the content of God's mind.' We already have in Scripture a source of knowledge superior to all other sources and already know 'the mind of God'. so far as He has been pleased to reveal it to us. On this basis, Byl questions much of modern cosmology, including the Big-Bang theory of origins. He deals with the limitations of human knowledge, biblical teaching relevant to cosmology, the quest for extra-terrestrial intelligence, the existence of the spiritual realm, heaven, angels, life after death, and much else. Byl's approach is a refreshing counter to the dreary and ultimately meaningless outlook of modern cosmology.

Genres: Philosophy

256 pages, Paperback

First published April 1, 2001

About the author

Dr. John Byl, B.Sc., Ph.D., took an interest in the work of Reformation Christian Ministries many years ago through introductions made from within the Canadian Reformed Churches of which he is a member. His interest peaked when we began the Reformation International College (RIC) and he has assisted us from its beginning with advise and counsel regarding subjects related to his sphere of knowledge.

He has been an elder in the Canadian Reformed Church. He is presently a professor at Trinity Western University, Langley, BC, where he began in 1978, took over as chair of the department of Mathematical Sciences in 1980 and received his full professorship in 1985. He received his Bachelor of Science degree in Mathematics from the University of British Columbia in 1969 and his Ph.D. in Astronomy from the same in 1973. He also serves on RIC Educational and Doctoral committees.
He previously worked as a visiting professor at Dordt College, Iowa, in the Physics Department during 1977-79. He previously worked as a post doctoral fellow from 1973-75 and as lecturer from 1975-77 at the University of British Columbia, Department of Geophysics & Astronomy in Vancouver, B.C. Canada.

In 1999, he was awarded the Templeton Award for Science/Religion Course for his course Math 480: Foundations in the Mathematical Sciences: Theological and Philosophical Issues.
Dr. Byl's research interests are in Astronomy (celestial mechanics, cosmology), physics (special relativity), computing (cellular automata), mathematics (infinite tasks), interaction between science and religion. In recent years the focus of my research has shifted to philosophical and theological issues related to the foundations of mathematics, physics and cosmology.

He was born in The Hague, Netherlands, in 1949 and is now a Canadian citizen, is married and has six children.

Reviews

[A.L. Buehrer · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a densely written and slightly dry book. It was one of those books that I found interesting, and yet it was really hard to focus on, at times. I’m kind of glad I never had to sit through any of Dr. Byl’s mathematics classes.

Because the cosmology field is in a state of relentless and often dramatic flux, I try to take older books with a pinch of salt. This one’s eighteen years old already, so I don’t know what all has changed. Still, I really enjoyed the first half or so of this book. Byl actually seems to be advocating scientific freedom when it comes to specific origin theories—that is, he emphasizes that we shouldn’t get too attached to one theory, but should, in effect, stay skeptical. This is positive, and productive as I see it.

What struck me about his recap of the history of cosmology and Christian theology is the fact that, historically, the church has tried to compromise the biblical record of cosmology with secular science. And this has not been helpful for anyone—especially Galileo. Much of what the church tried to pass as Christian truth about the universe was actually based on extra-biblical sources, what was, at one point, secular science. But human understanding of science doesn’t stay the same, and biblical truth does, so that didn’t work out particularly well.

Byl argues that in the same vein, modern Christians shouldn’t compromise what they know the bible says to fit the popular version of cosmology. I guess there is a significant amount of Christians who are married to the big bang theory because they believe that it represents the Judeo-Christian creation event. I’m not completely opposed to some version of the big bang myself, though I know where it contradicts my understanding of scripture and where its rather serious scientific weaknesses are.

For the most part, I guess I agree with Byl. But there is one thing that I really can’t go with, at least not at this point in my intellectual growth. Byl states in the end of the book that he doesn’t really think origin science is worth our time, as Christians. He seems to advocate practical science over theory and speculation.

I get where he’s coming from, but I don’t really agree. I think there’s a great deal of deep and ultimately important truth to uncover in the process of trying to get to the bottom of things. I don’t think God gave us exceedingly curious, exploratory minds that always want to discover the limits of our understanding for no reason. Byl—whether he really intended to or not seemed to suggest we don’t bother trying.

For me, the truth is not so fragile that we shouldn’t grope for its outer edges. I don’t think God would grudge us anything. And for those of us with those inclinations, I think God will someday provide deeply satisfying answers.

[Randy · Rating 1 out of 5]

When Assumptions Harden into Unfalsifiable Dogmatism

Dr. John Byl is an astronomer and mathematician, who is concerned, as all thinking Christians should be, about the relationship between science and the Bible. His interpretation of Genesis 1 requires that the earth (and the universe) are no more than about 6,000 years old. Like many other recent creationists who share his interpretation, but unlike other Christians who do not, he therefore sees a conflict between a recent creation and the scientific theory known as Big Bang cosmology.

Now this perceived conflict could make for a very interesting discussion, but there were three things that jumped out at me that in my view robbed the book of the possibility of such a discussion materializing.

The first problem is that throughout the book Dr. Byl conflates Big Bang cosmology with Darwinism. That is wrong. That is terribly wrong. That is so wrong that if he or anyone, after having had this pointed out, insists on continuing to equate these very different theories, then the conversation is over and old-earth and young-earth creationists have nothing to talk about.

On page 223 we read, “Big-bang cosmology is the creation myth of naturalism.” No it is not. Darwinism, which substitutes unguided natural processes for a purposeful Creator – that is the creation myth of naturalism. Big Bang cosmology, by contrast, is firmly on the theist’s side.

From its beginning in the early twentieth century, at every point where confirming evidence appeared, from Edwin Hubble’s observations of red-shifting galaxies, Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity which predicted an expanding universe, and Penzias and Wilson’s discovery of the cosmic background radiation – each discovery was met, not with enthusiasm but with stiff resistance precisely because by showing that the universe was not eternal after all, but had a beginning, it threatened the very foundations of naturalism.

I want to turn now to page 199 where Dr. Byl addresses “the main objection against a mature creation [which] is that it implies deception on the part of God.” His response? (p. 200) – “God can hardly be charged with deception if mature creation is revealed in Scripture. Man may ignore the Bible and thus come to false conclusions about the age of the universe. But then he has only himself to blame.” He goes on to say that “God sends a strong delusion upon those who reject the truth, to make them believe that which is false.”

Now I don’t think his reasoning is going to work, because it would seem to apply only to those who know the Bible sufficiently to ignore it. However, Biblical ignorance is widespread today, even in the church, and exponentially more so in the culture at large. He would only be speaking to me and other Christians who know the Bible but do not agree with his particular interpretation.

I suppose it would be us old-earth creationists to whom God has sent a strong delusion, to make us believe that which is false. But what about astronomers who have never seen a Bible? Surely Dr. Byl is not suggesting that they have deliberately rejected a truth they have never known and are therefore the subject of a God-given delusion?

He argues further that “the illusion of a particular past history arises only when we view the data through the mirror of a particular set of theoretical premises.” So if we would just construct a scientific model “that interprets the observational data in a manner consistent with the traditional biblical chronology” the apparent deception vanishes. (p. 201)

Do you see what he is saying here? – If that were the case, then Calvin and Luther and the rest of the church were right in condemning Copernicus’ outrageous claim of heliocentrism. Copernicus should have constructed a model which, paraphrasing Dr. Byl, “interprets the observational data in a manner consistent with the traditional biblical cosmology,” namely, geocentrism. I can imagine the rejoinder. – “Oh, but then their Biblical interpretation was clearly wrong. Ours isn’t.”

What, at this point, could possibly cause Dr. Byl to reconsider his assumption that his and only his interpretation of Genesis is the correct one? How would he ever know if he is wrong when such tortured reasoning indicates that his assumption has hardened into an unfalsifiable dogma?

This is also a prime illustration of the final thing I want to discuss, which is that certain rigid assumptions, assumptions which are not up for discussion, govern his argumentation even to the point of absurdity.

Now, old-earthers have been accused of making assumptions, and the extent to which those assumptions are justified is a subject for another time. But, as I argue below, ours pale in comparison to the way in which Dr. Byl’s assumptions function as an absolute presupposition in both making his interpretation of Genesis square with the natural world, and in shutting down alternative viewpoints. In addition to the quotation already given, let me give two additional ones, from pages 216 and 222:

“We should take the Bible in its most direct, literal sense, unless internal scriptural evidence shows conclusively that a non-literal interpretation is required.”

“To those who wish to reject the traditional reading of Genesis 1-11, I leave the challenge of justifying such rejection in terms of valid hermeneutical principles consistent with a Christian epistemology based on the supremacy of God’s Word.”

Now I know what he means because I know what assumptions he is making. But while he clearly thinks his assumptions are a given and therefore do not have to be spelled out, others (myself included) disagree. When one assumes what actually needs to be proved, one is guilty of the informal logical fallacy of begging the question. And we would say that Dr. Byl is begging the question. Over and over again. That doesn’t mean that he is wrong, only that the same burden of proof applies to him as to those who differ with him. Here are some of his assumptions (paraphrased in my own words with my response following):

1. “Literal” means “taking the words in their simplest sense to us modern readers.” But some Biblical scholars say no, “literal” means “in relation to what the author intended in his communication with his original audience.” If the second view is correct, then an alternative interpretation and not the six 24-hour-day view is the actual literal meaning if it more accurately reflects this author-audience communication act. The same goes for such words as “clear” and “direct,” because the question is “clear to whom?” Such scholars would remind us that though the Bible was written for us, it was not written to us. So Dr. Byl is begging the question by assuming a definition he needs to argue for. When I am told, “Why can’t you just accept the plain meaning of Scripture?” My response is, plain to whom? That’s the issue! – What is the plain meaning of Scripture?

2. “The traditional reading of Genesis 1-11 is to be preferred and the burden of proof falls on those who would reject it and offer an alternative reading.” But why is the traditional view exempt from the necessity of justification? This is the kind of thinking that gave a black eye to the church when even Reformed giants such as Luther and Calvin voiced their strong opposition to Copernicus’ heliocentric model because clearly, in their minds, the Bible taught a geocentric one. Everybody has a burden of proof, and historical antiquity and consensus is no guarantee of being correct.

3. “The six-24-hour-day interpretation is not only correct but it is the only acceptable one. Any other view is in one way or another a compromise with secularism and shows both a lack of faith and obedience to God’s clearly revealed Word.” This is the essence of the first quotation I gave from page 200 when Dr. Byl was addressing the accusation of divine deception that the appearance of age theory provokes. It is really the grand-daddy of all the assumptions, and is also the most painful one to be confronted with.

In closing, I would just say that Dr. Byl’s repeated conflation of Big Bang cosmology with Darwinism, his inadequate treatment of a weighty objection to the idea of the distant stars’ appearance of age, and his unnecessary dogmatism and undefended assumptions, all combine to make this a difficult book to read unless you already share his perspective.

[Emily Stem · Rating 3 out of 5]

Tedious. Some interesting concepts.

[Steve · Rating 4 out of 5]

Really good book on cosmologies. Stresses the tentative nature of all cosmologies from a scienitific point of view.

[Austin Hoffman · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good.

[Arnold Sikkema · Rating 1 out of 5]

See some of my comments about the book here, which also links to an excellent published review by C. John Collins.

[Paul Barth · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good overview of Big-Bang cosmology, it's problems, the history of cosmology, alternate theories and their problems, all from a Biblical, presuppositional perspective.