S & CB (2009), 21, 175–192 0954–4194

Book Reviews

Anna Case-Winters and allows for divine action without vio- Reconstructing a Christian Theology lation of natural laws. Other panen- of Nature: Down to Earth theisms would presumably also achieve Aldershot/Burlington VT: Ashgate, 2007. this but she sees process thought’s value 183 pp. hb. £50.00. ISBN 978-0-7546- lying within its espousal of ‘panexperi- 5476-6 mentalism’, its ‘refusal of a material-spir- itual dualism in which God and the This is an attempt, from within the human being have a monopoly of spirit Reformed tradition, to contribute and the rest of nature is simply material’ towards ‘a more viable theology of (129). It lets God off the theodical hook to nature’(1). The author considers that the some extent, and provides a non-hierar- need for such a reinterpretation of exist- chical view of reality. ing theology lies in the ‘state of the world’ (the usual ecological suspects but pre- The strength of this book is its identifi- sented within a wider canvas of econom- cation of the wider issues (not just the ics and health issues) and the ‘state of ecological crisis) facing a theology of theology’. The latter includes the obvious nature and its juxtaposition of a number accusations, from Lynn White, of dualism of different approaches to dealing with between God and World leading to the problems she identifies. If you find anthropocentrism and the desacralisa- process thought a satisfying and coher- tion of nature. However, Case-Winters ent account of the world then you may expands the challenge to include attacks find her thesis convincing. I would have by both feminist and process thought on liked to see her working more with some other hierarchical dualisms within the of the promising lines of thought she Christian tradition, and the need posed identified within her own tradition, using by scientific understandings of origins the texts themselves to reshape a more and causation to reconsider our accounts robust theology of nature to counter the of creation, human distinctiveness, and weaknesses of classical theology. For divine action. A more adequate Christian instance, the material on humanity as dust and as imago Dei (119-23) is partic- theology of nature should address these ularly helpful. issues while retaining a concept of a God worthy of worship, both immanent in the The merits of this book are unfortu- world yet sufficiently distinguished from nately undermined by a degree of repeti- it (a weakness she finds in the work of tion and errors in syntax, punctuation McFague and Kaufmann); it should also and referencing, the latter being a con- establish the alterity and intrinsic value fusing mixture of Harvard style and foot- of nature and provide a model for living notes. The content as a whole would have within it (41, 131, 145). been improved by some acknowledge- ment of other contributions towards a Curiously, despite finding a number of theology of nature more adequate to our fruitful contributions within her own current situation yet situated firmly Reformed tradition, notably in the works within the Christian scriptures, such as of Calvin, Moltmann, Hall and Rolston those from Michael Northcott, Celia (Ch.3), Case-Winters does not build much Deane-Drummond and James Nash. on these but turns to process thought, more specifically process panentheism, to Despite its publication within the articulate a view of God and world which interdisciplinary Ashgate Science and maintains the distinction between the Religion Series, this is a theological two without collapsing into pantheism treatment of the topic with only enough

Science & Christian Belief, Vol 21, No. 2 • 175 Book Reviews science included to convince the reader of deals with the interactions between reli- the necessity of the task undertaken and gion and science, and refutes claims that the suitability of the solutions proposed; they are inevitably in conflict, drawing in fact, the inclusion of some topics, such on the ideas of Habgood, Barbour and as ID, does not really contribute to the McGrath. overall thesis. Although some theological Having laid the foundations in the first terms are defined and explained they are half of the book, Seybold turns in the sec- not always appropriately presented (for ond half to the questions raised by mod- example, panentheism is defined on p. ern neuroscience and psychology, and 126 although occurring, according to the attempts to show that ‘it is possible to be index, on 17 different pages before then) both an honest Christian and an honest so a non-specialist reader might find it scientist’. I think he succeeds well. quite a challenging read. Chapter 6 (‘Brain and Religion’) deals Cherryl Hunt is a biblical scholar and with whether emotional and religious former cell biologist currently work- experiences can be reduced to brain ing on an AHRC funded project ‘Uses activity, as had been claimed by of the Bible in Environmental Ethics’ Persinger and others. Seybold argues in the Department of Theology at the convincingly that to explain is not to University of Exeter. explain away. Chapter 7 (‘The Self’) deals with self- hood and the nature of the soul, and sum- Kevin S. Seybold marises the philosophical debate Explorations in Neuroscience, between monists and dualists. He Psychology and Religion appears to favour the nonreductive phys- Aldershot, Hampshire, UK & icalism of Nancey Murphy and Warren Burlington, VT, USA: Ashgate, 2007. 163 Brown, a moderate form of monism that pp. hb. £50/$99.95. ISBN 978-0-7546- accepts the mind as an emergent, 5563-3 depending on the brain but ‘nevertheless a different property that cannot be Recent developments in neuroscience viewed as consisting of nothing more and psychology raise many questions for than neurons and neurotransmitters’. Christians, ranging from the nature of And he draws on theologians such as Joel the soul to the evolution of religion, and Green to argue that nonreductive physi- the stated aim of this book is to address calism is consistent with Scripture. While these for the benefit of the ‘person in the I happen to agree with Seybold’s position, pew’. I feel he gives here insufficient attention to theologians with a contrary view such The first five of the book’s ten chapters as J.W. Cooper. In this same chapter, Sey- provide the factual and conceptual back- bold discusses the somewhat different ground for the remaining five. The initial problem of brain disorders that affect a three chapters sketch the basics of neu- person’s experience of selfhood, and their roscience and psychology, and dissect implications for Christian belief and subtle distinctions between the terms practice. ‘religion’ and ‘spirituality’. Chapter 4 summarises in a mere but masterly Chapter 8 provides a balanced survey seven pages how the philosophy of sci- of evolutionary psychology as applied to ence has changed since the days of posi- the origins of morality, altruism, sexual tivism, mentioning the ideas of Kuhn and tendencies and religion, pointing out Polanyi, and considers the issues of natu- both the explanatory power of this ralism and reductionism in relation to approach but also its relative lack of sup- psychology and neuroscience. Chapter 5 porting evidence. Problems raised for

176 • Science & Christian Belief, Vol 21, No. 2 Book Reviews

Christian belief are addressed including in Austria, he writes from a Catholic the apparent contradiction between evo- background and in this book he presents lutionary psychology and the biblical some wide-ranging perspectives of physi- account of the Fall. cal science, seen from a faith-based point of view. The present volume is a transla- Chapter 9 considers the influences of tion of the original German version. religion and spirituality on health, and provides a discussion of recent research Thirring’s account focuses on the areas on the neuropsychology of forgiveness. of cosmology, astrophysics, the physics of the solar system and particle physics, Chapter 10 looks into the future and with some thoughts on how life is able to discusses ethical questions that may exist on our planet. While broad in scope, arise from the application of new tech- the discussion does not attempt to be nology to brain enhancement. exhaustive or overly rigorous, but rather I am glad I read this book. It is not par- to convey general principles to a non-spe- ticularly original, and does not claim to cialist reader, especially with regard to a be, but it provides a superbly balanced number of topics that are of particular and well-informed overview of the impli- interest to the author. All the chosen top- cations of modern neuroscience and psy- ics are important and well merit the chology for Christianity. More weight is emphasis given to them. given to psychology than to neuroscience In any book such as this, a professional (there is no discussion of neural deter- author has the problem of how to com- minism), which probably reflects the fact municate the specialist aspects of his that Seybold is a professor of psychology. subject to a non-specialist readership – in I discovered from the web site of his Col- this case the more mathematical aspects. lege (Grove City, a Christian college in Thirring includes quite a lot of equations Pennsylvania) that he gives regular and mathematical concepts in his text, courses on Science and Religion, and Psy- trying to keep it all quite elementary and chology of Religion. His experience in relegating much to a series of Appen- teaching these subjects comes out in the dices. I suspect he has not fully succeeded clarity and evenness of this book. It will in his intentions: the non-mathematical be tough going for the average ‘person in reader will still probably find this mate- the pew’, but I think it is just right for rial heavy going, even though it com- many readers of Science and Christian prises a small fraction of the text overall. Belief. At the same time, other readers may find Peter G.H. Clarke is a neurobiologist the lack of real mathematical detail a lit- at the University of Lausanne, tle frustrating. There is no easy compro- Switzerland. mise available, but some criticism must be made of the translator, who writes in a very informal American style but is apparently not a native English speaker. In particular, mathematical terminology Walther Thirring is sometimes inaccurately rendered, such Cosmic Impressions: Traces of God in as referring to the ‘answer’ rather than the Laws of Nature the ‘solution’ to an equation, and talking Philadelphia and London: Templeton about the ‘level’ rather than the ‘plane’ of Foundation Press, English Translation an elliptical orbit (118). This kind of faux 2007. 88 pp. pb. £12.99. ISBN 978-1- pas is unhelpful and should have been 59947-115-0 avoided. Walther Thirring has spent a long and The basic message of the book is in line distinguished career researching in with anthropic ideas, namely that the many areas of theoretical physics. Born universe at all levels is remarkably con-

Science & Christian Belief, Vol 21, No. 2 • 177 Book Reviews sistent with a principle that the physical high place in his field. It will certainly be processes should enable the emergence of a welcome addition to my own bookshelf. intelligent advanced life and appear sur- Peter Bussey is Reader in Physics at prisingly well set up for this to occur. the University of Glasgow. Thirring takes pains to discuss the sta- bility of the solar system. This cannot be taken for granted. Despite Laplace’s con- viction two centuries ago that he had proved that the planetary orbits are in Agneta Sutton the long term stable, it later became Christian Bioethics: A Guide for the realised that his arguments lacked the Perplexed necessary precision, and even now we London: T&T Clark, 2008. 180pp. pb. cannot be completely certain of the situa- £14.99. ISBN 978-0-567-03197-6 tion. But yet the earth has survived for John Wyatt’s book, Matters of Life and the necessary millions of years in a con- Death, has somewhat dominated the dition that has enabled life to evolve. Christian bioethics book scene for a while Thirring argues that this is far from now. My guess is it will continue to do so, being an obvious expectation. but Agneta Sutton’s new book, with its The style of the book is very idiosyn- self explanatory title, is a very useful cratic, but there is no sin in that. Much of addition to this scene. the text has the flavour of after-dinner In some ways, Sutton’s book can be occasions in which a distinguished guest seen as an updated version of Wyatt’s – affably discourses on the subjects that albeit shorter, and with more John Paul have provided him with so much fascina- II and fewer biblical references – as it tion during his long career. Thirring’s includes new legal and scientific develop- enthusiasm is palpable even when the ments, such as hybrids and cybrids. arguments become a little difficult. Some Although, of course, even some of these sections are written as conversations will be out of date by the time the current between various characters, such as Human Fertilisation and Embryology between the planets Uranus and Nep- Bill completes all its stages through Par- tune over the aberrant behaviour of their liament. Sutton states in the preface that small companion, Pluto! I found her book is written as an introduction to Thirring’s reminiscences and anecdotes the subject from a Christian standpoint about various well-known physicists – and is for the informed general reader and some less well-known ones – very and university students (x). I would valuable to have. agree. It is not really pitched at the aver- Probably this does not represent a age person in the pew who is intrigued by major new contribution to the science- the issues but at someone who already religion debate, despite some very inter- has a basic interest and who wants to estingly presented points of view. There knows more facts, theology and the loca- are better books on the market if one is tion of bioethics within its philosophical context. seeking an in-depth account of the Anthropic Principle as such. On the Sutton takes bioethics in its widest whole, I think the present book will sense. She covers not just the traditional appeal most to physically well-informed medical ethics issues (beginning of life, readers who are able to follow the math- abortion, euthanasia, genetics, eugenics, ematical aspects without difficulty; how- cloning, stem cells, hybrids and ever any reader who is willing to skip chimeras) but other disciplines too, such over some of these will obtain new as animal welfare and ecology. However, insights and an appreciation of the style she deliberately does not explore newer of thinking of a researcher who holds a technologies such as nanotechnology, AI,

178 • Science & Christian Belief, Vol 21, No. 2 Book Reviews pharmacology etc, arguing that: ‘The reader both as reference and to read present is giving us enough pause for straight through. It is well structured, thought.’ (7) with plenty of subdivisions, headings and good quotations, making it easy to dip in Sutton’s philosophical background pro- and out of it. If any further recommenda- vides a solid foundation for the book. Her tion is needed, my review copy is already central thesis is that there are two main well thumbed and I have referenced it a schools of thinking in bioethics, or an ‘old’ number of times when needing a clear, and a ‘new’ medicine. The ‘new’ medicine, simple explanation and analysis of a or the secular, utilitarian school, is exem- bioethics dilemma or written confirma- plified by Peter Singer, who is quoted tion of a position I am already inclined extensively by Sutton. The ‘old’ medicine towards. is exemplified by the Hippocratic and Christian traditions, particularly the Philippa Taylor is an Independent Roman Catholic position. Throughout the Consultant on Bioethics and Family book Sutton pitches these two against issues and is currently studying for an each other. Whilst this divide is a useful MA in bioethics. means of introducing the broad philo- sophical context of Christian bioethics to readers, and there is obviously conflict and strong disagreement between these Graham Dunstan Martin competing world-views, by necessity Does It Matter: The Unsustainable there is a tendency to oversimplify the World of the Materialists context and overlook the variety of philo- Edinburgh: Floris Books, 2005. 282pp. sophical influences on bioethics today. pb. £20.00. ISBN 0-86315-533-2 Indeed, differences have existed for cen- turies in the various strands of the Chris- As I write this review, Richard Dawkins’ tian church alone, filling many books, so The God Delusion – a trumpeting of it is always going to be hard to categorise materialism – is at the top of the best- ‘the’ Christian bioethics position, let seller lists. Dawkins is operating outside alone ‘the’ secular position on controver- his field of expertise and it shows in what sial ethical dilemmas. Sutton’s sympa- Terry Eagleton aptly describes as a ‘lung- thies clearly lie within the traditional ing, flailing, mispunching’ book (London Hippocratic tradition, veering more to Review of Books, 19 October 2006). the Catholic than the evangelical side, Dawkins constantly reiterates the impor- with the result that some biblical doctri- tance of truth and evidence, but in the nal themes undergirding the Old and context of a belief that science is the only New Testament, that play a key role in possible source of knowledge and hence Christian ethics (Creation, the Fall, of any evidence to be considered, or truth Redemption and Consummation), are not to be attained. Science is such an ever- as well covered. For this readers will present part of all our environments have to go back to Wyatt, or try Hollinger today that scientism is probably wide- (Choosing the Good) or Meilander spread. Even for Christians, it can be instead. almost impossible to remove all its influ- ences from our thinking. Time spent with Nevertheless, Sutton’s continual Martin’s lucid book can be the mental engagement throughout the book with equivalent of the time spent at a top class secular thinking is both informative and health spa. relevant (who amongst us isn’t trying to engage on a daily basis with the world Martin ranges into areas as diverse as around?) and it is useful to have consis- quantum physics, cosmology, artificial tent, clear, well argued and persuasive intelligence, brain science, biology, mysti- lines of response. This book works for the cism, theology and philosophy in order to

Science & Christian Belief, Vol 21, No. 2 • 179 Book Reviews pursue his critique of materialism, but universal consciousness, the universe as his fundamental point is startlingly obvi- itself a vast living unity, with which our ous and simple. Most of what we know, consciousness is one. And the whole is we know by direct experience. Indeed ‘power, bliss, wisdom, benevolence and that knowledge is the only knowledge timelessness’ (244). I find this very that isn’t a hypothesis. Science, by con- unconvincing, especially when it comes to trast, is only a small, specialised part of considering the problem of evil (which is what we know, utterly dependent on the hardly mentioned by Martin). This latter knowledge that precedes it. Late in his half of the book ranges over quantum book (221) Martin refers to the ‘law of theory, mysticism and intelligent design Mundane Association’ – that we easily and Martin’s arguments and conclusions overlook many simple facts of experience are constantly controversial. For exam- which we constantly test out in our lives ple, he affirms evolution, whilst rejecting every day. Martin’s witty and perceptive Darwinism in favour of intelligent design exposition of everyday experience is the (ID). Here he feels it necessary to issue a best and strongest part of his book. For warning: ‘The moment Darwin’s theory is this alone he has richly deserved to be touched, the cry is “blasphemy!”’ (191). the joint winner of The Scientific and While I am persuaded that there is much Medical Network’s 2005 Network Book more to the ID case than is generally Prize (www.scimednet.org). allowed by Christian scientists in the UK, I do think that it is a digression to Martin starts with consciousness, Martin’s case that he would have been moves on to the ‘qualia’ (the ‘feel’ and well advised to omit. But whatever our ‘look’ of colours, sounds, textures, tastes, thoughts on such matters, and whether odours, pain etc.) and then to our tacit or not we follow Martin’s particular argu- knowledge. Most of our knowledge has ments all the way, we can all benefit from the form of habitual assumptions that the encouragement to have confidence in are constantly checked against experi- our everyday knowledge against the pre- ence, but are far too general and informal tensions of materialistic science. to be scientifically articulated or tested. It is not that science validates, or authen- Arthur Jones has taught science and ticates, such knowledge, but that without religion courses at London and Bristol it neither science, nor any other study Universities and is currently Senior could ever get off the ground. When Tutor at the West Yorkshire School of reductionist scientists and philosophers Christian Studies, Leeds. assert, for example, that science’s causal determinism has disproven the reality of consciousness and free will, we must retort that this has everything upside Jeremy Campbell down: the experience of free will is the The Many Faces of God: Science’s 400- fundamental reason we believe in the Year Quest for Images of the Divine reality of causality (247). New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2006. 314 pp. hb. £17.99. ISBN 0-393- Those opening chapters are rich and 06179-5 stimulating with many fascinating diver- sions (such as ‘Can computers be con- The single argument in Jeremy Camp- scious?’ – Martin argues powerfully that bell’s The Many Faces of God is that peo- they cannot.) The rest of the book is then ple have perceived God in different ways rather disappointing. For reasons that over the last few centuries. He delineates are never really explained, Martin a few of these ways and vaguely points to excludes a Christian, or even generally how they may have been affected by sci- theist, position and instead moves his entific insights. That all might seem a discussion towards the conclusion of a rather trivial argument to build a book

180 • Science & Christian Belief, Vol 21, No. 2 Book Reviews on and this is, indeed, a rather trivial the ideas of a smorgasbord of thinkers book. Campbell has certainly read a lot of including Newton, Moses Maimonides, material (mainly secondary sources, it Spinoza and Fred Hoyle, in no particular must be said) but failed to digest it suffi- order. It takes us on a winding journey ciently. Consequently, he appears to be from Nicea to Cambridge via Mount regurgitating what he has learnt rather Sinai. On the way, Campbell presents two than constructing an argument from it. different aspects of God – either as an This is a pity because there is a very ineffable, distant and omnipotent other interesting book waiting to be written on or as a loving, involved and caring per- the influence of theology on scientific son. Science has tended to limit God’s world-view that has developed since the capacity to act in the world, thus pushing seventeenth century. him away from us. On the other hand, religious believers want a God to whom Much of the problem, I think, is that they can relate. Campbell seems to the habits of journalism have infected believe that the Christian conception of the book. Readers of Science and Christ- God as both almighty and loving is a case ian Belief have, I am sure, often felt of trying to have your cake and eat it. annoyance when reading a newspaper Although, such is his meandering style, it article on a religious, scientific or histori- is hard to be certain what he really cal subject. The journalist who wrote the thinks. article will lay out some facts, uncriti- cally quote a couple of ‘experts’ and leave Despite its potentially interesting sub- it at that. It is clear that the writer of the ject matter, I cannot recommend this article has not really understood the book. I hope that another author will issues. This book reads in a similar way. tackle the fascinating question of how Furthermore, being far longer than a science has influenced the image of God newspaper article, it also suffers from over the long historical term at some being disjointed, repetitive and unstruc- point in the future. tured. Some paragraphs follow so poorly James Hannam is completing his PhD from what precedes them that I felt sure thesis on sixteenth century science, at that some sort of intervening heading Pembroke College, Cambridge. must have been removed during the edit- ing process. The lack of a bibliography is another infelicity, although the endnotes are reasonably full. Ted Burge Campbell’s use of his secondary Science and the Bible: Evidence-Based authorities is also ill thought out. While I Christian Belief enormously respect some of the histori- London & Philadelphia: Templeton ans he quotes, such as John Hedley Foundation Press, 2005. 193 pp. pb. Brooke and Margaret Jacob, and have $16.95. ISBN 1-932031-93-6 rather less time for some of the others, such as Christopher Hill, I cannot make As Ted Burge explains in the preface, this much sense of a book that forces the book is a very personal project, being the irreconcilable opinions of many different fruits of his study of the evidence for and scholars into a homogeneous whole. against his Christian beliefs. Campbell also seems convinced that his readers’ attention could never be held by Writing from a background in nuclear a quotation more than a couple of lines physics, Burge is at his best when long. This is a shame because many of describing scientific discoveries and giv- the scholars he quotes write far better ing a scientist’s account of how the world than he does. works (chapters 6-8). When he discusses Christian belief and the Bible, the result The book itself contains summaries of is a mixed bag. Early on in the book he

Science & Christian Belief, Vol 21, No. 2 • 181 Book Reviews tells us: ‘A sensitive appreciation of the he does nothing to dispel confusion. Fac- richness of metaphor can resolve many of tual errors abound. For example, it is the problems associated with key Christ- simply not correct to say that the ‘Old ian beliefs’ (6). This sounds promising, Chronology’ (or ‘OC’, i.e. the conventional but there are many places where such an one) ‘relied mainly’ on the list of Egypt- approach is lacking. For example, while ian kings in the Turin Canon, or that the he is surely right to speak of ‘the erro- Canon records ‘significant astronomical neous belief that physical death came events’ (it records none at all). We are into the world because of sin’, Burge told (52) that the Exodus occurred ‘about strays into a crude caricature of Romans 1447 B.C.E. (NC) or 1360 (OC)’, but even 5:15 when he writes: ‘today few people this ‘OC’ date is far from conventional. would suggest that God was so offended Here Burge has been seduced by another by the eating of an apple by one human idiosyncratic theory, that of Graham that he condemned to physical death the Phillips, who links the Exodus with the whole of humankind’ (95). eruption of Thera and the reign of Ahke- Again, he is right to say that we should naten (a synchronism that is only read the early chapters of Genesis ‘care- achieved by ignoring both calibrated fully avoiding a literal interpretation’, but radiocarbon dates and the best archaeo- much of their theological significance is logical evidence). Burge fails to mention lost when he describes them as ‘primarily that the majority of Old Testament schol- evidence of the beliefs of their authors or ars actually place the Exodus around editors’ (95). While insisting that the 1260 BC, or that some favour the alter- Bible is inspired by God, he is wary of native date of 1447 BC without adopting affirming ‘This is the word of the Lord’ Rohl’s ‘NC’ dates for Egypt. Sadly, this after a Bible reading: ‘The phrase needs a whole section is a misleading muddle. careful qualification in the mind of the When discussing the history of the hearer: “This was the word of the Lord Bible itself, Burge does little better. In a 2,000 years ago, to people of very different brief treatment of the Septuagint (the cultures”’(43). He offers a strong defence Greek translation of the OT) we are told: of the bodily resurrection of Jesus (chap- ‘The earliest manuscripts are from Qum- ter 13) but is wary of most other NT mir- ran and are dated to the second century acle stories (chapter 14): ‘The teaching of B.C.E.’ (35). In fact the earliest surviving spiritual truths by means of miracle sto- manuscripts of the Septuagint are con- ries does not require belief in the literal tained in Christian codices. Perhaps truth of the stories’(121). what Burge has in mind is that the man- Burge sometimes adopts unconven- uscripts from Qumran (i.e. the Dead Sea tional theories without bothering to tell Scrolls) include some Hebrew texts that us how unconventional they are. In the agree with the Septuagint against the first chapter, without explanation, he later Massoretic Text. We are also told adopts the radical ‘New Chronology’ of that ‘most of the Pentateuch’ was written David Rohl, baldly stating: ‘The name for in ‘Mishnaic Hebrew’, which developed in David in the el-Amarna tablets, dated the eighth century BC (87). In fact Mish- 1020-1000 B.C.E., is Tadua…’ (8). Read- naic Hebrew was a development of the ers who know something of the el- post-biblical period (1st-4th centuries Amarna tablets (conventionally dated AD). three and a half centuries before David) Bizarrely, Burge devotes a section to will be baffled, while those who know ‘The ‘missing’ Book of Jashar’ (31-32). Of nothing about them will be misled into various late texts bearing this name the thinking this is a generally accepted fact. one Burge has in view is a work pub- When Burge specifically mentions the lished in 1751 but allegedly translated by ‘New Chronology’ (or ‘NC’) in chapter 5 Alcuin of York from an ancient manu-

182 • Science & Christian Belief, Vol 21, No. 2 Book Reviews script found in Persia. Purporting to be upon epistemological matters concerning the Book of Jashar mentioned in Joshua a critical realist view of the world. 10:13 and 2 Samuel 1:18, this odd docu- ment has been widely regarded from its Structurally, we are presented with five chapters, the first of which examines first appearance as an anti-religious the contributions of the above-mentioned hoax perpetrated by its printer, Jacob ‘trinity’, all Gifford lecturers and expo- Ilive. Burge is aware of the charge and nents of contemporary Natural Theology, admits that the case for authenticity who concur in affirmation of critical real- needs ‘to be put on a firmer footing’, but ism (CR), yet exhibit a ‘frustrating diver- he is clearly drawn to the idea that this is gence’ concerning its meaning. In chapter a genuinely ancient work and suggests 2, Allen notes that CR can be secured as that, because of discrepancies between an explanatory notion that goes beyond its version of events and that found in describing methodological similarities the Pentateuch, it was ‘omitted from the between science and philosophical theol- approved collection of books, probably in ogy. And this can be based upon a theory the time of Josiah’. I am astonished that of scientific rationality that is invulnera- anyone can read ‘The Book of Jashar’ and ble to positivist or empiricist critiques. still find this remotely plausible. McMullin’s theory of retroduction points Many readers of Burge’s book will find to the heuristic value of the imagination, it helpful, but I fear a good many more which works towards the ontological will be confused and even misled. value of successful science. This retroduc- tion theory is verified by the classic activ- John J. Bimson is Tutor in Biblical ities of Newton and Galileo, McMullin Studies, Trinity College, Bristol. being a world authority upon the latter. McMullin’s historical studies are made to defend strenuously the ontological char- acter of scientific rationality against soci- Paul L. Allen ological and anti-realist critiques. Ernan McMullin and Critical Realism in the Science-Theology Dialogue McMullin’s more differentiated notion Aldershot: Ashgate New Critical of CR needs to vindicate its strengths in Thinking Series 2006. 201 pp. hb. domains of investigation where the scien- £55.00. ISBN 0-7546-5283-1 tific explanatory network is stretched or patchy. Perhaps consciousness would Ernan McMullin is a highly distin- serve as a suitable test-bed. However, in guished philosopher of science, in the the event, McMullin’s scientific and broadly Catholic philosophical tradition. philosophical competencies are amenable He has written and lectured on the rela- to a strong cosmological thrust. Here in tionship between cosmology and theol- cosmology there is the ‘blunt challenge’ to ogy, the role of values in understanding explain the universe itself causally. Allen science, and the impact of Darwinism on astutely locates the crux (103) in the Western religious thought. Since his ear- quest for a broader aim that measures liest publication in 1955 he has main- progress by nothing less than an under- tained a steady stream of 200+ articles standing of the universe as the creation and books over more than fifty years. of God. In this, Allen seeks a complemen- Nevertheless, he is perhaps less well tary perspective to – inter alia – expo- known in ‘science and religion’, than the nents of a directly theological CR, such as ‘trinity’ of Barbour, Peacocke and Polk- the biblical scholars Tom Wright and Ben inghorne. All the more reason, then, for Meyer. Allen discusses the contributions this painstaking and sympathetic critical that scientific cosmology can bring to the analysis by Paul L Allen, of Concordia debate, but cautions against attempts to University, Canada, focusing especially derive specifically Christian or Trinitar-

Science & Christian Belief, Vol 21, No. 2 • 183 Book Reviews ian cosmologies on a scientific basis. I am als Science at the University of Man- sure he is correct! In expounding chester: in the Photon Science Insti- McMullin, Allen notes (109) how science tute and the School of Dentistry. regularly encounters a necessary transi- tion to philosophy precisely ‘at its most innovative point’. There emerges a ‘cross- traffic’ between the disciplines, resem- Simon Coleman and Leslie Carlin bling the ‘hazy relationship between (editors) mathematics and logic’. And ‘…the medi- The Cultures of Creation ating role of theory in cosmology is so Aldershot: Ashgate, 2004. 212pp. hb. extraordinary…that the move to incorpo- £55. ISBN 978 0 7546 0912 4 rate…creation into a meta-explanatory framework is not the reversion to mere This is a compendium of inputs dating religious interpretation’ (116). back to 1996, claiming to try to under- stand the cultures and motivations of The final two chapters are concerned, ‘Creationism’ rather than assess its respectively, with McMullin’s position on truth. ‘Creationism’ is defined as any Faith and Rationality and an extension anti-evolutionary system, including the of his integrative proposals arising from ‘scientific creationism’ that purports to his theology of ‘self-transcendence’. Like be areligious. Polkinghorne, McMullin has a strong emphasis on the priority of faith in It is not encouraging to find in the understanding: credo ut intelligam. And introduction repetitions of standard his integrative views have some resem- myths about the Huxley-Wilberforce blance to those of Peacocke, though a fun- encounter and Scopes’ trial. Actually, the damental divergence remains. fact that the latter was about human evolution is correctly cited later on p.129, I propose, however, that the most sig- which calls into question whether the nificant element in the book (133ff.) is editors read the papers before writing the emphasis of both McMullin and Allen the introduction. Moreover, in chapter 1 that the God of faith should be viewed as David Knight’s contribution (mostly inherently atemporal, as distinct from about Huxley) states that ‘by the 1830s’ the rather temporally-bound God of the Genesis was ‘no longer taken literally’ aforementioned ‘trinity’. In this, (my italics – so when had it been?). David McMullin is strongly Augustinian, and Knight is a respected and well-informed also develops the cogency and relevance historian of science, so perhaps this was of Augustine’s hermeneutic of early Gen- inadvertent. In Chapter 2 Simon Locke esis, and biblical cosmology. In particular, introduces ‘Discourse Analysis’, by which McMullin’s dissent (135f.) from the he seems to mean the deconstructive approach of his reformed philosopher col- reading and interpretation of a text with- league, Alvin Plantinga, over ‘theistic sci- out assessing the truth of its content. ence’ is highly important to current Locke aims to show how Creationists debates about intelligent design. This ‘present their version as given by reality, requires more discussion than is feasible and evolution as the outcome of various in a short review. psychological and/or social factors’ (p.48). Overall, this lucid and meticulously pre- He suggests that they do this by exploit- pared volume is an invaluable guide to the ing tensions within science itself – for core contributions of Professor McMullin. example, over the fact/theory relation; The full indices and bibliography facilitate managing the problem of competing deeper exploration of this seminal thinker accounts of the Bible and merging the in science, philosophy and religion. world and Word in a ‘discursive syn- cretism’. He also shows how Creationists David Watts is Professor of Biomateri- themselves have widely varying versions

184 • Science & Christian Belief, Vol 21, No. 2 Book Reviews of what science is (though perhaps they reading Ron Numbers The Creationists can hardly be blamed for this in an era in (or indeed my own Reason, Science and which the most prominent professor of Faith!). For sociologists or linguists the the Public Understanding of Science Discourse Analysis angle might be of seemed to have very little idea how sci- interest, though actually this appears lit- ence actually works and even less of the tle in explicit reference outside the intro- metaphysics behind it!) Locke’s sources, duction and chapter 2. Finally, for those however, are limited, and nothing very who look for a philosophical critique of surprising emerged for me. Chapter 3 Creationism – particularly Intelligent contains various statistics of Creationism Design – this appears only in the final movements up to 1996. Chapter 4 con- chapter. tains a perhaps rather specialist analysis of Creationism in Canada, and chapter 5 So to whom will it appeal? This is hard of the movement and its opponents in to say. I have been to conferences of Australia. Chapter 6 is a longer section groups of enthusiasts where, at the end, on the history of Creationism in New someone says: ‘This was a good confer- Zealand. In Chapter 7 Robert Layton ence and we all enjoyed the week away – compares indigenous Australian creation why don’t we get it written up as a sym- myths with western Creationism. He posium?’ On reflection, sometimes, it may contrasts post-modern tolerance of one be doubted what exactly the market will and rejection of another by mainstream be. This is my impression of this book. society. But he also considers how the Underlying the book there is actually creation myths ‘provide an intellectually an issue that I believe is central for those satisfying ontology, within the limits of of us who reject Young Earth Creation- empirical investigation practicably avail- ism. This is that such belief systems are ably to believers, and a rational ground embedded in subcultures, and the iden- for action in the world’. He sees parallels tity of those who believe in such systems between this and the place in subcul- is usually bound up in that subculture.If, tures of American Creationism. Much of for example, one’s whole life has been the rest of the chapter concerns aborigi- built on a religious system which binds nal land-rights concerns, that are proba- the truth of Christianity itself with bibli- bly not much on the minds of most of us. cal literalism, then any attack on biblical Chapter 8 considers various 1990s sur- literalism is perceived as an attack on veys of views among young people in Christianity itself. No amount of scien- Kenya and Britain. The final chapter is tific ‘evidence’ – for an ancient earth, for by the affable atheist Michael Ruse, example – can have any effect without whose testimony was important in the destroying the very identity of the per- Overton ruling in 1982 against teaching son. Bland assurances that the Bible ‘is Creation Science in Arkansas schools. not a scientific textbook’ will just not cir- This chapter is actually a serous philo- cumvent this problem. Only when reas- sophical critique of Intelligent Design – sured that their identity as ‘Bible-believ- and certainly not some kind of impartial ing’ Christians is not threatened by belief ‘Discourse Analysis’ – and does make in an ancient earth, can someone be open some telling points. to scientific evidence that it is indeed So at whom is this book aimed? In ancient. In this respect it could be useful truth I emerged unsure. Much of it is to study Creationist literature, and see purely historical (indeed chapter 6 had what their arguments are actually trying previously appeared in a historical jour- to do. This could include, for example, nal) and maybe would interest specialist their identifying their system as ‘true sci- historians. But, for the more general ence’ (however defined), or ‘presenting reader, to understand the historical roots Christ’s position in a fashion that will of creationism he or she would be better provide entitlement’ (p.56) – that is,as

Science & Christian Belief, Vol 21, No. 2 • 185 Book Reviews condoning their own literalistic popularisers who have had a significant approach. This could then inform an impact on the public perception of science appropriate anti-young-earth approach and scientists; furthermore, they have all from a more traditional (and therefore used their status as scientists as a plat- non-literalist) evangelical position. Our form for addressing wider issues of cul- starting point may need to be to demon- ture and religion. strate that actually Jesus’ own approach The six scientists selected for this – for example, to the snake in Genesis – treatment are Richard Dawkins, Stephen was emphatically non-literalist (cf. Gen Jay Gould, Stephen Hawking, Carl 3:15; Mt 12:34; 23:33; Jn 8:44), and that Sagan, Steven Weinberg and Edward O. biblical-literalism is in antipathy to the Wilson: three physical scientists and approach of Jesus to language rather three life scientists, four Americans and than in line with it. We may also need to two British. Giberson and Artigas sug- present a balanced view of what science gest that if their popular writings are is, recognising the human fallibility both taken together as a representative por- in science and in biblical interpretation. trayal of science, then it can be inferred Only in a realigned mind-system may that (i) science is mainly about questions someone be prepared to consider the evi- of origins, (ii) scientists are by and large dence for an old earth, or the genetic evi- atheist or agnostic, and (iii) science and dence strongly though still circumstan- religion are incompatible. But, argue the tially pointing to macro-evolution. authors, none of these assertions are The problem with this symposium is true. that it moves between pure specialist his- The oracles are treated alphabetically tory, non-committed Discourse Analysis, and the chapters are independent of each and a chapter of philosophical critique, other, so there is no need to read them in without really doing any of this thor- any particular order. In terms of struc- oughly. Whilst some interesting insights ture, each chapter consists of a short may be embedded, I was not convinced biographical section, followed by a survey that this warranted the investment in of each man’s scientific work and an reading so much history. analysis of their view of religion. The Paul Marston is a senior lecturer at tone of the writing is consistently gra- the University of Central Lancashire. cious and objective, so these chapters would serve as useful introductions to the life and works of the men surveyed. A concluding chapter seeks to high- Karl Giberson and Mariano light some of the similarities and differ- Artigas ences between the oracles. Unsurpris- Oracles of Science: Celebrity Scientists ingly, all six portraits reveal men who are versus God and Religion unusually ambitious: their scientific New York: Oxford University Press, ambitions have led them to undertake 2007. x + 273 pp. hb. $29.99. ISBN 0-19- grand projects, which they have pursued 531072-1 obsessively, and they have correspond- ingly grand visions of power of science to In this collaboration the physicist Karl explain the world in which we live. But Giberson and the late Mariano Artigas (a are they as hostile to religion as is often priest with doctorates in physics and phi- inferred? In fact, only two of the six are losophy) survey six men they describe as openly hostile. For Steven Weinberg ‘oracles of science’. This phrase is short- (many of whose family died in the Nazi hand for the fact that, in addition to Holocaust) the problem of evil is an insu- being eminent in their own fields, these perable barrier. Richard Dawkins writes men are also gifted communicators and with the evangelical zeal of a convert

186 • Science & Christian Belief, Vol 21, No. 2 Book Reviews from one religion to another (in this case, able to do. Nevertheless it remains a use- scientism). In the case of Edward Wilson, ful addition to the library shelves. It is an the idea of conversion is even stronger: invaluable introduction to six of the most evolution has become a substitute for the important shapers of the public percep- Southern Baptist religion of his youth. tion of science at the end of the twentieth Stephen Hawking’s position is more diffi- century.As such it provides a good deal of cult to fathom; his utterances on religion useful raw material for Christian tend to be cryptic and unclear. Finally engagement with the scientific dimen- Sagan sees no necessary conflict between sion of contemporary culture. science and religion, while Gould is pre- pared to admit their potential compati- Lawrence Osborn is a theologian and bility. editor with a background in astron- omy who has written extensively on Giberson and Artigas ask whether and the interaction between Christianity to what extent the religious views of and contemporary culture. these men have derived from their sci- ence. With Wilson the connection is fairly clear: he sees evolutionary science as a valid basis for ethics (a position that D.B. & L.D. Haarsma Dawkins firmly rejects). In this context, I Origins: A Reformed Look at Creation, can’t help feeling that they take Hawk- Design and Evolution ing’s comments on knowing the mind of God a bit too seriously (to my mind, this Grand Rapids, MI. Faith Alive, 2007. is less a theological statement and more 208 pp. pb. £13.95. ISBN 978-1-59255- an affectionate allusion to Einstein). The 227-6 authors complain that the oracles fail to K.W. Giberson achieve anything like a consistent Saving Darwin: How to be a Christian humanism on the basis of their faith in and Believe in Evolution science. But this is hardly surprising New York: HarperOne, 2008. 256 pp. hb. given that there is no consensus between $24.95. ISBN 9780061228780 them as to what constitutes scientific truth. All this really shows is that science These are two very different books, each is no more monolithic than religion. in their own way aimed at students. The first (Origins) is a study book giving an So what have Giberson and Artigas introduction to a wide range of informa- managed to show in relation to the three tion and also pointing out the strengths inferences cited above? Their account of and weaknesses of a wide range of opin- the diverse scientific achievements of ions concerning the early chapters of these men does demonstrate that science Genesis and the use made of them in the is about a good deal more than questions rest of the Bible. Each chapter comes of origins. The clear disagreement among with a further reading list, a set of ques- the oracles on the incompatibility of sci- tions and URLs where supplementary ence and religion indicates that a case material may be found. As the title sug- has not been made for a necessary hostil- gests, the authors, being members of the ity between them. However, the format of Christian Reformed Church of North the book means that the authors have America, have a high view of God’s sover- been unable to argue for the compatibil- eignty. They thus understand (with the ity of science and religion. Instead, they writers of Scripture) that events that to have to content themselves with passing us seem to happen by chance do not take references to eminent scientists who are God by surprise nor do they fall outside also Christians. God’s supervision of the world. Indeed As already noted, the format of the casting lots was a standard way in Scrip- book limits what the authors have been ture of seeking to determine God’s will,

Science & Christian Belief, Vol 21, No. 2 • 187 Book Reviews right up to choosing a replacement for in 1923; and (iii) how Darwin’s ideas Judas Iscariot. The most famous verse were quickly linked into some very setting out this principle is Proverbs 16: unsavoury movements (including eugen- 33: ‘The lot is cast into the lap, but its ics), which Giberson terms ‘Darwin’s every decision is from the LORD.’ The Dark Companions’. I also had not appre- book sets out the scientific evidence for ciated that Morris & Whitcomb were so an old Earth and for change over time in sure that the modern scientific under- the biological world. It discusses Dar- standing of the age of the universe and win’s theory (in its original and present biological evolution were wrong that they forms), Intelligent Design, and the cos- expected their book would stimulate a mology lying behind the description of research programme to demonstrate this the world in the early chapters of Gene- conclusively and quickly. But as Giberson sis, the Psalms and other scriptures. The points out this has not happened. In this authors point out the main problem lies regard, the movement they started has not with a relatively recent Seven Day failed. It has, however, been spectacularly Creation versus an ancient universe but successful as a religious movement so with reconciling what Paul taught in that their interpretations of the Two Romans about the entry of sin into the Books (Scripture and the natural world) world through one man (and hence the are regarded in many churches as the appropriateness of atonement for that only valid ones. I found Giberson’s dis- sin by one Man) with a natural evolu- cussion of Intelligent Design (ID) partic- tionary description of the emergence of ularly helpful. Giberson points out that humankind. The strengths and weak- the (to our eyes) horrific feeding behav- nesses of the many positions Christians iour of the larvae of the Ichneumon Wasp have taken on this issue are set out. No passes Dembski’s complexity filter conclusion is drawn because the purpose (famously applied to the bacterial flagel- of the book is to get students thinking lum) and hence has the appearance of through the issues. having been designed by an intelligent being. This example is chosen by Giber- Saving Darwin is a very different kind son because it horrified Charles Darwin, of book. It starts off as a personal testi- who as a young man held to the early mony from the author, who grew up in a nineteenth century version of ID as set church in rural New Brunswick where out by William Paley and the writers of the theories of Henry Morris and John D. the Bridgewater Treatises. The Ichneu- Whitcomb (famously set out in 1961 in mon Wasp was one factor that made Dar- The Genesis Flood) were regarded as the win doubt God’s providential design in only valid way of interpreting Scripture, Nature. Giberson comments that ‘Pro- and how he came now to hold very differ- moting “design” in isolation from God’s ent opinions. He recounts that as an other attributes is a dangerous and ulti- older teenager, considering whether to go mately self-defeating way to get God to college, he met Henry Morris who back into science. Christianity will be far encouraged him to obtain an education to better off if ID fails.’ Or to put it another the highest level with the possibility that way, you cannot just choose ‘nice’ exam- one day he might join the Institute for ples if you are going to promote ID. Creation Research. Giberson now teaches science (including Darwin’s theory) at In my arrogance and pride, I thought the Eastern Nazarene College, near before I read them that I would not learn Boston, whose ethos is Methodist/Holi- much from these books, having studied ness rather than Reformed. I learnt a the matter for over thirty years since I great deal new from this book, particu- was saved by Jesus in much grief and larly (i) the antecedents to Morris & anguish of heart in the mid-1970s. I was Whitcomb’s theories; (ii) what was going wrong: I learnt a lot. Will the matters dis- on behind the scenes in the Scopes trial cussed in these two books be resolved in

188 • Science & Christian Belief, Vol 21, No. 2 Book Reviews my lifetime? I doubt it. Maybe this side of those with other perspectives on the eternity they never will. issue, while gently yet passionately pre- senting his own views. Altogether, this Stephen Walley is a research associate makes for very compelling reading. at the Cavendish Laboratory, Univer- sity of Cambridge. Apart from being a compelling read, the book is also very timely.The creation- evolution debate never seems to move into the shadows for too long, and Denis Alexander recently it has come to the forefront with Creation or Evolution: Do We Have to great intensity again, partly due to the Choose? publicity given to the Intelligent Design Oxford: Monarch Books, 2008. 382pp. pb. movement in the States in recent years, £10.99. ISBN: 978-1-85424-746-9 but largely due to the year that we are in, 2009 being a celebration of Darwin’s In this book, Denis Alexander addresses 200th birthday as well as commemorat- a question that is fundamental to the ing 150 years since the publication of On conversation between science and Chris- the Origin of Species by Means of Nat- tianity. The title of the book clearly and ural Selection. concisely states the issue to be addressed in what follows. Namely, is evolution an There is a logical flow to the order of elegant scientific theory to be embraced, the chapters, which brings the reader on or a misleading and threatening idea a coherent journey through the issues that undermines the Christian idea of raised. Dr Alexander begins by clearly creation? The author approaches this spelling out the biblical doctrine of cre- question as any good scientist should – ation (chapters 1 and 2). Chapters 3, 4 by looking at the facts before him, and and 5 represent the most scientific part asking what model are they most consis- of the book, where the author covers the tent with. There are a number of reasons evidence for, and science of, evolution. why this book succeeds impressively in Here the reader is first drawn into the significantly contributing to the answer world of DNA and genomes, and to this question. First, the author’s cre- although the author uses excellent dentials, which include a successful metaphors in what is effectively a crash research career in the biological sciences course in molecular biology, those of a together with a track record in communi- non-biological background may struggle cation across the science/faith interface a little to keep up. Thereafter, all the in diverse contexts, coupled to a strong major concepts surrounding evolution, evangelical theological outlook. This such as natural selection and speciation, makes for a seamless weaving of science are well explained and illustrated with and theology throughout the text, that up-to-date science. Further chapters adds to the coherence. Secondly, the style spell out and deal with common objec- that the book is written in, which is clear, tions to evolution, then discuss interpret- readable and accessible to anyone with ing the Genesis account in the way it was an interest in the subject matter intended, which then leads the reader (although I think non-biologists may find into a fascinating consideration of Adam some chapters tricky). Thirdly, the sci- and Eve in chapters 9 and 10. I found ence is completely up to date (which this section particularly strong, and it unfortunately is not often the case in contains the best example of the ability of these kind of books). Fourthly, the Dr Alexander to describe in parallel the breadth of issues addressed within the relevant science and theology of the sub- 350 or so pages of main text provides a ject. Different models for understanding comprehensive treatment of the subject the Genesis account in the light of matter. Finally, the author is gracious to human evolution are presented, and

Science & Christian Belief, Vol 21, No. 2 • 189 Book Reviews these are carried through to the discus- municating power, authority and infor- sions on death and the Fall. This allows mation so that the created order operates the reader to consider each model in the harmoniously’ (34). This is coupled to the light of a number of key theological and notion of God’s immanence: ‘All that scientific issues at the same time. A exists only continues to do so because of strong case is made that ‘Physical death his continued say-so’ (29). More than is intrinsic to the purposes of God for that, ‘There is nothing accidental in the human life on this earth’ (267). This overall direction of the created brings the reader to the question of natu- order…the heavenly author writes the ral evil and theodicy (chapter 13), which script and bestows upon the universe is always a tricky topic. The author does properties continually sustained by him well here though, and manages to navi- that will instantiate the script according gate the reader through the issues, and to his perfect plan.’ (285). Again, in chap- give some sensible conclusions. However, ter 4, the author, in using the illustration a more robust look at topics such as God’s of a twenty-four hour period to envisage sovereignty and foreknowledge, free will the 4.6 billion years of earth’s history, and the role of Satan (the latter of which stated ‘If we had a bird’s-eye view of the is barely mentioned) would have been whole day, what would we see the Cre- welcome, but possibly were outside the ator do’ (87). The slight problem here is scope of this present work. Furthermore, that I’m not sure what the answer is – it would be fascinating to look at differ- nothing perhaps? In carefully keeping to ent Christian perspectives on these theo- the correct categories, and rightly not logical issues in light of Genesis and cur- allowing theology and philosophy to get rent scientific theory to discuss which muddled with science, some readers will perspectives are currently most helpful be left a little exasperated at the end in understanding God’s world. wondering what in fact the Creator does do, how exactly this differs from natural- After examining the scientific creden- ism, and what it looks like in practice. So tials (or lack thereof) of the Intelligent the different levels of explanation pro- Design movement (chapter 14), and vided by science and theology so suc- before an interesting final chapter on cintly mapped out in this book will pro- current research into the origin of life voke further questions about how exactly (chapter 16), in chapter 15 (‘Evolution – these two spheres of understanding Intelligent and Designed?’), Dr Alexan- interact, but this should be welcomed, der wraps up and draws together a num- and seems to be a much more important ber of ideas that have run through the and robust topic for debate at this stage book. A key thread that permeates the than whether evolution happened or not. work is the idea that science involves observing how God made the universe I don’t think I’m giving the game away (through evolution), and that although it by stating that the conclusion of the is wrong to invoke specific punctuated author to the question posed in the title divine intervention along the way, God is is a firm ‘no’. ‘Evolutionary history on somehow in his immanence sustaining this planet’, claims the author, ‘displays all things all the time. Within the first overall increased complexity, genomic few chapters, the notion of how God constraint and convergence’ (330), and ‘In interacts with the physical world was biology it is beginning to look as if the introduced: ‘There has been much recent whole system is set up in such a highly discussion about how exactly God does organised way that the emergence of interact with the world. The main answer intelligent life was inevitable’ (331). that the Bible gives is that he does so by Wouldn’t it be great if Christians united that most personal of activities – speak- behind this idea and began seriously to ing’ (34). Dr Alexander continues that engage with the scientific community this means not a literal voice but ‘com- from this new starting point? This book

190 • Science & Christian Belief, Vol 21, No. 2 Book Reviews should help to achieve that goal. aimed at the serious non-expert. Andrew Bowie is an Associate Profes- While the standard of proof-reading sor in the School of Biochemistry and seems to have been good, I am not sure Immunology, Trinity College Dublin. that the actual writing has been careful enough. Sometimes errors are inconse- quential; superconductivity was discov- ered in 1911 and largely explained in John Polkinghorne and Nicholas 1957, not 1917 and 1962 respectively Beale (117). Sometimes bold statements are made that seem to be incorrect, though Questions of Truth: Fifty-one the argument is not greatly weakened; Responses to Questions about God, for example, there are third generation Science, and Belief stars: the sun is commonly thought of as Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John one (143). Some illustrations lose their Knox Press, 2009. 186 pp. pb. £9.99. force through being inaccurate: the diffi- ISBN 978-0-664-23351-8 culty in achieving a hole in one depends This book is largely compiled from on the area of the hole, not its diameter answers to questions submitted to the (102). Occasionally a key statement in an website www.polkinghorne.net run by important argument is open to serious Nicholas Beale, with the addition of three objection. For example, with reference to appendices dealing at greater length intelligent design, ‘if even one biochemi- with anthropic fine tuning, mind and cal mechanism could be found where the brain, and evolution. Both authors sup- probability of its evolving was extremely ply answers and comments, either singly low, since evolution is inherently proba- or jointly. The range of subjects dealt bilistic, it could not be convincing evi- with is much broader than simply the dence that evolution was wrong’ (57, my relationship between science and Christ- italics). In a book entitled Questions of ian faith. Questions which are dealt with Truth one looks for careful attention to range from ‘Why is the Universe So Big?’ such matters. I was also disturbed by the through ‘Who or What is the Devil?’ to omission of significant references; it is for ‘What is the Point of Praying?’ example strange that the work of Leonard Susskind on The Cosmic Land- There are benefits and drawbacks from scape is not referred to in the detailed this dual authorship and wide selection discussion of multiverses (105 ff.). of subject matter. There are valuable comments and illustrations on a huge Reference is made not only to John range of subjects, sometimes bringing Polkinghorne’s own books, but to a wide scientific insights in unexpected areas. variety of current literature. Probably the On the other hand there is repetition and greatest value of this work is that it will uneven coverage, and little opportunity encourage the reader to consult other books on the questions considered. If you to develop a sustained argument. The are looking for an authoritative, logical general stance of both the questions and and structured argument dealing with the answers is Christian. I judge that the issues raised here, I suggest you look this book will be read with interest and elsewhere – and the list of references profit by Christians who have questions would be a helpful pointer! If you are and problems, but will not prove convinc- looking for stimulation to think, and sug- ing to those who start from an atheist or gestions for further study, then read it! agnostic position. The level of previous knowledge assumed in the reader in mat- Paul Wraight has retired from teach- ters theological, philosophical and scien- ing physics and electronics at tific is rather variable, but this is in gen- Aberdeen University and is thinking eral not a technical academic work but and writing about design.

Science & Christian Belief, Vol 21, No. 2 • 191 Book Reviews

Mark S. Whorton scripturally unsubstantiated miracles Peril in Paradise: Theology, Science, have to be invoked to save the theory and the Age of the Earth including, ironically, an incredible rate of Waynesboro, GA: Authentic, 2005. x+233 animal evolution after the Flood. pp. pb. £8.99. ISBN 978 1932805239 Whorton then examines the whole This book sets out a theological critique counsel of God to try and elucidate what of the Young Earth Creationist (YEC) the words ‘very good’ mean. He concludes movement that in its modern form that rather than being originally a per- started in 1961 with the publication by fect paradise, the world has a perfect pur- Morris and Whitcomb of The Genesis pose, that is to display God’s glory both to Flood. Whorton once taught their theo- men and to angels, not only through its ries in the church he is an elder in, but natural grandeur but supremely through came to see there are serious theological the Cross. He gives some quite shocking flaws in the presuppositions of the YEC quotations from Morris and Whitcomb to movement. He identifies early in the show that they believe that the Gospel is book the crux of the matter: what is God’s Plan B, dreamt up to cope with meant by the words ‘very good’ in Gene- man’s rebellion. This is inconsistent with sis 1:31, ‘And God saw everything that Apostolic teaching which Whorton points he had made, and behold it was very out is helpfully summarised in the West- good.’ The YEC theorists take this to minster shorter catechism concerning mean that the whole Earth at that God’s eternal decrees. moment was a paradise, i.e. that the con- Overall I found this book most helpful. ditions of the Garden of Eden prevailed I had been wondering for some time what everywhere. In particular there was no the words ‘very good’ in Genesis 1:31 death, not just of humans but of animals. might mean. Did they refer only to the Animals were therefore immortal. They world as it was at that moment or could then take Romans 5:12 (about death they be taken to mean the way God in coming into the world through sin) to eternity sees the whole world, from apply to animals as well as humans. beginning to end? Whorton shows that Other key verses are Isaiah 11:7 and even if the first meaning is what the 65:25 which, among other things, say words say in their original context, the ‘…the lion shall eat straw like the ox’. Holy Spirit has shown through the rest of Thus not only was the whole world once Scripture that the second interpretation a perfect paradise, but that is where the is closer to the truth. He shows the YEC redeemed of the Lord are headed back to, movement has a rather sentimental atti- despite Isaiah also saying in chapter 35 v. tude to animals and to pain which 9 that no lion will be there! Charles Darwin shared. One piece of The whole complex of ideas Whorton speculation Whorton indulges in is to characterises as the Perfect Paradise Par- imply that the world was created by God adigm. He points out the following prob- as a response to the fall of the angels. But lems. First, before the Fall the humans this only pushes the problem from time were commanded to subdue the earth. back into Eternity. This is quite a strong word in English, but Whorton helpfully restates the ‘vale of Whorton comments that the Hebrew tears’ theodicy as ‘This is the best route word is even stronger, implying substan- to the best of all possible worlds’. tial force will be needed. Secondly, there is Whether Voltaire would have agreed is no hint in the text that the conditions pre- left to the reader’s imagination. vailing in the Garden (beautiful trees, plentiful water and fruit, gold and jewels) Stephen Walley is a research associate extended even throughout Eden let alone at the Cavendish Laboratory, Univer- the whole world. Thirdly, a great many sity of Cambridge.

192 • Science & Christian Belief, Vol 21, No. 2