James F. Mahaffy, Biology Department, Dordt College

INTRODUCTION TO BIBLIOGRAPHY

My reading in history and philosophy of science is somewhat limited so I have made use (with their permission) of the resources of a couple of evangelical and reformed scholars, who are more knowledgeable in this area than me. The original core of the bibliography was written by David Wilcox and the annotations are his unless they are in courier font (print). Subsequently, I have added a number of the more recent references that I or some of my colleagues thought significant. Many annotations are by Russ Maatman who knows more about these guys than I do. I initialed the annotations based on his ideas as RM. Dr. Maatman is definitely opposed to theistic evolution, but believes there were long days and an old age for earth. Dr. Wilcox is also a creationist, but would probably allow for more process in creation than I might. He is definitely opposed to the deism and dualism found quite frequently in the way many evangelicals tries to harmonize their science and beliefs. Since, even with annotation, the list may be intimidating, I highlighted (in bold) and marked with ** a few critical references that I judge to be more significant and at an appropriate level for the Dordt student. However, since this is not the form I would use if I published it, I retain rights to it and would appreciate being asked before it is linked to a web page or disseminated publicly.

Reference * = in Dordt Library You can check under the find -> books on the library page to see which are not checked out

BIBLIOGRAPHY: On the Nature and History of Science and Ideas

Barbour, Ian, 1990. RELIGION IN AN AGE OF SCIENCE: THE GIFFORD LECTURES VOLUME ONE.* I include one of Barbour's books (the library has others) because he is an important Christian thinker in the area of religion and science. He probably has not had as much impact in the secular philosophy of science world. He reads well and would be very good for getting current on who the important people are in the area. I disagree with his liberal theological position that places ultimate authority in personal experience and also fails to see the exclusiveness of the God of Scriptures, although I have no question about his own genuine faith. His critique of science is generally quite good. He is someone you should be aware of. Ian has recently written a more popular summary of his thinking in WHEN SCIENCE MEETS RELIGION, Enemies, Strangers or Partners? 2000 A favorable review and short summary of the book was written by John Burgeson and can be found at: http://www.burgy.50megs.com/barbour.htm this book is in the library too. JFM

Bavinck, Herman In the Beginning c1900, translated by John Vriend, Baker Books, 1999.* Bavinck (1854-1921) is one of the great Dutch theologians in the Neo-Calvinist movement who has written a book on science and Christianity. This book, which is a translation of part of his magisterial Reformed Dogmatics, deals with his views on Creation. The science may at times be outdated or wrong but many of his ideas are well worth looking at. In this Bavinck shows that he was not only well versed in the past few centuries of Reformed thought, but was also able to critically analyze other theological traditions like Roman Catholics and the liberal Protestantism. TJ (Tony Jelsma)

Brooke, John H., 1991 SCIENCE AND RELIGION: SOME HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES.* This book rapidly became a classic in the study of the history of religion-science interactions. The main thesis of this book is to illustrate the complexity of these interactions, in that not only has science affected religious views, but the converse is also true. Using many examples from the scientific revolution to the twentieth century, Brooke strives (successfully) to remain objective in his survey. The consequences of this book are that one realizes that there are no “simple answers” to the questions on religion-science interactions and that we should always be aware of our own religious/philosophical biases when doing or surveying science. Tony Jelsma a biology prof at Dordt College.

Bowler, Peter, 1984 (rev. ed. 1989) EVOLUTION: THE HISTORY OF AN IDEA.* U. of Calif. Press I am not sure how important this book is but Dr. Maatman thought it was probably a significant work about this history. He thinks the author writes from an evolutionary perspective. RM

Collins, C.J., 2000. THE GOD OF MIRACLES: AN EXEGETICAL EXAMINATION OF GOD’S ACTION IN THE WORLD.* Crossway Books, Wheaton, IL (ISBN =1-58134-141-5) 192 pages. I have not read this book completely but did read the early chapters carefully and skimmed much of the rest of the book. The author is a professor of Old Testament at Covenant Seminary (solid seminary of reformed bent). The book has a very readable style and the author appears to be well read and someone who has researched and carefully thought out his positions. In the early part of the book Collins spends some time categorizing the positions taken (especially by Christians) vis a vis God and creation. While not the

Science and Christianity Bibliography - 2013a update

only way of defining positions, I found his categories easier to follow than some others and on the whole reasonably reflective of the different positions I have seen Christians take. I think the reader will find these summaries of the positions helpful. He defines his own position as a supernaturalist who is someone who sees God working in his normal activity through causes and yet strongly affirming God sometimes working in a different fashion (miracles). I wonder a bit if his science background of engineering might not tend to make what to see “nature” very ordered and more ordered than it is in say the biotic. I do appreciate his defense of miracles as real and think he is especially good at answering those theologians that would have every miracles have an explanation that fits the known laws of creation (sometimes even liberal theologians that need a natural cause for a virgin birth or resurrection) Even though he still has a high view of God’s providence in everyday activity, I don’t like this “distance” of God from his providence. By his definition I would be more of an occassionalist who sees the miraculous as God simply upholding his creation in a different fashion than he has in the past. The author also has sympathy for the Intelligent Design movement and brings a respected theological voice to that camp. One should however see my comments on that movement in my annotations of Phil Johnson, Mike Behe, and Bill Dembski elsewhere in this bibliography. JFM.

Clouser, Roy A. 2005. THE MYTH OF RELIGIOUS NEUTRALITY REVISED EDITION. University of Notre Dame Press. The following is my annotation of the first 1991 edition.*

Having read about a quarter of this book carefully and skimmed more of it, I think I have a good feel for what Roy is doing. This book is excellent for introducing you to the reformational (Dooyeweerdian) philosophy and demonstrating from that perspective that science is not religiously neutral. This book makes a careful and logical case for its position, but if you are not too philosophically inclined (and not everyone has to be), I would suggest starting instead with A. Plantinga or D. Wilcox's articles also referred to in this bibliography. Two weaknesses, I saw in this book, were an oversimplification and too little demonstration of knowledge of what is occurring in the philosophy of science and in the empirical sciences. I was disappointed that the examples used in science were mainly classical ones from physics or mathematics and not from the more empirical biology or chemistry. He also tends, even with the examples he uses, to oversimplify by limiting his examples to only a couple of key figures. That may be valid and effective in an introduction and perhaps even necessary in popularizing a position so it can be understood by the layman, but there should still be more appreciation of the complexities of theory in the areas he is talking about. In that regard Barbour (referred to in this bibliography elsewhere and whose theological liberalism I would take strong exception to) does a much better job of showing the variety of contemporary Christian and non-Christian thought and also effectively shows the non-neutrality of current materialistic science. Clouser also tends to define his way out of trouble. I noticed this where he was making a legitimate argument about the religious nature of everyone, but almost left one with the impression that there is no difference between folks who self-consciously look to a personal being or idol outside themselves for a reference point and the atheists who are not consciously looking there. I might note that there are others that have found Clouser more helpful than I have. For instance a philosopher of science, whom I really respect, Kerry Magruder writes: "I found Clouser to be a very helpful philosophical overview with illuminating case-studies." JFM

**Clouser, Roy 1999. Knowing with the Heart: Religious Experience and Belief in God. * Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press 204 pp. I haven’t read this but put this book in because I thought it might be worth reading. If one of you decides to read it, I would like them to also write short paragraph that I could include in the annotation. I would also like them to read his article “prospectus for theistic science” and the responses to it found at URL: http://www.allofliferedeemed.co.uk/clouser.htm See also my comments on his 2009 convocation speech at the end of this bibliography and his 20005 book above. JFM

Fischer, Robert B., 1981. GOD DID IT, BUT HOW? Academic Books. A survey of the philosophical basics in science, re. creation.

Gillespie, Neal C., 1979. CHARLES DARWIN AND THE PROBLEM OF CREATION.* University of Chicago Press. An unbiased account of the religious roots of Darwin's thought, and how the creation debate shaped him. Gillespie is an important current philosopher of science in the secular world that claims Darwin was important in changing biology into a positivistic science (insisting on no Deism), but note that this view is opposite that of James R. Moore who sees Christianity and science getting along well with Darwin. RM

**Gonzalez, Guillerno and Richards, Jay 2004. The Privileged Planet.* Regnery Publishing Co. Washington, DC 444 p. Gonzalez does a good job of showing that earth is uniquely fit to support life. I never realized how many things (including a moon of a certain size) are needed to give one conditions that can support life. He also demonstrates that earth is unusually situated to be able to discover information about the galaxies. He makes a good case for showing that we are not simply an average planet (Copernicus principle) but unique enough that it looks like earth was designed to support life. Both of the authors are proponents of the ID movement and Gonzalez brings to his arguments the standing of a good research scientist (a published astronomer then at Iowa State University). He, Behe, and Dembski bring the power of accredited scientists using arguments from their research areas to support the concept of intelligent design. I also have a video based on this book. JFM

Hodge, Charles, 1874. What is Darwinism? New York: Scribner, Armstrong, and Company. E-text available from open Directory project at URL: http://dmoz.org/Society/Religion_and_Spirituality/Christianity/Denominations/Presbyterian/Theology/Princeton_School/Hodge,_Charles/Works/ (accessed on February 2, 2012) or at http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/19192 (Accessed on February 2, 2012) also available in What is Darwinism? And Other Writings on Science and Religion Charles Hodge, Edited and with an introduction by Mark A. Knoll & David N. Livingstone Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1994. 182 pp.* Charles Hodge was one of the foremost theologians of his age (Princeton Seminary) and fifteen years after Darwin published his theory he wrote this book. In the words of Ted Davis, “Hodge contended that this denial of design in nature ‘is virtually the denial of God.’ Hodge noted that although Darwin might personally believe in a creator who had in the distant past ‘called matter and a living germ into existence,’ Darwinism implied that God had ‘then abandoned the universe to itself to be controlled by chance and necessity, without any purpose on his part as to the result, or any intervention or guidance.’ Such a God was ‘virtually consigned, so far as we are concerned, to nonexistence.' Thus Darwinism was "virtually atheistical.’” From Ted Davis’s article (July 15, 1988) in Christian Century Accessed online on February 2, 2012 from

http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=83. JFM

Hooykaas, R., 1972. RELIGION AND THE RISE OF MODERN SCIENCE.* Eerdmans. Carefully documented case: the reformation's role in the origin of science. Claims that modern science is largely due to the reformation. RM

Howell, Kenneth J. 2002. GOD'S TWO BOOKS: Copernican Cosmology and Biblical Interpretation in Early Modern Science. University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, IN 319. This book should probably be read by serious students of the history of science who would like to better understand how both Lutheran and Reformed theologians dealt with science and Christianity in the early modern period especially in regard to the impact of the new ideas in science resulting from the Copernican cosmology. The author clearly shows that, “the reading of the heavens and Scripture in the early modern period turns out to be far more complicated than many discussions of this period infer.” and “cogently dissects beliefs and behaviors of key players in this drama.”!)1 In the words of Ted Davis, a historian of science whose judgment I respect, Howell is “a very clear thinker” and thinks this an original and important work. Howell is a clear and cogent thinker, but a bit of background reading in or about the major players would be helpful in reading this book. Howell clearly understands both protestant reformed and Roman Catholic thought which adds strength to his analysis. He is a recent convert to Catholicism from a Reformed commitment. However, his theological position does affect his analysis. In a response to inquiry I made to the ASA list, George Murphy, a theologian, points out that Howell's two book position is consistent with his Roman Catholicism, since that tradition has maintained the possibility of a natural knowledge of God independent of God's historical revelation. This of course differs from the reformed position of primacy of the inscripturated word (sola scriptura). JFM