What do you think?
Rate this book
The Soul of Science
"I consider The Soul of Science to be a most significant book which, in our scientific age, should be required reading for all thinking Christians and all practicing scientists. The authors demonstrate how the flowering of modern science depended upon the Judeo-Christian worldview of the existence of a real physical contingent universe, created and held in being by an omnipotent personal God, with man having the capabilities of rationality and creativity, and thus being capable of investigating it. Pearcey and Thaxton make excellent use of analogies to elucidate difficult concepts, and the clarity of their explanations for the nonspecialist, for example, of Einstein's relativity theories or of the informational content of DNA and its consequences for theories of prebiotic evolution, are quite exceptional, alone making the volume worth purchasing." --Dr. David Shotton, Lecturer in Cell Biology, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford
"Pearcey and Thaxton show that the alliance between atheism and science is a temporary aberration and that, far from being inimical to science, Christian theism has played and will continue to play an important role in the growth of scientific understanding. This brilliant book deserves wide readership." --Phillip E. Johnson, University of California, Berkeley
"This book would be an excellent text for courses on science and religion, and it should be read by all Christians interested in the relationship between science and their theological commitments." --J.P. Moreland, Professor of Philosophy, Talbot School of Theology, Biola University
"Pearcey and Thaxton show that the alliance between atheism and science is a temporary aberration and that, far from being inimical to science, Christian theism has played and will continue to play an important role in the growth of scientific understanding. This brilliant book deserves wide readership." --Phillip E. Johnson, University of California, Berkeley
"This book would be an excellent text for courses on science and religion, and it should be read by all Christians interested in the relationship between science and their theological commitments." --J.P. Moreland, Professor of Philosophy, Talbot School of Theology, Biola University
298 pages, Paperback
First published August 16, 1994
77 people are currently reading
1139 people want to read
About the author
Nancy R. Pearcey
29 books526 followersNancy Randolph Pearcey is the Francis A. Schaeffer Scholar at the World Journalism Institute, where she teaches a worldview course based on the study guide edition of Total Truth: Liberating Christianity from Its Cultural Captivity. In 2005, Total Truth won the ECPA Gold Medallion Award in the Christianity & Society category, in addition to an Award of Merit in the Christianity Today book awards.
A former agnostic, Pearcey studied violin in Heidelberg, Germany, in the early 1970s and then traveled to Switzerland to study Christian worldview under Francis Schaeffer at L’Abri Fellowship. After graduating from Iowa State University with a Distributed Studies degree (philosophy, German, music), she earned a master’s degree in Biblical Studies from Covenant Theological Seminary in St. Louis, then pursued further graduate work in the history of philosophy at the Institute for Christian Studies in Toronto (with emphases on ancient and Reformational philosophy).
Pearcey is currently a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, where the focus of her work is on the cultural and philosophical implications of the evolution controversy. A frequent public lecturer, Pearcey has spoken to actors and screenwriters in Hollywood; students and faculty at universities such as Dartmouth, Stanford, USC, and Princeton; scientists at national labs such as Sandia and Los Alamos; staffers at Congress and the White House; and various activist and church groups around the country, including the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C. She has appeared on NPR, and a lecture based on Total Truth was broadcast by C-SPAN.
She began writing in 1977 for the nationally distributed Bible-Science Newsletter, where for 13 years she wrote pioneering in-depth monthly articles on issues related to science and Christian worldview. In 1991 she became the founding editor of “BreakPoint,” a national daily radio commentary program, and continued as the program’s executive editor for nearly nine years, heading up a team of writers. Under her leadership, the program grew into an influential organ for teaching a Christian worldview perspective on current events, with an estimated weekly audience of five million. She was also policy director and senior fellow of the Wilberforce Forum, and for five years coauthored a monthly column in Christianity Today.
Pearcey has served as a visiting scholar at Biola University’s Torrey Honors Institute, managing editor of the science journal Origins & Design, an editorial board member for Salem Communications Network, and a commentator on Public Square Radio. Her articles have appeared in numerous journals and magazines, including the Washington Times, Human Events, First Things, Books & Culture, World, Pro Rege, Human Life Review, American Enterprise, The World & I, Homeschool Enrichment, Christianity Today, and the Regent University Law Review.
Pearcey has authored or contributed to several works, including The Soul of Science, which treats the history of science and Christianity, and the bestselling, award-winning How Now Shall We Live? She was invited to contribute the Foreword in The Right Questions, as well as chapters in Mere Creation, Of Pandas and People, Pro-Life Feminism, Genetic Ethics, Signs of Intelligence, Reading God’s World, Uncommon Dissent, and a Phillip Johnson Festschrift titled Darwin’s Nemesis.
Pearcey resides in Northern Virginia, where she and her husband are homeschooling the second of their two sons.
A former agnostic, Pearcey studied violin in Heidelberg, Germany, in the early 1970s and then traveled to Switzerland to study Christian worldview under Francis Schaeffer at L’Abri Fellowship. After graduating from Iowa State University with a Distributed Studies degree (philosophy, German, music), she earned a master’s degree in Biblical Studies from Covenant Theological Seminary in St. Louis, then pursued further graduate work in the history of philosophy at the Institute for Christian Studies in Toronto (with emphases on ancient and Reformational philosophy).
Pearcey is currently a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, where the focus of her work is on the cultural and philosophical implications of the evolution controversy. A frequent public lecturer, Pearcey has spoken to actors and screenwriters in Hollywood; students and faculty at universities such as Dartmouth, Stanford, USC, and Princeton; scientists at national labs such as Sandia and Los Alamos; staffers at Congress and the White House; and various activist and church groups around the country, including the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C. She has appeared on NPR, and a lecture based on Total Truth was broadcast by C-SPAN.
She began writing in 1977 for the nationally distributed Bible-Science Newsletter, where for 13 years she wrote pioneering in-depth monthly articles on issues related to science and Christian worldview. In 1991 she became the founding editor of “BreakPoint,” a national daily radio commentary program, and continued as the program’s executive editor for nearly nine years, heading up a team of writers. Under her leadership, the program grew into an influential organ for teaching a Christian worldview perspective on current events, with an estimated weekly audience of five million. She was also policy director and senior fellow of the Wilberforce Forum, and for five years coauthored a monthly column in Christianity Today.
Pearcey has served as a visiting scholar at Biola University’s Torrey Honors Institute, managing editor of the science journal Origins & Design, an editorial board member for Salem Communications Network, and a commentator on Public Square Radio. Her articles have appeared in numerous journals and magazines, including the Washington Times, Human Events, First Things, Books & Culture, World, Pro Rege, Human Life Review, American Enterprise, The World & I, Homeschool Enrichment, Christianity Today, and the Regent University Law Review.
Pearcey has authored or contributed to several works, including The Soul of Science, which treats the history of science and Christianity, and the bestselling, award-winning How Now Shall We Live? She was invited to contribute the Foreword in The Right Questions, as well as chapters in Mere Creation, Of Pandas and People, Pro-Life Feminism, Genetic Ethics, Signs of Intelligence, Reading God’s World, Uncommon Dissent, and a Phillip Johnson Festschrift titled Darwin’s Nemesis.
Pearcey resides in Northern Virginia, where she and her husband are homeschooling the second of their two sons.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 41 reviews
Want to read
January 26, 2012I think Nancy Pearcy is one of my heroes for being one of the brave souls who happens to be a Christian and a woman who blazes the trails which few Christians--and Christian women--go down...And without being cheezy or shallow, taking both her faith and the humanities seriously. If only I could study under her at college.
February 14, 2020
My brain hurts (in a good way). I’m sure I’ll come back to this book. I learned a lot and I’m sure I just scratched the surface.
April 22, 2017
I very much enjoyed this book. Nancy Pearcey is an excellent writer and a great mind. Her Biblical worldview makes reading her works worthwhile. The quotes below should challenge all of us. We need to know what we believe and why we believe it! When we or our children and grandchildren read science books are we (they) discerning. We need to train our minds to be aware of truth and discerning of non truth. Enjoy her quotes below:
In the spirit of the Reformation, the astronomer Johannes Kepler wrote of being “called” by God to use his talents in his works as an astronomer. In one of his notebooks, Kepler broke spontaneously into prayer: “ I give you thanks, Creator and God, that you have given me this joy in thy creation, and I rejoice in the works of your hands. See I have now completed the work to which I was called. In it I have used all the talents you have lent to my spirit.” ~Nancy Pearcy in “The Soul of Science”
In the same spirit [of Kepler], the early chemist Jean-Baptiste van Helmont insisted that the pursuit of science is “a good gift,” given by God. This broad concept of calling lent spiritual and moral sanction to science as a legitimate way of serving God. ~Nancy Pearcy in “The Soul of Science”
The mathematical laws sought by science were legislated by God in the same manner as a king ordains laws in his realm. ~Rene’ Descartes
One of the most distinctive aspects of modern science is its use of mathematics – the conviction not only that nature is lawful but also that those laws can be stated in precise mathematical formulas. This conviction, too, historians have traced to Biblical teaching on creation. The Biblical God created the universe ex nihilo and hence has absolute control over it. Genesis paints a picture of a Workman completely in charge of His materials. Hence in its essential structure the universe is precisely what God wants it to be. ~Nancy Pearcy in “The Soul of Science”
Matter in the Platonic sense, which must be ‘prevailed upon’ by reason, will not obey mathematical laws exactly: matter which God has created from nothing may well strictly follow the rules which its Creator has laid down for it. In this sense I called modern science a legacy, I might even have said a child, of Christianity. ~Physicist C.F. von Weizsacker
Johannes Kepler first major book sought to demonstrate that the planetary system could be inscribed within a series of three-dimensional geometrical shapes. Although he later had to abandon the schema, it reveals his Pythagorean conviction that numbers and geometry are the key to unlocking the secrets of the universe. As Kearney puts it, Kepler believed “God created the cosmos upon the basis of the divinely inspired laws of geometry.” In fact, it was his intense commitment to mathematical precision that led Kepler through failure after failure until he finally hit upon elliptical orbits for the planets. ~Nancy Pearcy in “The Soul of Science”
The reason Newton felt free to avoid ultimate causes was, of course, that for him the ultimate cause was God. He viewed gravity as an active principle through which God Himself imposes order onto passive matter – as one of the avenues through which God exercises His immediate activity in creation. As Kaiser puts it, for Newton things like gravity “depended on God’s immediate presence and activity as much as the breaching of an organism depends on the life-principle within.” Like breathing, these active powers were regular and natural, and yet they could not be explained in purely mechanical terms. ~Nancy Pearcy in “The Soul of Science”
Today we are conditioned to think of the history of science as a warfare between science and religion. In the development of classical physics, however, what we see is not a battle between science and Christiany but a debate among Christians over the best way to conceptualize God’s role in the world – a debate over how to construe divine action in a world increasingly understood to operate by natural law. ~Nancy Pearcy in “The Soul of Science”
These ideas breathed life into scientific work, especially after the Protestant Reformation. The Reformers rejected the nature/grace dualism of the medieval church and taught that one could honor the Creator by studying His creation. Scientific work acquired great dignity. ~Nancy Pearcy in “The Soul of Science”
Science became, as Kline explains, a “religious quest”: “ The search for the mathematical laws of nature was an act of devotion which would reveal the glory and grandeur of His handiwork. … Each discovery of a law of nature was hailed as evidence of God’s brilliance rather than the investigator’s. ~Nancy Pearcy in “The Soul of Science”
We find these convictions expressed, for example, in the writings of Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543) and Johannes Kepler (1571-1630). They conceived of God as the Cosmic Lawgiver, who created the world according to mathematical laws. ~Nancy Pearcy in “The Soul of Science”
Listen to Kepler: “The chief of all investigations of the external world should be to discover the rational order and harmony which has been imposed on it by God and which He revealed to us in the language of mathematics.” This was not mere religious piety, incidental to Kepler’s scientific contributions. His convictions about God and mathematics were in fact the central inspiration for his scientific work. ~Nancy Pearcy in “The Soul of Science”
… for Kepler it was a “law of creation” that “just as the eye was made to see colors, and the ear to hear sounds, so the human mind was made to understand … quantity.” Many of the early scientists like to cite a passage from the apocryphal Wisdom of Solomon 11:20, “Thou hast arranged all things by measure and number and weight.” ~Nancy Pearcy in “The Soul of Science
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642 summed up the new worldview in his well-known statement that the book of nature is written by the hand of God in the language of mathematics. Today this idea has become so familiar that it strikes us as a platitude. But in Galileo’s day it was, as philosopher R.G. Collingwood puts it, “a fighting speech” – a declaration of war on Aristotelian philosophy and a ringing endorsement of the conviction that God had created the world on a mathematical plan. ~Nancy Pearcy in “The Soul of Science”
God had designed the universe, and it was to be expected that all phenomena of nature would follow one master plan. One mind designing a universe would almost surely employed one set of basic principles to govern related phenomena. ~Mathematician, Morris Kline
God, who founded everything in the world according to the norm of quantity, also has endowed man with a mind, which can comprehend those norms. ~Kepler
Certain laws which God has so established in nature and of certain notions which He has impressed in our souls. ~Rene’ Descartes
For the early scientists, there had been no epistemological dilemma. They believed that the Biblical God had created the world according to an intelligible pattern – and that He had designed the human mind to apprehend that pattern. God provided the link between the natural world and the human mind. ~Nancy Pearcy in “The Soul of Science
If the history of mathematics reveals anything, it is the crucial role that the Christian faith has played, and must play, in the world of science and scholarship. The history of mathematics was decisively shaped by its interaction with Christianity. This is not to assert that the early mathematicians were evangelicals in the modern sense of the term. Yet they did assume a broadly Christian worldview – that the world has an ordered structure because God made it; that humans made in God’s image can decipher that order; that in studying the creation, we honor its Creator. The notebooks of such giants as Copernicus, Kepler, and Newton overflow with praises to God for His orderly creation. ~Nancy Pearcy in “The Soul of Science”
The earliest attempts to formulate a mechanistic theory of life’s origin leaned heavily on chance – on random interactions of chemicals in a warm pond on the early earth. Given the complexity of life, its chance origin was a highly unlikely event, of course. But biologists hoped to vault that barrier by injecting immense quantities of time. Given enough time, they said, the most improbable event becomes not only possible, not merely probable, but inevitable.
However, at a symposium held in 1966 at the Wistar Institute in Philadelphia, the computer revolution caught up with the biologists. Using high-speed computers, mathematicians simulated the trial-and-error methods of chance. The outcome was devastating. Computers showed that the probability that life arose by chance processes is essentially zero, no matter how much time is allotted.
Since that time, there has been a gradual shift away from chance models of life’s origin to models that rely on some force inherent in matter. Chance has proved to be the materialist’s God-of-the-gaps, continually pushed back by advances in scientific knowledge.
As chance theories lost credibility, they were replaced by theories that rely on some inherent self-ordering force within matter. ~ Nancy Pearcy in “The Soul of Science”
But this particular form of predestinist theory has lost its initial plausibility. To begin with, it has not been confirmed experimentally. Experiments designed to simulate conditions on the early earth have not revealed any significant ordering effects due to differences in chemical bonding forces. Dean Kenyon, one of the authors of Biochemical Predestination, has since rejected the theory on experimental grounds. “If you survey the experiments performed to date designed to simulate conditions on the early earth,” he said in an interview, “ one thing that stands out is that you do not get ordered sequences of amino acids. Nor do you get ordered sequences of nucleotides, the building blocks of DNA. These simply do not appear among the products of any experiments. If we thought we were going to see a lot of spontaneous ordering, something must have been wrong with our theory.”
What the experiments do yield is primarily a sludge of gummy brown tar. Or as Kenyon expresses it more elegantly: “The dominant trend in simulation experiments is the formation of non-biological materials. ~Nancy Pearcy in “The Soul of Science”
The design argument rests on an analogy between the order found in nature and the order exhibited by objects of human manufacture. The best-known formulation is by William Paley in 1802. Piling detail upon detail, Paley described the intricate adaptations found in living things. Ascribing these marvels to physical causes, he argued, would be like finding a watch on the heath and ascribing it to natural forces such as wind and erosion. The kind of order we see in watches indicates clearly that they are the products of human intelligence; and since we see an analogous order in living things, Paley argued, they are products of divine intelligence. If we are to believe the recent Gallup Poll, a great many Americans still agree with Paley.
The crux of Paley’s argument was the analogy between living things and watches. But today molecular biology has given us a much more striking analogy – between the base sequence in DNA and a written message. Updating Paley, we could say that ascribing DNA to physical-chemical causes would be like finding a book or computer disk on the heath and ascribing its contents to the effects of wind and erosion. If books and computer programs require an intelligent origin, so too does the message in the DNA molecule. Though no one has actually witnessed the creation of life, creationists argue, still we recognize the distinctive complexity that in our experience results only from intelligent activity. ~Nancy Pearcy in “The Soul of Science”
In our experience, a written message is always the product of an intelligent agent; hence we can construct a positive argument that informational structures such as DNA are likewise the result of an intelligent agent. ~Nancy Pearcy in “The Soul of Science”
The most common objection to any notion of design is that it falls outside the range of science – that any theory involving reference to an intelligent agent is unscientific. But this objection assumes a particular definition of science. It assumes that there exists what some philosophers of science call a “magic fence” that enables us to divide real science on one side – astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology, geology – from pseudoscience like acupuncture, astrology, parapsychology, and the writings of Velikovsky. In this scheme, any concept of a designer, an intelligent cause, falls on the side of pseudoscience.
But philosophers of science have been notoriously incapable of specifying acceptable criteria for delimiting these two realms – for mapping the dividing line where the magic fence should be erected. Observability, testability, repeatability, falsifiability, and a host of other criteria have been offered, but none has been universally accepted. ~Nancy Pearcy in “The Soul of Science”
In fact, many philosophers of science now recognize that proposed principles of demarcation are themselves philosophically charged – that they reflect the metaphysical presuppositions of the person proposing them. Larry Laudan writes that the principles offered for defining science really function as weapons in philosophical battles. “No one can look at the history of debates between scientists and ‘pseudo-scientists’ without realizing that demarcation criteria are typically used as machines de guerre in a polemical battle between rival camps,” Lauden writes. ~Nancy Pearcy in “The Soul of Science”
It is well known, for instance, that Aristotle was concerned to embarrass the practitioners of Hippocratic medicine; and it is notorious that the logical postivists wanted to repudiate metaphysics and that Popper was out to get Marx and Freud. In every case, they used a demarcation criterion of their own devising as the discrediting device. Larry Laudan
Philosopher of biology David Hull writes that he is “highly skeptical” of proposed methodologies for delimiting true science. “They tend to be self-serving,” Hull writes, “designed to put one’s opponents at a disadvantage while shoring up one’s own position.
If Laudan and Hull are right, what can we say about definitions of science that exclude any theory referring to intelligent cause of life? Do they simply reflect many scientists’ philosophical opposition to the idea? It appears so. For when evaluated from a purely logical point of view, the case for design is identical to the case one might build for any other explanation of the past. ~Nancy Pearcy in “The Soul of Science”
Historical science is guided by the principle of uniformity – that the present is a key to the past. We postulate causes for past events by seeking an analogy among present events. Similar events warrant the assumption of similar causes. For example, when we observe the effects of water erosion in the present, we conclude that the same process explains the cutting of a river bed in the past. The surface of Mars has long, narrow trenches or rills, yet the planet has no water. Reasoning by analogy to phenomena observed on earth, scientists have concluded that at some time in the past there must have been running water on the surface of Mars. ~Nancy Pearcy in “The Soul of Science”
The principle of uniformity is open to either natural or intelligent causes. As philosopher David Hume wrote in 1748, “from causes which appear similar we expect similar effects.” And later: “The same rule holds whether the cause assigned be brute unconscious matter or a rational intelligent being.” In other words, the principle of uniformity is neutral in regard to the king of cause invoked. ~Nancy Pearcy in “The Soul of Science”
Applied to the origin of life, the principle of uniformity requires us to find an analogy in the present to the creation of information-rich structures such as DNA molecules. As we have seen, there are no known examples of information-rich structures created by natural processes. However, experience gives us a wealth of examples created by intelligent agents – books, poems, musical scores, computer programs. Even houses and automobiles present information. Hence, the principle of uniformity suggests that the origin of life may likewise be attributed to an intelligent agent. Rejecting that conclusion as beyond the bounds of science gives rise to the suspicion that the deck is already stacked in favor of mechanistic materialism – that one’s definition of science is nothing more than a machines de guerre in defense of a materialist worldview. ~Nancy Pearcy in “The Soul of Science”
If our definition of science is informed by actual scientific practice, certainly it will not be so narrow. Throughout the history of science, from Copernicus to quantum mechanics, science has been deeply implicated in metaphysical and religious questions. For example, Newton argued explicitly for the validity of drawing religious implications from science (then called Natural Philosophy). In the General Scholium, Newton wrote” And thus much concerning God, to discourse of whom from the appearance of things, does certainly belong to Natural Philosophy. ~Nancy Pearcy in “The Soul of Science”
In the spirit of the Reformation, the astronomer Johannes Kepler wrote of being “called” by God to use his talents in his works as an astronomer. In one of his notebooks, Kepler broke spontaneously into prayer: “ I give you thanks, Creator and God, that you have given me this joy in thy creation, and I rejoice in the works of your hands. See I have now completed the work to which I was called. In it I have used all the talents you have lent to my spirit.” ~Nancy Pearcy in “The Soul of Science”
In the same spirit [of Kepler], the early chemist Jean-Baptiste van Helmont insisted that the pursuit of science is “a good gift,” given by God. This broad concept of calling lent spiritual and moral sanction to science as a legitimate way of serving God. ~Nancy Pearcy in “The Soul of Science”
The mathematical laws sought by science were legislated by God in the same manner as a king ordains laws in his realm. ~Rene’ Descartes
One of the most distinctive aspects of modern science is its use of mathematics – the conviction not only that nature is lawful but also that those laws can be stated in precise mathematical formulas. This conviction, too, historians have traced to Biblical teaching on creation. The Biblical God created the universe ex nihilo and hence has absolute control over it. Genesis paints a picture of a Workman completely in charge of His materials. Hence in its essential structure the universe is precisely what God wants it to be. ~Nancy Pearcy in “The Soul of Science”
Matter in the Platonic sense, which must be ‘prevailed upon’ by reason, will not obey mathematical laws exactly: matter which God has created from nothing may well strictly follow the rules which its Creator has laid down for it. In this sense I called modern science a legacy, I might even have said a child, of Christianity. ~Physicist C.F. von Weizsacker
Johannes Kepler first major book sought to demonstrate that the planetary system could be inscribed within a series of three-dimensional geometrical shapes. Although he later had to abandon the schema, it reveals his Pythagorean conviction that numbers and geometry are the key to unlocking the secrets of the universe. As Kearney puts it, Kepler believed “God created the cosmos upon the basis of the divinely inspired laws of geometry.” In fact, it was his intense commitment to mathematical precision that led Kepler through failure after failure until he finally hit upon elliptical orbits for the planets. ~Nancy Pearcy in “The Soul of Science”
The reason Newton felt free to avoid ultimate causes was, of course, that for him the ultimate cause was God. He viewed gravity as an active principle through which God Himself imposes order onto passive matter – as one of the avenues through which God exercises His immediate activity in creation. As Kaiser puts it, for Newton things like gravity “depended on God’s immediate presence and activity as much as the breaching of an organism depends on the life-principle within.” Like breathing, these active powers were regular and natural, and yet they could not be explained in purely mechanical terms. ~Nancy Pearcy in “The Soul of Science”
Today we are conditioned to think of the history of science as a warfare between science and religion. In the development of classical physics, however, what we see is not a battle between science and Christiany but a debate among Christians over the best way to conceptualize God’s role in the world – a debate over how to construe divine action in a world increasingly understood to operate by natural law. ~Nancy Pearcy in “The Soul of Science”
These ideas breathed life into scientific work, especially after the Protestant Reformation. The Reformers rejected the nature/grace dualism of the medieval church and taught that one could honor the Creator by studying His creation. Scientific work acquired great dignity. ~Nancy Pearcy in “The Soul of Science”
Science became, as Kline explains, a “religious quest”: “ The search for the mathematical laws of nature was an act of devotion which would reveal the glory and grandeur of His handiwork. … Each discovery of a law of nature was hailed as evidence of God’s brilliance rather than the investigator’s. ~Nancy Pearcy in “The Soul of Science”
We find these convictions expressed, for example, in the writings of Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543) and Johannes Kepler (1571-1630). They conceived of God as the Cosmic Lawgiver, who created the world according to mathematical laws. ~Nancy Pearcy in “The Soul of Science”
Listen to Kepler: “The chief of all investigations of the external world should be to discover the rational order and harmony which has been imposed on it by God and which He revealed to us in the language of mathematics.” This was not mere religious piety, incidental to Kepler’s scientific contributions. His convictions about God and mathematics were in fact the central inspiration for his scientific work. ~Nancy Pearcy in “The Soul of Science”
… for Kepler it was a “law of creation” that “just as the eye was made to see colors, and the ear to hear sounds, so the human mind was made to understand … quantity.” Many of the early scientists like to cite a passage from the apocryphal Wisdom of Solomon 11:20, “Thou hast arranged all things by measure and number and weight.” ~Nancy Pearcy in “The Soul of Science
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642 summed up the new worldview in his well-known statement that the book of nature is written by the hand of God in the language of mathematics. Today this idea has become so familiar that it strikes us as a platitude. But in Galileo’s day it was, as philosopher R.G. Collingwood puts it, “a fighting speech” – a declaration of war on Aristotelian philosophy and a ringing endorsement of the conviction that God had created the world on a mathematical plan. ~Nancy Pearcy in “The Soul of Science”
God had designed the universe, and it was to be expected that all phenomena of nature would follow one master plan. One mind designing a universe would almost surely employed one set of basic principles to govern related phenomena. ~Mathematician, Morris Kline
God, who founded everything in the world according to the norm of quantity, also has endowed man with a mind, which can comprehend those norms. ~Kepler
Certain laws which God has so established in nature and of certain notions which He has impressed in our souls. ~Rene’ Descartes
For the early scientists, there had been no epistemological dilemma. They believed that the Biblical God had created the world according to an intelligible pattern – and that He had designed the human mind to apprehend that pattern. God provided the link between the natural world and the human mind. ~Nancy Pearcy in “The Soul of Science
If the history of mathematics reveals anything, it is the crucial role that the Christian faith has played, and must play, in the world of science and scholarship. The history of mathematics was decisively shaped by its interaction with Christianity. This is not to assert that the early mathematicians were evangelicals in the modern sense of the term. Yet they did assume a broadly Christian worldview – that the world has an ordered structure because God made it; that humans made in God’s image can decipher that order; that in studying the creation, we honor its Creator. The notebooks of such giants as Copernicus, Kepler, and Newton overflow with praises to God for His orderly creation. ~Nancy Pearcy in “The Soul of Science”
The earliest attempts to formulate a mechanistic theory of life’s origin leaned heavily on chance – on random interactions of chemicals in a warm pond on the early earth. Given the complexity of life, its chance origin was a highly unlikely event, of course. But biologists hoped to vault that barrier by injecting immense quantities of time. Given enough time, they said, the most improbable event becomes not only possible, not merely probable, but inevitable.
However, at a symposium held in 1966 at the Wistar Institute in Philadelphia, the computer revolution caught up with the biologists. Using high-speed computers, mathematicians simulated the trial-and-error methods of chance. The outcome was devastating. Computers showed that the probability that life arose by chance processes is essentially zero, no matter how much time is allotted.
Since that time, there has been a gradual shift away from chance models of life’s origin to models that rely on some force inherent in matter. Chance has proved to be the materialist’s God-of-the-gaps, continually pushed back by advances in scientific knowledge.
As chance theories lost credibility, they were replaced by theories that rely on some inherent self-ordering force within matter. ~ Nancy Pearcy in “The Soul of Science”
But this particular form of predestinist theory has lost its initial plausibility. To begin with, it has not been confirmed experimentally. Experiments designed to simulate conditions on the early earth have not revealed any significant ordering effects due to differences in chemical bonding forces. Dean Kenyon, one of the authors of Biochemical Predestination, has since rejected the theory on experimental grounds. “If you survey the experiments performed to date designed to simulate conditions on the early earth,” he said in an interview, “ one thing that stands out is that you do not get ordered sequences of amino acids. Nor do you get ordered sequences of nucleotides, the building blocks of DNA. These simply do not appear among the products of any experiments. If we thought we were going to see a lot of spontaneous ordering, something must have been wrong with our theory.”
What the experiments do yield is primarily a sludge of gummy brown tar. Or as Kenyon expresses it more elegantly: “The dominant trend in simulation experiments is the formation of non-biological materials. ~Nancy Pearcy in “The Soul of Science”
The design argument rests on an analogy between the order found in nature and the order exhibited by objects of human manufacture. The best-known formulation is by William Paley in 1802. Piling detail upon detail, Paley described the intricate adaptations found in living things. Ascribing these marvels to physical causes, he argued, would be like finding a watch on the heath and ascribing it to natural forces such as wind and erosion. The kind of order we see in watches indicates clearly that they are the products of human intelligence; and since we see an analogous order in living things, Paley argued, they are products of divine intelligence. If we are to believe the recent Gallup Poll, a great many Americans still agree with Paley.
The crux of Paley’s argument was the analogy between living things and watches. But today molecular biology has given us a much more striking analogy – between the base sequence in DNA and a written message. Updating Paley, we could say that ascribing DNA to physical-chemical causes would be like finding a book or computer disk on the heath and ascribing its contents to the effects of wind and erosion. If books and computer programs require an intelligent origin, so too does the message in the DNA molecule. Though no one has actually witnessed the creation of life, creationists argue, still we recognize the distinctive complexity that in our experience results only from intelligent activity. ~Nancy Pearcy in “The Soul of Science”
In our experience, a written message is always the product of an intelligent agent; hence we can construct a positive argument that informational structures such as DNA are likewise the result of an intelligent agent. ~Nancy Pearcy in “The Soul of Science”
The most common objection to any notion of design is that it falls outside the range of science – that any theory involving reference to an intelligent agent is unscientific. But this objection assumes a particular definition of science. It assumes that there exists what some philosophers of science call a “magic fence” that enables us to divide real science on one side – astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology, geology – from pseudoscience like acupuncture, astrology, parapsychology, and the writings of Velikovsky. In this scheme, any concept of a designer, an intelligent cause, falls on the side of pseudoscience.
But philosophers of science have been notoriously incapable of specifying acceptable criteria for delimiting these two realms – for mapping the dividing line where the magic fence should be erected. Observability, testability, repeatability, falsifiability, and a host of other criteria have been offered, but none has been universally accepted. ~Nancy Pearcy in “The Soul of Science”
In fact, many philosophers of science now recognize that proposed principles of demarcation are themselves philosophically charged – that they reflect the metaphysical presuppositions of the person proposing them. Larry Laudan writes that the principles offered for defining science really function as weapons in philosophical battles. “No one can look at the history of debates between scientists and ‘pseudo-scientists’ without realizing that demarcation criteria are typically used as machines de guerre in a polemical battle between rival camps,” Lauden writes. ~Nancy Pearcy in “The Soul of Science”
It is well known, for instance, that Aristotle was concerned to embarrass the practitioners of Hippocratic medicine; and it is notorious that the logical postivists wanted to repudiate metaphysics and that Popper was out to get Marx and Freud. In every case, they used a demarcation criterion of their own devising as the discrediting device. Larry Laudan
Philosopher of biology David Hull writes that he is “highly skeptical” of proposed methodologies for delimiting true science. “They tend to be self-serving,” Hull writes, “designed to put one’s opponents at a disadvantage while shoring up one’s own position.
If Laudan and Hull are right, what can we say about definitions of science that exclude any theory referring to intelligent cause of life? Do they simply reflect many scientists’ philosophical opposition to the idea? It appears so. For when evaluated from a purely logical point of view, the case for design is identical to the case one might build for any other explanation of the past. ~Nancy Pearcy in “The Soul of Science”
Historical science is guided by the principle of uniformity – that the present is a key to the past. We postulate causes for past events by seeking an analogy among present events. Similar events warrant the assumption of similar causes. For example, when we observe the effects of water erosion in the present, we conclude that the same process explains the cutting of a river bed in the past. The surface of Mars has long, narrow trenches or rills, yet the planet has no water. Reasoning by analogy to phenomena observed on earth, scientists have concluded that at some time in the past there must have been running water on the surface of Mars. ~Nancy Pearcy in “The Soul of Science”
The principle of uniformity is open to either natural or intelligent causes. As philosopher David Hume wrote in 1748, “from causes which appear similar we expect similar effects.” And later: “The same rule holds whether the cause assigned be brute unconscious matter or a rational intelligent being.” In other words, the principle of uniformity is neutral in regard to the king of cause invoked. ~Nancy Pearcy in “The Soul of Science”
Applied to the origin of life, the principle of uniformity requires us to find an analogy in the present to the creation of information-rich structures such as DNA molecules. As we have seen, there are no known examples of information-rich structures created by natural processes. However, experience gives us a wealth of examples created by intelligent agents – books, poems, musical scores, computer programs. Even houses and automobiles present information. Hence, the principle of uniformity suggests that the origin of life may likewise be attributed to an intelligent agent. Rejecting that conclusion as beyond the bounds of science gives rise to the suspicion that the deck is already stacked in favor of mechanistic materialism – that one’s definition of science is nothing more than a machines de guerre in defense of a materialist worldview. ~Nancy Pearcy in “The Soul of Science”
If our definition of science is informed by actual scientific practice, certainly it will not be so narrow. Throughout the history of science, from Copernicus to quantum mechanics, science has been deeply implicated in metaphysical and religious questions. For example, Newton argued explicitly for the validity of drawing religious implications from science (then called Natural Philosophy). In the General Scholium, Newton wrote” And thus much concerning God, to discourse of whom from the appearance of things, does certainly belong to Natural Philosophy. ~Nancy Pearcy in “The Soul of Science”
July 2, 2021
I have to admit it. Portions of this book were somewhat over my head, and I have a Bachelor of Science degree. Perhaps it had to do with the recent death of my spouse, maybe it was the fact that I borrowed the book from the library and only took the allowed six weeks to digest the information, but most likely I just don’t have a grip on quantum physics.
The book was published in 1994, so perhaps could use an update (think how much the world has changed in the last 25 years), but gives much food for thought in general science, history, mechanics, physics, biology, mathematics (especially geometry), quantum physics, and the brief history of DNA. All throughout each chapter, the authors discuss different schools of thought and how they came to be as well as their level of success. As you would expect, particular attention is placed on Christianity’s role.
The book was published in 1994, so perhaps could use an update (think how much the world has changed in the last 25 years), but gives much food for thought in general science, history, mechanics, physics, biology, mathematics (especially geometry), quantum physics, and the brief history of DNA. All throughout each chapter, the authors discuss different schools of thought and how they came to be as well as their level of success. As you would expect, particular attention is placed on Christianity’s role.
May 13, 2011
This is a difficult read for someone who hasn't taken a science or philosophy course in more than a decade. But it is a very good survey of the main advancements made in science from the ancient Greeks through quantum theory and DNA.
Pearcey and Thaxton explain the different schools of thought and follow their development as theories are developed and new facts are uncovered. At each stage, they critique the strengths and weaknesses of the positions and show how scientists sought autonomy through empiricism.
This book is not for everyone, but would serve high school and college students very well.
Pearcey and Thaxton explain the different schools of thought and follow their development as theories are developed and new facts are uncovered. At each stage, they critique the strengths and weaknesses of the positions and show how scientists sought autonomy through empiricism.
This book is not for everyone, but would serve high school and college students very well.
November 3, 2015
This is a fantastic book! It really shows how the IDEAS embedded in the ancient Biblical texts... and disseminated by Christianity all over the world but especially in Europe... are what created the unique intellectual conditions that made the development of science possible. I can't praise this book enough. It blew my mind when I read it.
December 18, 2020
Livro sensacional! Os autores explicam como pressupostos cristãos (como a crença num mundo físico real e em um Deus pessoal) foram necessários para o surgimento da ciência moderna e como outras visões de mundo foram incapazes de chegar ao mesmo objetivo . Também explicam várias descobertas científicas dentro da física, química e biologia que eu npensei que nunca chegaria perto de entender ( como teoria da relatividade, física quântica ) Além disso mostram as implicações filosóficas em diferentes vertentes de pensamento assim como suas incoerências e como essas novas descobertas abalaram antigas convicções científicas e as visões de mundo que se apoiavam nelas.
April 3, 2009
This book gives an overview of the history of science. Rather than divorcing science and faith, it is claimed that the faith of many scientists drove them to make their discoveries.
Pretty interesting, even for a non-sciencey person such as myself, though I definitely had a little trouble understanding the quantum physics section.
Nevertheless, the authors traced histories of the different branches of science through the following three philosophies: Aristotelian, Neo-Platonic and Mechanistic.
A profitable read.
Pretty interesting, even for a non-sciencey person such as myself, though I definitely had a little trouble understanding the quantum physics section.
Nevertheless, the authors traced histories of the different branches of science through the following three philosophies: Aristotelian, Neo-Platonic and Mechanistic.
A profitable read.
April 5, 2015
Didn't get five stars because of the author's apparent confusion regarding the term "creationism". It is NOT the same as "intelligent design" as she reports here. Otherwise, the book is a thrilling ride through the history of the philosophy of science.
June 12, 2020
Thorough history of how faith has guided many of the greatest scientists.
January 20, 2020
Wonderful book. I know a lot of people might be skeptical about a science book with a Christian worldview, but I found it to be very objective. The authors present different worldviews and different interpretations of various fields of scientific study with very little judgement, though they do make their own worldview clear.
I'm giving it five stars for the things I learned from the book. First of all, I finally understand why the name Darwin leaves such a bad taste in the mouths of so many Christians. As a Christian myself, I've always been confused about this. I was somewhere around ten when I first heard of the theory of evolution. My grandmother was talking about it and expressing some very negative opinions about it. When I asked her what was so wrong with it, she said something along the lines of "We believe in God and we believe in creation and my ancestors were not apes." Well, my first thought was, "I believe in God, too, but how do we know God didn't engineer evolution?" Then I took a good look at what the book of Genesis has to say on the subject and it seemed to me that when it said God created Adam out of clay, the clay could just be a metaphor for a substance that already existed. And how do we know it doesn't refer to other primates from which humans evolved? All my life I've wondered why Christians can't just believe that. Why do we think we have to hate Darwin so vehemently?
After reading this book, I finally understand. Darwin, I learned, did not just set out to show that complex organisms could have evolved from simpler organisms. The whole purpose of his theory was to show the possibility that it all could have happened on its own, without the guidance of an intelligent designer. Evolution wasn't Darwin's great contribution to science. Natural selection was. Christians, whose entire worldview is built on belief in a benevolent God, naturally have to reject the idea that life could have come about by completely random chance. Evolution we're free to embrace based on what the evidence tells us. Natural selection, on the other hand, is in direct conflict with Christian beliefs.
The chapter on Einstein was also very enlightening for me. Being a sci-fi buff, I've encountered references to the theory of relativity in countless books, movies, and tv shows throughout the years, but I never fully understood it. Even after reading this book, I still only have a superficial knowledge of it, but the way the authors explained it cleared up a lot of the confusion I had about some of the weirder aspects of the theory, like time dilation for example.
The first half of the book was a little dry, and I was all set to give the book only three or four stars, but considering all the things I learned in the last half, I now give it a resounding five stars.
I'm giving it five stars for the things I learned from the book. First of all, I finally understand why the name Darwin leaves such a bad taste in the mouths of so many Christians. As a Christian myself, I've always been confused about this. I was somewhere around ten when I first heard of the theory of evolution. My grandmother was talking about it and expressing some very negative opinions about it. When I asked her what was so wrong with it, she said something along the lines of "We believe in God and we believe in creation and my ancestors were not apes." Well, my first thought was, "I believe in God, too, but how do we know God didn't engineer evolution?" Then I took a good look at what the book of Genesis has to say on the subject and it seemed to me that when it said God created Adam out of clay, the clay could just be a metaphor for a substance that already existed. And how do we know it doesn't refer to other primates from which humans evolved? All my life I've wondered why Christians can't just believe that. Why do we think we have to hate Darwin so vehemently?
After reading this book, I finally understand. Darwin, I learned, did not just set out to show that complex organisms could have evolved from simpler organisms. The whole purpose of his theory was to show the possibility that it all could have happened on its own, without the guidance of an intelligent designer. Evolution wasn't Darwin's great contribution to science. Natural selection was. Christians, whose entire worldview is built on belief in a benevolent God, naturally have to reject the idea that life could have come about by completely random chance. Evolution we're free to embrace based on what the evidence tells us. Natural selection, on the other hand, is in direct conflict with Christian beliefs.
The chapter on Einstein was also very enlightening for me. Being a sci-fi buff, I've encountered references to the theory of relativity in countless books, movies, and tv shows throughout the years, but I never fully understood it. Even after reading this book, I still only have a superficial knowledge of it, but the way the authors explained it cleared up a lot of the confusion I had about some of the weirder aspects of the theory, like time dilation for example.
The first half of the book was a little dry, and I was all set to give the book only three or four stars, but considering all the things I learned in the last half, I now give it a resounding five stars.
Read
September 11, 2024Traces the development of science by explaining scientific concepts and the history of those concepts and the scientists and philosophers behind them. I only read about 1/4 of the book, so I'm not rating it.
Summary from end of book:
Middle Ages weren't "dark" times of intellectual ignorance; there were scientific contributions.
Einsteinian physics didn't overthrow Newtonian physics; quantum mechanics did.
Complementary Principle: quantum entities are neither particle nor wave; they exhibit either particle-like or wave-like features, depending on experiment. Even though we can't describe quantum particles in our everyday language, mathematically, there are no contradictions.
Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle: you can't simultaneously determine both position and velocity of atomic particles, because determining one alters other.
Copenhagen interpretation: dynamic attributes of atomic entities (position, velocity, spin orientation) don't exist on their own; they're a result of interaction with measuring equipment (similar to how color isn't innate to objects, but result of light, material, perceptive apparatus).
There's no "magic fence" that clearly divides science and pseudoscience. There isn't universal agreement about any criteria for such a division. Suggested criteria are biased, based on metaphysical assumptions.
Definitions of science that exclude an intelligent cause for life are based on philosophical opposition to the idea. Logically, the case for intelligent design is same as case for other explanations of the past.
Summary from end of book:
A historical overview of scientific practice such as we have offered in this book reveals clearly that science and scholarship are never carried out in a philosophical and religious vacuum. The Christian religion, hand in hand with various philosophical outlooks, has motivated, sanctioned, and shaped large portions of the Western scientific heritage. Modern Christians ought to drink deeply at the well of historical precedent. If we do, we will never feel intimidated by positivists and others who deny that religion has any role in genuine scholarship.Notes
Middle Ages weren't "dark" times of intellectual ignorance; there were scientific contributions.
Positivism treats history as the gradual emancipation of human thought from the chains of religion and metaphysics. By contrast, idealism treats science as a single thread woven inextricably into the larger tapestry of human thought—along with religion, philosophy, and the social and political milieu.Einstein didn't discard absolutes; he replaced Newtonian metaphysical absolutes (time and space) with a material absolute (velocity of light).
Once Einstein determined what it means to say that light is a universal constant, everything else in relativity theory is derived by pure mathematical deduction.Gravity is fictitious; it's what we call the warping of space around mass.
Einsteinian physics didn't overthrow Newtonian physics; quantum mechanics did.
Complementary Principle: quantum entities are neither particle nor wave; they exhibit either particle-like or wave-like features, depending on experiment. Even though we can't describe quantum particles in our everyday language, mathematically, there are no contradictions.
Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle: you can't simultaneously determine both position and velocity of atomic particles, because determining one alters other.
Copenhagen interpretation: dynamic attributes of atomic entities (position, velocity, spin orientation) don't exist on their own; they're a result of interaction with measuring equipment (similar to how color isn't innate to objects, but result of light, material, perceptive apparatus).
There's no "magic fence" that clearly divides science and pseudoscience. There isn't universal agreement about any criteria for such a division. Suggested criteria are biased, based on metaphysical assumptions.
Definitions of science that exclude an intelligent cause for life are based on philosophical opposition to the idea. Logically, the case for intelligent design is same as case for other explanations of the past.
July 10, 2020
As an engineer that has had an interest in science since I was little, I thought that there was little I could learn about what the scientists of old brought to the table and why. However, my world was rocked by all the critical information that I received when reading about the various scientists of history, what they believed, and how that shaped the scientific ideas of today. I was stunned to learn of the main philosophies that drove the scientific endeavors but it made sense as I have seen science today follow the same pattern; pursuing ideas, theories, experiments, and conclusions based on your philosophical beliefs.
If you want to learn about how we got to where we are today scientifically and/or also see how science and Christianity are not only in harmony but how the former would not exist without the latter, I highly recommend this book.
If you want to learn about how we got to where we are today scientifically and/or also see how science and Christianity are not only in harmony but how the former would not exist without the latter, I highly recommend this book.
January 20, 2023
This a very good book. It went into much detail about the history of Science and Philosophy - a bit too much detail for my liking but it was important for the development of the theme of the book.
It also went into a description of Special and General relativity and showed why these areas of science are important. It also talked quite a bit about quantum physics. The showed that there is nothing in the actual science that leads to the dismissal of religious ideas in the search for scientific truth.
The book then talked about the need for information in biological life. IT then show how information does not come naturally - it requires intelligence. That is totally in line with what the Bible says.
It also went into a description of Special and General relativity and showed why these areas of science are important. It also talked quite a bit about quantum physics. The showed that there is nothing in the actual science that leads to the dismissal of religious ideas in the search for scientific truth.
The book then talked about the need for information in biological life. IT then show how information does not come naturally - it requires intelligence. That is totally in line with what the Bible says.
January 16, 2025
I always enjoy Nancy Pearcey’s books, but I don’t get through them very quickly because they’re so long and full of info. This book was a great blend between science and history. I’m a huge fan of apologetics books based on facts. The way science and philosophy are intertwined and impact each other wasn't entirely new to me but this was a more in-depth examination of their relationship than I had read before. A passage I found particularly interesting is the one about the philosophy behind evolution, where the push to popularise and prove macroevolution came from philosophers who liked the ramifications (instead of the other way round, where evolution was proven and then changed people’s view of the world). The different theories of mathematics were cool to learn about as well.
November 7, 2019
I took my time reading through this one... 2 years to be honest. It is not the easiest read at times, but the connections made to different backgrounds of scientific thought were excellent. At times, I felt like I needed a comparison chart to keep track of all the different schools of thought and different scientists who adhered to this or that. I would say this is a great read for anyone interested in how the study of science has morphed over the centuries.
May 15, 2024
For someone with almost no significant background in science (like myself), this book can be a bit difficult to understand. However, the overall purpose of the book is to show how science has never been studied without a philosophical or worldview assumption in hand (and the author does well at proving this point).
It’s worth a read, but you might get lost in the weeds if you aren’t careful.
It’s worth a read, but you might get lost in the weeds if you aren’t careful.
November 1, 2022
This was really hard to read and comprehend - dont really recommend it unless youre a science major or unless this is required reading for school (the latter applies to me). Very advanced reading is an understatement.
recommended ages 16\17 & up.
recommended ages 16\17 & up.
November 4, 2018
Loved this book! There was so much meat in it! It is not a book to be rushed through. Lots of highlighting going on!!
March 30, 2020
Really good. Probably 4.5 stars, but minus one for endnotes and lackluster writing style.
Read
January 5, 2022Read this for my History of Science and Tech class. A good read. Very interesting.
April 21, 2023
I read that book last year i think. It was pretty interesting even though it was hard to read for some reason
April 25, 2024
DNF
I usually really like this author, but I couldn’t get through this one.
I usually really like this author, but I couldn’t get through this one.
October 4, 2024
This is what we need
October 24, 2016
A really fascinating read with a lot of interesting ideas.
January 1, 2022
This is a profound and meaningful book that deserves way more recognition than it gets. In many ways I think it's on par with "Darwin's Black Box" as a well-reasoned common-sense defense of classical ideals in the midst of cruel dogma masquerading as "science." The first 3/4 or so is very good, utilizing effective historical examples to prove that there is no such thing as "pure" unbiased science without a faith/worldview component, but the last part about relativity and quantum physics is what sets it apart, proving that science is right back where it started - practically equal to the pursuit of metaphysical truth rather than empirical evidence. I think the authors should have focused more on what is certain to be the most common objection to their argument, trumpeted by Dawkins - "Faith was acceptable for many scientists throughout history, but after Darwin anyone who believes in God is clearly irrational." Like it or not, Darwinism is the most compelling challenge to biblicism (no, the two aren't compatible) and I wish this book would have taken it and its influence a bit more seriously. Nonetheless, a terrific read.
October 22, 2014
I've read a fair bit on the history of science before this, but this book taught a lot that I didn't know, while also tracking shifting views of philosophy that were intertwined with scientific schools of thought. It also does a good job of explaining difficult scientific concepts in a way that cleared up quite a bit for me.
It was meaty enough, and enough of it was new to me, that I think I'll need a second reading to get a better handle on some of the trickier concepts, especially in the math sections (not my strong suit, math). But, on the whole, it's quite a good book for explaining difficult ideas and experiments to us non-experts. On top of that, I now have some insight into some of the 'science' of latter days that doesn't seem to be all that attached to reality. Well done. I'm keeping my copy, so I can revisit it, and also so I can consult the end notes, for ideas on further reading.
It was meaty enough, and enough of it was new to me, that I think I'll need a second reading to get a better handle on some of the trickier concepts, especially in the math sections (not my strong suit, math). But, on the whole, it's quite a good book for explaining difficult ideas and experiments to us non-experts. On top of that, I now have some insight into some of the 'science' of latter days that doesn't seem to be all that attached to reality. Well done. I'm keeping my copy, so I can revisit it, and also so I can consult the end notes, for ideas on further reading.
November 13, 2016
The Soul of Science is not for the faint of heart! Pearcey and Thaxton delve deep into the history of science, pointing out how much of the advancement of science prior to the 20th century was very much due to men and women who held a Judeo-Christian worldview. They discuss a LOT of philosophy, which, while thought-provoking, was sometimes a little hard for me to grasp. For all my science history knowledge, I found myself being surprised and just how many men (yeah, it's mostly been men) of great significance in the sciences put their faith in God and this was what helped fuel them to ask all the questions about the world that they did. This book renewed my passion for scientific research knowing that many before me felt the same way: awe in a Creator God who placed in my heart a love for discovering the inner workings and significance of life.
February 10, 2022
Dr. Thaxton and Pearcey expertly showcase how Christian theology and Greek philosophy have shaped the history of Western science going back to the late Middle Ages. I have yet to read a more consistent and beautiful synthesis of science, history, philosophy, and theology in such a concise package. To be fair, this text definitely leans more toward the philosophical rather than theological perspective. But this should be no problem to the Christian since their philosophy rests on sound biblical foundations. Any thinking Christian who seeks to bridge the gap between science and religion, especially when proclaiming the gospel to the secularist, should pick up this book. It is a
must-read in our day and age.
must-read in our day and age.
September 30, 2007
This excellent book traces the history of the philosophy of science as it relates to the Christian faith, and it makes the case that modern science developed in western culture because the biblical view of the cosmos--that it is (1) orderly, and (2) contingent (i.e., it could have been otherwise)--is the only foundation strong enough to allow scientific enterprise to flourish.
If the world doesn't have an order than can be understood by people, then why bother with science?
If the way the cosmos exists is the only possible was things could be, then experiments are not needed - just sit in your armchair, think logically, and you'll figure it all out.
If the world doesn't have an order than can be understood by people, then why bother with science?
If the way the cosmos exists is the only possible was things could be, then experiments are not needed - just sit in your armchair, think logically, and you'll figure it all out.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 41 reviews