Such is the book The Soul of Science by Nancy Pearcey and
Charles Thaxton. It’s not the book is
any way deficient, as can be seen by the endorsements of the book. Phillip E. Johnson says this is a “brilliant
book that deserves a wide readership.” J. P. Moreland says it would be an excellent text for courses on science
and religion. James W. Sire says that “this book should destroy for all time
the persistent myth that Science and Christianity have always been at war with
each other.”
Truly, this is a great book, but it was difficult for me to read, being a non-scientist. And when I say that I am a non-scientist I am giving myself far too much praise and credit as a scientific scholar. I have always done poorly in science. I somehow survived all of the biology classes I had to take in High School and College and nearly bombed out in chemistry. The fact that I passed a required chemistry class in college, I attribute to either the generosity of the professor or that he was in a drunken stupor when he was handing out grades. I went to college hoping to be an engineer but abandoned all hope of such a career when I took my first physics class. The only time in my life I can ever remember having a complete mental block in a subject was when I took that physics class – I just couldn’t get it. Two weeks into the semester I dropped the class and changed my major.
So, I read this book as a non-scientist and want to share a
few thoughts on its value to non-scientists like me. For a good review from a technical standpoint
you’ll have to look elsewhere. The book
has lots of interesting information about biology, mathematics, quantum
mechanics and DNA, to which the most intelligent response I can give is “wow .
. . hey, . . . that’s um . . . interesting, . . . that’s really groovy
man.” In other words, it all sounds
pretty neat but I don’t understand much of what I read.
What I did understand though, and what makes this book valuable to a scientific ignoramus like me is that all science has an underlying philosophy. Science is supposed to be one field of study where you just deal with bare facts, where the facts speak for themselves, where empiricism rules the day. Yet, the project of science itself depends on certain philosophical underpinnings.
The project of science begins with a presupposition that the
world around us is real and understandable. This is not something native to all societies and Pearcey and Thaxton
point out what many historians agree on – that Christianity is the native soil
out of which the scientific enterprise grew. The Christian worldview says that there is a God, a God of order, who
created a world of order. Thus the
earliest scientists sought to understand the world that God created, to think
His thoughts after Him. Science was a means
of knowing God and giving praise to Him.
Thus, the notion that there is some kind of hostility between science and Christianity is false. The hostility that arose between science and Christianity arose as scientists abandoned Christian presuppositions for atheistic presuppositions.
However, it is not as if there is a “Christian philosophy of
science” and an “atheist philosophy of science.” Pearcey and Thaxton demonstrate that,
historically, there have been three dominant philosophies of science. All three have morphed at times, but the
basic philosophies are Aristotelian, Neo-Platonic and Mechanistic.
Aristotle pictured the world as a vast organism. He believed that all forms of motion or change are accomplished because of an objects built in purpose or goal. Aristotle described things using metaphors of living organisms, not machines. Aristotelianism was rationalistic, viewing God as a rational mind whose thoughts are known by logical analysis. The development of living organisms was driven by some kind of internal pattern that assured they fulfilled their goal or purpose.
The Neo-Platonists were similar to Aristotelians in that
they believed the world was a living organism. However, they differed in that how they explained this: “In explaining natural processes, it appealed
not to rational Forms but to the creative power of spiritual forces. These forces were often regarded as divine,
or at least as avenues of divine activity in the world.
The mechanistic worldview rejected Aristotelianism and Neo-Platonism in that it didn’t see the world as a living organism, rather as a machine with God as the chief engineer.
Pearcey and Thaxton point out that there are many nuances
within these basic worldviews and the worldviews are applied somewhat
differently in different disciplines. Further, these are rough groupings and some scientists would be hard to
categorize. But, for Pearcey and
Thaxton, these worldviews are portrayed as the grid through which almost all
scientific disciplines are pursued. They
also point out that, historically, each of these worldviews have been used in
service to both Christianity and non-Christianity. Hence, the obvious implication is that there
are certain faith commitments that form an even deeper sub-strata beneath the
philosophies themselves.
I say that I didn’t understand most of the more technical stuff in the book, but there were some nuggets that got through my thick skull. There is a fascinating chapter on the fall of mathematics from its pinnacle as the ultimate source of empirical certainty. And the chapter on DNA is wonderful. The complexity and volume of information contained in DNA gives wonderful testimony to the existence of a creator and to the notion that we are fearfully and wonderfully made.
But the bottom line value of the book is that it will help
us look beyond the facts in discussions about Christianity and Science. Very often, Christian apologists seek to go
head to head with non-Christian scientists in regards to evidences. The Christian piles up a stack of evidence
that he says proves the existence of God or the Christian worldview, and the
non-Christian piles up a similar stack of evidence against him. They both attack the others stacks of
evidences and defend their own. The outcome
sometimes looks like an office where both stacks of paper have been blown
around the room resulting in chaos.
We need to look beyond the “bare facts” (there is no such thing as a “bare” fact) to the philosophical foundations behind them. In that regard, the Christian worldview provides a remarkable foundation for science.
"The Soul of Science" affirms the words of Max Planck who says "Over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: 'Ye must have faith.'"
I really enjoyed this post David. I've writtena quick response. Made my blog morning reading this.
Posted by: Catez | April 05, 2005 at 08:05 PM
Yes, it is a great book. I also highly recommend it.
Posted by: Macht | April 05, 2005 at 09:18 PM
Nice post. As a PhD student in biology/computer science this is something I face alot, the meeting between faith and science and it ist good to see people talking about the christian contribution to the philosphy of science.
Posted by: Kristofer | April 06, 2005 at 04:20 AM
I was excited to see you had read this one. My homeschooled son was required to read it, but I never did. (Bad teacher!)There's always hope I'll get to it with my second pupil! I have always trusted it had good stuff in it but I, like you, am a scientific nitwit. This boosts my passion for promoting Christian worldview in all of life.
Posted by: cwv warrior | April 06, 2005 at 12:13 PM