There is a persistent myth that Christianity has held science and technological progress back, but is that the truth?

Christian History Institute (CHI), publisher of Christian History magazine (CHM), offers its latest issue, #134, titled: Science & Technology – How the church fostered science and technology. From inception, the Christian church considered all creation a gift from a good God to mankind, whom He made in His own image. Human reason, enquiry and a desire for truth, all characteristics of the emerging fields of science and technology, were considered the very image of God and the essential foundation of man’s relationship with his creator.

The historical record confirms the world is a place of measurable order and regularity, shaped by God and everywhere reflecting His supreme intelligence and glory. In Genesis, the first book of the Bible, the Creator mandates that we use reason to work with the raw materials of His creation for human benefit and flourishing (see CH issue #119, The Wonder of Creation).

This issue, #134, titled: Science & Technology – How the church fostered science and technology, features a collection of in-depth articles chronicling how the Scientific Revolution, that unfolded in Europe between 1550-1700 in Christians founded universities, laid the groundwork for modern science. Over the past twenty centuries, followers of Christ pursued scientific and technological innovation with Christian motives and understandings, that were both productive and controversial.

“I was raised by a father who was chemist, turned United Methodist pastor,” said Jennifer Woodruff Tait, Managing Editor of Christian History magazine. “As far as I knew, science and faith went hand-in-hand. But as I grew older, I learned that many scientists and Christians have assumed an aggressive posture of opposition toward each other. Highly popular media portrayals of scientific topics have reinforced the conflict.”

In the article, “God made it, God loves it, God keeps it,” this issue’s editors, Jennifer Woodruff Tait and Chris Armstrong, interview four working scientists with distinguished careers and one who is just now embarking on the journey – Francis Collins led the Human Genome Project and is now director of the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland; William Phillips is a fellow at the National Institute of Standards and Technology and received the 1997 Nobel Prize in Physics; Katharine Hayhoe is an atmospheric scientist and the Political Science Endowed Professor in Public Policy and Public Law at Texas Tech University and Allison Greenplate is a postdoctoral fellow in immunology at the University of Pennsylvania.

CH issue #134, contains 13 feature articles and shorter side-bar articles; a chronology timeline; an archive of rare artwork & photos; a ‘letter to the editor’ section and an extensive reading list compiled by the CH editorial staff. The magazine is fully available on-line and can be conveniently read on screen at: https://christianhistoryinstitute.org/magazine/issue/science-and-technology.

The following articles can be accessed on-line and reprinted with permission:

Divine power, wisdom, and goodness by James Hannam

The medieval flourishing of natural philosophy in Christianity

Natural adversaries by David Lindberg

Has Christianity always warred with science?

The condemnations of 1277 by James Hannam

Debates over Aristotle’s role in scientific exploration

To make whole by Glenn Myers

Hildegard of Bingen, naturalist and apothecary

What is so great about Albert? by Michael W. Tkacz

The preserver of scientific riches

Understanding God through light and tides by Nicholas Jacobson

Faithful friar or scientific sorcerer? by Richard Oosterhoff

Roger Bacon on experimental science

Christian History Timeline: Faith and Science by the editors

A few of the highlights of Christian exploration of science that we touch on in this issue

The clergy behind science as we know it  by Jennifer Powell McNutt

Enlightenment-era pastors didn’t oppose modern science, they helped advance it.

Science vs. religion by James Ungureanu

What is really at war here?

A world of love and light  by Edward B. Davis

Christian theology shaped modern science through the work of Johannes Kepler and Robert Boyle

The “religion of geology” by Edward Hitchcock & Edward B. Davis

Drinking from a fount on Sunday by Geoffrey Cantor

Michael Faraday’s experiments advanced the study of electricity

Freedom from dualism , by Tom Topel

On several occasions Maxwell indicated his view on the relationship between his faith and physics

“I know that my Redeemer liveth” by Jennifer Woodruff Tait

George Washington Carver sought to understand God’s creation and develop its benefits for others

God made it, God loves it, God keeps it by the editors

We talked to four scientists who are believers—three with distinguished careers and one embarking on the journey.

Science and Technology: Recommended resources

Learn more about Christian scientists and inventors throughout church history with these resources selected by this issue’s authors and editors.

Christian History Institute
www.ChristianHistoryInstitute.org
Worcester, PA, July, 2020

In this second volume, Torrance and McCall have collected 16 articles exploring the implications for science and theology regarding Christ’s incarnation and role as creator and sustainer of the universe (Col 1:15-17). As in the first volume, the text lacks a unified theology. However, for scientists, theologians, philosophers, and researchers interested in tackling ideas of science and faith as they intersect in the person and work of Jesus, this text would be a worthy place to begin. For if you are not interested in the focus of one article, simply turn a few pages and an entirely different focus will be explicated in the next.

The book opens with a splendid, and dare I say, must-read introduction by the editors, where they set the table for the articles that follow. The articles are organized into four sections, theological perspectives, biblical and historical perspectives, philosophical perspectives and scientific perspectives. This organization is helpful in relating to the reader what the writer’s point of view is. Nevertheless, in each case, authors bring, to varying degrees and intensities, their Christian faith into the discussion. In other words, the authors are not disinterested and objective writers but are those writing from a faith position. I have spotlighted a handful of publications to help readers in getting a sense of the diversity of topics and will end with some summary observations.

Murray Rae’s article, “Jesus Christ, the Order of Creation”, opens the Theological Perspectives section by arguing that science’s understanding of reality and the explanation given by Scripture (Col 1:15-17; 1 Cor 8:6, etc.) can be reconciled by recognizing that explanation for phenomena can occur at differing levels. He uses the music of Chopin to illustrate how science can explain a song by looking at the notes, and theology explains by looking at the score. As valuable as this heuristic is, Rae recognizes that we must also consider the impact that sin has fractured our world so that the score is in a sense broken. Nevertheless, God has left enough of the score intact to let us see the beauty and a glimmer of the ultimate purpose.

Brian Brock’s “Jesus Christ the Divine Animal?: The Human Distinctive Reconsidered” responds to Darwin’s denial that humans are qualitatively different from animals by reframing the issue. Brock contends that looking for something intrinsically different in humans when compared to animals, is a dead end. Rather, we should look extrinsically, namely to our relationship with God. From this perspective, Brock believes that evolution and a high view of scripture (i.e. Genesis story) may be reconciled while avoiding ensnarement with other problems such as the presence of evil. Brock’s idea here is an interesting rephrasing of the functional view of human identity (Gen 1:28).

The problem of evil is addressed in Brian Curry’s “Christ, Creation and the Powers: Elements in a Christian Doctrine of Creation.” Curry contends that the typical binary discussion of God and creation fails to account for the biblical testimony, which includes a third element, the evil powers. The presence of evil powers is necessary because scripture says that God is not satisfied with creation. God continues to work towards redemption and fights the powers to achieve those ends. Curry provocatively says that science can be a power that both enslaves and benefits its users. Readers will be stimulated by Curry’s forceful discussion, but some may be put off by the apparent leaning toward open theism.

In recent decades, the long struggle between science and theology has intensified, forcing Christian theologians to increase their attention on the doctrine of creation. The challenge facing theologians was is how to correlate and contextualize biblical teaching concerning creation with the findings of contemporary science. The effort is difficult because of the diversity and complexity of the issues which include how we got here, the relationship between revelation and reason, free-will and providence, and biblical teaching about nature. Knowing Creation (vol 1.) addresses these subjects through 16 articles by scholars from prestigious schools who self-identify as Christian. The editors explicitly sought to make the book interdisciplinary, arguing that too often academics become siloed in their field (p.18).

The book is organized into four sections each containing four articles: Theological Perspectives, Biblical and Historical Perspectives, Philosophical Perspectives and Scientific Perspectives. While the editors wisely decided to organize the articles by theme or emphasis, readers should understand that some of the categorizations were arbitrary. For example, Mark Harris’ article, “’The Trees of the Field Shall Clap Their Hands’ (Isaiah 55:12): What Does It Mean to Say That a Tree Praises God?” is placed in the Scientific Perspectives section but could have easily been placed in the Biblical and Historical Perspectives.

Given the diversity of topics covered in this text, an integrated review is impossible. So rather than write on all 16 articles, attention will be placed on a few select papers taken from each of the sections.

Section 1 Theological Perspectives

Simon Oliver’s article, “Every Good Gift is from Above” discusses the relationship between culture and nature and how the often-touted dichotomy between nature and culture is problematic (p. 31). In this, Oliver is spot on. The idea that nature is to be understood as non-human assumes an improper understanding of both nature and humanity. In short, it is a false dualism. Oliver contends that viewing creation as a gift from God helps overcome this dualism. He explains this by employing Marcel Mauss’ conception of gifts and giving. Oliver concludes by arguing that food unites culture and nature. He then continues to tease out the implications of the aforementioned premise by drawing on biblical narratives showing how food is strongly associated with reconciliation and communion (i.e. fellowship). In this way, food is both a gift and an offering. Oliver concludes by drawing attention to how food production is tied to much of the environmental problems of our day. Recognizing the interplay between food and culture highlights the importance of creation in our lives and in the biblical narrative.

Oliver’s insights are rather abstract and tend to arrive at theological conclusions that are at times a bit tendentious. Nevertheless, his ideas are stimulating and worthy of engagement.

Vern S. Poythress is Professor of New Testament interpretation at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, where he has taught for over twenty-five years. Holding degrees in New Testament studies, apologetics, and mathematics, Poythress is also a minister in the PCA. Within this text, Poythress seeks to demonstrate how a proper understanding of biblical theology allows consonance with scientific truth. Based upon a strong commitment to Reformed theology, this text makes explicit the beauty and complexity that is inherent within the universe that points toward an intelligent designer. Although an advocate of Intelligent Design theory (IDT), Poythress’ approach to the sciences is balanced and open-minded (he focuses upon the ‘hard sciences’ of physics, chemistry, and biology) . In what follows, important points from the text shall be examined, and if apropos, critically engaged.

In the introduction, aptly entitled ‘Science Mixing with People’, Poythress notes that ultimately this is God’s world, and as such, science reflects his wisdom. He acknowledges that whether one appreciates the contributions of science or not, everyone has to deal with it on the practical level. Poythress asserts that science should serve as a pat for praising God and a instrument of service for humanity (10). A God-Centered science restores the correct response by humans to scientific study, one in which people praise the God who created nature and sustains it. This view is somewhat counter-cultural in that the dominant form of contemporary science stresses an ideology of ‘objectivity’ that virtually ignores or outright banishes fascination, delight, beauty, and mystery from the objects of inquiry. This malaise within science, unfortunately, is also indicative of the larger malaise of meaninglessness that engulfs (post)modern society.

Poythress begins with one of the most important chapters, ‘Why Scientists Must Believe in God: Divine Attributes Of Scientific Law’, and lays the foundation for the remainder of the text. He boldly posits that all scientists – due to the nature of their work – believe in God, whether they do so openly or not. The very regularity that is the foundation of practical science necessitates the steadiness imparted by the Judeo-Christian Godhead. Indeed, according to the bible, the divine is responsible for the regular and predictable events found in nature, the repeating patterns throughout the natural world, and the exact mathematical formulations in nature. Poythress construes the ‘natural law’ studied by scientists as the law of God, or better, the word of God, which is approximately described by human investigations (15). Indeed, all scientists are ‘realists’ in the end analysis with respect to scientific laws, as the scientists to not invent the laws, but merely discover them instead (16). Regarding the characteristics in common between the nature of God and natural law, Poythress notes that both are omnipresent in the since of pervading the cosmos, both are eternal in the sense of being applicable at all times, and both are immutable in that that they do not change. Moreover, both God and the natural law are ideational in character insomuch as we do not directly experience the reality of the natural laws, or the direct reality of God; rather, both are essentially immaterial and invisible, known through their effects and not in their essences (17-18). Note, however, that these statements do not implicate a divinization of nature, but rather are an admission of God’s presence throughout the environ, as the natural law stems from the creative activity of the Godhead.

Chapter two describes ‘The Role of the Bible’, and makes several significant statements to the relation between science and religion. Therein, Poythress states that because both nature and the bible are, in effect, the ‘word’ of God, they harmonize with each other seamlessly when properly approached. When discrepancies appear between the two, Poythress suggests that one should be ready to examine both their thinking about science, as well as their thinking about the bible (43).

In chapter four, which is simply titled ‘Creation’, Poythress begins his examination of the account of creation presented in Genesis 1, the examination of which continues through chapter ten. Poythress avers that the ‘beginning’ spoken of in Genesis 1 is an absolute beginning, a creation out of nothing; however, it is a creation that is initially unformed, which necessitates further refinement over time (73). It is apparent, then, that Poythress does not support a literal depiction of six, twenty-four days, comprising the creation event. Indeed, he makes this point explicit when he examines, in chapters six through ten, the popular interpretations of Genesis 1 known as the 24-hour-day view, the local creation theory, the mature creation theory, the gap theory, the day-age theory, and the analogical day theory. He notes that Genesis 1 does not use modern ‘scientific’ language, but ‘phenomenal’ language instead (92). In supporting the analogical day theory, Poythress contends that the passage in Genesis 1 simply teaches that God made the world in six ‘days’ of undetermined length. Moreover, this analogical view affirms the chronological progression of complexity as well as the reality of the structure of work that humanity should emulate (145).

In the concluding chapter, Poythress emphasizes the primacy of serving God, which all who read this essential text would do well to remember. Because we who operate in science merely think God’s thoughts after him, we must be cautious as to not allow our discoveries to displace the reality of God. Poythress is forthright in stating that his intended audience is Christians who already believe in God, and the independent reality of the world around us. As such, it is not an apologetic tome, as per se, though it does contain apologetic overtones. His overarching theme is that the relation of science and theology does not result in the antagonism that some popular thinking suggests. In sum, I recommend this title to those who are interested in how the Christian faith interacts with the scientific enterprise.

Reviewed by Bradford McCall

Publisher’s page: https://www.crossway.org/books/redeeming-science-tpb/

This review originally appeared on the Pneuma Foundation In Depth Resources page on May 11, 2009. The Pneuma Foundation is the parent organization of PneumaReview.com.

Culture increasingly sees a connection between biology and sin. But what does the Bible really say? What does science actually suggest? How should we respond? You’re invited to explore these questions and more with Christian scientists and theologians at the 2016 Faith & Science Conference, September 23-24 at Evangel University.

Speakers include: Hugh Ross, Amos Yong, Stephen C. Meyer, Matthew S. Stanford, James Bradford, Marcus Ross, and Christina M.H. Powell.

Registration and more information: www.evangel.edu/faithandscience

Molecular biologist Denis Alexander and geophysicist Robert White are committed to both their Christian faith and their scientific fields, which is a characteristic to be emulated by both sides. Since they affirm both, however, this is not a standard ‘apologetic’ work; rather, the authors intend to develop and promote a ‘robust’ theism, all the while defending the verity of science, in a search for meaning and accommodation (perhaps) on both sides. Alexander and White argue that that the natural sciences and Christianity share many attributes with one another, and that any conflict between the two has been due to a priori assumptions, or interpretations of the data that each field presents; there is no real conflict, then, in truth, as the two are congruent. At the same time, however, they do not read too much into the congruencies between the two, as if the consonances reflect beneficially unto theology. In what follows, we will explore individual chapters a little more closely.

The first five chapters constitute part one, and focus – largely – on the relation of science to religion, and vice-versa. They address such issues as whether there are two separate knowledge domains – science and religious – or if the two are interdependent; it seems that they tend more-so toward the latter view than former. In successive chapters, the third and fourth, they show that neither science nor religion are discredited by discoveries in the opposite realm. In the fifth, they argue that science could benefit from the encounter and interaction with religion.

The second part of the book addresses ‘hot issues’ within the science-religion dialogue in the twenty-first century, and comprises four chapters. In the sixth, they address the issue of whether the world – and humans are created or has evolved; notably, they answer with an affirmation of both. Herein they ably discuss the three mechanisms of evolution, consisting of mutation, recombination, and gene flow; they affirm Asa Gray’s intention, directly following the publication of On the Origin of Species, to ‘baptize’ Darwin’s theory of evolution, insomuch as ‘nature is what God does’ (109). Chapter seven considers genetic engineering from a Christian perspective, and the authors advocate that we should not attempt to change the essence or telos of any organism, but that it is permissible to proverbially ‘tinker’ with various organisms (they make particular mention of transgenic plants, with reference to both pesticide and herbicide resistance, on pg. . 117). In chapter eight, the authors assert that we – as Christians – have a responsibility to be decent stewards of God’s creation, and we thus should engage in the environmental debate. The ninth chapter affirms that Christians should be – and need to be! – actively involved in contemporary science as active scientists, and thereby preserving and promoting integrity therein. All in all, the authors argue that that Christianity has much to contribute to the scientific and ethical debates facing today’s world, and we would do well to heed their advice.

Reviewed by Bradford McCall

Publisher’s page: http://www.hendrickson.com/html/product/560182.trade.html

This review was first published on the In Depth Resources page of the Pneuma Foundation (parent organization to PneumaReview.com) February 22, 2010.

Paul Elbert is a physicist-theologian and New Testament scholar.

We may think of God as the leader of a cosmic community.¹ But God is not encountered only in spectacular and physically improbable or counter-intuitive historical events; he is also detected in his manifestation of human experience. One of the distinctive features of the NT documents is the description afforded the interaction of the God, the heavenly Jesus, and the Holy Spirit with Christians.² Global Pentecostalism³ and the international charismatic renewal⁴ are familiar with Christian experience that is evidently interventionist and that thereby would add energy to the universe.⁵ While pneumatological action can have a hidden character, such activity is perhaps more consistent with the God’s decision to be invisible than with an intrinsic reticence of the nature of the Holy Spirit’s presence. The creative activity of the Spirit in personal reception of the gift of the Holy Spirit, in the sharing of interpersonal spiritual gifts, or in interior giftedness via the Johannine chrisma demonstrates an evident experiential or observable manifestation. For this reason, Pentecostals should not feel constrained to conform to theories that God will not and does not interact with physical reality and that there is no room for the Holy Spirit in the continuing dialogue between religion and science. Rather, they might contribute to the picture of spectacular non-natural actions of the Spirit and to the probability of creative work of the Spirit in past Earth history and terrestrial life.⁶

In this dialogue,⁷ Polkinghorne suggests that “the most grievous absence from this conversation is that of the theologians.”⁸ Exceptions, for example, like Moltman’s conclusion that theology and science share a common wisdom,⁹ Marcum’s observation that “Christian theology without the input of the natural sciences may become imaginary,”¹⁰ and Yong’s recognition of the possibility of a new theological paradigm that grants to the book of nature and to science an authentic role in a pneumatological theology wherein a diversity, distinctiveness and integrity of voices may be “as heard originally at Pentecost to be divinely ordained for the glory of God,”¹¹ are all encouraging developments. Nevertheless, Polkinghorne is no doubt correct that twentieth-century theology has been, for the most part, “conducted from within ghettoes walled off from scientific culture.”¹²

I see no good reason why Pentecostals need be “walled off” from or unaware of science and technology. The way forward is to fully understand that it can be God’s calling and a blessing to be a Christian within a scientific career.¹³ Pentecostal-based educational institutions need to move rapidly beyond the idea of simply offering science courses as a means to get students into medical school or just to meet some minimum mandated requirement of accrediting agencies. In this regard, the chemistry department here at Lee University has made a great deal of progress with undergraduate research so as to offer a good major. While science is expensive to teach, Pentecostal education needs to step up to the plate and attempt to boldly enter the main stream of American scientific education with more faculty, much more emphasis on academic production than on the acquisition of academic history, and vigorous participation in research. In my view, this is more important for Pentecostals and their potential place of influence in the thinking community than their current effort to educate the masses. The fact that the Church of God Theological Seminary offers a course in theology and science–which, in my opinion, given the urgency for Pentecostal ministers to be at least acquainted with the experimental discoveries of modern science, might either be made mandatory or offered as a part of the theological requirement–is also a positive sign. Pentecostals will also find that the experimental discoveries of modern science are both eminently preachable and not at all biblically threatening. In fact, I have found these two categories, the book of nature and written revelation, to be quite harmonious.¹⁴

The “conflict” between science and faith within North American evangelicalism continues to rage, unfortunately. This book will no doubt further fan the flames, even if it is intended to shed some light on these matters, largely because it sets out a position defending “theistic evolution” as compatible with evangelical commitments, and detractors of this view are resolutely resistant and aggressively opposed to it. My hunch is that readers of The Pneuma Review who have already made up their minds that evolution is anti-Christian will not find much of value here, and they might even be upset that the editors of this periodical have agreed to review this book. My hope, though, is that those who are genuinely looking to understand the issues will give this very accessible book a fair read. I do not necessarily agree with all of what is in here, but I do think that books like this do raise the literacy of the broader public, and we certainly need more, rather than less, literacy. Pentecostal pastors and church leaders who are concerned about their students and the next generation of pentecostal faith in our thoroughly scientific world need to be equipped to help their church members navigate these waters.

Francis Collins is the world-renowned geneticist who spearheaded the human genome project and Karl Giberson teaches physics at Eastern Nazarene University in Quincy, Massachusetts. Both have written other books on science and faith that have been well received by the wider public. Most important for our purposes is that few, I think, can doubt their evangelical commitments. Yet they are probably among a minority of evangelicals who publicly advocate embracing the consensus of mainstream science, including the neo-Darwinian synthesis, as being consistent with a robust Christian faith. Collins founded The BioLogos Forum (http://biologos.org) in large part to provide a vision for how Christians can not only be at peace with but also support the contemporary scientific enterprise.

Of course, since much of the book emerged from the FAQs on the BioLogos website, the treatments are short, perhaps in some cases, a bit too short for some readers who may be ready for more. Further, I can imagine that some readers will wonder what all the fuss is about within the evangelical world. In many cases, the volume compares and contrast the BioLogos model with alternative positions held by evangelicals, including young earth creationism, old earth creationism, and intelligent design. Those looking for a sort of “four views” point-and-counterpoint will need to keep waiting.

In the days of Pasteur and Lister, was the Divine Healing movement out of touch with what American society believed about medicine?

Introduction

The late nineteenth century was a time of monumental change. It witnessed a cyclone of transformation and progress rivaling, at least, that of any preceding era. Not surprisingly, it was a time of key advances in medical science. This era was home to Pasteur, Röntgen, Lister, and a number of lesser known, but still significant, medical pioneers. These inventors and their discoveries radically reshaped and significantly advanced the practice of medicine. New advances seemed to be dawning with every new day. At the end of the nineteenth century, the promise of medical science seemed unlimited.

At the same time, the late nineteenth century also saw religious change. There was the emergence of the Divine Healing movement, a loosely associated group of religious teachers and practitioners who sought to promote and practice the healing power of the indwelling and resurrected Christ over that of natural means. This movement gained tens of thousands of adherents in a significantly short span of time. Key figures in this group included people from a wide-variety of denominations, men and women, ministers and physicians. Furthermore, this movement played an essential role in the birth of Pentecostalism,¹ the greatest religious movement of the twentieth century.

Therefore, there rose simultaneously on the American landscape at least two significant approaches to health and healing in the late nineteenth century, each with its own biased and ardent champions and devotees. Yet, the opinion of the late nineteenth-century Divine Healing teachers did not, as one might expect, thoroughly dispense with the value and goodness of physicians, their diagnoses, and medical treatment. While they did not completely dismiss the advances, usefulness, and propriety of medical science, they did assert that it was, at best, a deficient approach to the gravity, complexity, and depth of human disease. While they believed that physicians and their medical treatments may be gifts from God, they were convinced that medical science was fundamentally unable to bring to humanity the kind of health and life intended for them by God and found solely in the redeeming work of Jesus Christ.

This chapter will explore those common and key responses—both the affirmations and the denials—of the late nineteenth-century Divine Healing proponents to the growing popularity and use of medicine, remedies, and physicians.

Divine Healing Affirmations of Medical Science

Almost to a person, Divine Healing advocates readily granted that doctors and many of their treatments exist by the providence of God. A. B. Simpson, founder of The Christian and Missionary Alliance, noted that physicians and their medical treatments are “among God’s good gifts” to humanity.² Charles Cullis, the renowned Boston homeopath and father of the Divine Healing movement in the United States noted the “valuable” role that doctors and their treatments may play and continued his own homeopathic medical practice in harmony with his ministry of Divine Healing.³ Carrie Judd Montgomery, one of the Divine Healing movement’s more celebrated authors, speakers, and founder of the “Home of Peace” in Oakland, California, granted the skill of those physicians that worked with her during her own infirmity.⁴ One lesser-known figure, Kenneth McKenzie, a member of Simpson’s Christian and Missionary Alliance and author of no fewer than two significant texts on the theology and practice of Divine Healing, noted that only those with an immature theology of Divine Healing and “extremists” would deny that there is good in doctors and medicine.⁵ Furthermore, the fact that most Divine Healing proponents continued to refer to physicians as “Dr.” shows that only by caricature could one assert that Divine Healing movement saw absolutely no good or use in consulting with physicians and implementing their prescriptions.⁶

These affirmations of physicians and medical treatment by Divine Healing proponents, however, were not blanket endorsements. Rather, as we will see, they were limited to particular and specific arenas. What is particularly interesting is the seeming unanimity of the Divine Healing proponents in regard to those particular areas that they affirmed in regard to medical science. Almost universally, the Divine Healing teachers affirmed three separate but related aspects of the goodness of physicians and medical science: 1) the recent and substantial advances in medical science, 2) the physicians’ ability to diagnose the physical cause of disease, and 3) the physicians’ occasional ability to alleviate symptoms of disease.

Heidi A. Campbell and Heather Looy, eds., A Science and Religion Primer (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009), 230 pages, ISBN 9780801031502.

Read the title carefully! This book is a “primer.” In the publishing world, that means “a short introduction to a subject.” In this case, the book introduces the reader to the dialogue between science and religion. The book does not defend either position nor attempt to convince you to join any particular side. Instead, this primer is simultaneously an introduction, an encyclopedia, an annotated bibliography, and a survey on the intersection of the two seemingly antithetical disciplines. In this context, the book is not alone. Many other excellent guides to the science and religion dialogue exist that are far more in-depth (e.g. the Science and Religion Encyclopedia or The Oxford Handbook on Science and Religion) or even available online (e.g. the websites of the Metanexus Institute or the Counterbalance Network). But the former are very expensive and the latter only accessible with a computer; most of them require extensive preliminary knowledge of the subject matter. This is the point where A Science and Religion Primer stands out as an affordable and practical resource for anyone interested in the topic and as a handy companion to those who need guidance while reading other texts in the vast arena of the subject.

Heidi A. Campbell is assistant professor of communication at Texas A&M University.

The main part of the book consists of an alphabetical listing of entries that discuss a variety of concepts related to the science and religion dialogue from historical, philosophical, scientific, and theological perspectives, including key figures and important events. Each entry is divided into three parts: a definition of the concept, a summary of the key points and significant issues, and a section with resources. Here, the reader finds information from Altruism to the Verification Principle, on significant figures like Isaac Newton or Albert Einstein, on concepts like evolution and miracles, or on fields like natural philosophy and quantum mechanics.

The essays and encyclopedic entries are well-written and clear. Although kept intentionally short, the introductions are informative and highlight a number of important issues in the dialogue of science and religion in a balanced view that favors neither side. The heart of the text is undoubtedly the encyclopedic section, covering more than three quarters of the book. The entries are short and to the point, and the annotated bibliography at the conclusion of each entry offers a highly valuable entry-point for further reading. However, the introduction fails to state the actual motivation for selecting the entries contained in the collection. In a relatively short collection, such as this one, it is not surprising that many topics were not included. The more important question is what fields of interest were left out. From a Pentecostal perspective, the essays and entries show a remarkable lack of emphasis on the blossoming field of pneumatology. The notion of Spirit/spirit and spirituality is almost completely absent from both sections of the book. Entries that could have included particular references to pneumatology, such as “emergence,” “divine action,” or “panentheism,” either fail to make any reference to Spirit/spirit or are not included at all in the collection. In light of the remarkably well-rounded bibliographies included in the book, it is a particularly surprising fact that none of those texts seem to have directed the writers to this significant issue in the science and religion dialogue.