One of the more interesting intersections of theology and the reality is the philosophy of science. What impact does our worldview (which is founded in theology) have on our pursuit of science? The authors of this very readable book argue that without religion -- without the Christian Middle Ages specifically -- there would be no science as we know it.

The authors begin with a simple question: Why should science, or rather scientific thinking, exist at all? Why is it that throughout the recorded history of man, "science" should be limited to "just so stories," and pure math? Why is it that the "modern scientific method," should only arise in Christian Europe?

The first section of this book deals with the supposed "war" between scientific thought and religion, and building a new history of science that shows a more subtle interplay between the two major systems of thought. The authors work through a number of examples, from Galileo to Calvin, showing how both the reigning Catholic and upstart Protestant Churches actually supported scientific thought, giving it impetus and support from the very beginning.

In the second section, the authors move from defense to offense. Is science just about facts? No, because most scientific revolutions are based on new readings of existing facts, rather than the new facts themselves. In the real world, facts tend to be interpreted in the framework of existing belief, stretching belief as needed to accommodate them. Scientific revolutions happen when a new way of looking at existing facts emerges which better accounts for both the existing facts and newly discovered facts.

In other words, it's not facts that drive science, but worldview.

This section is very helpful in outlining the difference between the Platonic and Aristotelian worldviews, and their impact on the practice of science. The authors also helpfully trace how the Church originally sided with Aristotle. The spread of Islam in the Middle East, however, drove Eastern Churches into Europe (there was no fabled "golden age" of Islamic dominance associated with "the rise of science"), the writings of Plato were rediscovered. The ensuing crisis in thought as neo-Platonic thinking spread through the Church, and the eventual attempts to bring the two worldviews together, resulted in what we now consider the seedbed of science through the vehicle of math.

Section three deals with the rise and fall of math in the quest for a single overarching "theory of everything," and section four deals with the rise of relativistic theory. This final section is very helpful in bringing to light the world in which Einstein lived, the foundation of the theory of relativity, and his reaction to that theory being taken from the realm of physics into the realm of worldview (a process that has only accelerated since Einstein, himself, left the scene).

If you really want to understand the history of science, and the relationship between science and Christian thought, there are few better places to start than with The Soul of Science.

This is a fabulous book for anybody in Science or Christian Theology. It really does a good job of showing that the science we have today would not have progressed (or at least not as fast) to the amazing discoveries that we have today without the Ancient Scientists (back then they were called philosophers) who believed in God and used the Bible to inform their science.

Really glad I read this. At first glance this is a history book, giving the history of science from a Christian perspective. But it is much more. It is also a philosophy book, and education on science itself--in total it reflects 2 very bright minds that have presented a very reasonable view of science.

The Soul of Science provides a thorough review of early scientific thought and the basis for it, both theologically and philosophically. Further into the book the material gets quite deep. Quantum mechanics is not easy reading and yet this book did an excellent job of providing a rudimentary understanding of the topic so the reader was able to understand the historic and philosophical impact of this development in science.

This book is written by Christians and they don't hide that fact, at the same time it is a very well reasoned and winsome approach to the topic. This was not a light read but well worth my effort, after completing this book I knew I had invested my time wisely. I would wholeheartedly recommend The Soul of Science.

This is a must read for everyone who is a minister of religion as well as doctors and nurses.

Well researched and organized. Like all of history, science history is somewhat open to interpretation, but they do an excellent job of presenting the case for the greatness of science in the past, including during the "dark" ages. They also present a concrete explanation of why experimental science flourished in Western Europe and not in other areas that had many years of a "head start" like the Middle East and China. Worldview does matter, and it really matters in the area of experimental science.

I found this book very interesting. Full of information that I was not aware of. I even understood the concept behind Einstein`s theory of relativity. But in no way is this book an easy one to read. Some concepts were profound although the writer tried to keep it simple. Excellent book overall. The whole planet should have it in their libraries.

The discussion in the first chapter is generally well-researched and provides for some enlightening historical and orderly discussion. I jumped to the end to scan the conclusions.

The discussion protrays the Biblical Christian worldview, and identifies a number of qualities involved that are argued to distinguish Christianity's foundations for science. Quotes are introduced from the likes of Galileo and Roger Cotes who wrote for Newton's Principia.

I'm noticing that some distinctions are NOT being made in this book. The book ultimately concludes with a view that is fairly conventionally Christian. This is unfortunate, I find, because of the still deeper significance of identifying Christianity's role. The biology and ecology of the planet's life support systems on which life in human society depends is endangered. The international science of IPCC reports on Climate Change has been clarifying the massive threats of human greenhouse gas emissions, and the US National Security Strategies are an example of the appropriate concern for worst case scenarios. Worse still is the 2005 UN-World Bank Millenium Ecosystem Assessment.

Another factor of a different kind, the development of therapeutic psychology by Freud and his lineage, has laid out a new degree of the nature of inner work and personal happiness and transformation, child abuse, human potential, of educational learning.

Still another is the meaning of alternative, democratic and non-profit-maximizing business and economic models like cooperative partnerships and whole cost accounting.

These issues have a vast literature of their own, and represent fundamental questions relating to the survival of human society and many forms of life. For example, on the role of pollution and the destructive effects of rapacious human industrial activity in the tradition of the legendary biologist Rachel Carson, Biologist E.O. Wilson is a well-known writer writing about Biophilia and Jane Goodall about Reason for Hope. Along the lines of human character and the potential of personal transformation Erich Fromm has written the Anatomy of Human Destructiveness, Wilhelm Reich on Character Armor, John Bradshaw on Healing the Shame that Binds You, Virigina Satir on The New Peoplemaking, and Marshall Rosenberg on Non-Violent Communication. Al Gore has philosophically extended Bradshaw's work in his Earth in the Balance, in a parallel development to Ralph Metzner, Ted Rozsak, and Chellis Glendinnings' leads in Ecopsychology.

On the question of alternative business models there have been most recently United for a Fair Economy's Economic Apartheid, the Adler Institute of Social Exclusion's Bronheim et al's Social Exclusion in the United States, Michael Brown's The Greenpeace Story, William Greider in The Soul of Capitalism, Marjorie Kelly in The Divine Right of Capital, Jessica Nembhard on Cooperative Ownership and the African American Struggle, and Mark Lutz on Economics for the Common Good.

Many of these questions are not sufficiently acknowledged by mainstream culture or churches, but are embraced strongly by some groups in various circles. Ultimately, the original teachings of Jesus Christ and his series of "commandment" principles are oriented around respect and responsibility socially and personally. I look forward to delving into Pearcey and Thaxton's work, but perceive that they are not probing as deeply as the subject needs to be.

Aug. 31, 2009: I've just finished the book at last, and found the treatment of DNA to be highly compromised by the author's design bias. As someone with a degree in biology, and returning to Christianity from a diverse spiritual journey, as mentioned above my view is developed from experience like with corporate social responsibility activism, and searching the roots back through civil rights activism to anti-slavery to the origins of the university in the Church.

The teachings of Jesus Christ broke with Judaism, and established the positive principle of love in various dimensions including the 10 Commandments, but redefining the approach based on love of God, neighbor, and self. P and T make the case strongly for the first natural philosopher scientists. Their treatment of DNA reduces to a comparison with linguistics, which they mention in shallow and self-serving fashion. Their basic argument? That DNA's biochemical function as complex information is not possible under natural law, and is more similar to human language.

Their discussion makes one reference to evolution, contained in a quote of Crick. They discuss linguistics in a way that suits their argument. Making references to Charles Dickens' artistic principles and the need for a linguistic convention or dictionary, they state the lack of a "dictionary" behind DNA's origin. Entertaining the use of linguistics as a conceptual tool, it is simply enough to point out their failure to discuss anthropological linguistics and even simpler, etymology. How abstract is etymology? For example, according to Websters, the word "science" developed from the Latin "scientia," being modified over time through European and world history. The word "religion" goes through the middle Enlglish "religioun" to Latin "religio". Hmm, so much for the act of God as Universe as Charles Dickens. Moreover, linguistic history traces its genealogical trees all the way to India for many languages, calling them something like Indo-European, among others. Ogden and Richards' The Meaning of Meaning is one way to research more deeply, though a search for General Semantics would turn up some lighter introductory material.

Thus, even staying with P and T's conceptual tool of "linguistic conventions," we now have a foundation to conceive, oh yes, biological evolution. P and T's treatment of Crick's reference to evolution is that Crick seems worried. I don't think it's Crick that's so nervous. My undergraduate degree is in human evolutionary biology, yikes! Over the years I recall interesting material about the evolution of snake venom, for example. If I'm not mistaken, I remember that it bears structural relationship to snake saliva. Remembering first that evolutionary dynamics through "Natural Selection" involve reproductive differences as a result of biological capacities and traits. Different land mammals returned to the sea and generation after generation consisted of homologous water adaptations, fins and ample ability to hold the breath, etc. Each of those changes, from paws and claws to fins involved changes in DNA information. Flying squirrels are an example in another dimension that's easy to visualize, as are bats. Now we're talking. I've got one of Carl Zimmer's books to get a little refresher course.

These changes happen over vast expanses of time. Not 10 years, not 20 years, not 100 years, though things could happen quickly for fruit flies and mosquitoes, or under various circumstances. Still, under conditions prior to human society, we have a time scale that is not easy to imagine. P and T also don't raise this issue. The universe is thought to have a beginning event, The Big Bang, some 13 billion years ago. The Earth formed some 4 billion years ago, and life, over 1 billion. (Just checked, make that 3.8 bya!!) Primates only first appeared about 60 million years ago, and Chimpanzees and humans are thought to have split some 7 million years ago. One million is 100,000 times 10. P and T spend a lot of time discussing mathematics. Given their clear emotional attachment to design, I'd say they need to also look into the history of science in the psychology sector. My undergraduate class in History of Science made a point of discussing Freud.

Besides time, we also have to discuss ecology. Some of Darwin's first insights, after all, involve the finches on the Galapagos. Strangest thing you ever saw, finches with all kinds of beaks, to crack nuts, pierce bark, spear and snap insects, and peck seeds. Maybe even to sip from flowers. That's the result of adaptive radiation and geographic isolation. It's not just "neoliberal" competition, but also a process of ecological niches and individual genetic variation. Richard Dawkins The Selfish Genes gets into deep thought about genotypes and phenotypes, for one.

As for the origin of life experiments that they mention, P and T don't even have the courage to mention Urey and Miller's 1953 experiemtn. I just pulled out my 1980's textbook by Keeton, and the tone is like I remember it, bursting with reports of diverse organic materials produced during experiments. They even note that the amino acids created ealry on are the ones most abundant in proteins today. Quite a different report from P and T's censorial claims: minimal organic materials and mostly gummy brown tar. I think a "Prove it...." is called for.

Thus, we find that DNA is a creation of natural law and organizational principles. Ones, however, that involve evolutionary biology and time frames, which P and T totally and conveniently neglect.

It's unfortunate. Nevertheless, it's clear that as a society, we're involved in a process of sorting all this stuff out. As for the Creator, I think we need to pay attention to the origin of Christ, and the full nature of his message. P and T mention that we are sinners broken before God.

This view itself is characteristic of certain doctrines, and not my and many peoples' understanding of Christ's broader significance. I'll hold off, but just raise some questions, why would Jesus heal and leave core teachings about love and forgiveness, and even of learning and the value of truth? Since Christ has brought a unique message with a unique impact on its cultural history, why would Old Testament myths trump scientific accounts? Since Science is a Christian cultural practice, isn't the study of all science, physics and evolutionary biology, all a new reflection of human ability to love, and understand God's love, after Christ? How random is evolution in a universe with definite laws?

P and T introduce a number of fundamental questions throughout the book, and an awareness of the different levels and categories of academic and scientific study. In my view they make a great effort, and a great inspiration for further thought and research.

A nice surprise! The book was in excellent condition! No markings, no tears, very good binding. I am very happy with this bookseller and my book!

This is a most interesting and well written book.