be interpreted in terms of still other texts in order to recognize those con-
ventions, and so on; and third, they tend “to dissolve the particular work
into an aggregate of conventions,” 34 losing sight of the uniqueness of the
individual literary work.
Language-centered approaches in their more extreme forms will deny
that language can even refer to the “real” empirical world, and they
can reach the point where signs don’t have any referents at all. 35 In the
language- centered deconstructive approach of Jacque Derrida, for exam-
ple, there can be no “transcendental signifi ed” such as “God,” which is
“an external point of reference on which a philosophy or concept rests,”
an “ultimate reality or truth-center that can function as a basis for our
thoughts and actions.” 36 Such an approach can fi nd little usefulness in
attempting to relate science and biblical interpretation.
Culture-centered approaches must deal with exposing misrepresentation
and advocating for “undistorted self-representation” while dealing with
the poststructuralist principle that all representational language involves
distortion. 37
H OW CAN METHODS OF SCIENCE AND HERMENEUTICS
INFORM EACH OTHER?
We fi nd Robert John Russell’s model 38 of theology/science interdepen-
dence very useful. He writes that theological theories (doctrines) are
based on data, as are scientifi c theories. For theology, however, the data
are scripture, tradition, reason, and experience. For science, the data are
observations. As new data in both disciplines are encountered, theories
are modifi ed. Further, scientifi c presuppositions are affected by theology
and vice versa. In summary, theological research programs affect scientifi c
research programs and vice versa. 39
Further, our brief description of the seven previously mentioned her-
meneutical perspectives, along with their strengths and weaknesses, sug-
gest that any given interpreter often cannot be classifi ed neatly into one
category or another. Most interpreters will work from more than one per-
spective and will sometimes tacitly or explicitly reject one or more as well.
The situation is no different with those who are attempting to reconcile
science and the Bible, as a few illustrations will demonstrate.
For example, Denis Lamoureux, a Pentecostal theologian and scientist,
rejects reality as a context for statements in the Bible that confl ict with
286 M. TENNESON ET AL.