Science and Religion

Modern Physics and Ancient Faith

by Stephen M Barr

Average Rating:

"Let me begin by saying that as a physicist with some philosophical training I may not be the best judge for lay readers, but I loved this book and found it straight-forward to understand.The first chapter is introductory. The author, Stephen M. Barr, describes himself as "someone who adheres to traditional religion and who has worked in some of the subfields of modern physics that are relevant to the materialism/religion debate." Barr sees clearly that "the conflict is not between religion and science, it is between religion and materialism....a philosophical opinion that is closely connected with science. But it is not science." His purpose is to show how "new discoveries made in the last century in various fields have changed our picture of the world in fundamental ways. As a result, the balance has shifted in the debate between scientific materialism and religion.... [20th century] discoveries coming from the study of the material world itself, have given fresh reasons to disbelieve that matter is the only ultimate reality." Barr is honest about the stakes involved: "None of this is a matter of proofs.... What the debate is about, as I shall explain later, is not proof but credibility." And indeed, such simple honesty is characteristic.In the second chapter Barr begins by restating, then demolishing, the anti-religious mythology. His paraphrase of the anti-religious mythos sounds like it was cold-pressed straight from the pronouncements of Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking, and other spokesmen of materialism. This chapter alone is worth half the price of the hardcover. He makes his points so clearly that it is a wonder we could all be duped by "scientific" materialism for so long. I particularly admired the tactic that he gainfully employed throughout the book: demolishing the straw-men that the materialists have raised against believers, e.g. that the Bible is unscientific. "In fact", he observes, "the Bible shows almost no interest in natural phenomena.... [The] primary concern is with God's relationship to human beings, and with human beings' relationship to each other." Barr beautifully explains the concepts of religious mystery and dogma: "Dogmas do not shut off thought, like a wall. Rather they open the mind to vistas that are too deep and broad for our vision. A mystery is what cannot be seen, not because there is a barrier across our field of vision, but because the horizon is so far away." Masterfully he turns the tables on the materialists by observing, "Anything that stands in the way of materialism is ignored or denied [by the materialists]. The materialist lives in a very small world, intellectually speaking." Appendix A on the types of causes brings wonderful clarity to concepts that are often difficult for non-philosophers (including most scientists). It was very satisfying to see such common-sense explanations of the real positions of traditional believers, instead of the limp impostors put forward by the faithless and the lukewarm.In chapter 3, Barr outlines the five "plot twists" that form the subject of the book:1. Part II: "In the Beginning": The Big Bang as "a vindication of the religious view of the universe and a blow to the materialist view."
2. Part III: "Is the Universe Designed?": on the evidence that the universe was designed by an intelligence.
3. Part IV: "Man's Place in the Cosmos": on anthropic "coincidences" that make human life possible in the universe.
4. Part V: "What is Man?": is the human mind reducible to material laws?
5. Part V: "What is Man?": is there free will?Twist 1 (Part II), that the Big Bang points to creation is of course an argument pregnant to be made. What recommends Barr's treatment is its completeness (Bible, authorities of faith, and scientific development) and the clarity of his writing.Part III, on design, is on the whole wonderfully made. He describes the different kinds of order and how order seems to appear spontaneously but is in reality "the unfolding of an order that was already implicit in the nature of things, although often in a secret or hidden way." His examples are well chosen and brilliantly explained. However, Barr's definition of "symmetric structure" and its relationship to order seemed to my mind vague, and a field ripe for future investigation.Part IV, on anthropic coincidences, was very authoritative and very thorough. He not only describes many of them, but also replies to the common objections to the coincidences, and answers alternative explanations of the coincidences.Part V, on the mind, is near-perfect genius. The argumentation is simply brilliant. On the brain/mind distinction, he writes, "the existence of our own brains is an inference [a complicated series of arguments about sense data].... We experience [our minds] directly in the process of using them. We do not infer the existence *of* our minds, rather we infer he existence of everything else *with* our minds." Barr's explanation of the Lucas-Penrose argument, the technicalities of Goedel's theorem, and their implications was relatively straight-forward. I did think that Barr was a bit out on a limb in his adoption of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics to explain the immateriality of the mind. Such a tactic sadly succumbs to the Cartesian dualism that has plagued science from the beginning. Nevertheless, the widespread acceptance of Copenhagen among physicists is enough to justify Barr's use of it to support traditional belief.Before I go, let me reiterate how much I liked the book. Even with the minor shortcomings I mentioned, I think it is *well* worth the imposing hardback price-and for a cheap-skate like me, that's saying quite a lot! It is well written, systematic, and authoritative: three rare qualities for a book that advocates anything in the neighborhood of traditional faith with regard to science-and Barr isn't just in the neighborhood, but right on the bull's eye. The book will be a powerful tool in the answering the many baffling ideologies and mind-numbing prejudices that dominate what passes for intellectual discourse these days."

Publisher: University of Notre Dame Press | More reviews: amazon.com

Thousands not Billions: Challenging the Icon of Evolution, Questioning the Age of the Earth

by Donald DeYoung

Average Rating:

"Do you believe in the scientific "theory" that makes your microwave oven work? How about the scientific "theory" that makes electricity available when you plug in your toaster? How about the scientific "theory" that water is comprised of two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen. These and ALL theories are ideas that have been tested and tested and NEVER found to be wrong. If you believe that all of these theories are true, why question the theory of carbon dating accepted by ALL PEER REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC DOCUMENTATION?

This book is another example of TRUE scientific theory mixed with UNTESTED hypothetical ideas (somewhat like "bait and switch"). The end result is that the author claims to prove his ideas when in fact the untested hypotheses are still untested.

I love God, people and our planet but feel that books like this one prevent us from seeing the entire truth, unfortunately."

Publisher: Master Books | More reviews: amazon.com

The Mind of God: The Scientific Basis for a Rational World

by Paul Davies

Average Rating:

"When Paul Davies' book was published 1993, scientists had yet to discover the top quark, but Davies predicted that it would be found one day, and therefore add further evidence to his view of an ordered, symmetrical universe which seems to be designed on purpose. The "drama" for the search for the top quark, as the author called it, had not yet been completed. Well, he was absolutely right. The top quark was discovered in March1995 at Fermi Lab. It is this kind of accuracy that sets it apart from the less rigorous Creation Science-styled books. This book cannot be dismissed since the author's knowledge of mathematics, philosophy and physics seems so wide-ranging. Moreover, he is well aware of the skepticism to the designer Universe arguments, and they are presented in this volume at every turn. Davies' powers of prophetic vision and synthesis of information are amazing. The heart of the book are the chapters on his "deep feeling" that the inherently mathematical nature of the Universe, which he admits is hard to convey to the lay reader, must lead to the inescapable conclusion that the world as we know it could not have happened by sheer chance. Ironically, Davies says, by doing their work, scientists end up thinking about God more than theologians."

Publisher: Simon & Schuster | More reviews: amazon.com

The Order of Things

by Father James V. Schall

Average Rating:

"First, full disclosure: I have long been a fan of Reverend Schall.

This ambitious book, in under 250 pages, tackles many of the biggest questions surrounding our existence and our obligations. In a time of atheist chic, Rev. Schall takes a serious look at why things are the way they are. He weaves together many classic ideas from Plato to Aquinas to Tolkien and Lewis. And, his writing is accessible to someone without a philosophy degree, but merely a deep curiosity about existence and reality.

Counterintuitively, the author starts with the macro perspective -- The Orderly and Divine -rather than starting, like Lewis' "Mere Christianity" at the personal level. As his focus narrows, the higher-order ideas and lessons wrap neatly around the more personal.

An absolutely delightful read. The material is not easy, but is presented in clear and enjoyable prose. The greatest challenge, however, is less in the understanding of Rev. Schall's points than in the acceptance of them in one's life."

Publisher: Ignatius Press | More reviews: amazon.com

Biblical Case for an Old Earth, A

by David, Snoke

Average Rating:

"People of all persuasions, conservative, liberal, and skeptic, will find this book useful as a carefully reasoned exposition of what the Bible actually *says*.

All too often, we bring modern presuppositions to the Bible and misunderstand it. For example, we see the word "earth" and immediately imagine a globe seen from outer space. That was not part of the ancient Hebrew mindset. On that basis, Snoke argues convincingly that the Bible says Noah's flood was local (it covered "the land," not the entire planet). Also, the creation story in Genesis 1 is clearer if we understand that it describes the appearance of things seen by a person on the ground, not an aerial or outer-space view.

Snoke is very conservative; he does not accept Darwinian evolution at all. His conservatism makes the book all the more useful because he obviously is not trying to impose Darwinism or anything else onto the Bible. He is just trying to read it in the light of present-day knowledge of history, archeology, and physical science.

He does a good job of disposing of fundamentalist folklore. Young-earthers often add to the Bible a remarkable assortment of notions not explicitly taught there, such as the vapor canopy theory, an assortment of miracles associated with Noah's Ark, and so forth.

He also makes an interesting observation about the "appearance of age" theory (that God created the earth with the appearance of age). Suppose God created Adam miraculously with a 30-year-old body. That would make sense because in order to exist, Adam had to exist at *some* stage of physical maturity. But if God had created Adam with 30 years of false memories, that would make God a deceiver. In the same way, it does not seem plausible that God would create the universe with spurious evidence for huge numbers of specific prehistoric events, from supernovae down to the life and death of individual animals.

In passing, he remarks that it is a breach of scientific ethics for young-earthers, presenting themselves as scientists, to take their claims directly to popular audiences, often with church sanction, without submitting them to any kind of expert criticism (even from their allies). He also suggests a possible reason for widespread ancient belief in dragons: a few dinosaur skeletons must have been found, and recognized as reptiles, at various places in ancient times.

In short: This book is very strong on logic in a field where shoddy reasoning is common. It is the best exegesis of Genesis 1-2 that I've ever seen."

Publisher: Baker Books | More reviews: amazon.com

Billions of Missing Links: A Rational Look at the Mysteries Evolution Can't Explain

by Geoffrey Simmons

Average Rating:

"NOTE TO READERS: This review was subjected to a negative vote campaign beginning December 29, 2007. There is a small cadre of Amazon reviewers and cohorts who vote down any review that is not a uniform attack on a book advocating intelligent design. Their express purpose is to try to dissuade people from reading the book. This is a juvenile tactic which undermines Amazon's whole voting system. Please keep in mind that the huge number of negative votes given to the bulk of reviews on this page do not reflect upon either the author or the book. Review follows.


Despite living a century before Karl Popper, the great philosopher of Science, Darwin understood that any genuine scientific theory had to include the possibility of falsification. He therefore suggested in 1872 that if any complex organ (or organism) existed which could not have evolved from successive small steps or "modifications" that his theory would "ultimately break down." The bulk of this book by Geoffrey Simmons is an attempt to do just that. In it he quickly surveys the plant and animal kindoms and finds numerous instances of living organisms with traits so unique and highly adapted that, he argues, they could not have evolved in short successive steps.

Repeating the many examples Simmons offers would be beyond the scope of this review, but in general Simmons suggests two versions of his critique to Darwin's theory. The first is the lack of fossil antecedents. In his discussion of bats, for example, Simmons notes that bat fossils can be found over a period of 50 million years but each fossil shows clearly defined bat characteristics, including echolocation abilities and unique tendons that allow bats to easily hang upside down. There are, he notes, no obvious predecessors which perhaps occasionally fell (darn those unevolved tendons) or flew into cave walls (better sonar next time...). Similar points are made about the dragonfly.

Simmons's second critique, far more common than the first, is that it is impossible to imagine successful intermediate steps for some plant and animal traits. He notes that many species are so highly adapted that they have symbiotic relationships with other plants or animals. Since these behaviors and accompanying physical characteristics are so closely bound together, one has a hard time imagining just how these relationships could have evolved independently. One example of this is the Mojave Yucca and the Yucca Moth. Although it is not mentioned in this book, the relationship between the two is characterized in popular literature as a "mystery" of the desert. But this is only a mystery if one assumes Darwin's hypothesis of slight modifications. Other examples Simmons offers include resident bacteria within humans that allow us to utilize vitamin K.

As I read through the book, I found myself wondering, "How would a biologist who accepted the theory of evolution respond to all this?" Having read some of the popular literature from this perspective, I can imagine 3 quick responses with varying degrees of effectiveness. As to the fossil record, at least a few Darwinists will respond that only a small portion of fossils are preserved. We could easily find a bat predecessor tomorrow and pointing to the lack of fossil predecessors in some species is simply a "Designer [not God] in the Gaps" hypothesis. (Simmons correctly notes there is nothing specifically Christian in the design argument, though many Darwinists will disagree--their views on this matter reflect more their ignorance of theology than their knowledge of biology.) This is a fair point, but it must be noted that they are placing their faith in a "Darwin in the gaps" hypothesis. More to the point, however, if Darwin is correct, we should expect to find mostly intermediate fossils since successive slight modifications would leave more intermediate than modern fossils, even if only a small portion of all fossils are preserved. We emphatically do not find this, and that point suggests the weakness of this argument. But other arguments raised by Darwinists could be more effective. It should be noted, for example, that natural selection as understood by Darwin and his followers is supposed to explain adaptation. Simmons, they might argue, is vindicating their own thesis in pointing to several dramatic adaptations. Moreover, Simmons does not "deny" natural selection as such. He merely suggests it is not fully sufficient to account for all the variation and uniqueness we find in the natural world. Readers can decide for themselves how effective Simmons's examples are in his chapter on adaptation. I personally found them persuasive, but am willing to consider alternative interpretations.

But perhaps the most powerful argument a defender of Darwin could offer would be to take the opposite approach to Simmons altogether. Where Simmons has pointed to hundreds of examples of uniqueness among plants and animals in the natural world, a Darwinist (not a term they like, but much nicer and more accurate than the descriptions they make of ID theorists) might point to similarities in the animal kingdom. The human genome, they note, is very similar to that of a chimp (90-98%, depending on which source you read). Indeed, our genome shares about half the DNA sequences of a banana. Positive proof, they might argue, for a single tree of life. But then again, it could be DNA sequencing is not a very useful measure. Here again, readers will have to decide for themselves how persuasive the argument from similarity is against the evidence marshalled by Simmons.

In the end, however, I enjoyed the book. Written for a popular audience, this book offers a whirlwind tour through the natural world and its many wonders. Whether or not you find evolution convincing as an explanation for all, or merely some, of what Simmons describes, this is a fun read. So if you want a popular introduction to one aspect of intelligent design, or if you are simply curious about the amazing diversity to be found in life on this planet, this book is a worth your time in reading it."

Publisher: Harvest House Publishers | More reviews: amazon.com

Science's Blind Spot: The Unseen Religion of Scientific Naturalism

by Cornelius G. Hunter

Average Rating:

"Anyone examining the debates surrounding evolution and various alternatives, including "intelligent design," cannot help but be struck by the vehemence with which advocates of the former attack the latter. Whether on Amazon reviews and discussion boards, or in the broader scientific and popular literature, Darwinists attack those who disagree with them in an manner that far exceeds what one would expect from one scientist simply disagreeing with another's interpretation of the data. This is because the question literally involves the personal religion of those who support the current neo Darwinian synthesis. Despite the claims that supporters of evolution routinely make, namely that they are opposing "religious" fundamentalism, the fact remains that their basic suppositions are religious. This new book by biophysicist Cornelius Hunter examines these religious assumptions and lays bare their strengths and weaknesses in the historical sciences.

The story of modern science begins with Francis Bacon and Rene Descartes, each of whom rejected the rationalist theories of Aristotle. They did so, however, in very different ways. Bacon supported a moderate empiricism. Stressing observation and experimentation, he suggested science as such limit itself to observable and testable hypotheses. In contrast, Descartes advocated a new rationalism: one in which all science would pursue naturalistic explanations and use these explanations, even if they did not yield useful predictions, because such explanations were inherently superior to supernatural (or non-natural) paradigms. The approaches found in the work of both Bacon and Descartes have had an enormous influence on the world of science today, but in terms of what Hunter describes as the "historical" sciences (the origins of the universe, the solar system, and, of course, the "Origin of Species") Descartes rationalism has been by far the dominant influence.

People, however, are not generally aware of the extent to which rationalism, particularly in its naturalist expression, is the result of religious influences. The heart of Hunter's book outlines these influences. Theological naturalism was a solution to the problem of reconciling creation with a wise and loving creator. For theological naturalists, assigning creation to various natural laws isolates God from perceived imperfections or "evils" in the world. Hunter dwells into the history of naturalism, highlighting the often neglected whig theologian Thomas Burnet along with better known figures like Immanuel Kant. But ultimately, this theological naturalism led to a methodological naturalism in the sciences. The search for exclusively natural clauses became something of a game rule in science, but the theological basis for it is often overlooked.

Nonetheless, naturalism presents problems, not the least of which is the "blind spot" referenced in the title of the book. When a naturalistic paradigm fails, it does not occur to scientists to examine non-natural explanations. Indeed, there is a tendency to create false dichotomies (either evolution is "true" or all observations of species must reveal only some sort of ideal perfection--otherwise there would be a "bad" design which a creator or other designer could not possibly make.) Needless to add, this sort of reasoning effectively pre-empts alternative suggestions. But it also includes stunning theological suppositions that its adherents are loath to acknowledge. Why, for example, must we assume that a designer would always opt for what we consider a perfect design? As Hunter correctly notes, that this was an assumption of some 18th century natural theologians hardly means it is prescriptive for all natural theology.

There are a number of important implications to the arguments in Hunter's book. One is that religious assumptions are far more common in the sciences than many would be willing to acknowledge. Indeed, much of the "evidence" in Darwin's 'Origin of Species' is essentially theological arguments about how nature "should be" rather than simply an empirical discussion of how it is. Historians have known this for some time. (Readers interested in pursuing this subject further should examine historian Gertrude Himmelfarb's masterful Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution.) But amazingly enough, such reasoning persists into the modern era. When SJ Gould declares the Panda's Thumb an inadequate design, he is making a theological claim, not a scientific one. Similar arguments abound in supposedly scientific literature. That these same writers are often critical of design theorists for supposedly bringing "religious" values and ideas into science merely demonstrates the extent of the blindspot Hunter describes.

But this book raises a broader question as well. Is "science" possible without some metaphysical insight. Although Hunter does not mention it, in the broadest sense the answer to this question is no. We must, as Einstein admitted, acknowledge that a prerequisite of science is the presumption that the universe is understandable at all. But beyond that, can a science be constructed that is truly empirical? Or are we stuck between the theological naturalism of many modern biologists, and the theological alternative(s) suggested by intelligent design. Hunter suggests it can by returning to Bacon's "moderate" empiricism. But what would such an empiricism entail? For one thing, it would require the admission that naturalism really is only a game rule, and not an overarching theological construct as it is for such scientists as Howard Van Till and Kenneth Miller. It would also require that we reject the few atheists (Daniel Dennet and Richard Dawkins come to mind here) who attempt to appropriate naturalism for their own purposes. As a game rule, naturalism is not a "universal solvent" that dissolves all religious claims, whatever our atheist friends might wish. Accepting Hunter's moderate empiricism would not even "destroy" evolution as a useful working hypothesis. But it would have the effect of seriously limiting what questions science could answer. More important, it would require that we again integrate learning. As Hunter so eloquently notes, there "are rich multifaceted problems that include reasoning from a variety of disciplines. We cannot understand such problems with narrow appeals to just science, or just philosophy, or just theology, or just history. The full range of knowledge ought to be considered."(p.145) The research possibilities such a moderate empiricism offers are tremendous, but they undermine the dominance theological naturalism currently enjoys under the label of "science," and it is unlikely the high priesthood of this religion will give up so easily. Indeed, they currently enjoy a monopoly on the presentation of their religious views in the public sector and they are unlikely to share it. After all, it is easier to accuse one's opponents of religious fanaticism than to examine the mote in one's own eye."

Publisher: Brazos Press | More reviews: amazon.com

Three essays on universal law: The laws of Karma, will, and love

by Michael A. Singer

Average Rating:

"This is one of the most clear and logically laid out books approaching spiritual matters for beginners that I've yet come across. This is a great book to give a friend who is curious about spirituality, either through eastern or western mystical traditions. Well laid out, the subject matter is pleasantly approached, a very positive attitude throughout the book. Very practical! Seems very accurate and holds up against many other teachings of enlightened masters on these subjects."

Publisher: Anhinga | More reviews: amazon.com

Creation As Science: A Testable Model Approach to End the Creation/evolution Wars

by Hugh Ross

Average Rating:

""Creation as Science" actually contains, in a 25-page side-by-side table, four models of creation: the Reasons to Believe (RTB) Model, Naturalism, Young-Earth Creationism and Theistic Evolution, with a total of 89 predictive tests for each model.

In addition to the models, the 225 pages of preceding text contain a lot of worthwhile material, including a list of ten parallels between the "evolution" of the universe and Scripture (p. 75) and an extensive description of the careful, many-faceted preparations God orchestrated over a period of 13.7 billion years to prepare planet Earth for us humans.

While he may or may not have gotten everything right, Hugh Ross seems to have made a good first pass that should stir up much discussion and, hopefully, progress."

Publisher: Navpress Publishing Group | More reviews: amazon.com

The Answer Book for Kids: 22 Questions on Dinosaurs and the Flood of Noah (Answers Book for Kids)

by Ken Ham

The Answers Book for Kids is a two-volume set, broken down by topic and written for children ages 7-11. The volumes answer 50 questions and are written and the Fall, Dinosaurs and the Flood, and Sin, Salvation, and the Christian Life. The book is also indexed so children can quickly find the answers they are looking for.

Publisher: Master Books | More reviews: amazon.com