book reviews - science and christian belief · respect for religious beliefs, and argues that he...

S & CB (2006), 18, 83–112 0954–4194

Science & Christian Belief, Vol 18, No. 1 • 83

Book Reviews

William E. PhippsDarwin’s Religious OdysseyHarrisburg, PA: Trinity PressInternational, 2002. 207pp. pb. $16.00.ISBN 1-56338-384-5

Much has been written about the impactof Darwinism on religion, but relativelylittle about Darwin’s own religious views.William E. Phipps aims to provide a bal-anced overview of Darwin’s religiousdevelopment, using the latest resourcesof Darwin scholarship and documenta-tion.

As its title suggests, the book traces along journey of ideas. The beginning andend of that journey are tolerably clear.The young Charles Darwin held sincereChristian beliefs. At Cambridge he tookdelight in the theological works ofWilliam Paley, and accepted their argu-ments in defence of both natural andrevealed religion. While Darwin’s mainenthusiasm was always for natural his-tory, he looked forward to a career in theAnglican clergy. His voyage on the Bea-gle was intended as a prelude, not analternative, to a clerical life, and duringthe voyage he defended Christian teach-ing to his more sceptical colleagues.

By the end of his life Darwin hadmoved to a position of far-reachingagnosticism. While avoiding public con-troversy on religious matters, he had losthis earlier belief in revealed religion, andsaw no marks of special providence ordesign in nature. But he still found itdifficult to conceive that the universe,and human consciousness, arose entirelyby chance. Darwin never rejected theexistence of a God, feeling that the prob-lem was ultimately beyond our powers ofintellect.

It is difficult to establish the precisetiming and sequence of Darwin’s chang-ing views. For our knowledge of these weare heavily dependent on Darwin’s late

recollections in the short autobiographyhe wrote for his family. The details ofDarwin’s religious development havetherefore engendered some scholarlydebate. Wisely, in my view, WilliamPhipps does not dwell on academic dis-putes. He sets out the available evi-dence, making good use of Darwin’s note-books and correspondence, and devotinga chapter to each main phase of his life:the early years; the Beagle voyage; theformation of Darwin’s evolutionary theo-ries; the Origin of Species; the resultingcontroversies; the Descent of Man; andthe final years. A concluding chaptercontains reflections on the theologicalsignificance of Darwin’s work, from aChristian point of view. Throughout thebook Phipps emphasises Darwin’srespect for religious beliefs, and arguesthat he remained a theist, in some sense,to the end. Darwin’s quest for a theory oflife based on general laws, rather thandetailed intervention by the deity, is con-sistent with a higher conception of divinepower.

The book succeeds in its aim of pre-senting a balanced, comprehensive, andup-to-date account of Darwin’s religiousviews. It is well researched, clearly writ-ten, and in general accurate, thoughthere are a few odd errors; notably, Dar-win did not have a half-brother who wasan Anglican priest (4). Some may feelthat Phipps ‘protests too much’ in hisstress on Darwin’s residual theism.Phipps sees the glass half full; othersmay see it nearly empty. Darwin’s publicrespect for religion arose from a mixtureof motives: sincere recognition of the dif-ficulty of the issues; distaste for contro-versy; a prudent concern to minimiseopposition to his own theories; and adesire to avoid distress to friends andfamily. Phipps does not mention aremark by Darwin’s cousin, Julia Wedg-wood, that ‘everyone who feels Religioninfinitely the most important subject of

Book Reviews

84 • Science & Christian Belief, Vol 18, No. 1

human attention would be aware of a cer-tain hostility towards it in [Darwin’s]attitude, so far as it was revealed in pri-vate life’ (quoted in J. Durant, ed., Dar-winism and Divinity, 1985, p.41). Thebook is also less ground-breaking thanthe author’s preface implies: it unearthslittle evidence that cannot already befound in scholarly works by Neal Gille-spie, James Moore, Frank Burch Brown,John Hedley Brooke, and others. But asa synthesis of recent scholarship, and anattractive overview for the generalreader, it is timely and welcome.

David Burbridge is a writer on the his-tory of biology

Richard C. Foltz, Frederick M.Denny, Azizan Baharuddin (eds.)Islam and Ecology: A Bestowed TrustCambridge, MA: Harvard UniversityPress, 2003. 584 pp. pb. £18.95/$28.95.ISBN 0-945454-40-6

It is an unusual task to review a book onIslam and Environmentalism for a jour-nal about Christianity and science, butappropriate to what is a rather unusualbook. The worldwide environmental cri-sis has received relatively little scholarlyattention from Islam when comparedwith other world religions, althoughsome prominent Muslim thinkers haveraised the issue; many of the places feel-ing the worst effects of deforestation,desertification, and extreme weatherconditions are inhabited by Muslims.Many of the twenty-three essays in thisvolume were presented at the first-of-its-kind conference on Islam and Ecologyheld at Harvard in 1998.

Between them these essays represent averitable smorgasbord of differentapproaches to the subject matter. Thefirst few focus on what support for envi-ronmentalism can be found in Islamictradition – whether in the Qu’ran, thehadith (traditions about Muhammed’s

life), the rulings of shari’a law down theages, or the writings of Sufi mystics. Sev-eral more look at the approaches andobstacles to addressing environmentalproblems in Muslim society today. Yetmore look at the interaction betweenenvironmentalism and issues like socialjustice and development, some give prac-tical case studies, and the last few studythe attitude to nature displayed inIslamic garden design and poetry

The editors are to be commended forassembling work not only from Westernacademics, but also from a diversity ofviewpoints within Islam: from Sunni,Shi’a, Isma’ili and Sufi; from Arab, Per-sian, Indic, and Western backgroundMuslims. The quality of the contributionsvaries somewhat, and there is substan-tial overlap of material in some cases, butthis repetition does at least serve tofamiliarise the non-Muslim reader withsome aspects of this rich and complexreligion.

Many of the essays in this book were pre-pared with a Muslim audience in mind,so it is worth asking whether (as the edi-tors aim) it is accessible to a wider read-ership. There are certainly unfamiliarconcepts and Arabic terms to be grappledwith, the latter not helped by the ratherbrief glossary. However, for the Christianreader the book works on a number oflevels.

Firstly, it provides many fascinatinginsights into Muslim faith and tradition,and particularly how these are applied toa modern problem. This reviewer foundOthman Abd-ar-Rahman Llewellyn’sinvestigation of Islamic EnvironmentalLaw particularly rewarding in thisrespect. Furthermore the great variety ofthe essays and the views that theyexpress gives a good sense of the diver-sity of Islam worldwide.

Perhaps more striking, however, is thefact that many of the challenges posed byenvironmentalism to Islam apply just aswell to Christianity – as do theresponses. Some theological concepts

Book Reviews


cited by the Muslims seem very familiar:all creation declares the glory of Allah,and so should be treated with respect.Man’s proper role is one of khilafa, orstewardship, over creation but underAllah’s authority. The current environ-mental crisis is seen as a consequence ofthe loss of this right relationship. Theseideas lead most of the authors to con-clude that Islam is an inherently ‘green’religion, and in particular to hark back tothe ‘Golden Age’ of the early Ottomanempire as a more environmentallyfriendly society. The note of scepticismsounded by Richard C. Foltz about thevalidity and historical credentials of thisinterpretation also encourages the Chris-tian to be more self-critical. Just asHashim Ismail Dockrat blames the envi-ronmental shortcomings and apathy ofmodern Muslim nations entirely on theimposition of Western capitalism, it iseasy for Christians to externalise theproblem as one of our sinful society.There is of course much truth in this, butthe temptation in calling for changes tothe structure of society is to ignore thechanges required in our own lives.

In conclusion, the contents of this volumebeg the question: how will the urgencyand environmental conviction found herebe transferred to the daily lives of mil-lions of ordinary Muslims? The need ispressing for the Church to ask itself thesame thing.

Stuart Lucas is doing postdoctoralresearch in virology and lives andworks in areas of London with largeMuslim communities.

David H. Smith and Cynthia B.Cohen (eds.)A Christian Response to the NewGenetics: Religious, Ethical and SocialIssuesLanham USA: Rowman and LittlefieldInc., 2003. 190 pp. pb.£18.95 ISBN 0-7425-1499-4

Events in the Episcopal Church of theUSA are currently a source of unease formany Christians, but this book, the prod-uct of a Task Force set up in 2001, pro-vides a positive contribution for twenty-first century Christians. The Task Force’sremit was to consider the new develop-ments in human genetics and how Chris-tian people should respond to them. Theyhave produced a multi-authored bookwith each chapter written by someonewith expertise in the area, giving a wellbalanced review and in depth considera-tion of the issues involved. Overall it isquite celebratory in tone and a welcomechange from some of the more gloomyofferings from this side of the Atlantic(our chairman John Bryant’s recent bookbeing of course an exception!).

The theological chapter sets the scene.It focuses on the wonder of creation, suf-fering, the importance of the family andsocial justice. These issues recurthroughout the book with social justicetending to be the factor given highest pri-ority. Apart from one excellent chapter,there is little emphasis on the implica-tions of the new developments for theearly embryo, a position I found refresh-ing.

This is not a dogmatic book. In theintroduction the editors state that they‘try to specify points at which Christiansshould draw the line and say “No”, otherswhere we must offer equivocal support,and still others where we should have thecourage to admit that we don’t know theanswers.’ Genetic enhancement (unlessto relieve suffering), reproductive cloningand germ line therapy fall into their ‘no-go’ group. The proviso ‘unless to relievesuffering’ is interesting and is a recur-

Book Reviews


ring theme which is at odds with RobertSong’s critique of the ‘Baconian project’as described in his book Human Genetics,Fabricating the Future. (see review inS&CB 16, 2004, p. 95)

There is a straightforward and up todate description of the wide variety oftechnically possible procedures and anexcellent chapter on counselling whichincludes the difficult topic of risk percep-tion. The section on the status of the pre-implantation embryo starts with a goodhistorical review. As increasing scientificknowledge led to our predecessors’ beingforced to reject widely accepted assump-tions so Cynthia Cohen emphasises thatour views now should be influenced byour current discoveries in embryologyand an excellent description of embryonicdevelopment follows. This leads to a com-prehensive review of contemporary secu-lar and Christian views on the status ofthe early embryo.

The chapter on future scenarios pro-claims firmly that ‘procreative liberty’, aconcept beloved by utilitarians, may inreality demote individual freedom, tech-nology and the desire for a child can tooeasily become master rather than slave.As ‘autonomy’ and ‘choice’ feature moreand more in health care discussions inBritain we can take heart from thesefirm warning signals coming from Chris-tians in the land of the Free.

In keeping with the emphasis on socialjustice there are chapters on both socialcontext with a consideration of impair-ment and disability, commerce and lawand on the economics and politics of thenew genetics. These look critically athealth insurance and funding issuesincluding the relationships betweenresearch establishments and the biotechindustry. Although written from a NorthAmerican standpoint the principlesraised are widely relevant and it is goodto hear Christians beating this drum soforcefully.

The final pastoral chapter has somecase studies with questions for discus-

sion. Each chapter is well referenced andthere is a short but adequate index. Theonly serious glitch is a misprint of genet-ics for eugenics on page 61.

This book can be recommended to any-one wanting an up-to-date discussion ofrecent developments in human geneticsand their implications for Christianbelievers.

Caroline Berry is a retired ClinicalGeneticist and Secretary of Christiansin Science.

Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite (ed.)Adam, Eve and the GenomeMinneapolis: Augsberg Fortress Press,2003. xvi + 200pp. pb $20.00ISBN 0-8006-3614-7

Writing this review has taken me longer,much longer, than it should have done.The reason for that is that I have found itvery difficult to know exactly what tomake of Adam, Eve and the Genome.When I was asked to review the book, Ijumped at the opportunity. This soundedas if it should be a real attempt to exam-ine the nature of humankind, perhapseven of human personhood, in the light ofour expanding knowledge of humangenetics. The sub-title on the front cover– The Human Genome Project and Theol-ogy – helped to reinforce that expecta-tion. However, even before opening thebook, I detected warning signs that all isnot as expected. The back cover ‘blurb’ isheaded ‘The dilemmas and dangers ofDNA,’ a phrase that immediately had mypost-modernism sensors twitching. Yes,the practice of science owes a good deal tosocial construction but here was animplication that the chemical substance,DNA itself, carries social values, animplication that I, and most readers ofthis journal, will reject. Thus, when Istarted to read this book, my originaleagerness had turned to caution.

Adam, Eve and the Genome started lifeas a course jointly run by the Chicago

Book Reviews


Theological Seminary and the Universityof Chicago – an interface course betweentheology and genetic science. However, ifthe course is to be judged by the bookthen it must have been (perhaps still is)rather disjointed. It is more a series ofseminars under an over-arching titlethan a genuinely integrated programme.The book opens with an introductorychapter, the title of which – LiberationTheology in Dialogue with the HumanGenome Project – again alerts us to thegeneral stance. Then follow three chap-ters which set the scientific scene. Thefirst of these, A Brief History of Scienceby a Sympathetic Theologian, was for meby far the most useful in this volume. Thenext two concern genetics itself. Thesehave been written for non-expert audi-ences and in efforts to achieve clarity(and they are certainly clear), some accu-racy has been sacrificed. It is stated forexample that 99.9% of all DNA bases areidentical in all humans whereas the realpicture is that any two individualhumans will be, on average, 99.9% iden-tical in base sequence. In talking ofgenetic risk, the text goes back and forthbetween correct statements based on therisk that a particular offspring will beaffected and incorrect statements thattalk of the parents having a 1 in x chanceof having an affected child. It is also mis-leading, I think, to speak of post-Mendelian genetics because the termMendelian inheritance pattern still hasan entirely legitimate use.

Following these background chapters,we then encounter the ‘meat’ of the book,set out in five chapters. Certainly there issome interesting material here. It wasilluminating to read about the so-called‘gay gene’ from the perspective of a homo-sexual man, or about human genetics inthe USA in general from the perspectiveof an African American. The rejection ofsimplistic determinism and the emphasison human dignity and responsibility areencouraging and the warnings aboutmisuse of genetic information are cer-tainly timely. However, much of the soci-ological analysis is based on assumptions

that do not stand up, for example thatthe sequencing programme is giving us apicture of white, heterosexual, maleDNA. To that I would reply four things.First, that we need DNA from a male inorder to generate sequence data for boththe X and the Y chromosomes. Secondly,how do the authors know what DNA wassequenced in all the countries other thanthe USA that contributed to the project?Thirdly, as was actually pointed out ear-lier in the book, humans are remarkablysimilar in their DNA sequences(although not as similar as the bookstates) so does it actually matter whoseDNA was sequenced? Fourthly, where arethese sexist or racist interpretations thatthe authors see in the Human GenomeProject? Craig Venter, who provided theDNA for the Celera Genomics sequencingprogramme (which, in the USA, ran par-allel to the ‘official’ HGP) has neverclaimed that his DNA is better than any-one else’s. Further, Francis Collins, theUS Director of the HGP, has emphasisedthat the comparative sequence dataleave absolutely no room for racism orsexism based on DNA sequence.

Finally, having in some chaptersrejected interpretations based just oncorrelations, the final chapter of the bookfalls into exactly the same trap. In talk-ing of the increased incidence of hyper-tension (high blood pressure) in AfricanAmericans as compared with EuropeanAmericans (taking out as far as possible,all other social factors) and having notedthat the farther an African Americanpopulation lives from West Africa, thehigher, apparently, the incidence ofhypertension, Thistlethwaite concludesthat ‘Racism literally breaks the heart inincreased levels of hypertension.’ Andthen there are her throw-away lines,again based on ill-judged assumptions,such as ‘Feminist bioethicists continue tobe concerned that a Cartesian dualismpredominates in their field,’ presumingthat male bioethicists (or for that mattermale theologians) are not – does sheknow this?

Book Reviews


Thus I find Adam, Eve and the Genomean unsatisfactory book but since I am awhite, heterosexual, male genetic scien-tist I guess that the contributors to thebook may come back with ‘He would saythat, wouldn’t he.’ So, some of our readersmay wish to find out whether my reac-tion to the book is simply based on myprejudices. However, I am inclined to sug-gest borrowing a copy rather thansplashing out on a purchase.

John A Bryant is Professor of Cell andMolecular Biology at the University ofExeter and Visiting Professor of Mole-cular Biology at West Virginia StateUniversity, USA

William A. DembskiThe Design Revolution: answering thetoughest questions about IntelligentDesignLeicester: InterVarsity Press, 2004.334pp. pb £12.99. ISBN 1-84474-014-5

This is the latest in a series of bookswhich Dembski has written or co-authored on the subject of intelligentdesign. It is in one sense introductory,and aimed at a non-specialist audiencewho are not familiar with the subject; onthe other hand it includes a good deal ofargument and discussion, which partlydepends on prior knowledge of the sub-ject. Dembski’s contention is that Dar-winian theory is not able to explain cer-tain features of living organisms, whichin his view can only have originated bythe intervention of an intelligent agent,not by the outworking of ‘natural laws’unguided by such an intelligence.

The structure of the book is unusual: thechapters are much shorter than usual(there are forty-four of them altogether),and each of them attempts to answer onequestion, usually a question critical ofintelligent design. These are apparentlythe kind of arguments that the authoruses when lecturing and taking part indiscussions, for example with a student

audience. The short sections arearranged in six broad groups, entitledBasic Distinctions, Detecting Design,Information, Issues arising from Natu-ralism, Theoretical Challenges to Intelli-gent Design, and A New Kind of Science.

An advantage of this method is that it isquite focused, and it is easier for a readerto identify a particular area of interest:so for example, the suggestion that intel-ligent design is really equivalent to theposition commonly known as ‘God of thegaps’ is countered in a chapter entitledArgument from Ignorance, in the sectionon Theoretical Challenges. However afair amount of repetition is involved,which is unhelpful, and makes the booklonger than it might have been. The aca-demic level of the sections is also quitevariable; some are quite technical, othersinformal and chatty.

Dembski makes it clear that he writes asa Christian; on the other hand, he repeat-edly asserts that intelligent design is ascientific theory, that the ‘specified com-plexity’ which points to a designer can beobjectively identified by scientific meth-ods, and that whether the designer is tobe identified with God or with some otherinfluence is not an essential part of thetheory. It is therefore a little surprisingto find this book published under aspecifically Christian imprint.

I am glad that I have read the book andrecommend it to others; it raises interest-ing and important questions in a read-able way; it encouraged me to want toread the more technical books on whichthis work depends. It challenged me totry to think more clearly about the waysin which I may understand more fullythe way in which the wisdom of the cre-ator may have been expressed in his cre-ation. I remain unhappy about andunconvinced by the basic thesis, partlybecause it is so strongly aimed at dis-crediting Darwinism as an explanation ofbiological complexity, while ignoringthose remarkable features of the basicphysical laws which physicists tend touse to suggest intelligent design at a very

Book Reviews


deep level. I am also unconvinced that hesuccessfully defends his position againstbeing a version of the ‘God of the gaps’philosophy, or that he makes a goodenough case that intelligent design canbecome a viable scientific research pro-gramme. There is no doubt that there areawesome difficulties to be faced inexplaining the origin both of life itselfand of some of the particular structuresin living things, such as the bacterial fla-gellum. Christians have a prior commit-ment to the belief that intelligence –God’s wisdom – is the ultimate source ofall that is, not merely an unintended out-come of random biological processes. Butit is not clear that they have a prior com-mitment to a belief that ‘natural’processes cannot produce complexity.

The book is also published in the USA(Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press,ISBN 0-8308-3216-5).

Paul Wraight has retired from teach-ing physics and electronics atAberdeen University, and is pursuingamong other interests the relevance ofmodern cosmology to Christian belief.

John Bryant and John SearleLife in Our Hands: A ChristianPerspective on Genetics and CloningLeicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 2004, 191pp. pb. £9.99. ISBN 0-85111-795-3

I am delighted to see the publication ofthis book for three major reasons. Thefirst is that the authors are prepared tostate in clear terms that they do not con-sider that the human person commencesat conception. Regardless of where onestands on this matter, it is important tobe able to acknowledge that evangelicalChristians can adopt different stancesand can express their views in a bookwith an evangelical publisher. Theauthors make it clear that there is ampleroom for disagreement among believers,and they do not hint that their position isthe ‘correct’ one. The second reason I like

this book is that scientific and clinicalissues are taken seriously, not surprisingperhaps seeing that these are the disci-pline areas of the two authors. Neverthe-less, there is a realism here that is wel-come. The third reason is the irenic toneof the writing and the openness of theauthors to the difficulties, complexitiesand uncertainties of the subject matter.They write, ‘damage is caused whenChristians disagree stridently, with hos-tility towards each other, and with accu-sations about the Christian commitmentof the other side’ (177).

If some with more conservative viewson these topics are put off by these com-ments that would be very sad. This isbecause the authors unequivocallydemonstrate their commitment to Scrip-ture and strive to apply it to genetic andallied questions. Indeed, with increasingattention being paid to these questions, itwould be very surprising if there wereuniformity of viewpoint within the evan-gelical world. After all, the biblical under-pinnings are far from definitive, espe-cially when compared with the relativelyspecific biblical teaching on many otheraspects of human behaviour and rela-tionships (where Christians still dis-agree).

In this book John Bryant, the geneti-cist, and John Searle, the clinician andordained minister, range widely from themeaning of ethics and theologicaldebates about the image of God andstewardship, through to the scientific ter-ritory of manipulating genes in plantsand humans, and on to the thornydebates about genetic enhancement andstem cell technology. Perhaps their com-pass is too broad, although it serves as auseful introductory text.

Right at the outset they are explicitabout what they see as the fundamentalproblem: ‘for many of [these issues] theBible does not contain precise guidance’(7-8). Consequently, they recognise that‘Christians who are equally committed tofollowing the teaching of Scripture cometo different conclusions.’ This sets the

Book Reviews


scene, allowing them to acknowledge thatdecisions we make may be imperfect andprovisional. They write, ‘the world inwhich [Christians] function is imperfect,their own transformation into Christ-likeness is not complete, and the dawn ofGod’s new earth and heavens is not yet’(31). It is a pity that this foundationalprinciple is not worked out in moredetail.

When the authors tackle the status ofthe human embryo they express theirtrepidation and their sense of inadequacy(47). They are realistic about the clinicalconsequences of adopting an absolutistview on the protectability of the embryo,and they conclude that, ‘life begins atimplantation’ (56-58). Their reasons foradopting this position are scientific, bibli-cal (and the dangers of what they callreverse transposition, applying scientificknowledge to Scripture), and ethical (thecharacter of decision-making in a fallenworld). They describe their approach asone of principled pragmatism, which theyview as a biblical application of theresponsibility placed upon us by Scrip-ture (59). Once more, these are excep-tionally important points, and a detailedexposition of them could have provedimmensely helpful.

The chapter on ‘Stewardship or Domin-ion?’ is surprisingly brief, but containsvaluable discussion affirming the place ofscience in God’s world. The authors arguethat they can see no biblical justificationfor the position that there are some areasof knowledge from which God haswarned us away. A whole chapter couldhave been devoted to this exceedinglyimportant point, which has become abone of contention in some Christian cir-cles.

While the discussion of GM crops mayseem a little removed from the human-centred emphasis of the remainder of thebook, the scientific expertise of one of theauthors comes to the fore here, as well asthe flack he has had to take over his rel-atively positive stance on this emotiveissue. Once again, they are open about

their conclusions from a Christian angle.They write: ‘GM is a very useful tool inthe plant-breeder’s armoury. In reachingthis conclusion we can identify no theo-logical, intrinsic or deontological objec-tion to GM technology…’ (89). They donot shy away from the broader issues ofrisk, bias against the poor, and sustain-ability. Even those who disagree withtheir conclusions should appreciate theintegrity and honesty with which theissues are discussed, surely a basic pre-requisite for any debate involving Chris-tians.

The pragmatism of the authorsemerges clearly in their discussion ofgenetic diseases, especially with respectto prenatal diagnosis and termination ofpregnancies in some instances of verysevere genetic conditions. Their discus-sion of pre-implantation genetic diagno-sis (PGD) and PGD with tissue typing isassisted by reference to actual cases inthe UK, and the way in which differentethical principles sometimes meet inhead-on conflict. Their defence ofgermline gene therapy will surprisemany, and yet their brief discussion of itis within a framework of the Christianmandate to heal, and of the central sig-nificance of our attitudes towards thesick and vulnerable. However, they adopta conservative stance on reproductivecloning, their ultimate objections beinghypothetical ones.

If I can be allowed one small gripe: theauthors are somewhat eclectic in thebooks and articles by evangelical authorsthey refer to. While I do not expect refer-encing to be exhaustive, other evangeli-cal writers have expressed very similarpositions previously. Acknowledgementof this would have demonstrated that thevery balanced case being made in thisbook is more common within the evan-gelical constituency than some wouldhave us believe.

Gareth Jones is Professor of Anatomyand Structural Biology at the Univer-sity of Otago, New Zealand

Book Reviews


Philip Clayton and ArthurPeacocke (eds.)In Whom We Live and Move and HaveOur Being: Panentheistic Reflectionson God’s Presence in a Scientific WorldEerdmans, 2004, 322 + xii pp. pb.£24.99/$35.00. ISBN 0-8028-0978-2.

Susan Howatch’s Bishop Charles Ash-worth says of panentheism: ‘That’s whatpantheists claim to believe when they’retrying to pass off their belief as orthodox.’Though as Brierley points out it cannotbe dismissed as a ‘fudge’ term.(4) Thisvolume gathers together several theolo-gians and scientists all who wouldlargely advocate a panentheist view; theen making all the difference. The bookgrew out of a symposium sponsored bythe Templeton foundation held at StGeorge’s House, Windsor.

Panentheism is attractive to many asit provides a way of integrating a con-temporary scientific world-view with the-ology, and in particular it provides a par-adigm for considering divine action with-out resorting to interactionism; however,this can soon lead into a form of natu-ralised theism with a non-interactingGod. After reading this book I am moreconvinced that there are many differentpanentheisms; some that are little differ-ent from classical theism and others thatverge on pantheism with a process theol-ogy sitting midway between theextremes.

The book is split into five main sec-tions. The introductory section contains asummary by Peacocke and an excellentreview piece by Michael Brierley. Brier-ley identifies several ‘common panenthe-istic themes’; these include: the cosmosas God’s body; the language of ‘in andthrough’; the cosmos as sacrament; God’sdependence on the cosmos; God’s passi-bility; and a degree Christology. Thoughit is clear from the rest of the contribu-tions in the book not all would agree withall these common themes.

The next section looks at panentheisticinterpretations of the God-world rela-

tionship. Gregersen identifies threeforms of panentheism: soteriological,expressivist and dipolar panentheism.David Ray Griffin then provides aprocess theologian’s view. Keith Wardexamines the views of Ramjuna, anIndian who, in the twelfth century, main-tained that the world is the body of God.Other contributors in this section includeChris Knight and Clayton.

In the section on scientific perspec-tives, Paul Davies and Russell Stannardboth provide articles that illustrate howto popularise science without beingpatronising – though I felt the connec-tions to panentheism were a littlestretched!

Theological perspectives – both East-ern and Western – provide the basis forthe next section. The Eastern perspec-tives supplied by Kallistos Ware,Nesteruk and Louth. Ware writes: ‘Thereare thus good grounds for asserting thatJudaism, Christianity and Islam are fun-damentally “panenetheist”, if by “panen-theism” is meant the belief that God,while above the world, is at the sametime within the world, everywhere pres-ent as the heart of its heart, the core ofits core.’ (158-159). I must confess that Iam at a loss to see why this is any differ-ent from classical theism.

The Western perspective is supplied byDenis Edwards, Joseph Bracken, RuthPage (who prefers ‘pansyntheism’ – Godwith everything – as she sees some prob-lems in panentheism) and Celia Deane-Drummond, who stresses the need forproper reflection on the ‘radical particu-larity of Christ’ if panentheism is to beChristian rather than simply theist. Thefinal section is an afterword by Clayton.There is a four page index.

Particularly useful in this volume areBrierley’s review of the concept, Pea-cocke’s introductory overview and Clay-ton’s attempts to pull the diverse strandstogether in the form of a conclusion. Thebook provides an excellent collection oforiginal essays and will advance discus-

Book Reviews


sion regarding panentheism as a modelfor understanding the relationship ofGod to his world. However, I am still notconvinced that there is consensus regard-ing the term panentheism and that clas-sical theism, with its emphasis on tran-scendence and immanence, has all theadvantages of panentheism without thedisadvantage of sliding into pantheism ornaturalism.

Steve Bishop has degrees in physicsand theology and is a lecturer at Cityof Bristol College, Bristol

Garrett J. DeWeeseGod and the Nature of TimeAldershot & Burlington, VT: Ashgate,2004. 302 pp. pb. £16.99 ISBN 0-7546-3519-8

Garrett DeWeese’s work on God’s rela-tion to time has grown out of his realisa-tion that what he believed about the onecontradicted what he believed about theother. In his efforts to resolve that con-tradiction he has created a marvellouslyclear summary account both of classicalstatements and of contemporary restate-ments of the relationship. He makes noclaims to originality, but he does clearlyarticulate and defend certain thesesabout time and the nature of God.

DeWeese has structured his argumentin three parts. Part I explores the meta-physics and physics of time. He arguesforcefully for a dynamic theory of time,highlighting a number of weaknesses ofthe static view and defending thedynamic thesis against various criti-cisms. This leads him to outline a causalexplanation of the flow and direction oftime. In the next chapter, he continueshis defence of the dynamic theory bylooking at a number of criticisms arisingout of static interpretations of recentphysics. He demonstrates that there arereasonable responses to all these criti-cisms and concludes that the empiricalfindings of modern physics do not consti-

tute a decisive critique of dynamic time.Since he is satisfied that the philosophi-cal arguments strongly favour thedynamic theory, he proposes its reten-tion. Some practising physicists, particu-larly those involved in relativity theory,may find his conclusions unpalatablesince his responses include a neo-Lorentzian approach to relativity theory.

In Part II, DeWeese turns his attentionto Scripture and tradition. Chapter 4 is abrief summary of biblical material rele-vant to the question. His conclusion is inline with James Barr’s important study,Biblical Words for Time: ‘there is no clear,univocal biblical view of time or eternity,or of God’s relation to time’ (p. 110). Turn-ing from Scripture to tradition, he tracesthe medieval consensus that God isatemporally eternal from the Neopla-tonic influence on Augustine throughBoethius and Anselm to Aquinas, offeringadmirably clear summaries of the contri-butions of each of these key thinkers.That clarity is continued into Chapter 6where he explores several modernrestatements of divine atemporality.Along the way he points out how thisunderstanding of God seems to tend to astatic view of time (sometimes in spite ofefforts to maintain a dynamic view). Heargues that this tendency is strong evi-dence against divine atemporality. Inchapters 7 and 8, he repeats the proce-dure for the view that God is temporallyeverlasting, beginning with Duns Scotusand tracing its development through toLuis de Molina; then exploring the argu-ments in favour of divine temporalitymarshalled by several contemporaryphilosophical theologians.

Finally, in Part III, DeWeese develops atheory of divine omnitemporality, whichhe distinguishes from temporality, atem-porality and sempiternity. The implica-tions of this are sketched in a concludingchapter. Perhaps the most striking differ-ence between DeWeese’s model and thetraditional understanding of God is hisrejection of divine simplicity and strongimmutability. An omnitemporal God, who

Book Reviews


experiences a succession of mentalstates, cannot be the simple entity of tra-ditional philosophical theology. Clearlysuch a God undergoes internal changeand, therefore, cannot be immutable inthe strong sense. However, DeWeesemaintains a weak form of immutability,arguing that God’s non-relational proper-ties are necessarily unchanging. Withregard to God’s knowledge of future con-tingents, DeWeese recognises that this isproblematic if God is omnitemporal inthe sense developed here. However, hemaintains that the ‘cost’ of his approachis more than balanced by its greaterexplanatory power when applied to suchmatters as the doctrines of creation andprovidence, and the notion of petitionaryprayer.

I find myself strongly in sympathywith DeWeese’s thesis. However, I dohave some reservations about his causalapproach to temporality as it relates todivine omnitemporality. At first sight,bringing a causal theory of time to bearupon divine temporality has serious con-sequences for our understanding of theTrinity. If, with much trinitarian theol-ogy, we accept that the Father is in somesense the cause of the Trinity (the fonstrinitatis), does this mean there was a(divine) time when the Trinity was not? Idon’t think DeWeese’s thesis necessarilyleads to such a conclusion, but the ques-tion does suggest that further develop-ment of the thesis is necessary, involvinga closer analysis of the concept of causa-tion as it relates to time and God thanwas possible in a book of this length andwhose centre of attention lay elsewhere.

Given his clarity of exposition and hishelpful summaries of the major contribu-tions to this subject, DeWeese has pro-duced an excellent starting point for any-one wishing to undertake a serious studyof God’s relationship to time.

Lawrence Osborn is a theologian whohas written extensively on the interac-tion between Christianity and contem-porary culture.

John FosterThe Divine Lawmaker : Lectures onInduction, Laws of Nature, and theExistence of GodOxford: Clarendon Press, 2004. 191 pp.hb £30.00. ISBN 0-19-925059-6

John Foster, philosopher at Oxford Uni-versity, presented his proof of the exis-tence of God for the first time in an arti-cle titled ‘Regularities, Laws of Natureand the Existence of God’ (Proceedings ofthe Aristotelian Society CI, 2001, pp.145-161). He is now offering a longer ver-sion of the argument in this monograph.He constructs the argument as an infer-ence to the best explanation: the exis-tence of God provides the best explana-tion of nature’s uniformities and of therole they play in our inductive policies.Foster’s approach uses the conviction, asdo other natural theologies, that naturalorder demands, as explanation, thehypothesis of God’s existence. Howeverhe uses an original strategy: his argu-ment hinges on the idea that the conceptof natural law does not make sense out-side a theistic framework (72, 78f). Moreprecisely, Foster establishes his theisticproof in four steps: He introduces firstthe riddle of induction, famously formu-lated by Hume. Then, he defends ‘thenomological-explanatory solution’ to thisproblem: the observed regularity allowsto postulate, as its best explanation, the(objective) existence of a law, which inturn guarantees the inductive inferencetowards the future continuation of thesame regularity (47-49). After that, hetries to show that no naturalisticapproach to the notion of law is satisfac-tory; in particular that it seems difficult,or even impossible, to understand the’natural’ necessity of laws, which standssomewhere in between strict logicalnecessity and pure contingency. Finally,Foster proposes ‘a God of the relevant(broadly Judaeo-Christian) type’ as thesolution to the puzzle of natural neces-sity (2).

His book is well written and presents aclear line of argument. It is easy to read

Book Reviews


even for one who is not familiar with thecurrent philosophical debate about thelaws of nature. This advantage has, nev-ertheless, the drawback that the bookcovers much well known ground for any-one who is aware of these discussions.Such a reader may prefer to turn insteadto the article, in order to find a moredirect access to Foster’s main line ofargument. In general, Foster is wellinformed about the current achievementsin the field. One exception is his treat-ment of probabilistic laws, in the contextof quantum mechanics (53-56, 171f). Hedoes not seem to be aware of recentresults that allow for a probability-freeformulation of quantum theory (PeterMittelstaedt, The Interpretation of Quan-tum Mechanics and the MeasurementProcess, Cambridge: Cambridge U.P.,1998, chap.3). Using these results, onewould need to reframe the challenge thatthe quantum world poses for Foster’sargument. I also regret that Foster doesnot interact with the most recent refine-ments of David Armstrong’s account ofnatural law, whereas its older version fig-ures prominently in his argument (94-110).

Yet for the most part, one’s appreciationof Foster’s book will not depend on thedetails. What is far more important ishow one feels about his overall strategy:the effort to establish God’s existence asthe terminus of a philosophical argumentwhich pretends to be ideologically andreligiously neutral (80f, 126f). As a conse-quence, Foster’s God is completely trans-parent to human reason. Even themodalities of creation are open to ratio-nalist investigation. In order to save ourcommon-sense beliefs on dispositions, wecan assume that God has implementedlaws according to which the universeevolves from an initial state, instead ofcreating all the details of its evolution(169). Foster does not even refrain fromreasoning about ‘divine psychology’.Thus, he thinks that ‘our knowledge ofthe mind of God [— acquired solely byphilosophical reflection! —] make[s] itrational to suppose that he would set a

premium on nomological uniformity’(183). In front of such a confidence in thecapacities of human reason to work outthe nature of both the universe and itsCreator, it is no slip that Foster writesthat ‘the God whose existence we are nowassuming conforms to the requirementsof the theistic account’ (183, my italics). Ifyou want to read an argument for theexistence of God, elaborated in the spiritof analytical philosophy of religion, turnto Foster’s monograph. But be aware: thistype of argument does not lead any fur-ther than to the god of the philosophers.And this might well be not far enough.

Lydia Jaeger did postgraduate studiesin physics and mathematics, in theol-ogy and in philosophy of science andteaches theology at the Bible Instituteof Nogent-sur-Marne (France).

Graeme FinlayEvolving CreationAuckland: TELOS Publications, 2004. 46pp, pb, NZ$9.95, ISBN 0-476-00650-3

God’s Books: Genetics & GenesisAuckland: TELOS Publications, 2004. 75pp, pb, NZ$9.95, ISBN 0-476-00651-1

Graeme Finlay lectures in General (sci-entific) Pathology in the Department ofMolecular Medicine and Pathology at theUniversity of Auckland, New Zealand. Hehas a doctorate in cell biology and a bach-elor’s degree in theology. These bookletshave been written to counter the viewthat evolution and a biblical understand-ing of creation are mutually exclusive.They are aimed at a university studentreadership.

Evolving Creation is the more general ofthe two booklets. It assumes the main-stream scientific view of the universe asone in which there has been progressivedevelopment of physical and biologicalentities from the ‘Big Bang’ to humanbeings. It argues for an essential compat-

Book Reviews


ibility between science and theology. Var-ious common confusions (e.g. betweenscience and scientism, evolution and evo-lutionism, creation and creationism) arehelpfully discussed and dispelled. Thereis an interesting chapter on ‘The place ofnatural theology’ and a helpful one on‘Suffering’. This is a helpful introductorybooklet on science and Christianitywhich I would not hesitate to lend to stu-dents, including non-Christians, who areinterested in that area.

God’s Books: Genetics and Genesisargues that ‘the scientific understandingof evolution is based on overwhelmingevidence, and that the evolutionary his-tory that science has discovered is part ofthe creative work of God’ (back cover).The evidence referred to here is thatderived from molecular genetics. In thelight of this, Finlay argues, ‘We now knowthat humans have evolved. When thisstrategically vital fact is realized, allother theologically-motivated contro-versy regarding evolutionary sciencebecomes redundant’ (10). Finlay acceptsthat this is a ‘startling’ claim. The evi-dence for it is given in chapter 3, whichcovers much the same ground as Finlay’spaper in S&CB 15.1, 17. This is not easyreading for those who know little or nomolecular genetics. Indeed Finlay says ofit, ‘If this section appears excessivelytechnical, it may be skipped, and the dis-cussion rejoined again at section 4’ (13).This is a pity, and one can only wonderwhether it might have been possible topresent the evidence in a simpler, morereadily accessible way. However, even forthose who do skip chapter 3, there is a lotof good material in the booklet. There arechapters that discuss the compatibility ofan evolutionary understanding of thecosmos and human origins with Genesis1-3 and with the Christian theology ofcreation. The final chapter has an inter-esting discussion that seeks to show thatan evolutionary understanding of God’screative activity is compatible with thenature of God as revealed in the biblicalaccount of the history of salvation. Thebooklet is aimed primarily at Christians.

Both booklets are attractively produced.They are a welcome resource for encour-aging and helping students to thinkthrough the issues with which they deal.Their brevity adds to their usefulness. Itis to be hoped that a UK publisher mighttake them up. Meanwhile, they can beobtained through the CiS PublicationsSecretary.

[TELOS Publications are availablethrough the CiS Book Secretary]

Ernest Lucas worked in biochemicalresearch for some years before study-ing theology. He is now Vice-Principaland Tutor in Biblical Studies at Bris-tol Baptist College.

Henry F. Schaefer IIIScience and Christianity: Conflict orCoherence?Watkinsville, Georgia, USA: The ApollosTrust, 2004. 201 pp. pb. No price stated.ISBN 097429750X

This is a very personal book. During thelast twenty years the author has given aseries of over 190 lectures to universityaudiences in the USA and around theworld on the general theme of Scienceand Christianity, and here he has pro-vided a printed version, along with anintroduction. He is Professor of Chem-istry and Director of the Center for Com-putational Quantum Chemistry at theUniversity of Georgia, and has workedfor many years in the field of molecularquantum mechanics.

The topics addressed range quitewidely, including the numerous eminentscientists from the seventeenth centuryto the present who have been committedChristians (as well as those who havenot), a ‘nondebate’ with Steven Weinberg,cosmology and creation (‘The Big Bang,Stephen Hawking, and God’), evolution-ary theory (‘Climbing Mount Improbable:Evolutionary Science or Wishful Think-

Book Reviews


ing?’), ‘Quantum Mechanics and Post-modernism’, ‘C. S. Lewis and scientism’,‘Ten Questions Intellectuals ask aboutChristianity’ (actually twenty-one), andtwo autobiographical final chapters.

The science and the Christianity arewell mixed, illustrating the coherence ofthe title. Schaefer came relatively late tofaith, and describes the stages by whichhe did so. The personal testimony whichpervades the book is exemplified in thepassage where he states ‘If you were toask the average Ph.D. chemist on thestreet what my most important discoverywas, he or she would probably say “thestructure of methylene.” … But the mostimportant discovery of my life was mydiscovery of Jesus Christ.’

The theological stance throughout isone of evangelical orthodoxy, but not inany narrow sense. The author finds nodifficulty in believing that the universestarted with the ‘Big Bang’ about 14 bil-lion years ago, that the earth was formedabout 4.6 billion years ago, that lifebegan more than 3.8 billion years agoand that humans appeared about100,000 years ago. However he is criticalof what he calls the ‘standard model’ ofevolution, and adopts ‘progressive cre-ation’ in preference to ‘theistic evolution’.His reasons are largely based upon thescientific evidence, and focus on the ori-gin of life, the origin of phyla, and thelack of testable predictions. He quoteswith approval the writings of PhillipJohnson and seems inclined towards theintelligent design viewpoint, withoutespousing its more extreme forms. He isquite explicit, however, that these mat-ters are not of crucial importance, andthat the differences between Christiansin respect of them should not be accordedgreat significance.

The index lists solely the names of thenumerous people quoted or referred to,and there are appendices giving detailsof the author’s career and the dates andplaces where the lectures have beengiven. The book is easy to read, and thesmall amount of repetition arising from

its origins as a series of lectures does notobtrude. It would be suitable for anyoneconcerned about the supposed conflictbetween science and Christianity, andalso for anyone who is inclined to keeptheir faith and their science in separatecompartments.

John Bausor is a retired science edu-cationist.

William A. Dembski and MichaelRuse (eds.)Debating Design: From Darwin toDNACambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress, 2004. 405 pp. hb. £35. ISBN 0 52182949 6

Design has seen something of a come-back in the last few decades. The bigbang theory, the anthropic principle anddevelopments in cell biology are threereasons why design is now debated byprofessional philosophers. One importantsubset of design is Intelligent Design(ID), defined here as ‘the hypothesis thatin order to explain life it is necessary tosuppose the action of an unevolved intel-ligence’ (3). It would be a truism to saythat ID is controversial! Recent yearshave seen a proliferation of books dealingwith it. Why then the need for another?The advantage of this book is that itpresents many sides of the various argu-ments and by experts in their fields. Inmany ways this is a companion book toNeil Manson (ed.) God and Design (Lon-don: Routledge, 2003). In fact many of theauthors in Manson’s book are alsoauthors in Dembski and Ruse’s (Swin-burne, Davies, Dembski, Ruse, Miller,and Sober). The Manson book is largelymore philosophical and this one gener-ally focuses on the scientific, particularlythe biological.

The book is divided into five main sec-tions. The introduction comprises anoverview by the editors and pieces byRuse and Mengue. Ruse provides an out-

Book Reviews


line of the 2500-year old design argu-ment from Socrates to Dawkins andHolmes Rolston III. Mengue gives a briefhistory of the ID movement and at thesame time exposes the fallacies and nonsequiturs in Barbara Forrest and PaulGross’ Trojan Horse.

In Part 1 on Darwinism, Francis Ayala,a former Catholic priest and eminentbiologist, claims that Darwin has expli-cated the mechanism for design and thusthere is no need to propose an intelligentdesigner. He also argues that the ‘design’of organisms is not ‘intelligent’ as theyare full of dysfunctions, cruelties andwastes – an argument similar to that ofthe atomist Lucretius. He suggests thatintelligent design may be natural theol-ogy but it certainly is not science. Ayaladoes, however avoid scientism, as henotes that science although successfuland encompassing is not the only way ofknowing. Kenneth Miller focuses onBehe’s ‘irreducible complexity’; he exam-ines the eubacterial flagellum and claimsresearch has shown that it is not anexample of irreducible complexity. Soberprovides an excellent general overview ofthe design argument. Robert Pennockexamines the work of Stephen Meyer andclaims that it is grounded in Christianpresuppositions – which to most readersof this journal wouldn’t be an argumentto dismiss ID!

Part 2, Complex self-organisation, con-tains four essays, by authors who are todifferent extents critical of the neo-Dar-winian paradigm but think that the com-plexity in ‘nature’ is a result of the simplelaws of physics and chemistry. StuartKaufman has termed this view ‘order forfree’ and in his piece confesses that at themoment we don’t have a ‘general biology’;here he raises interesting questions, butdoesn’t supply solutions. Weber andDepew, Christian biologists, rightly writeof their concern by Behe et al. to recoverPaley’s design argument. They maintainto do so may ‘expose theism even morenakedly to the withering winds of radicalsecularism’ (186).

In Part 3 Theistic evolution we findpresented an alternative Christian viewto ID. Although given the rather broaddefinition of ID – ‘Some supporters ofIntelligent Design think that this intelli-gence works in tandem with a limitedform of evolution’ (3) – in the introduc-tion, one could be left wondering if, bythat definition, theistic evolution couldeven be called ID!

John Haught argues that Darwinism isnot necessarily inherently materialisticand that design is not necessarily essen-tial to the concept of providence. Polking-horne examines the ‘inbuilt potentialityof creation’ he sees the ongoing creationas an evolving, open and precariousprocess. Keith Ward selectively utilisessome of the ideas of Teilhard de Chardinto argue that God creates an‘autonomous, purposive universe’ that ispart of a ‘self-realisation by God’ (267).Michael Roberts’ main contention, amongothers, is that intelligent design does notpay enough attention to the age of theearth and deep time. He also shows thatID is very different from Paley’s argu-ment. ID he argues is more a design rhet-oric than a design argument. Swin-burne’s chapter focuses on the ‘argumentfrom the laws of nature’ and is an updateof ch 8 of his The Existence of God.

Part 4 is on Intelligent Design. HereDembski, Behe, Meyer and WilliamBradley present their case(s) for ID.Dembski concludes his piece by assert-ing: ‘Intelligent Design may not be cor-rect. But the only way we could discoverthis is by admitting design as a real pos-sibility not ruling it out a priori’ (329),which he claims is what evolutionarybiology does. Behe provides a helpfulsketch of his irreducible complexity con-cept. Meyer compares the explanatorypower of neo-Darwinism, self-organisa-tion and ID with respect to the ‘origin ofinformation that arises during the Cam-brian [explosion]’ (373). He concludesthat the Cambrian explosion ‘attests tothe power and activity of a purposiveintelligence’ (389).

Book Reviews


There is a 13-page index and eachessay has its own endnotes and refer-ences. The strength of the book is that itpresents the many different argumentsfrom philosophers, scientists, theologiansand mathematicians; however, the weak-ness is that there is no debate – despitethe title – between the different authors.It would have been particularly helpfulto have had Miller’s take on Behe’s pieceand vice versa as well as Meyer’s com-ments on Pennock’s. Nevertheless thiswill be an indispensable book for allthose, for whatever the reason, with aninterest in design and ID.


Peter BarrettScience and Theology sinceCopernicus: the search forunderstandingLondon: T & T Clark, 2004. 208 pp. pb.£12.99. ISBN 0-567-08970-3

The original South African (UNISA) edi-tion of this book was reviewed in S&CB13.2 190-191. This new edition (the textis unchanged apart from minor correc-tions) makes it more readily available inEurope and North America.

Denis Alexander and Robert S.WhiteBeyond Belief: Science, faith andethical challengesOxford: Lion Publishing, 2004. 220 pp pb£8.99. ISBN0 7459 5141 4

When asked to speak to a non-specialistaudience about the relationship betweenScience and Faith I sometimes struggleto recommend a suitable book that coversthe material at the right level. Many ofthe books that I have recommended inthe past are now out of print. Othersmake good meaty reading for the special-ist but are too complex and indigestible

for a more general audience. If you havefound yourself in the same position, thenBeyond Belief may be just what you havebeen looking for. It is written by twoCambridge scientists from different sci-entific disciplines, both committed Chris-tians and at the top of their fields. DenisAlexander is a respected MolecularImmunologist at The Babraham Insti-tute and Robert White is a Professor ofGeophysics and Royal Society Fellow inthe Department of Earth Sciences. Withthese credentials it is not surprising thatthe authors write with authority, clarityand accuracy whilst maintaining duerespect for both science and Scripture.

In the first chapter the authors con-sider what science is and what it is not,addressing both its power and its limita-tions. In Chapter 2 they move on toexplore the relationship between scienceand faith. They provide a strong critiqueof those like Richard Dawkins who seethe two disciplines as being in conflict.They are equally dismissive of the con-cordist approach that tries to force sci-ence to fit a particular view of scriptureand vice versa. Rather they arguestrongly for the complementarity of sci-ence and faith, each looking at the worldfrom a different perspective – the howand the why. These arguments areexpanded in the following chapters.Under the heading ‘Is science discred-ited?’ the authors first address theemerging cynicism of some, Christiansincluded, towards science. The extrava-gant claims of science that have notalways born fruit and the dehumanisingeffects of some technological advanceshave led many people to questionwhether we can trust science. This is aneasy bandwagon for some Christians tojump on when trying to justify theirapproach towards resolving conflictsbetween science and a particular inter-pretation of Scripture. However, theauthors argue that the Christian shoulddefend the scientific enterprise as a ful-filment of understanding how God worksin his world and beware of siding withpost-modern relativism. Chapter 4 is

Book Reviews


entitled ‘Is religion discredited?’ and herethe authors undermine the argumentused by the ‘High Priests of Science’ suchas Dawkins that the advance of our sci-entific understanding of the world hasruled God out of the picture. A fullerexplanation is given of the relationshipbetween the scientific and religiousexplanations of the natural world, includ-ing a brief historical overview. Sectionsare devoted to Natural Theology and theNew Age movement with some emphasison the dangers of drifting into deismrather than theism and of developing a‘God of the Gaps’ mentality. The designargument is also considered in somedetail. Whilst the importance of recognis-ing the hand of a creator in an improba-ble universe is recognised, the weaknessof the irreducible complexity argument ofthe ‘Intelligent Design’ movement ishighlighted as being a reversion to ‘Godof the Gaps’ thinking. I was especiallypleased to see a coherent critique ofIntelligent Design because many Chris-tians are ‘jumping on to the bandwagon’without realising the dangers of doing so.As scientists discover more explanationsfor what we currently fail to understand,as they surely will, such thinking willmake it appear that God has been dis-credited when he has not. In Chapter 5,under the heading ‘Science EncountersFaith’, the authors look at what differ-ence being a Christian makes to the waywe view the scientific enterprise. Issuescovered include how we approach theBible and the creation account (in partic-ular, the age of the earth), the ethicalstandards we should uphold and theresponsibility we should have towardsour stewardship of God’s creation. Over-all, there is the sense of wonder and wor-ship of our creator God that scientific dis-coveries bring to the Christian.

The second half of the book deals with‘Hot Issues for the 21st Century’ andincludes three chapters where theauthors consider topics such as geneticmodification, cloning, reproductive tech-nologies, evolution and creation, the envi-ronment and climate change and sus-

tainable consumption. In each case theauthors explain something of the scien-tific background to the topics, the ethicalissues that they raise and a Christianresponse. Inevitably, with the limitedspace allocated to each, none of the topicsis treated in depth; but what is written isaccurate, well informed and balanced – agood starting point for further study. Thefinal chapter of the book is entitled‘Christians in Science’ and highlights theimportance of having Christians in allareas of science. At the personal level,Christian scientists can approach theirresearch as worship, revealing themajesty of the Creator God, and also as afulfilment of God’s command to act asstewards of his creation. But they alsohave the responsibility to work withintegrity and bring Christian ethicalprinciples to bear on the scientificendeavour for the good of all mankindand not just the privileged few.

In conclusion, here is an excellent bookto have on one’s shelves both to informone’s own thinking and to lend to others.Along with Can we believe Genesistoday? by Ernest Lucas (IVP 2005; ISBN978-1-84474-120-5) it has become mybook of choice to recommend as a startingpoint for those wanting to explore issuesof science and faith.

Andrew Halestrap is a Professor ofBiochemistry at the University of Bris-tol.

David G. Myers & Malcolm A.JeevesPsychology Through the Eyes of FaithNew York: HarperSanFrancisco, 2003.243 + xii pp. pb. $14.95. ISBN 0-06-065557-7

This book, sponsored by the Washington-based Council for Christian Colleges &Universities (CCCU), an internationalassociation of some 160 mostly NorthAmerican ‘Christ-centred’ higher educa-

Book Reviews


tion institutes, is primarily addressed topsychology undergraduates. The first edi-tion was published in 1987 but apartfrom the statement on the cover that ithas been revised and updated, there is nospecific mention of the changes madeover the intervening six years. One of theauthors, Malcolm Jeeves, is well knownto members of CiS and readers of thisjournal while David Myers is a professorof psychology at Hope College in Michi-gan State.

The book is divided into thirty-twochapters, none of which is longer thantwelve pages. Three of them (14, 17 and30) are revisions or reprints of materialco-authored by Myers previously pub-lished in Christian magazines or books.Two further chapters (9 and 22) havebeen written by two of his colleaguesfrom Hope College, Thomas Ludwig andCharlotte van Oyen. Each chapter islocated in one of sixteen parts, the titlesof which closely match the contents of atypical undergraduate psychology text.However, their relative brevity makesthem considerably more attractive andwould certainly encourage a student todip into the book. An interesting featureat the beginning of each chapter is thepresentation of one or two quotationsfrom biblical or secular sources. The bookconcludes with just over eighteen pagesof ‘Notes’ (essentially reference citationsand suggested further reading) and acomprehensive index.

An appropriate opening chapter forsuch a book is to examine the relation-ship between science and the Christianfaith. Psychology’s claim to scientific sta-tus is widely accepted today and there-fore its hypotheses, experimental find-ings and interpretations, like other sci-ences, are objective and operate withinthe limits of the scientific method. Thismeans that, as with physics, chemistry orbiology, psychology is not inherently inconflict with religion and thereforeshould not be used as a means of under-mining faith, or indeed, as has becomerather fashionable today, to provide

‘physical proof ’ for the variety of spiritualexperiences or the existence of God.

The concluding chapter, which includesa page on ‘neurotheology’, cautionsagainst the readiness of some Christiansto seize upon the findings of experimentsusing structural (MRI) and functional(SPECT) neuroimaging techniques ‘toobjectify faith with the bells and whistlesof technology’ (214). ‘…science, insofar asit seeks and reveals truth, is a gift fromGod, a vehicle of revelation that coexistswith truths revealed in Scripture andinterpreted by scholars’ (210). This issound advice to any student of science orindeed established research scientist andit is pleasing to note that Myers & Jeeves‘bookend’ their text with comments onthe science-religion debate. In betweenwe have thirty chapters collected underthe major headings of the biological basisof behaviour, human development, sensa-tion and perception, learning and mem-ory, thought and language, motivation,emotion and personality, psychologicaldisorders, psychotherapy and social psy-chology. The authors approach their sub-ject from the viewpoint that psychology‘offers a limited but useful perspective onhuman nature that complements the per-spective of faith’ (17) and as such is opento both critique and application by theChristian. This means we should not betoo quick to dismiss or accept all the find-ings and hypotheses arising from psycho-logical research. This balanced approachcan be enthusiastically commended tostudents and the authors are to be con-gratulated for successfully achieving thisaim.

I have one suggestion on how presen-tation could be improved and that is inthe citation of references. The use ofsuperscript numerals in the text tomatch the details in the ‘Notes’ sectionwould be more helpful than the use ofpage numbers. The positioning of ‘furtherreading’ should also be consistent. In themajority of cases it is presented in the‘Notes’ but for chapters 4, 5 and 23 itappears at the end of the chapter. In a

Book Reviews


book with an excellent standard of proofreading, I only noticed one obvious errorand that was in the name of the Finnishuniversity, which is Turku not Turkey(p.169).

Alun Morinan teaches Psychopharma-cology in the School of Health & Bio-science at the University of East Lon-don.

Alan G. PadgettScience and the Study of God: AMutuality Model for Theology andScienceGrand Rapids, MI/Cambridge:Eerdmans, 2003. 218 pp. pb.£15.99/$22.00. ISBN 0-8028-3941-X

This collection of essays explores a mutu-ality model for the relationship betweenscience and Christian theology. Whatthat means is developed in the openingchapter by way of contrast with the oldconflict model of the relationship. Insteadof conflict Padgett perceives collegiality –a relationship of cooperation and mutualrespect that recognises the differenttasks of science and theology. Thus hepresents the proper relationship betweentheology and science as ‘an open dialogue… in which Christian scholars seek tobuild a world-view consistent with both… the search for the truth in both disci-plines, in order to develop a coherentworld-view that meets our religiousneeds and satisfies our scientific thirstfor knowledge’ (7). In such a dialogue,each discipline can and should learn fromthe other. And, Padgett insists, thisimplies that our theological beliefs canand should influence our beliefs in otherfields. Specifically, he argues that ‘If twoor more theories … are currently of equalstatus with respect to their reasonable-ness, the religious believer is fully justi-fied in choosing that view which is morein consonance with his theological world-view’ (19).

Chapter 2 explores the philosophicalbasis for this mutuality under the head-ing of ‘Dialectical Realism’. Why dialec-tic? Because Padgett stands in the philo-sophical tradition that sees contrastingperspectives as a potential source ofinsight. This is not a modern phenome-non. Padgett eschews the system build-ing of Hegelian (and Marxist) dialectic infavour of a more modest approach exem-plified in philosophy by Kierkegaard andAdorno and in theology by Abelard andEastern Orthodoxy. Readers of this jour-nal are probably less likely to ask ‘whyrealism?’, but one of Padgett’s answers tothe question is worth noting. He suggeststhat realism is motivated by humility, bythe conviction that human experiencecannot be the sole determinant of reality.

The next six chapters fall naturallyinto pairs exploring in turn science andworld-view, theological method and twocase studies of the mutuality model inpractice.

In chapter 3 (‘The Myth of a PurelyHistorical Jesus’) Padgett argues againstthe belief that it is possible to make avalue-free scientific study of religion.Instead he favours a post- (and pre-)modern approach that integrates faithand science. But this is only possible if weabandon the Western misunderstandingof faith as possessing epistemic certainty.Similarly, in chapter 4, he argues thatscience is guided by values that cannotbe justified by science itself. In the courseof this chapter he rejects both the scien-tism of some atheistic scientists and themethodological naturalism of some theis-tic scientists.

Having rejected rationalism and scien-tism in the sciences, Padgett turns hisattention to theological method. Chapter5 is a critique of process theology, whichhe presents as the foremost contempo-rary example of theological rationalism.He highlights its Procrustean nature: itstendency to edit Scripture and traditionto make them fit a Whiteheadian meta-narrative. In contrast, he favours a post-modern view of the theologian as a philo-

Book Reviews


sophical bricoleur who adopts philosoph-ical notions on a piecemeal basis, ‘seekingthe inner coherence of gospel truth andadapting those philosophical doctrinesthat may help us, in particular times andplaces, to advance that truth’ (96).Instead of theological rationalism, Pad-gett offers in chapter 6 a vision of theol-ogy as first and foremost an act of wor-ship. Its true purpose is ‘to know God, totell the truth about God, and to give gloryto God’ (107).

Chapters 7 and 8 offer two case studiesof the mutuality of theology and sciencein practice. The first of these, ‘Theology,Time, and Thermodynamics’ offers a verybrief overview of how theology can have arole in theory choice in the natural sci-ences. He suggests that ‘Thermodynam-ics supports the Christian doctrine thattime is linear, while Christian doctrinesupports the dynamic, irreversible viewof fundamental physics’ (135) as opposedto the time-symmetrical view of classicalphysics (and some interpretations of rel-ativity theory). While I happen to agreewith his conclusions, it has to be notedthat a different choice of theologiansmight have led to a very different conclu-sion.

Finally, in chapter 8 he argues that themethods of historical science can andshould influence theological positionsadopted on the basis of revelation. Specif-ically, he explores how the historical evi-dence can help us choose between com-peting Christologies.

The book finishes with some brief con-cluding reflections and an appendix oninformal inference for the professionalphilosophers among his readers.

This is a helpful book that makes someuseful points for the continuing develop-ment of the relationship between theol-ogy and science. In spite of the fact thatmost of the chapters have previouslybeen published in different forms, theargument flows well. Thanks to the factthat the most technical aspect of hisargument has been consigned to the

appendix it is also a fairly accessiblework. However, it would probably be ofmost benefit to readers who already havesome degree of familiarity with the sub-ject.

Lawrence Osborn is a theologian andeditor who has written extensively onthe interaction between Christianityand contemporary culture.

George RichterTheology of PhysicsPublished by the author in 2004, 184pp,no price or ISBN number given

The subject matter of this book is nar-rower than the title might suggest. Theauthor’s conviction is that the universehas not just the four dimensions of spaceand time with which we are familiar, butten dimensions, as suggested by manyversions of the supersymmetric stringtheory of elementary particles developedin recent years; that the six dimensionswhich are hidden from us are the spaceinhabited by God the Father and theangels (though he believes that the HolySpirit inhabits all ten dimensions). Heenvisages the time and space history ofthe world we live in as a tapestry sur-rounding the heaven where God dwells.It may be a familiar idea to think aboutGod’s relationship with our world ofspace and time by the analogy of inter-acting from a space of more dimensions;Dr Richter takes this idea not as an anal-ogy but as literal fact.

The book divides roughly into twohalves, though they are less well sepa-rated from each other than the spaces hedescribes. One part elaborates his beliefs,in a fairly down to earth and accessiblemanner; the other part consists of techni-cal quotations from papers about stringtheory, whose intention is to convince usthat physicists do really believe in tendimensions. The author is refreshinglyhonest enough to confess that he does not

Book Reviews


understand this part either! One ques-tions the value of including pages ofequations which are only accessible tothe specialist; your reviewer who is aphysicist but not a theoretical particlephysicist found many of these pages com-pletely impenetrable; but I am not theonly one who has difficulty distinguish-ing wheat from chaff at this rarifiedlevel.

Richter writes apparently from a tradi-tional Roman Catholic position, includ-ing not only Trinitarian theology, but alsoangels, saints and devils, and a promi-nent place for Mary the mother of theLord; he writes with a clear evangelisticconcern. After reading the book I decidedthat I liked him and would like to meethim, but remained completely uncon-vinced of his thesis; this is a very oddbook, and of limited interest and value.

[The book is available from Dr GeorgeRichter, PE, 2016 Merriam Lane, St PaulMN 55104, USA, [email protected]]

Paul Wraight has retired from teach-ing physics and engineering at theUniversity of Aberdeen, and is inter-ested in the relationship between mod-ern science and Christian belief, espe-cially design.

Paul Copan and William LaneCraigCreation out of Nothing: a Biblical,Philosophical and ScientificExplorationLeicester/ Grand Rapids: Apollos/ BakerAcademic, 2004. 280pp. pb.£14.99 ISBN 1-84474-038-2

Creatio ex nihilo (creation out of nothing)is an important doctrine that has comeunder fire in recent decades from theolo-gians such as Gerhard May and scientist-theologians such as Ian Barbour. Maycontends that creation ex nihilo is bibli-cally ambiguous and that it was a sec-

ond-century response to Gnostic ideas;Barbour rejects it in favour of anabsolute dependence of the universe onGod.

It is in response to these ideas thatCopan and Craig have teamed up towrite this inter-disciplinary book. Theyshow that creation out of nothing is bibli-cal, and scientifically and philosophicallygrounded. They don’t explore the richtheological implications of creatio exnihilo but do show that there is a verystrong cumulative case for the doctrineand that, contra May, it is a thoroughlybiblical one.

The first three chapters explore theOld Testament, the New Testament andmuch of the extra-biblical evidence. Attimes these chapters read like a richmosaic of commentators, but the conclu-sion in each one is that creation out ofnothing is not a second-century inven-tion; it is implicit in both testaments aswell as explicit in the Jewish and earlyChristian writings.

The second half of the book (chapters4-8) deals with scientific and philosophi-cal arguments. Chapter 5 exposes theerror that many – such as Barbour –make in conflating conservation and cre-ation: ‘Creation is distinct from conserva-tion in that creation does not presupposea patient entity but involves God’s bring-ing something into being’ (165).

Chapter 5 explores the problem of thecreation of abstract objects such as math-ematics concepts. They examine threepossible solutions: absolute creationism(which seems to be anything butabsolute!), fictionalism and conceptual-ism. They conclude that much creativework is being done and still remains to bedone on this issue; hence, they are notprepared to pronounce judgment overwhich solution is the most plausible. (Iam tempted to say none of the three theymention!)

The impossibility of an infinite past isexplored in Chapter 6. Chapter 7 exam-ines two broad lines of scientific evidence

Book Reviews


that the universe is not eternal and thatit had an origin a finite time ago. Thefirst of these evidences is the expansionof the universe and the standard bigbang model of creation; the second, ther-modynamics.

The final chapter examines naturalis-tic alternatives to creation ex nihilo;namely, that the universe created itselfand that the universe sprang into exis-tence uncaused out of nothing. Here theyably show the fallacious nature of thesearguments.

One need not agree with all their argu-ments, but Copan and Craig have pro-vided an excellent, inter-disciplinary andtimely cumulative case for creatio exnihilo.


Norman C. Habel & VickyBalabanski (eds.)The Earth Story in the New TestamentLondon: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002.xx + 225 pp. pb £25.00. ISBN 0-8264-6060-7

‘My own conviction is that there is nomore urgent task for biblical scholarsthan the work undertaken in these vol-umes’, writes Professor Denis Edwards,senior lecturer in systematic theology atthe Adelaide College of Divinity andFlinders University of South Australia,in a preface to this book, the last of fivevolumes in the Earth Bible project,headed by Norman C. Habel, also ofFlinders University and the AdelaideCollege of Divinity.

This five volume project (the previousvolumes all published by Sheffield Acad-emic Press), undertaken by biblical schol-ars from a wide spread of geographicallocations – Brazil, Canada, USA, South

Africa, but predominantly Australia –works from the burning conviction thatChristians, as culpable as any in gener-ating the ecological crisis with which theworld is grappling, have often failed tomake connections with the biblical rootsof their faith. This review deals with thelast volume of the project, which concen-trates on texts from the New Testament.There is no attempt to treat the New Tes-tament as a whole; rather, each of theinvited contributors works with selectedtexts that range from the synopticgospels (Matt. 6:25-34; Mk. 1:1-15; 13;Lk. 9:62; 12:13-34), the fourth gospel (Jn.1 – 3; 9:1-11) through Acts 7 and one arti-cle on the Pauline epistles (Eph. 1) toHebrews 11 and Revelation 12.

While such a piecemeal approach mayraise questions as to method and scope, itis important to see this in the light of twofundamental principles on which theEarth Bible Project rests, and which areevident in the treatment of New Testa-ment texts in this volume.

The first is the concept of ‘ecojustice’. Itis worth enumerating the six principleswhich express it, together with the vol-ume’s own short commentary on each.

1. The Principle of Intrinsic Worth. Theuniverse, Earth and all its componentshave intrinsic worth/value.

2. The Principle of Interconnectedness.Earth is a community of intercon-nected living things that are mutuallydependent on each other for life andsurvival.

3. The Principle of Voice. Earth is a sub-ject capable of raising its voice in cele-bration and against injustice.

4. The Principle of Purpose. The universe,Earth and all its components are partof a dynamic cosmic design withinwhich each piece has a place in theoverall goal of that design.

5. The Principle of Mutual Custodian-ship. Earth is a balanced and diversedomain in which responsible custodi-

Book Reviews


ans can function as partners, ratherthan rulers, to sustain a balanced anddiverse Earth community.

6. The Principle of Resistance. Earth andits components not only suffer frominjustices at the hands of humans, butactively resist them in the struggle forjustice.

These principles have been developedby members of the Earth Bible team indialogue with experts from a variety ofdisciplines concerned with the continuedwell-being of planet earth. In each of thearticles in the present volume writersallow one or more of these principles tointeract with selected New Testamenttexts.

It is not so much what these principlessay that causes the present reviewer dif-ficulty, as what they do not say, and whatseems to be implicitly assumed through-out. What they do not explicitly allow foris that there is a particular place forhuman beings in creation – either interms of privilege, or responsibility, orboth. The obvious place where this mightcome from, namely Genesis 1:26-28, isjudged, in the light of the ecojustice prin-ciples used to examine the Bible, to behierarchical and anthropocentric, andincapable of being interpreted in terms of‘stewardship’ (p.10)

Also implicit throughout, stated explic-itly only by Archbishop Desmond Tutu inhis foreword as a question, is theassumption that any text which pro-motes human interest must be judged toreflect human self-interest. ‘Earth Biblewriters are now confronting us with theanthropocentric nature of much of thebiblical text. We now ask: does the textdevalue earth by making the self-interestof humans its dominant concern?’ (vii)

The second fundamental principle isthat biblical texts are approached using a‘hermeneutic of suspicion’. The introduc-tory essay ‘Hermeneutics: Reflectionsand Challenges’ attributed to the EarthBible Team rather than to the editor,explains how this works:

We suspect that biblical texts, writtenby humans to meet human circum-stances, will reflect human interestsat the expense of the non-humanEarth community. We suspect thatmany texts will therefore be overtlyanthropocentric. And even wheretexts are theocentric, they are likelyto be more concerned about God’srelationship with humanity thanwith the fate of creation – the Earthcommunity seen as a whole – as such.(1)

This kind of approach has already beenused in other types of biblical study,notably in liberation theology and femi-nist analysis of the scriptures. It isimportant here to make a distinctionbetween two separate ways in which thehermeneutic of suspicion can work. Oneargues that biblical texts have been usedto justify exploitation, even though acloser examination of the text may showthat this is unjustified. The theologicalundergirding of apartheid in SouthAfrica is a notable case in point. Theother places the blame squarely on thetexts themselves; they therefore ‘resistretrieval’ as texts which could conceiv-ably be used in an ecofriendly way. In thepresent volume Mark 13 and 2 Peter 3are judged to belong clearly in this cate-gory. How are such conclusions reached?

It seems to the reviewer that there isan important distinction to be made herebetween ‘open’ and ‘closed’ approaches. Inthe former the Bible is approached with amind open to two possibilities: on the onehand, that at least some biblical textsmay exhibit an attitude which betraysinsensitivity to the world of creation; andon the other, that the Bible may showthroughout an approach that is creation-friendly. A statement such as this fromthe introductory essay seems to point inthis direction: ‘Numerous texts need to bethoroughly analysed in terms of the eco-justice principles – both as described inthis project and developed in response toor independently of it – to determinetheir relative contribution to ecotheology,

Book Reviews


ecoethics and the practical task of recon-necting us to our environment’ (14).

In the ‘closed’ approach, the conclusionis predetermined: there are scriptureswhich by their very nature and contentbetray a hostility towards creation,incompatible with the ecojustice princi-ples previously stated. Such an approachis found near the opening of Habel’s ownessay on the prologue to John’s Gospel:‘… I begin with the suspicion that theprologue of John, written in an ancientGreek social context, is likely to reflectan ancient dualism similar to the popu-lar dualisms that have developed inWestern society’ (76).

Something of this bias is displayed inthe introductory essay, here expressingimpatience with other New Testamentcommentators who may not have come tosimilar sceptical conclusions: ‘… evenafter exploring the social, religious andcultural context of a passage, there is ageneral reluctance on the part of manywriters to discern those components ofthe text in context that are forcefullyanthropocentric, embrace injusticetowards earth, devalue creation or depictGod as actively destroying components ofEarth’ (2).

Individual essays that follow come tovaried conclusions. Thus Adrian Leskeapproaches Matthew 6:25-34 fairly sym-pathetically, relating the text to an escha-tology which is both realised and future.Barbara Rossing rightly sets Revelation12 in the context of an anti-imperialpolemic in which both the poor and theearth itself cry out for justice.

Other essays adopt thoroughly scepti-cal approaches. William Loader on Jesusin the wilderness (Mk. 1:1-15), togetherwith his actions in calming the storm(Mk. 4:35-41), walking on the waters(Mk. 6:45-52) and feeding miracles (Mk.6:35-44; 8:1-10) ‘all subordinate the natu-ral processes of earth to manipulationthat benefits human beings’ (41).

Because of the fragmentary approachto scripture, central Christian themes

such as incarnation, cross, resurrectionand eschatology hardly get a mention,although the introductory essay by theEarth Bible Team does ask whether theincarnation indicates that God does notstand outside the natural world ‘but is anintegral part of the life-drive itself ’ (7).Habel’s own answer, in his essay on John1, is exactly the opposite: ‘the transcen-dent God is viewed as outside creationand that when the Word “tents” in fleshthis is only a transitory abode of a Godwho descends “from above” only to returnthere again’ (7). In the light of TomWright’s award-winning book on the res-urrection (N.T. Wright, The Resurrectionof the Son of God. London: SPCK 2003),this is hardly consistent with the insis-tence on the physical resurrection ofJesus and the way the resurrectionpoints forward to the renewal and trans-formation of the whole of creation.

The present reviewer found this bookdisturbing and disappointing in at leasttwo important respects. Firstly, the feel-ing persists that its approach and muchof its content is governed by issues ofpolitical correctness which predeterminethe methodology used to handle scriptureand the conclusions reached. To be morespecific: given the largely Australianauthorship already mentioned, does thesceptical approach evident in large partsof this volume reflect shame over whatwesterners did to the aborigines andtheir land? Secondly, in that scripture isbrought to the court of the six ecojusticeprinciples and evaluated in such a scepti-cal manner, it illustrates what can hap-pen when the study of scripture is cutloose from the community of faith.

Ron Elsdon is rector of StBartholomew’s Church in Belfast,Northern Ireland

Book Reviews


W. Poon (ed.)Sketches towards a theology of ScienceDoctrine Committee of the ScottishEpiscopal Church, no date given (butprobably 2004). ii + 37 pp. pb. £2.50.ISBN 0-905573-64-1

The declared aim of this booklet is to dis-cuss how Christians should think aboutscience. A two-day meeting of members ofthe Doctrine Committee of the ScottishEpiscopal Church was followed by writ-ten contributions from the seven peopleconcerned and these have been edited byProfessor Wilson Poon into this publica-tion (which is intended to be the first of aseries exploring issues relevant to Chris-tian discipleship in the modern world).Its origin in a committee is evident attimes, but it is a readable document thatprovides a good, if brief, introduction toscience/faith issues. There is a missing‘not’ in the third sentence of the finalsummary on page 31, but any attentivereader will not be deceived by that!

Section 1 (9 pages) makes three basicpoints: (a) the popular idea of conflictbetween science and religion is too sim-plistic; (b) to read the Bible as if it weremaking scientific statements is to misuseit; and (c) the methodologies of scienceand theology are not dissimilar.

Section 2 (7 pages) agrees that sciencecan do harm as well as good and dis-cusses a few particular concerns. Itaffirms that the view of science as thesole generator of truth has been chal-lenged effectively, and argues that thereductionist strategy so common (and sosuccessful) in science needs to be bal-anced by a holistic approach. The idea of‘personal knowledge with universalintent’ presented by Michael Polanyi iswelcomed as an indication that there iscommon ground between theologians andscientists. Three pages are devoted to the‘sustained modern attempt’ by feministscholars (including non-Christians) ‘tocritique the more absolutist claims of sci-ence’. Specific work by such scholars isquoted, warning of ‘injustices and distor-

tions of a purely masculinist, patriarchalscholarship (whether it be in science ortheology)’.

The third section (14 pages) presentsthe ‘sketches towards a theology of sci-ence’ promised by the title of the booklet.Scientists today often argue that theirdiscipline is value-free but it was not soin the early days of science. Over the pastfew centuries the responsibility of scien-tists to the Creator has been played downand the world has increasingly been seenas serving humanity. A corrective to thisanthropocentric view is provided by thebiblical notion of ‘wisdom’ (as presentedin Psalms, Proverbs, and other books ofthe Bible), and it is suggested that thisneeds to be developed in our generation.The role of liturgy, with its emphasis onworship, consecration, awe and commu-nity, is discussed. (This topic is possiblyof more significance to Scottish Episco-palians than to most other Christians.)This section concludes that although Godobviously allows science to proceed with-out reference to him, for us to follow thatroute is ‘a tragic misuse of human free-dom’.

Section 4 (2 pages) summarises thediscussion by saying that believers inGod, and especially those who are scien-tists, must be prepared to challenge bothreligious people who ignore science andscientists who ignore theology.

A list of further reading gives briefdetails of 23 relevant books (with publi-cation dates ranging from 1964 to 2003).

This booklet may be obtained by postfrom General Synod Office, Scottish Epis-copal Church, 21 Grosvenor Crescent,Edinburgh, EH12 5EE. (Add £0.35 forpostage and packing of a single copy toan address in the UK.)

Bennet McInnes is a retiredastronomer who was secretary ofChristians in Science in the 1990s.[[email protected]]

Book Reviews


Alister E. McGrathThe Science of GodLondon: T & T Clark, 2004. 271pp. pb.£9.99. ISBN 0-567-08353-5

Professor McGrath is a well respectedand prolific author in the field of theologyand science. This work is a follow up to aprevious three volume work, A ScientificTheology: Nature, Reality and Theory.The aim of this book is to bring the essen-tial elements of that work to the wideraudience, to share with them the themesof systematic theology and make thelevel, style and length more accessible.As a consequence of its roots, the bookbreaks down into four chapters: the firstan introduction where McGrath sets outthe basic principles for the work andthen three chapters, each covering one ofthe original volumes, though they can beread in isolation. As the original workwas twenty years in the making thisshould be a well thought through bookthat distils out that which is necessaryfor the wider audience. As I have not readthe original work, this is difficult to judgebut the current volume is coherent andlogical.

McGrath goes to some length in theintroduction to ensure that we under-stand that scientific theology is a system,that is that bits come together to makeup something greater than the compo-nent parts and that it is fundamentallyChristian in its foundation and approach.He also stresses that his desire is todevelop a public theology rather than oneisolated from the mainstream. If this isamong scientists and theologians then hehas probably succeeded but if it is muchwider then I think he fails to fulfil thataim. His approach is to use whatevermethodology or ideology is appropriateand yet he is also aware of the risk ofusing other ideas in Christian theology.But as might be expected he plumps forthe scientific method of the natural sci-ences as he believes this selection is thebasis of the argument. And he requires itto be founded in Christian orthodoxy asthis surpasses time and individual situa-

tions.

McGrath addresses the question of‘what is nature?’ accepting that it is a dif-ficult challenge, and concludes that it isan interpreted concept. The biblical con-cept of creation is the next subject to betackled, which is handled well given theaim to make the book accessible, and thisleads sensibly into the implication of aChristian doctrine of creation. As part ofthe journey to generate a natural theol-ogy, there is discussion of the creativeorder in relation to other trains ofthought such as Greek philosophy andthis is particularly enjoyable as he seeksto establish the connections betweenGod’s creation and God as creator. Onequickly feels that the proof of a naturaltheology is unlikely as a result of thepremise of the argument but the debateis entertaining. There are odd occasionswhen it really feels as though McGrathhas an agenda and will not be swayedfrom it but his arguments with others arehandled well, although I felt that he washard on those who had surely onlyattempted to do what he was doing, thatis, move the argument on.

Having examined the natural sciences,which according to McGrath are there todevelop theories to explain the world, hemoves into the chapter entitled Reality,since theories work because they relateto the way things really are. It took awhile before I knew what this chapterwas about but the use of examples reallyhelped to clarify the issues. Yet I find itdifficult to give a quick flavour of the con-tent. What I did take away from it thoughwas the need for a scientific theology tobe an a posteriori response to reality,which is perhaps all too easily forgottenin the bid for advancement.

How scientific theories and Christiandoctrine are developed in response toreality is why Theory comes last. Accord-ing to McGrath a scientific theology holdsthat theories, whether scientific or theo-logical, are not free creations of thehuman mind but are rather constructedin response to an encounter with existing

Book Reviews


reality. Hence, Christian Doctrine is aChristian form of theory. McGrath sepa-rates out ‘doctrines’ as theories that allChristians subscribe to and ‘opinions’ asthose proposed by groups and individualsbut not considered as binding. He clearlysubscribes to the phrase: ‘All models arewrong but some models are more wrongthan others’ in that he accepts that weare limited in our ability to representthings. Theories arise because of ourneed not only to describe things but alsoexplain them and yet McGrath appearsto be always critical at the point of failurewhile in the same breath accepting thatthe theory will fail. Sensibly, though heasks the question, what happens to theo-ries when they are proved wrong? Arethey refined through advancement or dothey have to be completely abandoned?Not surprisingly the answer is that we donot know and so it seems hard to be socritical when the developers of the theorywere only doing the best they could at thetime (assuming no prejudged agenda).

Despite his criticism of others he openshimself up to scrutiny of others in theconclusion. The scientific theology hedevelops he sees as a system and almostas a meta-narrative that is still applica-ble at the small scale and he attributesthe success of the system to the fact thatit is applicable to both large and smallissues. It is able to offer an account of theexistence, shape and form of the Christ-ian community. He is quite happy toaccept that at the end of the day thiswork and his proposals for the future areunlikely to answer all the questions wehave but he hopes that at least the jour-ney of faith is more interesting as aresult. This I believe he has certainlyachieved.

Andrew Ison is the Anglican vicar ofthe Bestwood Park with Rise ParkLEP in Nottingham and a former sen-ior lecturer in biochemical engineer-ing at University College London.

Angus MenugeAgents under Fire: materialism andthe rationality of science.Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield, Inc,2004. 233 pp. hb. £24.22 ISBN 0-7425-3404-9

Angus Menuge is a philosopher specialis-ing in the philosophy of mind at Concor-dia University, Wisconsin. His initial aca-demic training was in the UK. He hasrisen already to moderate prominence inthe intelligent design (ID) movement inthe USA and this volume finds generalinspiration from that source. That will besufficient to prejudice some academicopinion against his ideas from the outset;for the ID party is controversial. How-ever, the misconception that ID is littlemore than disguised ‘scientific creation-ism’ is very wide of the mark. Recent con-ferences on the former subject, involvingNobel laureates and the new President ofthe Royal Society, would be inconceivablewere they addressing the latter topic. Inany event, followers of the Teacher ofNazareth should be prepared for a bit ofcontroversy and give a man a fair hear-ing irrespective of the company he keeps!

Despite ideological disagreements,philosopher Michael Ruse contributes aForeword stating that Angus Menuge hasset out a good case – which he would liketo see refuted! He notes that, thoughMenuge writes with strong convictions,he is ‘polite with his opponents and care-ful with their arguments’. The aim of thisbook is to provide a rigorous defence ofthe intuition that scientific materialismis incoherent because it rests on presup-positions that are incompatible with itscentral claims. Materialism’s apparentstrength rests on careful concealment ofborrowed capital. Menuge’s special focusis upon the irreducible personal categoryof intelligent agency (IA), against theviews of reductive physicalists and oth-ers. The book is structured in eight chap-ters, clustered in groups of 3+3+2. Eachchapter is documented with an averageof 68 references to classical (e.g. Bacon;

Book Reviews


Aquinas) and contemporary academicdiscussion. Notable sparring partnersare Blackmore, Churchland, Dawkins,Dennett, Jaegwon Kim and Pinker.

Central to the argument, and particu-larly chapter 1, is a classification ofreductionism into three types, originallydue to Churchland. These are: conserva-tive, reforming and eliminative. Conserv-ing reductions (e.g. of temperature – tomolecular statistical motion) give a morefundamental reconception but retain theoriginal concept. More disconcertingly,reforming reductions (e.g. of mass – fromNewtonian to Relativistic mechanics)alter the concept in a startling but notdevastating manner. Most radically, elim-inative reductions (e.g. of phlogiston) dis-pose entirely of the former concept. Theseexamples show that there are specialcontexts where all of these types can beappropriate in advancing scientific expla-nation and understanding. Menuge pro-ceeds to consider varieties of proposedagent reductionism, where agency itselfhas the defining characteristic of inten-tionality. Conservative reductionists(identity theorists), reforming reduction-ists (functionalists) and eliminativereductionists are succinctly surveyed.The discussion then morphs into consid-eration of two particular stances: strongagent reductionism (SAR) and weakagent reductionism (WAR), the formerdenying the ultimate legitimacy of allnotions of agency, including humanagency, viewed as a useless relic of folkpsychology. These two positions arecogently critiqued in chapters 2 and 3,respectively. Although unmentioned,Michael Polanyi’s concept of tacit knowl-edge is cognate to Menuge’s position, asare Thomas Nagel’s views – which aretreated.

To set up the further debate, Menugerecognises four major stances arising outof debates over origins. These he labels:Darwinism (meaning the stance ofDawkins and Dennett), self-organisation,theistic evolution and intelligent design.To maintain brevity, he concentrates

upon the first and the fourth (ID). Thispolarised approach is both a strengthand something of a weakness of the vol-ume. It is unfortunate, incidentally, espe-cially for UK readers, that the first poleis termed simply ‘Darwinism’, when whathe might say is ‘extreme Darwinism’. Inchapter 4, the author rehearses many ofthe arguments of Behe concerning irre-ducible biological complexity. To a scien-tist, prepared to wait a while upon possi-ble further mechanistic discoveries, theseare less convincing than the very strongcase for eliminatively irreducible humanpsychological agency, made negatively inchapters 2, 3 and 5 and more positively inchapters 6 and 7. The later discussiondevelops cogent arguments of C.S. Lewisand Alvin Plantinga. Moreover, it is acase that can claim strong support fromChristian theism, as in the Johannineprologue, for which the logical and tem-poral priority of personal divine intelli-gence over the material world, and theidentity of humankind as imago Dei arerevealed axioms. Let Dennett dismissthese as ‘skyhooks’, if he so pleases!

Angus Menuge has written a volume ofreal merit and integrity that deservespatient and careful study. As an academicmonograph, it presents numerous crucialissues for the dialogue between scienceand religion with detailed argumentsand documentation. Highly recom-mended.

David Watts is Professor of Biomateri-als Science at the University of Man-chester in the Photon Science Insti-tute and the School of Dentistry.

Book Reviews


Rodney D. HolderGod, the Multiverse, and EverythingAldershot: Ashgate, 2004. 211pp. hb.£45. ISBN 0-7546-5116-9

Modern physics describes a universewhich appears to be remarkably ‘fine-tuned’ for life. If the ratio of the strengthsof the four fundamental forces of nature(gravitational, electromagnetic, weakand strong) were other than they are to avery high degree of accuracy, stellar evo-lution could not have occurred, chemicalelements could not have been built up toallow carbon based life and the universewould not have lasted long enough forlife to evolve. If the ratio of the masses ofthe electron and proton were not as theyare, the long chains of molecules whichmake DNA and other structures in bio-chemistry would not be possible. Eventhe fact that we live in a universe whichhas three spatial dimensions is necessaryto allow both stable atoms and stablesolar systems. Apart from the values ofsuch parameters, the initial conditions ofthe big bang itself have to be carefullyselected to ensure a universe which willlast long enough, have the right amountof inhomogeneity and the right amountof order to ensure that, after about fifteenbillion years, intelligent life will evolve toobserve it.

There are three possible responses tofine tuning. The first is to say ‘well wejust got lucky – there is only one universeand it clearly has the correct parametersfor life or else we wouldn’t be here talk-ing about it – it is a brute fact’. The nextis to postulate the existence of an infiniteset of universes – the multiverse. Each ofthese universes can have a different setof parameters and initial conditions, and,the argument goes, if all the possiblecombinations of these occur, then theexistence of our universe becomes if notinevitable, then at least quite probable.Finally we can see the fine tuning as evi-dence for a creator.

In God, the Multiverse and EverythingRodney Holder gives a scholarly, wide

ranging, and invigorating introductionto, and assessment of, these competingviews. The book gives a clear and helpfuloverview of physicists’ current theories ofthe origin and evolution of the universeincluding the range of possible multi-verse theories (spatial, temporal andother dimensional) and then usesBayesian statistics to assess the merits ofthe three hypotheses of a single universe,a multiverse and a designer. The first ofthese is ‘disconfirmed’ by Bayesiananalysis, leaving the idea of a multiverseas the sole competitor to a creator as thebest explanation. Holder then subjectsthe ideas of a spatial or temporal multi-verse to close critique and finds themwanting.

One important blow to the multiversetheory is that an infinite, though neces-sarily countable, number of actual uni-verses in a multiverse is not enough toensure the existence of a life-supportinguniverse within it. Indeed, if the numberof possible universes (in terms of possiblechoices of initial conditions and parame-ters) is uncountably infinite it may meanthat the probability of the existence of auniverse such as ours is zero. HoweverHolder circumspectly notes that if thenumber of possible universes is alsocountably infinite then this criticismloses its force. It should be rememberedthat issues of whether the number of uni-verses is countably or uncountably infi-nite, or whether there is a multiverse atall, are in themselves speculative andthankfully throughout the book Holder isa balanced guide to the creativity of mod-ern cosmologists!

The third type of multiverse (otherdimensional) is given relatively little dis-cussion. This is a pity, especially giventhat one form of this class, the manyworlds interpretation of quantummechanics, is quite popular amongst cos-mologists. Further, the many worldsinterpretation has the intriguing prop-erty that (according to David Deutsch) itmay be testable using quantum computa-tion, thus potentially moving it from the

Book Reviews


realm of metaphysics to physics (a featwhich spatial and temporal multiversetheories cannot achieve).

This last point is however a minorquibble; God, the Multiverse and Every-thing is an excellent, engaging and fasci-

nating book, which will surely help toinform and provoke serious debate on theissue of cosmological design in the future.

Dr Mark McCartney is a lecturer inmathematics at the University ofUlster, Northern Ireland

Can we be sureabout anything?

‘There is no such thing as truth or objective reality, there is only opinionand subjective impression.’ That is the view being propagated byadherents of the postmodern agenda, although it is curious to findacademics arguing for the truth (!) of such an assertion. It hasimplications for both science and belief, each of which depends uponbelief in truth in an important sense.A book with the above title (sub-titled ‘science, faith andpostmodernism’) was published last year. In his introduction the editor(Denis Alexander, editor of this journal) writes:‘Those in the humanities find scientists irritatingly arrogant as theydisplay a high level of confidence in their latest scientific findings.Conversely scientists despair at the way in which those in the arts are soready to tell them that what is true for one person might not be true foranother, and vice versa.’The book addresses a range of issues raised by the variety of ideascollectively known as postmodernism. Six of the twelve chaptersoriginated from talks at a day conference held by Christians in Science,and the remainder have been added. They address widely differentaspects of the topic, including history, philosophy, biblicalinterpretation, values, the practice of science, quantum mechanics,geology and the media. Despite their different styles and subject matter,the editor and authors have produced a book which demonstrateseffectively the weakness of the postmodern thesis in various contexts,and, interestingly, shows the considerable extent of the commonground between science and the Christian faith.

The book is available from the Publications Secretary of Christians inScience: John Bausor, 16 Walter Road, Wokingham, Berkshire RG41 3JA,

tel; 0118 978 2902,for £14.30 (including P/P), or from booksellers.

Can we be sure about anything? – science, faith andpostmodernism, Denis Alexander (ed.), Leicester: Apollos 2005, 256

pp, £12.99, ISBN 1844740765

book reviews - science and christian belief · respect for religious beliefs, and argues that he...

Documents