Tom,

Here are my thoughts without having read the book.

Quote
Chapter two describes 'The Role of the Bible', and makes several significant statements to the relation between science and religion. He states that because both nature and the Bible are, in effect, the 'word' of God, they harmonize with each other seamlessly when properly approached. When discrepancies appear between the two, Poythress suggests that one should be ready to examine both their thinking about science, as well as their thinking about the Bible (43).

I agree that science and the Bible agree. I think when science and the Bible seem to disagree, it is almost always the case that it is the scientist mis-interpreting the facts of science and not the Bible's interpretation. The simple fact is that scientists are sinners and they are not neutral in this respect when they interpret 'the facts of science'.

Quote
While I believe that creation is a thumb print (so to speak) of the Creator. Can we legitimately say that creation and the Bible are the Word of God? Should the creation be used to interpret the Bible and visa versa?

I don't agree that creation is the Word of God as the Bible is. Maybe if you shift the meanings of "Word of God" as it applies to the Bible and to creation you might be able to wedge them together, but I would not do this. For those who make this argument, I think you have to pin them down on their definitions. The Bible should be used to interpret creation. I don't think creation should be used to interpret the Bible, although I don't think anyone would dispute that our experiences do affect how we interpret the Bible. We should use Scripture to interpret Scripture. Creation can and does validate what the Bible teaches.

Quote
One of Dr. Poythress’s arguments against believing the traditonal view is his understanding that if indeed God created in 6 literal 24 hour days, then He would be deceiving what man has observed in the creation.
He uses from science arguments such as astronomic evidence, which he believes young earth arguments do not sufficiently answer.
I have included the following from his book on this point.

I disagree 100%. God has deceived no one and has explicitly stated that the universe was created in 6, 24 hour days. There is no deceiving going on but there is plenty of willful suppression of the truth in the name of science. As Robin said God controls and created the laws of nature. It is only man's foolish pride to think that God must be subject to those laws. As Robin pointed out, our assumption that physical laws are constant or the same everywhere may be wrong. They certainly weren't constant for eternity since at one point they did not exist. Another equally valid possibility is that God created the light from distant galaxies already 'on-its-way' in the proper place. If that is the case, God is still not deceiving because he told us so.

John