S & CB (2002), 14, 183–192 Book Reviews

K. Helmut Reich, Fritz K. Oser stage 5 God appears in every human and W. George Scarlett commitment, yet transcends it. Tran- Psychological Studies on Spiritual and scendence and immanence interact com- Religious Development pletely, making possible universal soli- Being Human: The Case of Religion, darity with all human beings. Vol.2 Smoliak studied developing thoughts Lengerich, Germany: Pabst Science of God in 114 children aged 6 to 16 from Publishers, 1999, pb. 183 pp. a Christian school. Each child was asked ISBN 3-933151-96-1 to tell a story about God and then to answer questions about the story of Understanding spiritual and religious Jesus calming the sea. Most of the development is clearly extremely impor- responses were at stages 1 and 2, far tant. The editors, active researchers in fewer were at stage 3. Beile interviewed the area, maintain that spiritual phe- nomena are as open to scientific study as 43 German adolescents in a study of how any.They adopt a broad view of spiritual- feelings are related to religious judge- ity as having a natural root in human- ment. Transitions from stage 2 to stage 3 ness and as developing differently in were primarily cognitive, while those interaction with various religious tradi- from stage 3 to stage 4 were emotion tions. Socha, for example, regards spiri- based. Eleven participants reported spe- tuality as a way of coping with the cific religious feelings of closeness to God. uniquely human experience of knowing In a pilot study concerned with post- that we are mortal and will never be per- modern religiousness, Rollett and Kager fect. had 38 religiously oriented persons Nye discusses her extensive research respond to a battery of tests including a into the spirituality of children in the ‘Religious Dilemma’, a ‘Community light of theory of mind,a concept now pop- Dilemma’, a scale of Religious Self-Effi- ular in mainstream psychology. Theory of cacy, the Freiburg Personality Inventory, mind is concerned with how children and ‘Pictures representing four types of develop awareness that they, and other emotional interaction’. The authors’ main people, have minds, and what exactly conclusion indicated that fulfilment of these can do. This distinctively human spiritual needs results from a person kind of consciousness takes us beyond striving towards an emotional relation the immediacy of the physical world, and with the Absolute modelled on a co-oper- beyond understanding based on observ- ative partnership and a personal, respon- able behaviour. sible interpretation of obligation towards one’s own religious community. Thus In two of the studies reported Oser’s affective dimensions are not a preroga- five-stage description of the development tive of the so-called new religions, but are of religious judgement was used. At stage rather a fundamental aspect of religious 1, an Ultimate Being is all influential; at involvement per se. stage 2 God can be influenced by prayers; stage 3 the individual assumes responsi- The papers also include a life-span bility for his/her own life, the Ultimate study of the spiritual development of Being is apart. At stage 4 the individual Abraham Lincoln; a study which sought comes to recognise that freedom and life to probe the inconsistencies of the human stem from an Ultimate Being and at mind which enable miracles to be

Science & Christian Belief, Vol 14, No. 2 • 183 Book Reviews believed; and one on wise acts (those did not arise in response to scientific which require a prior change of perspec- advance, as some would maintain. tive). Rather, it is the emergence of the literal interpretation of Genesis in the last cen- These papers provide a taste of some tury that is the anomaly. With this has studies in this very important area. come the baggage of ‘Creationist Science’ Interviewing is a -consuming which the authors spend a considerable method of collecting data; the results time demolishing as both bad science and reported need to be verified and their bad theology. They present us with a scope extended. Hopefully some readers wealth of evidence to illustrate the incon- may feel inspired to undertake such sistencies, inaccuracies and confusion research. displayed by the anti-evolutionary Rosamund Bourke was formerly young-earth creationist thinking of Senior Lecturer in Psychology at the Christian literalists like H. M. Morris. University of Hertfordshire. She is The authors recognize that Christians now active in research in the psychol- who hold such views may well be sincere ogy of religion. and well meaning, but they are actually doing the Christian Faith a disservice as illustrated by a quotation from the fifth century theological giant, Augustine of Hippo. ‘Usually even a non-Christian Roger Forster and Paul Marston knows something about the earth, the Reason, Science & Faith heavens, and the other elements of this Crowborough: Monarch Books, 1999. world… and this knowledge he holds to 479 pp., pb. £8.99. ISBN 1-85424-441-8 as being certain from reason and experi- Roger Forster and Paul Marston are no ence. Now, it is a disgraceful and danger- strangers to the ‘Science and Faith’ ous thing for an unbeliever to hear a debate and this book is a thorough Christian, presumably giving the mean- update and expansion of their previous ing of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense book Reason and Faith (1989 also pub- on these topics, and we should take all lished by Monarch). As Conservative means to prevent such an embarrassing Evangelicals they believe that the Bible situation, in which people show up vast has a unique authority, but they also are ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to convinced that its proper interpretation scorn’. Such quotations from a wide is consistent with modern science. They range of sources right back to the first hold firmly to the view expressed by Sir century are a feature of the book which Francis Bacon in the seventeenth cen- readers will find both fascinating and tury that the ‘Book of God’s Word’, the illuminating. Bible, teaches us theology whilst the It is not only creation scientists and lit- ‘Book of God’s Works’, Nature, teaches us eralists that receive a telling critique science. Properly understood there will from Forster and Marston; so too do those be no conflict between them. However, “scientific atheists” such as Peter Atkins they argue forcefully that such a proper and Richard Dawkins whose militant understanding does not require a literal atheism drives them to ridicule the Chris- interpretation. Indeed, they demonstrate tian faith and its adherents at every convincingly that the traditional under- opportunity. The authors note that much standing of the first chapters of Genesis, of what these popular science writers recognized by theologians (including have to say is more metaphysics and those of an ‘evangelical’ persuasion) from speculation than real science, and when the very birth of the Christian Church, is they comment on of philosophy, an allegorical, rather than a literal one. religion and the history of science they They are at pains to point out that this display a remarkable degree of ignorance.

184 • Science & Christian Belief, Vol 14, No. 2 Book Reviews

Reason, Science & Faith is much more ters. Perhaps this is an inevitable conse- than just a consideration of the creation/ quence of dual authorship. Another evolution debate. It covers all the major minor irritation was that the style of issues relating to science and faith and it writing frequently became over-personal does so with intellectual rigor and exten- for a book of this nature and at sive reference to the literature, both past seemed patronizing towards those who and present. There are chapters on how held other views. There were also an God works in the world, on the general exceptionally large number of “typos” for relationship between science and God a published book. and between reason and faith, including a major section on “the argument from Despite these minor criticisms, for design”. The philosophical and historical those who want a more in depth look at confrontations between science and reli- the major issues relating to science and gion are considered in depth as are ques- faith, this book is a must; but don’t expect tions of personal identity and freewill. it to be a quick and easy read! Before you Other chapters consider the nature of rush out and buy it, you can always take miracles and how God communicates a look at the full text by visiting the web- with us both through the historical Jesus site that is being developed around the and through the Bible. As noted above, book at www.reason-science-and- there is a particular emphasis on the faith.com. The idea is that this site will authority of Scripture and our interpre- provide additional information, updates tation of the early chapters of Genesis in and a forum for debate. But to end with, the light of current scientific views of the another useful quote from Thomas origins of the universe and life as we Aquinas that Forster and Marston bring know it. to our attention. ‘Two rules are to be observed, as Augustine teaches. The first Overall, this is a very impressive book is, to hold the truth of Scripture without that will reward the reader with a wealth wavering. The second is that since Holy of helpful quotations and historical Scripture can be explained in a multiplic- insights into how the relationship ity of senses, one should not adhere to a between science and faith has developed particular explanation, only in such down the centuries. There will be areas measure as to be ready to abandon it if it with which readers will wish to disagree, be proved with certainty to be false; lest and there may be issues that could have Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule been covered better. How to reconcile of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to modern science and Scripture in relation their believing’. to disease, suffering and the Fall would be a case in point. Nevertheless, few Andrew Halestrap is a Professor of readers will fail to benefit from reading Biochemistry at the University of Bris- this book, and for those of us who are tol sometimes called upon to speak on such subjects it will prove an invaluable refer- ence. However, it is not a book to be read casually, and I must confess that I found K.E. Greene-McCreight it hard going at times. Am I right to sus- Ad Litteram: How Augustine, Calvin pect that some of the book is a reworking and Barth Read the “Plain Sense” of of material used in a lecture course? It Genesis 1-3 certainly doesn’t read with the fluency Bern and New York: Peter Lang, 1999. xi and light touch of a book designed for the + 274 pp., hb. £32. ISBN 0-8204-3992-4. average reader. There was also a consid- erable amount of repetition that came This book is a study of what the concept about as the same topic was approached of the ‘plain sense’ of the Bible has meant from a different angle in separate chap- to Christian scholars down the ages. In

Science & Christian Belief, Vol 14, No. 2 • 185 Book Reviews the opening chapter the author points the teaching of the Bible. However, they out that the concept has never been a perhaps are just the people who should straightforward one. The ‘plain sense’ of read it to have their eyes opened to just the Old Testament became problematic how simplistically the Bible is often for the early Christians in the second treated in that area of debate. That the century A.D. This was because some of it ‘plain sense’ of Genesis 1-3 is not all that seemed irrelevant to them (e.g. the laws obvious becomes clear as one observes on clean and unclean food) and some of it Augustine, Calvin and Barth wrestling was repugnant (e.g. the immoral behav- with the text in the light of their particu- iour of some of the ‘heroes of the faith’). lar concerns and presuppositions. This highlights the fact that behind the concern about the ‘plain sense’ of the For Augustine the ‘plain sense’ of Gen. Bible is the belief that it is the authorita- 2:4 was that God created everything tive word of God. How can it have this simultaneously (‘in one day’). He there- function if some of it seems irrelevant fore read the account in Gen. 1 figura- and part of it describes behaviour that is tively, as a narrative intended to help us contrary to God’s moral standards? One understand God’s creative activity, and response was to look for a ‘deeper’ or not as an historical account of it. In this ‘spiritual’ meaning by means of allegoris- he was influenced by his understanding ing the text. However, this raised the of the relationship between God, time danger of people reading whatever they and eternity. Calvin understood the days liked into the text. To counter this it was of Gen. 1 as periods of 24 hours. However, insisted that interpretations which go he insisted that the account of creation beyond the ‘plain sense’ should be con- had been expressed in a way that ‘accom- strained by the ‘rule of faith’ (i.e. the doc- modated’ it to the capacity of the readers trinal boundaries set in the ecumenical to understand it. One aspect of this is creeds). But what is the ‘plain sense’? that it described things as they appear to Jews and Christians differed over be, not as they really are. So, Calvin whether or not certain texts were found no problem in the apparent ‘plain ‘plainly’ messianic in their meaning, so sense’ of Gen. 1:6&7 that the sky is a raising the question of the original solid dome, or of Gen. 1:16 that the Moon author’s intended meaning, and whether is bigger than Saturn. For Barth the and how it is legitimate to go beyond this. genre and purpose of Gen. 1-3 indicate that they are to be read theologically, In her study the author explores what which for him meant Christologically, the concept of the ‘plain sense’ meant to and so he thought it inappropriate to dis- three influential Christian theologians cuss scientific issues in relation to these by studying how they interpreted Gene- chapters. sis 1-3. She says she has chosen these chapters because the interpretation of The book is written in a clear, readily the Old Testament has always been a key readable style. Although intended prima- issue with regard to the ‘plain sense’ (for rily for theologians, it should be under- the reasons outlined above), and because standable by others who are prepared to these chapters tell of ‘pivotal episodes put some effort into their reading of it. that launch the Biblical story’ (20). The book is a theological study. It is part of a Ernest Lucas is Vice-Principal and series entitled ‘Issues in Systematic The- Tutor in Biblical Studies at Bristol ology’. The author warns that it is not Baptist College about ‘what the Bible really says’ in these chapters. For some this might seem to make it of only marginal interest to those concerned with the relationship between scientific understanding of the world and

186 • Science & Christian Belief, Vol 14, No. 2 Book Reviews

Denis Alexander is stout in the defence of the scientific Rebuilding the Matrix: Science and value of evolutionary insight and rejects Faith in the 21st Century the extremes of both ‘creation science’ Oxford: Lion Publishing, 2001. 510pp. and an imperialist naturalism. There is a pb. £12.99. ISBN 0 7459 5116 3 particularly helpful chapter (11) that gives a measured critique of sociobiologi- The matrix of the title refers to the over- cal claims to give an adequate explana- all framework within which a person sets tion of, and basis for, ethics. their understanding of reality. All of us, tacitly or explicitly, embrace some form of In fact, Alexander believes that evolu- metaphysics, just as we all speak prose. tionary biology is essentially neutral as Denis Alexander writes to defend the far as religious implications are con- thesis that theism provides the best cerned. This is part of a thesis that per- matrix within which to justify the valid- meates the book, that the detailed con- ity of science and to encourage the flour- cerns of science and religion are in many ishing of human values. ways detached from each other: ‘neither do [Christians] believe that scientific After a survey of how it is that such knowledge per se is relevant to ….theism’ overviews come to be formed, there follow (341). However, such an ‘independent’ four chapters charting the historical model of the relationship seems at best to course of the relationship between sci- be a half truth. does not deter- ence and religion. Alexander has read mine metaphysics, but it surely con- extensively in the secondary literature strains it by conditions of consonance. In and he is able to make excellent use of fact a modest and insightful (rather than apt quotations relating to all sides of the demonstrative) natural theology does issues being discussed. Persuasive argu- surface in the short discussion in chapter ments are presented for rejecting a thesis 12 of anthropic fine-tunings, in contrast of inevitable conflict, and the claim that to the rather cool attitude taken to such science necessarily drives secularisation lines of argument elsewhere in the book. is subjected to careful criticism. An If there is a deficiency in this helpful important and recurrent theme in this addition to the science and religion litera- part of the book is that many people’s ture, it lies in a comparatively shallow matrix is influenced by items that ‘every- engagement with theology.The chapter on one knows’, but which are, in fact, false. miracles (13) does not acknowledge those It was not at all the case that everyone in problems of divine consistency that need the Middle Ages believed that the Earth careful consideration, and it devotes curi- was flat. In a discussion of how the ously little detailed attention to the cen- Reformers reacted to heliocentric claims, tral Christian miracle of the Resurrection. Alexander makes it plain that the cele- brated quotation so frequently attributed The style is spacious – the book could to John Calvin, ‘who will venture to place have been shorter without losing content. the authority of Copernicus above that of Throughout the author writes in a style the Holy Spirit’, is a pure fabrication. that is clear and even-handed, not Many of the conclusions reached are not thrusting his own Christian belief upon novel, but the detail of the discussion the reader, though not disguising it makes these chapters an extremely use- either. The urbane tone of the discussion ful part of the book. is in pleasing contrast to the fiery asser- tions that are so often exchanged across They are followed by chapters that con- the border between evolutionary biology centrate on issues arising from debates and religion. over the significance of evolutionary biol- ogy for matters of faith. As one would is the retired Pres- expect from an immunologist, Alexander ident of Queens’ College, Cambridge.

Science & Christian Belief, Vol 14, No. 2 • 187 Book Reviews

Russell Stannard (Ed.) For example, Carl Veit explains the rab- God for the 21st Century binic concept of Tsimtsum or contraction, London: SPCK, 2000. ix+194 pp. pb. the necessity for ‘an infinite, omnipresent £12.99. ISBN 0-281-05342-1 Deity … an all-powerful God … to con- tract and withdraw into himself, as it This book is unusual in having over 50 were, to make room for the finite physical authors, each contributing a few pages on world’, with the consequence that ‘there a chosen aspect of the relationship are no obvious footsteps leading back to between science and religion. This is both God’. Keith Ward inveighs against those its strength and its weakness, since it is ‘vocal … neo-Darwinian biologists’ who extremely accessible and readable, and ‘claim that evolutionary biology shows written without technicalities, but lacks that religious faith is a genetically depth and shows some significant repeti- imprinted belief that had survival value tion. The authors are mostly from the UK in the past’, seeing this as evidence of ‘a and the USA (eight countries in all are dogmatic materialism which interprets represented), and most, but not all, write the biological evidence in a slanted way’. from a Christian perspective. If a brief John Habgood argues effectively in scien- quotation is to sum up the content of this tific terms against genetic determinism book, it might well be: ‘Until a few and in favour of human moral responsi- decades ago, there was a popular notion bility. Russell Stannard draws fruitful that science was the only trustworthy parallels between the paradoxes of quan- path to truth. Other sources of truth, tum theory and of the trinity in terms of especially religious beliefs, were said to what is knowable. be outmoded. Now the situation is very different.’ (Robert Hermann, ‘Science and In the nature of things, much of what Religion: Converging Paths to Truth’). is included in this book will be familiar to most readers of this journal. The similar- The book is divided into eleven sec- ities between science and religion, vari- tions, each with a brief descriptive intro- ous aspects of the anthropic principle, the duction by the editor: Origins; The Uni- unified nature of the human person, and verse as a home for Life; Evolutionary the poverty of the conflict thesis all recur. Biology; Life in the Universe; Genes and However there are some more surprising Genetic Engineering; Faith, Medicine ideas, for example the ‘co-evolution’ of and Well-being; The Mind; Personhood God and humanity (Barbara Smith- and the Soul; Quantum Physics and Rel- Moran), and the notion that the robot ativity; Limitations to Science; and Sci- Commander Data of Starship Enterprise ence / Religion Dialogue. The spelling is would be a child of God (Anne Foerst). American, an indication of its original The writing and editing are generally publication in the USA (by the Templeton of a high quality, no mean feat when so Foundation). As would be expected, the many authors are involved. This book religious stance of the authors is quite would be very suitable for giving or lend- varied, which makes all the more inter- ing to those who are sceptical about a esting the considerable areas of agree- positive relationship between science and ment among them. religion, both literalist believers and Some of the pieces concentrate on sci- uncommitted scientists. entific ideas, which is where much of the John Bausor is the Secretary of Chris- repetition comes in, but a few (for exam- tians in Science Education, and was ple ‘Jesus in Islam’ by Zaki Badawi, the formerly the Staff Inspector for Sci- Principal of the Muslim College in Lon- ence of the Inner London Education don) are much more theological. The Authority. most effective essays are those which explicitly relate the two strands together.

188 • Science & Christian Belief, Vol 14, No. 2 Book Reviews

S. Wilkens and A.G. Padgett With some relief we contemplate a Christianity and Western Thought, return to rationality in the next chapter Volume 2: Faith and Reason in the 19th (8). But we find both Comte and his sec- Century retary St Simon as lapsed Catholics who Downers Grove, Ill: IVP/Apollos, 2000. developed warm admiration for the 436pp. hb. £16.99. ISBN 0-8308-1753-0 French Enlightenment. The latter thought that a celebration of Isaac New- In 1990 a volume by Colin Brown with ton might initiate a social revolution the title Christianity and Western Thought which replaced the nobility by scientists began a lengthy exploration of the sub- in the seat of government. Comte located ject to as far as about 1800. It was rightly science at the heart of philosophy, reject- acclaimed and the next volume was ing metaphysics and considering all phe- eagerly waited. Now this has appeared, nomena subject to ‘invariable natural though with different authors. Its scope laws’. He has been regarded as the is entirely the nineteenth century, the founder of both logical positivism and second contribution to a proposed trilogy sociology. The uniformity of nature and a ambitiously hoping to be ‘ the premier utilitarian philosophy were foundations text of philosophical history written from of the thought of J.S. Mill also. Later in a conservative Christian perspective’. the book we encounter the rise of Seminal figures at the edge of philosophy women’s suffrage from a seedbed of evan- and theology are brought before us, with gelical religion, the pragmatism of Peirce brief biographical details, relevant cita- and the indeterminism of William James, tions and shrewd comment. There are and groups like the Oxford Movement plenty of foot-notes and a good index. and the Princeton theologians. Since, as the authors admit, this was The title of the final chapter (11) will ‘the scientific century’ science may be most whet the appetite of scientifically expected to play a major role in the twists inclined readers: ‘Darwin and the rise of and turns of philosophical ideas and their the social sciences’. There is a good interactions with religion. Some of the account of Darwin’s early years and his famous engagements between science subsequent trajectory in Victorian sci- and religion are treated in what is basi- ence. But it is here that the greatest cally a chronological account of 19th cen- weakness of the book is displayed; a tury philosophy. The third chapter, on reluctance to engage with the philosoph- Romanticism, traces some pre-Victorian ical issues raised by science after about encounters in the hostile reactions of S.T. mid-century. Thus while discussing the Coleridge to the natural theology of Paley. theological impact of Darwinism the This he considered to be highly dangerous authors do not consider its challenge to to Christianity. In the same Romantic tra- the authority of Scripture, nor relate it to dition the theologian Schleiermacher earlier disputes on that topic and on the declined to deduce the method of creation age of the earth. They rightly charac- from religion, referring enquirers to natu- terise the early social sciences as ral science instead. A chapter (4) on ideal- ‘descriptive’, but say the new disciplines ism reminds us that panentheism was ‘followed the lead of the physical sci- not an aberration of the 20th century but ences’, which manifestly they did not. may be traced to Hegel and indeed Biology was their model. Indeed, the Schelling. While writing about ‘Rebellion physical sciences are largely neglected. against rationality’ the authors refer to The climactic figure in the story is Freud, Schopenhauer’s assertion that nature has while Faraday, Joule, Clerk Maxwell, no independent existence but is a creation Kelvin (to name only the Britons!) are of the human will. His pessimism was fol- not even mentioned. Yet the changing lowed by that of Kirkegaard and the even understanding of the physical world that blacker nihilistic philosophy of Nietzsche. these men helped to bring about had pro-

Science & Christian Belief, Vol 14, No. 2 • 189 Book Reviews found effects on the philosophy of science I read Niles Eldredge’s new book. and even on theology, though far differ- Eldredge is a Curator of Palaeontology at ent from those of the evolutionists. the American Museum of Natural His- tory, probably best known for his concept Not all will want a book of such length. (published in collaboration with Steve Much of the material is covered in Alan Gould) of punctuated equilibrium in the Richardson’s The Bible in the Age of Sci- fossil record. However he has also been ence which, though much older (1961), is active in face-to-face debates with cre- a shorter and more focussed account. ationists about the meaning and robust- More recently Dane Gordon’s Thinking ness of evolutionary biology. He does not and Reading in the Philosophy of Religion (1994) might offer another alternative, claim any religious belief (he calls him- though with a very different approach. self a ‘lapsed Baptist’); his passion is to Both might be preferable for readers of fight for what he sees as truth in the face scientific inclination. However, the pres- of creationist confusion and (worse) wil- ent book should be widely used by stu- ful misrepresentation. He documents dents of philosophy or theology as a ref- plenty of the latter and makes a powerful erence text, giving a general overview of case for the ‘standard’ evolutionary inter- the main developments in those areas pretation of life here on Earth, an espe- during the critically important nine- cially convincing affirmation coming teenth century. from a ‘hands-on’ cutting-edge scientist. He sees micro- and macro- evolution as Colin A. Russell is Emeritus Professor differing only in scale, which would mean in History of Science at the Open Uni- that ecological understanding can inform versity, and past President of Chris- major evolutionary events. I was particu- tians in Science and of the British larly taken with what Eldredge calls the Society for the History of Science. ‘sloshing bucket’ model of the evolution- ary process (86-88), which resonates more about natural situations to me than the somewhat orderly version put out in Niles Eldredge many text books. The Triumph of Evolution and the However the value of Eldredge’s book Failure of Creationism is the clarity with which he deals with New York: W.H. Freeman, 2000. 223pp. the misconceptions of creationists. He hb. £16.95. ISBN 0-7167-3638-1 can be read with profit by both evolution- In 1992, the Vatican formally conceded ists and anti-evolutionists. And his con- that Galileo had indeed been right to cluding broadside contains pertinent – claim that the Earth moves around the and urgent – challenges: Sun, despite his condemnation in 1633 by ‘The tired old creationism debate – the Inquisition. However this acknowl- mired as it so thoroughly is in the nine- edgement was tempered by the qualifica- teenth century – simply has not prepared tion that both Galileo and his persecutors us for the kind of positive interaction had acted ‘in good faith’. Nature (5 between science and religion that I see November 1992) commented, ‘With the eminently possible as we enter the new passage of so much time, many will say Millennium and grapple with tough envi- that this old tale, however heroic, has no ronmental issues. Nor do I think that we present significance. But this would be can afford these stupid culture wars, mistaken. The Galileo business remains with people like Phillip Johnson getting a perpetual problem because it provides upset that his version of God seems a licence for prejudice in the evaluation of threatened because scientist have discov- discovery’. ered that life developed over 3.5 billion This phrase kept coming back to me as years ago on the planet and feel that they

190 • Science & Christian Belief, Vol 14, No. 2 Book Reviews can explain how that happened through case, the fact that information is non- purely natural causes. Nor can we afford material by no means precludes the Cre- the arrogant intolerance of the scientists ator from using evolution to produce who claim that their science – evolution physical entities capable of carrying in particular – demonstrates unequivo- information. cally that there is no God’. Gitt is rightly concerned to see infor- RJ Berry is Professor Emeritus of mation as a vastly richer concept than Genetics at University College Lon- the limited statistical communication don. His God and Evolution has just theory of Shannon would have it. Shan- been republished by Regent College, non is concerned merely to quantify Vancouver. information in bits and to transmit the encoded information accurately and effi- ciently. Gitt sees meaning as central. He thus develops a rather elaborate five- Werner Gitt level hierarchy for the information con- In the Beginning was Information cept. These levels can be summarized as Bielefeld: Christliche Literatur- (i) statistics (how many symbols does the Verbreitung, 2000. 256 pp. pb. US$9.99. text employ?); (ii) syntax (do the symbols ISBN 3-89397-255-2. conform to a coherent set of rules?); (iii) semantics (what does the encoded mes- Werner Gitt is Director and Professor at sage mean?); (iv) pragmatics (what action the German Federal is desired of the recipient?); (v) apobetics and Technology. His specialism is infor- (what is the purpose of the sender?). mation science. Whilst this enables him to say some interesting things about the Gitt also puts forward a long sequence natural world, his lack of theological of what he describes as information ‘the- training is evident in the naïve Biblical orems’, though I am not convinced that literalism which permeates the book. the terminology, with its implications of mathematical rigour, can be at all justi- Thus Gitt starts with a fairly straight- fied. Indeed the whole process seems to forward account of the laws of nature, but generate more confusion than light. For already (33-34, repeated 162) he wants example, Gitt wants us to accept that all us to believe that these laws have only sorts of processes from ‘bee dancing’ to been operative since the completion of the navigation of migratory birds involve the (literally understood) six days of cre- information processing, yet theorem 19 ation. As with many fundamentalists, (77) informs us that ‘every piece of infor- Gitt fails to apply criteria he himself has mation is intentional’. Intentional on introduced to his own hypothesis, eg whose part? Can a bee really be an agent ought not six day creationism to be dis- with intentionality? Of course, if he is carded as unjustifiably ‘resistant to simply asserting that God is the ultimate empirical reality’ (25-26)? source of information, then I would want to agree, but totally differ from Gitt in The main theme of Gitt’s book is infor- the way I would understand that God mation. He describes information as ‘a had brought information about. non-material (mental) entity’ (47) and immediately concludes that its origin It seems to me that Gitt is time and cannot be explained in terms of material again begging the question. For example, processes. Thus in one fell swoop Gitt dis- he states, ‘Evolutionary doctrine deliber- misses notions of emergence and non- ately denies any purposefulness’ (78, the reductive physicalism, and whilst there idea repeated 163). In the hands of the might be debate – even controversy – likes of Richard Dawkins, yes, but an about these, it is not at all clear that Gitt author like David Bartholomew shows is even aware of such concepts. In any how random processes can be purposive.

Science & Christian Belief, Vol 14, No. 2 • 191 Book Reviews

Gitt, however, goes on to assert (124): statements’ on this and other questions ‘The basic flaw of all evolutionary views ‘on the authority and by the truth of the is the origin of the information in living living God’. Genesis 2:7 includes, ‘with beings’. Yet Gitt’s treatment of evolution the highest possible semantic informa- is at best cursory. Mutations are ‘in gen- tion density’, the remarkable information eral injurious’, we are told – true, but that, ‘Contrary to all statements to this what gives direction to evolution is the effect, man did not descend from some sifting of the occasional beneficial ones animal; he was created separately’ (155- by natural selection. 156). Any idea that there are other ways of understanding the early chapters of Perhaps the heart of Gitt’s argument is Genesis, without in any way compromis- found in a footnote on page 136. Evolu- ing the highest view of them as the tionary models which assume that mat- inspired word of God, is entirely absent. ter can be self-organising are useless. But cannot be self-organising in The unfortunate thing in all this is the sense that the principles of self- that information is an important concept. organisation have been implanted by Moreover, like purpose and meaning, it is God? The hub of the matter, however, is not reducible to lower level concepts of that ‘theistic evolution … cannot be chemistry and physics. Arthur Peacocke refuted by means of the information the- pointed this out a long while ago in the orems, but it contradicts revelation’. To context of the information carried by me this undermines the whole book. The DNA. Both Peacocke and John Polking- information theorems are a complete dis- horne have suggested that God might traction: the real issue is interpretation interact with the world by ‘information of the Bible. input’ via ‘top-down causation’. Sadly, Gitt does not engage with such main- In another recent book (In Six Days, ed. stream Christian thinkers in the area of J. Ashton, 341) Gitt tells how he (not sur- science and religion. He is right to be prisingly, I think!) stunned a conference anti-reductionist but quite wrong to con- audience into silence by stating: ‘For me, clude that this is inconsistent with an as an information scientist, the key ques- evolutionary origin for life and mankind. tion is the source of information. Regard- I cannot recommend his book as a helpful ing the length of the creation days, there addition to the literature. is only one source of information and that is the Bible. In the Bible, God tells us Rodney Holder is Assistant Curate, that he created everything in six days’. Long Compton-Wolford Group of The point is reiterated here (143) that Parishes, Diocese of Coventry only the Bible can make ‘final and true

192 • Science & Christian Belief, Vol 14, No. 2