Science and faith

Review: The God of Monkey Science

/ rtrube54 / Leave a comment
Cover image of "The God of Monkey Science" by Janet Ray Kellogg.

The God of Monkey Science, Janet Kellogg Ray. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. (ISBN: 9780802883193) 2023.

Summary: An evangelical Christian science educator explores anti-science beliefs and being true to both faith and science.

“There she goes again… Janet and her monkey god science” (p. 3)

Janet Kellogg Ray is a science educator. The quote is an edited response from a person who disagreed with her concerning an article about public health and explains the title of this book. This is, sadly, the way evangelicals have dismissed science-based argument, even from other evangelicals. It is an example of the growing anti-science bias of many who identify as evangelical.

It also represents the leading edge of an anti-science playbook, which Kellogg identifies:

  1. The scientific evidence is sketchy, misrepresented, or simply wrong.
  2. Science threatens faith and morality.
  3. Acceptance of science comes at a cost to personal freedoms or personal beliefs.

Kellogg Ray writes as an insider, a member of an evangelical church in which many members would disagree with her views. She’s loves Jesus. And she is also a scientist who would affirm what many in her congregation would deny. God made life in the world through evolutionary processes. God works for good to save lives through vaccine research and public health measures. And God has given insight to climate scientists of how we may care for a rapidly warming world. She also explores why many evangelicals don’t believe and often actively resist these ideas.

It goes back to evolution and a fight that began with the Scopes trial and continues through a number of well-funded organizations that use the playbook identified above, first used by William Jennings Bryan. She shows how the same arguments have been used in the resistance to public health measures and vaccines during the COVID pandemic and in resistance to scientists seeking to warn the public about human induced climate change.

Along the way she explores how the anti-science groups capitalize on “research” that is flawed in methodology and not reproducible, yet presented as credible by figures in lab coats like America’s Frontline Doctors. Not only that, many are dismissive of the work, done consciously to God’s glory, by researchers like Dr. Kizzmekia Corbett, the lead NIH researcher behind development of the COVID vaccine, Dr. Francis Collins, who headed the NIH and sequenced the human genome, or Dr. Katherine Hayhoe, an environmental scientist and spouse of an evangelical pastor. Instead of celebrating how these and many other Christians have brought faith and science together, they attack them.

Kellogg Ray shows how opponents not only attack science but arouse fears that constitutional and religious freedoms will be taken away. (The irony is that many leverage social media and freely give away vast amounts of personal information while using technology that is the fruit of sophisticated scientific research!)

So, how then ought people of faith live in the modern scientific world? First of all, she calls for mutually respectful listening and conversation instead of a climate of suspicion and fear. She proposes that we speak to facts with faith. Instead of denying evolution, why not admit what science tells us but explore how Christ offers our lives meaning? How does Christianity call us beyond a “me-first” survivalism? She challenges us to step back and see the damage of science denialism in those leaving evangelical churches and others dismissive of Christianity altogether. Above all, she reminds us that if all truth is God’s truth, we need never fear the findings of science.

This was a hard book to read. It brought to mind the many fine Christians I know working in scientific research who bear wounds from the “friendly fire” of fellow believers. I’m reminded of how troubling I’ve found Christian misrepresentation, and sometimes, outright lies. It is not that others never lie, but this is never warranted by followers of the one who is Truth. I’ve watched students walk away from faith, not because of the science, but because of how their churches have dismissed their questions. It reminded me of online conversations with Christians during COVID where a reading of Constitutional rights took pre-eminence over the love of neighbor.

I have questions about how fruitful Kellogg Ray’s recommendations will be. But her concluding chapter reminds us that our call is to faith and faithfulness. But that may very well mean being the minority even in our own Christian communities. It could also mean finding common ground with non-believing but spiritually seeking people. In reading the gospels, I’m encouraged that this is where we find Jesus.

____________________

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher via Speakeasy for review.

Review: Does Science Make God Irrelevant?

/ rtrube54 / 1 Comment
Cover image of "Does Science Make God Irrelevant?" by Hans Madueme

Does Science Make God Irrelevant? (TGC Hard Questions Series), Hans Madueme. Crossway (ISBN: 9781433597978) 2025.

Summary: Proposes that science and faith may coexist as allies and that Christian assumptions make science possible.

“Does science make God irrelevant?” In my experience, that is not even a question for many. Rather, they assume it is a settled fact. For such people, they do not object to belief, if you need this to get through life. Rather, they make sense of the world just fine without God, thank you. It’s also my experience that many of these people have high moral standards. After all, integrity is a high value if you are doing good science.

Hans Madueme, in this concise little book, proposes that pursuing science, and living by faith may walk hand in hand. He begins by debunking the idea that science and faith have been at war. Many of the earliest scientists were believing Christians, including Galileo. Galileo got into trouble more because of the politics of the religious establishment rather than a conflict between science and scripture. The Scopes trial was as much about promoting the town of Dayton as it was a faith-science conflict. John Scopes was put up to it by the ACLU.

In fact, Madueme argues, Christian assumptions undergird science. The Creator-creation distinction encourages investigation of the cosmos because it is not divine. Christian assumptions that the world is knowable, rational, and dependable are basic to science. Even the fall is related to science in providing a basis for empiricism rather than the assumption that one may simply philosophically “know” the world.

Rather, the problem for Madueme lies with “scientism,” the belief that “nothing but” science is needed for all human knowledge. Ironically, that assertion is not scientifically demonstrable. However, although Madueme argues against ideological naturalism, he notes that most Christians have no difficulty embracing methodological naturalism, seeing it as the way we study the book of nature.

Having argued that faith and science may be close allies, he discusses the challenge of evolution and the different ways Christians approach this challenge. While he tries to clarify some language, like “creationist,” he doesn’t propose a resolution in this short booklet. Rather than encourage an anti-science response to instances of bad science, he affirms the commitment Christians and most scientists share to integrity, to following the data where it leads. I would like to have seen Madueme address the anti-science stance in some parts of the church and the politicization of science.

Finally, Madueme concludes the book with a brief description of the “fine tuning argument.” This is the idea that there are some particular stringent conditions under which life may arise and that the odds of this happening are incredibly high. The presence of an intelligent creator is certainly consistent with this reality, although this does not constitute proof. He notes the multiverse theories proposed as an alternate explanation. However for the believing scientist, the incredible order of the world, its intricacy, and beauty all move one to praise.

Madueme does all this in 65 pages of text. Of course he offers brief summaries of much longer discussions you can find in his notes. But I’ve found in many conversations about such things, most people are not that interested (at least initially) in wading through a technical text of several hundred pages. A brief, cogent summary is often what is needed and what Madueme has provided.

___________________

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher for review.

Review: If the Ocean Has a Soul

/ rtrube54 / Leave a comment
Cover image of "If the Ocean Has a Soul" by Rachel G. Jordan

If the Ocean Has a Soul, Rachel G. Jordan. Tyndale Refresh (ISBN: 9798400505843) 2025.

Summary: Meshes marine biology and biblical insights, exploring the integration of science and faith.

From childhood, Rachael Jordan loved the ocean. It began with sea urchins that poke and crabs that pinch. But far from turning her off, she found herself wondering what else lurked in the ocean. Only later did she discover that the deeps she explored as a marine biologist could deepen her faith She also discovered her faith could speak to realities not quantifiable by her science. Each enhanced the other.

Jordan went on from shoreside explorations to graduate training. From there, her research led to a position as a coral biologist and lead of the Coral Response Team for the Dry Tortugas National Park. Later, she worked at Australia’s Marine Aquaculture Research Facility. In this book she recounts her experiences from her training for professional certification as a scuba diver to her exploration of and efforts to save dying coral reefs. She describes the impact of the die-off of these reefs and the impact this would have on the array of beautiful creatures who make these reefs their home.

Each chapter mixes scientific observations from her work and reflections upon her faith. For example, as she writes about coral die-off in a chapter titled “Valley of the Shadow,” she goes on to a biblical reflection on the significance of death in a fallen creation and the renewal of creation through the risen Lord.

I found a chapter on “Buddy Breathing” equally compelling. Humans can’t live in the depths she explores, and only the equipment she dons sustains her life. But things go wrong from getting lost to equipment failure to injury. Therefore, dive buddies and advance procedures relentlessly trained mean the difference between life and death. She draws lessons on everything from scripture’s instructions to our dependence on the Lord from these experiences.

She fills her accounts with with wonder. Descriptions of coral. Colorful fish. Snuggling with seahorses. And the symphony of voices of the coral, pods of dolphins and more distant resonant soundings of whales. This is mixed with reflections on the Psalms and considerations of the wonders of God’s purposes and workings in a beautiful and broken world.

Instead of a polemic on science and faith, Jordan seamlessly weaves rigorous science and a life of faith. Not only did I find this a delight, but the interest of team members in her faith reflected that there is the savor of Christ in her work. Rather than warfare between science and faith, there is wonder. And for me, that makes for a better story.

____________________

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher for review.

Review: On the (Divine) Origin of Our Species

/ rtrube54 / 2 Comments

On the (Divine) Origin of Our Species. Darrel R. Falk. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2023.

Summary: Accepting the evidence for our evolutionary origins, considers God’s providential activity through his hovering Spirit and how that shaped our evolution.

It may be helpful at the outset to say what this book is not, due to the title. It is not a polemic defending some form of young (or old) earth creationism. Darrel R. Falk spent his career as a biology professor and accepts the evidence of our evolutionary rise from some common ancestor we share with the great apes. He also believes this does not conflict with belief in God as Creator who works in and through evolutionary processes. But how specifically does that operate? Is it possible to move beyond vague claims of providence. Falk believes that is possible, based both on findings of how our species evolved, and basic Christian theological convictions about the nature of God and God’s working in creation.

Before proceeding to make his case, Falk clears some ground, distinguishing what science can and cannot know and the difference between science and scientism. This is important to discern when scientists have crossed a line, often in the denial of God, claiming science as a basis. It may have been equally helpful to discuss when Christians cross the line between good and bad science in their attempts to uphold their beliefs or show some concordance.

Chapters 2 and 3 chart the rise of our genus and species, focusing on anatomical changes, especially changes in the brain, arguing that a critical feature that distinguishes our species is our “social” brain, our capacity for cooperation, which better explains our rise than a superior fighting capacity. This is related to another significant development, that of a “theory of mind,” that we understand that others have minds and to understand the thinking and intentions of others.

This, for Falk, represents a key turning point, where it may also be possible for humans to perceive another mind, that of God, and perhaps to perceive the loving intentions of the Triune God who lives in a communally as Three in One. Particularly, Falk believes our ancestors were able to perceive the Spirit’s prompting toward loving, cooperative behavior, which had a selective advantage that may also have selected genetic variants that further enhanced cooperation. He also explores an intriguing idea that our imaginative capacities developed despite awareness of death because we could imagine, through the Spirit’s loving promptings, a reality beyond death.

Falk shows that Darwin himself identified this how cooperation, enhanced further by our language capabilities, was critical in our evolutionary development. What Falk is proposing is an explanation for this cooperative character grounded in and reflective of God’s character. Darwin, while never becoming an atheist, denied providence in creation, both disbelieving in the idea of God as a master designer and struggling with the reality of animal as well as human suffering. Falk raises the question of whether the problem is with providence, or with an inadequate understanding of the interaction of providence and evolution.

Falk’s final chapter considers the biblical story from beginning to end, from the garden-temple, to the fall and sin’s violation of cooperative relationships through the reconciling work of Christ, making one new, global body that images and extends these cooperative capacities on a greater scale than ever, anticipating the consummation of all things.

Falk offers an intriguing integration of theology and evolutionary science. In particular, Falk “makes sense” of our human cooperative character and suggests how the Spirit’s “hovering” may have contributed to the further evolution of this quality, connected to brain capacity and theory of mind, that so enabled us to flourish. Of course, none of this is scientifically provable. What Falk offers is something at once more modest and more provocative, a plausible explanation of God’s involvement in the origin of our species that is consistent both with evolutionary science and Christian belief.

This is not “evidence” that “demands” belief but something just as valuable, an account showing a seamless relationship between the science of human origins and theistic belief. Such proposals are crucial in bringing an end to the “warfare” between science and faith, a conflict that has spilled so much needless ink, and absorbed so much creative energy at the very moment our creation is groaning from the burdens we’ve placed on it, jeopardizing the very existence of so many of God’s beloved creatures.

____________________

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher for review.

Review: God Speaks Science

/ rtrube54 / 4 Comments

God Speaks Science, John Van Sloten. Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2023.

Summary: Explores what we may learn from the creation through different fields of scientific research about the nature and works of God.

Several years ago I had the privilege of meeting an unusual pastor. He loved science and often incorporated findings of science in his sermons. To do that well, he interviewed scientists in the relevant fields at nearby universities. He saw no conflict between the results of scientific research and his theological study of the Bible. He loved facilitating conversations between the scientists with whom he was interacting and people in his congregation. That pastor was John Van Sloten, the author of this work, along with a number of his scientist friends.

It is not uncommon to speak of the “two books” that reveal God to us: The Bible and the Creation. The premise of this book is to take the second of those two more seriously than we often do. Van Sloten believes that science “unpacks God’s creation words. Scientists are made in the image of an empirical God. They think God’s thoughts after God.” What Van Sloten does in this work is to engage with scientists in a variety of fields, inviting their own thoughts about what their research reveals of God, and adding his own. Each chapter begins with a word from a scientist from a different field. Then Van Sloten expands upon this in the chapter concluding with a lectio scientia consisting both of suggested practices and a prayer shaped by the content of the chapter.

Van Sloten begins with a medical physicist discussing ways that radiation therapy reveals the empirical mind of God. Succeeding chapters consider astrophysics and God’s delight in matter, the structure of knees and God’s providence in structures and through those who repair them, and giant squids, our amazing senses and the all-seeing presence of God. We learn about how trees grow, branch, and heal wounds and the interdependent character both of the creation and the creator, how we acquire language and a passion for knowing and the God who makes God’s self known across all these languages, and how DNA repair mechanisms reveal the beauty of God. Neuroscience helps us understand our passion to name, reminding us that we are also named and known by God and hydrology points us to the God who sustains our lives with living water, a word that does not return empty.

One chapter that particularly spoke to me was on how our cells self-repair our DNA trillions of times every day. He observes that we “can no more save ourselves that we can repair our own DNA. Right now, at a rate of tens of trillions of repairs per second, God is reminding you of the breathtaking power of this amazing restorative grace.”

It is such a pleasure to read a work that, far from fighting about science, finds in science the wonders of God’s powerful and gracious character and work in the world. God can speak to us through science which complements what we learn in the Bible of God, which is just what you’d expect if you believe God to be the author of both books. I’m amazed by how much John Van Sloten has gleaned from these conversations with scientists and from listening to both books, both ways in which God speaks to us. But then, this only makes sense if one has been listening to God’s speech through science and in scripture for a long time. May that be true of more of us! This book is a good place to start.

________________________________

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received a complimentary review copy of this book from the publisher.

Review: Navigating Faith and Science

/ rtrube54 / 3 Comments

Navigating Faith and Science, Joseph Vukov. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2022.

Summary: A framework for understanding the intersection of science and faith.

I’ve read a number of books about science and faith. Most in some way try to give the lie to the idea that science and faith are necessarily in conflict, despite public perceptions. Many, in some way, involve discussions of Ian Barbour’s schema of several models: the conflict model, the non-overlapping magisteria model of Stephen J. Gould, and that of faith and science in dialogue. Most prefer the dialogue model.

This book also does all these things, devoting an introduction dealing with the perception of conflict, stating a preference for science and faith in dialogue, and devoting a chapter to each of the three models. What, then, makes this book distinct.

First of all, the author proposes that all three of the models have their place. After showing how both scientism and fundamentalism contribute to perceptions of conflict, Vukov argues that there are always areas of potential conflict between science and faith. For example, big bang cosmology and Christian faith both posit beginnings for the physical universe. At this level, there is no apparent conflict. But what if an alternative scientific theory were proposed that posited no beginning but a continuous existence? This is an example of the potential for conflict and it is healthy to recognize this potential.

Similarly, much of science is the same for a Christian, a materialist, or a Buddhist and beliefs have no intersection with experimental results. Likewise science cannot determine the existence or non-existence of God but there are times when the independent perspectives on the same phenomenon, like prayer, reveal a fuller picture than either alone. Independence reveals both the physiological effects of prayer and the experienced reality. It is like studying a work of art both “close in,” seeing the brush stroke, and “further away,” seeing the big picture. Likewise, science can only answer questions of what is and how things work, but cannot address what ought be done. Furthermore, Independence fails to reckon with the influence of the values and worldview of the scientist that influence the questions they ask and their choices of research.

Finally, dialogue can incorporate both science in exploring certain phenomena, for example, the possibility of miracles, bringing both rigor to study of purported miracles by identifying instances that cannot be explained by natural processes and affirming the possibility that such may occur. Dialogue can be important around medical questions like brain death and the possibility of sustaining some form of “life” in the body. But dialogue can degenerate into “feel good” conversations without substantive conclusions. Dialogue can move us further away from as well as closer to truth.

All of this points up another distinctive idea the author brings to this discussion, that of intellectual humility. The best of us know in part, actually a very small part at that. Rather than suppressing this, the author proposes that we are at our best when we acknowledge our humanity with its limitations in knowledge. We may believe “all truth is God’s truth” but are hard pressed to demonstrate how science and faith are seamlessly so. Acknowledging where conflict exists is a form of humility where intellectual arrogance on the part of scientism or fundamentalism asserts the primacy of one at the expense of the other. Intellectual humility recognizes that just because one sees no overlap in the “magisteria” doesn’t mean there isn’t overlap. Arrogance may blind us from seeing. Likewise, a pre-requisite of good dialogue is esteeming the worth of what the other brings to the conversation, as well as the worth of our own contribution.

Intellectual humility and the strengths and limits of each model encourage us give us a well-stocked toolkit rather than a single tool that does not always work. It enables scientists and persons of faith to labor together in the pursuit of truth that is bigger than us mere humans.

The author offers all of this in a readable and entertaining format using illustrations regarding extra-terrestrial life, winning lotteries, the Big Bang, the fine-tuning of the universe and the discussion of multiverse theories. Rather than being daunted or defensive about evolutionary biology, for example, allows the dropping of our guards to really learn from each other. Where the models of conflict or independence seem preferable, the stance of intellectual humility allows the room to breathe, to rest, and to learn rather than fight. Rather than offer overly-simplistic “solutions” to understanding the intersection of faith and science, Vukov offers us a way of living in the intersection, often one that runs through the lives of those who are both scientists and persons of faith.

____________________

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received a complimentary review copy of this book from the publisher.

Review: Can a Scientist Believe in Miracles?

/ rtrube54 / 5 Comments

Can a Scientist Believe in Miracles? Ian Hutchinson. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press/Veritas Books, 2018.

Summary: A collection of responses to questions about God and science asked by students at Veritas Forums on university campuses throughout the country.

There is a popular conception that science and religion are at war and that anyone who is engaged in scientific research rejects the idea of a God. If that is the case, Ian Hutchinson apparently didn’t get the memo. That’s all the more extraordinary because Hutchison is a plasma physicist doing research and teaching at MIT. He has published over two hundred peer-reviewed articles and at least two books in his field. And he didn’t grow up Christian, as he shares in this book. He came to faith in college after a careful search.

Hutchinson has been willing to go public with his faith, speaking at a number of university campuses through the Veritas Forum. One of the features of these speaking engagements are audience questions from students in attendance. Over the years, he has collected these questions, many of which concern how scientists can possibly embrace the Christian faith. In this work, after sharing his own journey to faith and subsequent life, he organizes these into thirteen chapters. In this case, listing the table of contents may be the best way to summarize the issues he covers:

Preface
1. A Spiritual Journey
2. Are There Realities Science Cannot Explain?
3. What Is Faith?
4. Do Scientists Have Faith?
5. Does Reason Support Christian Belief?
6. What Is Scientism?
7. Is There Really Spiritual Knowledge?
8. Creation and Cosmology
9. Do Miracles Happen?
10. The Bible and Science
11. Of All the World’s Religions, Why Christianity?
12. Why Does God Seem Hidden?
13. Is There Good and Evil?
14. Personal Consequences: So What?

As you can see, the title of the work is just one of these chapters. How he approaches this is a good reflection of the approach of the whole book. He starts with a definition of a miracle: a miracle is an extraordinary act of God. He observes that because of its extraordinary character, the existence of miracles cannot be proven or disproven because science requires reproducibility. This is actually modest because he admits that miracles involve interpretation. All science can do is speak to the likelihood of such an event. He also argues that the inviolability of nature’s laws is not a doctrine of science. Natural explanations of events needn’t be the only explanations. Quantum reality actually suggests a universe that is not a closed system of natural laws. He discounts many miracle legends and focuses on the miracles of the incarnation and resurrection as central to Christianity. Along the way, he addresses natural explanations as well as the possibility of miracles in other religions, arguing that these are most worth considering when consistent with the whole worldview of that religion.

Several things are striking: there is respect for the questions, the responses both explore the logic, as well as possible misconceptions, of the question and then offers reasoned responses with significant documentation. Throughout, there is high regard for the work of scientists and the results of science and the conviction that there is nothing in science that calls into question the existence of God or the truth of the central claims of Christianity. Actually, the question that is the most challenging for Hutchinson is not a scientific one but rather the existence of evil and the questions it raises of the goodness of God. He does offer thoughtful responses to this as well, and observes that evil is also a problem for the atheist.

Because of the question-based format, this does feel a bit like a question and answer session. That may be useful as a reference for someone who has similar questions or friends who do. It also reflects the tone I’ve witnessed when I’ve heard Hutchinson speak: articulate, forthright but not arrogant, gracious and yet well-reasoned. One interlocutor told me that he had checked out Hutchinson ahead of time and agreed to engage with him, convinced that they would have a real conversation, not a set up. And that’s what one finds here.

Review: Science and the Doctrine of Creation

/ rtrube54 / 2 Comments

Science and the Doctrine of Creation, Edited by Geoffrey H. Fulkerson and Joel Thomas Chopp, afterword by Alister E. McGrath. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2021.

Summary: A study of ten modern theologians and how each engaged science in light of the doctrine of creation.

Creation and science. These are often viewed in conflict and the discussion of how these relate is often a contentious space. This work takes a more constructive approach based on the idea that the doctrine of creation consists of far more than how humans came to exist. We fail to consider the God who has created, what is entailed in the act of creating, and what the nature and end of what is created.

Rather than seeking to articulate the doctrine of creation, this work considers ten theologians from the last two centuries, how they engaged the science of their day, and brought their particular grasp of the doctrine of creation to bear on this engagement. There are both recurring themes and divergences among these ten voices. Each chapter begins with a brief biography of the theologian, a discussion averaging about twenty pages, with resources for further reading at the conclusion of the chapter.

The theologians discussed and authors of the chapters are:

William Burt Pope (Fred Sanders). Pope distinguished between primary creation, in which God calls all things into existence, and secondary creation, the formation of an ordered universe, which both scripture and science may inform.

Abraham Kuyper (Craig Bartholomew). Kuyper both affirms creation, common grace and the image of God that grounds the scientific enterprise, and how nonregenerate thought in all dimensions of thought is flawed. For Kuyper, this meant neither unqualified endorsement of evolution nor uncritical opposition.

B. B. Warfield (Bradley J. Gundlach). Warfield hosted Kuyper’s Princeton Stone Lectures. Many have claimed Warfield for eolution. Gundlach offers a more nuanced picture, emphasizing both Warfield’s humble and open approach to the science of his day while focusing on creation (including the idea of mediate creation), providence and supernaturalism.

Rudolf Bultmann (Joshua W. Jipp). This chapter looks at how Bultmann’s demythologization project applied to creation, with the conclusion that scripture doesn’t give us an objective view of the world or ontology. It is rather “faith in man’s present determination by God.” Jipp prefers the concord Alvin Plantinga sees between science and faith to the bifurcated view of Bultmann.

Karl Barth (Katherine Sonderegger). Barth had little to say about theology and natural science. Sonderegger contrasts Barth and Schleiermacher, emphasizing Barth’s doctrine of creation as one that “lays claim to the whole of reality.”

T. F. Torrance (Kevin J. Vanhoozer). Torrance propounded a “kataphysical” theology that brought together ontology and epistemology, denying a divergence between the way things appear and the way they are. Central to all of this Christ, the God-man, who is homoousios, of the same substance with the Father and the Spirit.

Jürgen Moltmann (Stephen N. Williams). Williams explores Moltmann’s “open system” doctrine of God and his vision of a common environment of science and theology.

Wolfhart Pannenberg (Christoph Schwöbel). Drawing on Faraday’s “field of force,” Pannenberg developed a theology of nature that is neither mechanistic nor a “God of the gaps” but rooted in the unity of all reality.

Robert Jenson (Stephen John Wright). Drawing on narrative and history, ideas of time and eternity, and Christology, Jenson contended both science and theology focused on the same reality, the world of creation.

Colin E. Gunton (Murray A. Rae). Gunton’s theological career focused on a reinvigorated understanding of the Trinity. Rae focused on how Gunton’s understanding of the Triune creator affirms creation ex nihilo, a contingent creation, and science as an extension of the human cultural mandate.

One of the themes running through a number of these chapters was the importance of understanding the nature of God to understand the nature of creation. Also, a number of the chapters countered the “non-overlapping magisteria” idea with a unitive vision of theology and science grounded God’s being and activity. One consequence is the intelligibility of the world, both through revelation and science.

This is a valuable resource for the science-theology conversation that moves beyond evolution debates. Both the theologians featured and those who write of them model humble appreciation of both the creative work of God and scientific inquiry. Not only do these contributions underscore, as Alister McGrath notes in the afterword, the coherence of Christian faith, but they highlight the glory of the Creator in the creation.

____________________________

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received a complimentary review copy of this book from the publisher in exchange for an honest review. The opinions I have expressed are my own.

Review: Mapping the Origins Debate: Six Models of the Beginning of Everything

/ rtrube54 / 2 Comments

Mapping the Origins Debate: Six Models of the Beginning of Everything
Mapping the Origins Debate: Six Models of the Beginning of Everything by Gerald Rau
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

Perhaps I’m stating the obvious but most discussions of origins seem to generate far more heat than light. They preach to the choir of those who agree, fail to engage those with whom they disagree on their own terms and perpetuate the unfortunate notion that Christianity and science are at war with each other. This book is a notable exception to that trend in that it is intended to promote understanding and conversation rather than more controversy.

Gerald Rau takes a novel approach in this book. Rather than taking a side, he lays out six different models that may be found in the current discussions. This itself is important because most of the coverage of this issue assumes two very diametrically opposed options: naturalistic evolution, that there is no god and the universe and all life arose simply through physical causation, and young earth creationism, which treats Genesis 1 as a literal account of how God created the world in six literal days, a world that is approximately 10,000 years old.

Rau identifies four other models and their proponents:

Non-Teleological Evolution: There is a deity but once the universe was created, it developed and evolved apart from any intention of God. This would be Ian Barbour’s position.

Planned Evolution: This assumes a deity who created the universe so perfectly that it evolved according to God’s plan without further intervention. Francis Collins and the Biologos folk would hold this.

Directed Evolution: This assumes a deity who creates the universe and intervenes to direct natural processes. Michael Behe and Loren Haarsma would hold to this model.

Old Earth Creationism: This would take a day-age approach to reading Genesis that assumes God’s creative work in each of these “long days” in which at least the major body plans of living creatures were created separately and did not evolve. Hugh Ross would be a representative of this group.

What Rau then does is shows how each of these models treats four major aspects of origins. His observation is that throughout, all six models are dealing with the same evidence but their interpretation of this evidence is shaped by differing fundamental presuppositions that account for the differences in the models. The four major areas Rau surveys are the origin of the universe, the origin of life, the origin of species, and the origins of humans.

Rau observes that there are difficulties every model has with the evidence as well as varying explanations of both the evidence and the difficulties. For example, the anthropic principle, that observes the existence of 26 constants that allow for the existence of organic life, including human beings poses difficulties for the idea of a randomly arising universe of naturalistic evolution, although proponents would argue that in a multiverse with infinite universes, at least one would satisfy these requirements. Similarly, the commonalities of genetic material across species and the relatively small genetic difference between humans and apes pose questions for those who would argue against some form of evolution, explained by the use of “common design”.

Rau contends that rather than the currently polarized camps around these models, what might be more helpful is recognizing that it might be possible for each to learn from the others, that each has insights that may be useful in explaining some evidence and that this could be more fruitful than our present debates.

His conclusion however goes to the heart of the differences that exist, which are differing definitions of science, and fundamental disagreements about the existence of a God and whether such a God is involved with the physical world and how. My question as I consider this is whether these deepest differences can either be over come or held in abeyance to realize the kind of interchange between proponents of the different models that Rau hopes for.

If that kind of engagement is ever to occur, the work Gerald Rau has done lays excellent groundwork for such interchange. And for those trying to understand the different positions in the origins debate, Rau gives us an excellent “map” of the landscape.

View all my reviews