Q SHORT

science and faith at odds?

30

q short

t he s pi r i t ual i t y o f s c i e n c e

science and faith at odds?

By Alister McGrath

Do the natural sciences pose a challenge to

evangelicalisms characteristic emphasis upon

the Christian faith? This is a hot question at the

the authority of Scripture, it is not surprising to

moment, given the high profile by works such as

find that one of the major concerns within the

Richard Dawkins God Delusion.1 Real scientists

movement concerns apparent challenges to

do not believe in God! This sound byte will

biblical authority arising from scientific advance.

be very familiar to Dawkins readers. Many in

This is seen most acutely in evangelical concerns

Western culture seem prepared to accept it as

about challenges to traditional interpretations

the wisdom of our age. So how reliable is this

of the Genesis creation accounts posed by

idea? And how should Christians respond to it?

evolutionary biology. My goal, therefore, is to

This is one of the greatest challenges to faith in

explore these important issues, beginning with

the public domain at present, and we need to

Dawkins, who is now widely regarded as the

know what to say.

high priest of the science disproves God belief

system. But first, let me tell my own story.

But its more complex than that. Its not just Richard
Dawkins who is asserting that scienceespecially

MY STORY

evolutionary biologyleads to atheism. This

My love affair with the natural sciences began

same slogan is found in many fundamentalist

when I was nine or ten. I was overwhelmed with

Christian circles, where it is argued that Darwinism

the beauty of the night sky and longed to explore

is necessarily atheistic. Why, many wonder,

it further. I ransacked my school library for books

are so many Christians, especially American

on astronomy and even managed to build myself

evangelicals, so wary of science in general,

a small telescope enabling me to observe the

and the theory of evolution in particular? Given

moons of Jupiter. Around the same time, a

31

great-uncle who had overseen the pathology

indications of its truth. It was so unattractive that

department at the Royal Victoria Hospital,

it just had to be right. I must confess to a certain

Belfast, gave me an old German microscope,

degree of smugness at this point, and a feeling

which allowed me to explore another new world.

of intellectual superiority over those who found

It still sits on my study desk, a reminder of the

solace and satisfaction in their belief in God.

power of nature to enthrall, intrigue, and provoke

It was obvious to me that science demanded

questions.

atheism, and I was willing to be led wherever

science took me.

One of those questions troubled me greatly.

While in my teens, I had absorbed an uncritical

And so I continued working at mathematics,

atheism from writers such as Bertrand Russell.

physics,

Atheism was, I believed, the natural resting place

a scholarship to Oxford University to study

for a scientifically informed person such as myself.

chemistry. Yet in the months before I went to

The natural sciences had expanded to inhabit the

Oxford, I began to read works dealing with

intellectual space once occupied by the derelict

the history and philosophy of science. I was

idea of God. There was no need to propose, let

suspicious of this area of study, tending to regard

alone take seriously, such an outmoded idea.

it as uninformed criticism of the certainties and

God was a baleful relic of the past, revealed as a

simplicities of the natural sciences by those who

delusion by scientific advance.

felt threatened by them. Yet by the time I had

and

chemistry,

eventually

winning

finished reading the somewhat meager holdings

So what was life all about? What was its meaning?

of the college in this field, I realized that I

As I reflected on the scope and power of the

needed to do some very serious rethinking. Far

sciences, I gradually came to the view that there

from being half-witted obscurantism that placed

was no meaning to life. I was the accidental

unnecessary obstacles in the relentless path of

byproduct of blind cosmic forces, the inhabitant

scientific advance, the history and philosophy of

of a universe in which one could speak only of

science asked all the right questions about the

direction but not purpose. It was not a particularly

reliability and limits of scientific knowledge. And

appealing notion, but I found solace in the idea

they were questions that I had not faced thus

that its bleakness and austerity were certain

far.

32

q short

t he s pi r i t ual i t y o f s c i e n c e

how is genetic information transmitted?

33

By the time I arrived in Oxford in October 1971 to

in-the-wool faith-heads are immune to argument,

start the serious study of chemistry, I had realized

he opines. Faith is a process of non-thinking,

that I had a lot of rethinking to do. Up to that

which is evil precisely because it requires no

So far, so good. Now lets look at another question.

calls transcendent questions, which have to be

point, I had assumed that, when science could

justification, and brooks no argument. Its all

What is the meaning of life? This is clearly an

answered by religion and metaphysics.3

not answer a question, there was no answer to

typical of Dawkins swashbuckling style, which

important question! But can science answer it?

For Medawar, as for most scientists, science

be had. I now began to realize that there might

mingles hopelessly overheated rhetoric with a

Dawkins answer is that science discloses no

cannot tell us whether there is a God. It cannot

between questions about the organization and

structure of the material universe and what he

tell us why we are here (although it may have

some very interesting insights about how that
happened). When it comes to questions of

I now began to realize that there

Science cannot

might be limits to the scientific

tell us whether

method.

there is a God.

meaning, purpose, and value, science is blind.

And that is no criticism of science. It is simply
about recognizing and respecting its limits.
Dawkins is not typical of science at this point,
as most scientists are aware of the limits of
their discipline and see no problems in seeking
answers elsewhere when it comes to the really
big issues of life.
Dawkins God Delusion was published in 2006.
In that same year, some other notable books

be limits to the scientific method and that vast

scant regard for evidence and accuracy. Lets

meaning to lifeand therefore that there is no

were published by leading research scientists.

expanses of intellectual, aesthetic, and moral

look at things in a little more detail.

meaning to life. But is he right? Lets look at some

Owen Gingerich, professor of astronomy at

wise words written by Peter Medawar (1915-87),

Harvard, published his Gods Universe;4 Francis

territory might lie beyond its compass.

Everyone agrees that science is one of the most

one of Oxfords most brilliant scientists, who

Collins, director of the famous Human Genome

Science and Faith

secure forms of knowledge we possess. How do

won the Nobel Prize in Medicine for his work

Project, came out with The Language of God.5

This brings us to a fundamental assertion which

we know that the chemical formula for water is

on immunology. In a book published towards

Both of these top scientists argued passionately

recurs in recent atheist writingsnamely, that the

H2O? How do we know the structure of DNA?

the end of his life entitled The Limits of Science,

and persuasively that their Christian faith gave

natural sciences eliminate any ground for belief

The answer is simple: because thats what the

Medawar reflected on the question of how the

them a way of making sense of the world, which

in God. People who believe in God are simply

scientific evidence tells us. I dont think anyone

scope of science was limited by the nature of

resonated strongly with their scientific careers and

running away from the evidence. One of the core

will quibble with this. Dawkins is right to praise

reality. Emphasising that science is incomparably

research. It was, they argued, deeply satisfying

arguments of Dawkins influential book The God

the sciences for their ability to give clear, reliable

the most successful enterprise human beings

intellectually. Now this doesnt resonate with

Delusion is that religious faith is irrational. Dyed-

answers to some important questionssuch as

have ever engaged upon, he distinguishes

Dawkins somewhat simplistic take on things at

34

q short

t he s pi r i t ual i t y o f s c i e n c e

all. But it does make the fundamental point that

35

celebrated Harvard psychologist William James

is not difficult to identity. It is well known that the

thinking people can be both outstanding research

Against Dawkinss exaggerations of the capacity

(1842-1910). James argued that human beings

natural world is conceptually malleable. It can

scientists, enjoying the respect and admiration of

of science, I would suggest that science concerns

all need working hypotheses to make sense

be interpreted, without any loss of intellectual

their peers, while believing in God.

itself mostly with building coherent patterns

of our experience of the world. These working

integrity, in a number of different ways. Some

of explanation, and rather little with rigorous

hypotheses often lie beyond total proof, yet

read or interpret nature in an atheist way.

Belief in God is not irrational, but possesses its

proof. Very often, science has to content

are accepted and acted upon because they are

Others read it in a deistic way, seeing it as

own distinct and robust rationality. It represents

itself with positing the best explanation of a set

found to offer reliable and satisfying standpoints

pointing to a creator divinity, who is no longer

a superb way of making sense of things. As

of observations, rather than speaking of these

from which to engage the real world. Whether the

involved in its affairs. God winds up the clock,

movement is religious or political, philosophical

then leaves it to work on its own. Others take

or artistic, a group of ideas or beliefs, are

a more specifically Christian view, believing in a

affirmed to be, in the first place, true and in the

God who both creates and sustains. Others take

second place, important. Thinking people need

a more spiritualized view, speaking more vaguely

to construct and inhabit mental worlds, from

of some life force.

It is perfectly possible to believe

something is right without being
able to prove it decisively.

which they discern ordering and patterns within

experience, and make at least some sense of its

The point is simple: nature is open to many

riddles and enigmas. As the philosopher Michael

legitimate interpretations. It can be interpreted in

Polanyi (1891-1976) put it, a framework of beliefs

atheist, deist, theist, and many other waysbut

enables us to hear a tune, where otherwise we

it does not demand to be interpreted in any of

would only hear a noise. And every worldview,

these. One can be a real scientist without being

every system of beliefswhether Christian,

committed to any specific religious, spiritual, or

atheist, political, or socialembeds beliefs that

anti-religious view of the world. This, I may add,

C. S. Lewis so eloquently put it, I believe in

observations proving their theories. Charles

simply cannot be proved. We may have good

is the view of most scientists I speak to, including

Christianity as I believe that the Sun has risen

Darwin, for example, always held that his theory

reasons for believing them (in other words, they

those who self-define as atheists. Unlike Dawkins,

not only because I see it, but because by it, I

of evolution was the best explanation of what he

are warranted); but they are not proven. This

they can understand perfectly well why some of

see everything else.6 To use the language of

observed in the natural world, but never believed

applies to Richard Dawkins atheism as much as

their colleagues adopt a Christian view of the

philosophy, God is the best explanation of

that he had proved it was correct. It is perfectly

it does to my Christianity.

world. They may not agree with that approach,

the way things are. We cant prove that God is

possible to believe something is right without

there, any more than an atheist can prove that

being able to prove it decisivelywhether we

So why are so many scientists religious? Why

there is no God. But all of us, whether Christians

are talking about science or belief in God.

is Dawkins so wrong in suggesting that all

EVANGELICAL WARINESS

but theyre prepared to respect it.

real scientists are atheists, or demanding that

On the other side of this issue, there is no doubt

fundamental beliefs that we know we cannot

This is one of the many points made in the

scientists ought to be atheists? The obvious and

that some Christians are puzzled by the natural

prove. Thats just the way things are.

famous essay The Will to Believe (1897) by the

most intellectually satisfying explanation of this

sciences, especially evolutionary biology. This is

or atheists, base our lives on at least some

36

q short

t he s pi r i t ual i t y o f s c i e n c e

37

particularly the case for evangelicals, who often

broader Culture War between secularism and

as Darwin himself acknowledged, was the

of evolution? He developed a sophisticated

feel quite defensive about the natural sciences.

Christianity.

form of natural theology developed by the

analysis of contemporary Darwinism, making two

celebrated English apologist William Paley

points which deserve to continue to be central

(1743-1805).

to evangelical reflection on this question. First,

Their posture partly reflects the lingering aftermath

of difficult historical controversies and current

It is a mark of the polarization that has developed

concerns about tendencies within the sciences

within evangelicalism in recent years that some

that seem to threaten the essence of the Christian

are now suggesting that a rejection of biological

gospel. Whereas Roman Catholicism, Eastern

evolution is an essential characteristic of true

Orthodoxy, and mainline Protestantism have

evangelicalism. This is historically incorrect, in

often found conceptual space and theological

that evangelical hostility towards Darwinism

strategies

sciences,

only became significant in the 1920s, partly as a

evangelicalism generally remains wary of them,

result of the rise of fundamentalism. For the first

particularly in the United States. Although many

fifty years of Darwinisms existence, evangelical

evangelicals adopt a positive attitude towards

hostility was muted, with more accommodationist

science, significant concerns about issues of

approaches tending to prevail.

to

accommodate

the

biblical interpretation and reductionism remain

3. The special place of humanity in the

natural world was called into question by the
theory of evolution. Darwin himself realized
that this was a very sensitive matter, and
held back from explicitly engaging with this
question until The Descent of Man (1871).
4. The traditional notion of providence
seemed to be contradicted by Darwins theory
that evolution took place through random
variations in the forms of living creatures.

Warfield drew the distinction between Darwinism

as a scientific theory and as a grander, reductionist
account of reality. No evangelical could tolerate
Darwinism if it was interpreted as supplying a
complete account of the origin and state of the
universe.7 This, for Warfield, was tantamount
to atheism. Here, he echoed earlier concerns
about Darwinism expressed by his older Princeton
colleague, Charles Hodge (1797-1878). Warfield
insisted that Darwinism was to be seen as a
working hypothesis or a conjecture as to the
method of creation, which should be judged on

widespread within the movement, especially at

Lets take a closer look at how evangelical

the grassroots level.

concerns with Darwinism first emerged in the

For some evangelicals, the cumulative force of

late nineteenth century. The most important of

these concerns was enough to make Darwinism

these can be set out like this.

unacceptable. Yet most evangelical writers, both

Second, Warfield emphasized that the natural

It is important to note that the evangelical

the basis of its empirical adequacy.

in Great Britain and the United States, held back

sciences were prone to speculation. A clear

from broader cultural agendas, especially in the

1. Darwinism offered an account of the

from any dismissal of Darwinism. Each of these

distinction had to be made between the empirical

United States. Science is not simply an intellectual

origins of species that appeared to many to

four concerns could be addressed in some way.

facts of nature and extravagant interpretations of

movement; it is a competitor for cultural attention

be incompatible with a literal interpretation

To illustrate this point, lets consider the attitude

these, especially when these involved inferring

and authority, at times proposing itself as an

of the opening chapters of the book of

toward Darwinism of perhaps the most influential

speculative metaphysical conclusions. It is at

alternative to religion. One characteristic feature

Genesis. Evangelical concerns about the

American evangelical writer of the late nineteenth

this point that we find Warfield making one of

of the new atheism, found in writings such

natural sciences are closely linked with

and early twentieth centuryBenjamin B. Warfield

his most important criticisms of Darwinismits

as Dawkins recent work and Daniel Dennetts

issues of biblical interpretation.

(1851-1921). Warfield served as professor of

rejection of any concept of purpose within

theology

debates over Darwinism cannot be separated

Breaking the Spell (2006) is that science has

displaced religion as a cultural and intellectual
authority, demonstrating its superiority in both
respects. This means that some evangelicals
see the controversy over Darwinism as part of a

2. Darwins theory seemed to undermine

arguments for the existence of God that
appealed to evidence of design in the
natural world. The most famous of these,

Seminary

nature (an idea often referred to using the term

from 1887 to 1921 and is widely revered within

at

Princeton

Theological

teleology). For Warfield, this represented

conservative evangelical circles for his theories of

metaphysical

biblical inerrancy and inspiration.

rather than rigorous scientific observation. One

How did Warfield approach Darwins theory

of Warfields most pointed criticisms of Darwin is

speculation

on

Darwins

part,

38

q short

t he s pi r i t ual i t y o f s c i e n c e

that he sought to replace any notion of purpose

identical; he does, however, insist that they are

or teleology in the biological world with those

consistent with each other, provided both are

of natural selection and random variation. For

interpreted correctly. Any conflict between the

Warfield, this suggested that Darwin had an

actual facts revealed in nature (as opposed to

anti-theistic agenda, however subtly it may have

extravagant scientific speculation about nature)

been stated. There is, he argued, no reason why

and the biblical texts should lead the responsible

the concept of a natural developmental process

exegete, not to reject a scientific account of

should be held to entail atheism. Rather, it

nature nor to doubt the truth of Scripture, but

can be interpreted and even subsumed within

to seek a better interpretation of Scripture in the

a Reformed view of divine providence, which

light of these facts.

holds that God creates a world with the capacity

for development and is sovereign over that

Whats more, the assumption that a doctrine

subsequent process of development.

of biblical inerrancy demands a literal biblical

hermeneutic was not shared by Warfield. Indeed,

Warfield developed this point further in his

for Warfield, it was self-evident that a commitment

analysis of the concept of divine creation.

to biblical inerrancy left open the question of how

For Warfield, the term creation refers to

any passage of Scripture was to be interpreted

Gods primal act of bringing everything into

correctly. There was no fundamental reason why

being from nothing (ex nihilo).8 It describes

an inerrantist could not adopt a non-literalist

Gods initial creation of the universe, with the

interpretation of the early Genesis texts, if that

potential for further development under Gods

appeared to be the manner in which that text

sovereign providential guidance. To express

required to be understood.

this developmental aspect of things, Warfield

introduced the notion of mediate creation, by

AN ANCIENT HERMENEUTIC

which he meant something intermediate between

Yet many would want to go back further, and

natural

providence.

explore the interpretation of the opening two

Mediate creation thus refers to the direct

chapters of the book of Genesis provided by the

action of God on material entities, in which God

early Christian writer Augustine of Hippo (354-

brings about noveltythat is, something that

430), widely regarded as the most influential

was not originally present in the primary act

theologian of all time. God brought everything

of creation itself. Warfield does not hold that

into existence in a single moment of creation.

naturalistic evolution and divine creation are

Yet the created order is not static. God endowed

processes

and

divine

There is no reason why

the concept of a natural
developmental process should
be held to entail atheism.

39

40

q short

t he s pi r i t ual i t y o f s c i e n c e

41

it with the capacity to develop. Augustine uses

as every other statement about creation found

the universe has been created with an inbuilt

for all the kinds of living things that would come

the image of a dormant seed to help his readers

within Scripture. Augustine, therefore, does not

capacity to develop, under Gods sovereign

later, including humanity.

grasp this point. God creates seeds that will

limit Gods creative action to the primordial act of

guidance. The primordial state of creation does

grow and develop at the right time. Using more

origination. He argues that Gods work of creation

not correspond to what we presently observe.

This means that the first Genesis creation

technical language, Augustine asks his readers

includes both the initial origination of the world

For Augustine, God created a universe that was

account describes the instantaneous bringing

to think of created order as containing divinely

and its subsequent development. There are two

deliberately designed to develop and evolve. The

into existence of primal matter, including causal

blueprint for that evolution is not arbitrary, but

resources for further development. The second

is programmed into the very fabric of creation.

Genesis account explores out how these causal

Gods providence superintends the continuing

possibilities emerged and developed from the

unfolding of the created order.

earth. Taken together, the two Genesis creation

For Augustine, God created a

accounts declare that God made all things

universe that was deliberately

Earlier Christian writers had noted how the first

simultaneously, while allowing for the various

Genesis creation narrative spoke of the earth and

kinds of living things making their appearance

designed to develop and evolve.

the waters bringing forth living creatures and

gradually over time.

had drawn the conclusion that this pointed to

God endowing the natural order with a capacity

The image of the seed implies that the original

to generate living things. Augustine took this

creation contained within it the potentialities

idea further. God created the world complete

for all the living kinds that would subsequently

embedded causalities which emerge or evolve

moments in creation: a primary act of origination,

with a series of dormant powers, which were

emerge. This does not mean that God created

at a later stage. Yet Augustine has no time for

and a continuing process of providential guidance.

actualized at appropriate moments through divine

the world incomplete or imperfect in that

any notion of random or arbitrary changes within

Creation is thus not a completed past event. God

providence. Augustine argues that Genesis 1:12

what God originally established in causes, he

creation. The development of Gods creation is

must be recognized to be working even now, in the

implies that the earth has received the power or

subsequently fulfilled in effects.11 This process

always subject to Gods sovereign providence.

present, sustaining and directing the unfolding of

capacity to produce things by itself: Scripture

of development, Augustine declares, is governed

The God who planted the seeds at the moment

the generations that he laid up in creation when it

has stated that the earth brought forth the crops

by fundamental laws that reflect the will of

of creation also governs and directs the time and

was first established.9

and the trees causally, in the sense that it received

their creator: God has established fixed laws

the power of bringing them forth. Where some

governing the production of kinds and qualities

Augustine provides us with an understanding of

might think of creation in terms of Gods insertion

of beings, and bringing them out of concealment

Lets explore these points in more detail.

creation which owes nothing to scientific advances

of new kinds of plants and animals ready-made

into full view.12

Augustines basic exegetical principle is that

since Darwin, but is grounded in an engagement

into an already existing world, Augustine rejects

the first Genesis creation account cannot be

with Scripture. Augustine also offers us a way of

this as inconsistent with the overall witness of

Augustine would have rejected any idea of the

interpreted in isolation. It must be set alongside

reading Genesis that affirms that God created

Scripture. Rather, God must be thought of as

development of the universe as a random or

the second Genesis creation account, as well

everything from nothing, in an instant. However,

creating in that very first moment the potencies

lawless process. For this reason, Augustine

place of their growth.

10

42

q short

t he s pi r i t ual i t y o f s c i e n c e

43

would oppose the Darwinian notion of random

God to a purely natural phenomenon and

IN CONCLUSION

variations, insisting that Gods providence is

therefore discounts belief in God. Unfortunately,

Many

the

Species was published, have real potential to help

deeply involved throughout. While the process

this fear has often led to issues of science being

natural sciences, seeing them as calling into

us as we seek to interpret the Bible faithfully and

may be unpredictable, this does not mean that

reduced to the question of whether they appear

question traditional Christian readings of the

with integrity. They remind us of the existence and

it is random.

to offer a reductionist account of reality!

Bible and offering reductionist accounts of

undoubted merits of other approaches to biblical

reality that exclude the supernatural. These are

interpretation at these points.

evangelicals

developed 1500 years before Darwins Origin of

are

suspicious

of

Augustine

This concern had been expressed recently in the

approached his text with the culturally prevalent

writings of Philip Johnson, an academic lawyer

presupposition of the fixity of species. No scientific

at the University of California. Johnson focuses

authority of that age known to Augustine held any

his argument on methodological naturalism

other view, and Augustine found nothing in the

in other words, a naturalistic philosophy that

Genesis texts to challenge him on this point. Yet

excludes from the outset any explanation of

the ways in which he interacts with his scientific

reality that makes reference to supernatural

authorities suggests that he would regard his

causes. Johnson argues that a methodological

views as being open to correction in the light of

naturalist is someone who deliberately assumes

changing scientific opinion. After all, he argued,

there is no god when he or she does science.

there was a serious danger that Christian biblical

One of Johnsons core arguments is that the

exegesis could become locked into the scientific

application of this method leads to an atheist

world of one specific generationthus alienating

account of reality. Darwinism in particular, and

it from later generations, who would have a

the sciences in general, thus have an inherent

different understanding of science.

tendency toward eliminating the divine from

understandable concerns, as there is no doubt

So what can Christian leaders do to engage these

We

should

not

be

surprised

The fear of reductionism is that

evolutionary theory reduces God
to a purely natural phenomenon and
therefore discounts belief in God.

any account of reality. Johnsons argument that

that some aggressively atheistic writers are using

issues as they seek to engage a culture that often

CONCERNS ABOUT SCIENTIFIC

REDUCTIONISM

Darwinism is inherently atheistic thus shifts the

science as a weapon in their wars against religion

sees science and faith at odds? Let me make a

debate from creationism versus evolution to

Dawkins and Dennett are prime examples. Yet

few suggestions in closing.

A major theme in the 1980s revival of evangelical

Christianity versus atheism. Other evangelicals,

these are misrepresentations and exaggerations of

anti-Darwinism is the perceived reductionism of

however, have challenged such a viewpoint.

the true nature of the scientific method and would

1. Reassure people. Point out that the

the sciences in general, and evolutionary theory

Fuller Seminarys Nancey Murphy, for example,

be contested by most scientists. In this short article,

new atheism espouses a dogmatic anti-

in particular. This revival has mainly been led

argues that non-reductive strategies could easily

I have suggested that the situation is much more

theistic approach to science, which is not

by influential evangelical pastors, parachurch

be developed, allowing evangelicals to affirm

complicated than the new atheism suggests.

typical of science as a whole. Point them to

organizations,

rather

naturalist scientific explanations without in any

For example, the belief that the only legitimate

recent works by leading scientists who are

than theologians and scientists. The fear of

and

media

activists,

way implying the non-existence or inactivity of

Christian interpretation of Genesis 1 is to read

people of faithsuch as Owen Gingerich

reductionism is that evolutionary theory reduces

God.

it literally is quite recent. Older Christian views,

and Francis Collins. Perhaps even start

44

q short

t he s pi r i t ual i t y o f s c i e n c e

a reading group to discuss one of these

Alister McGrath, a former atheist, was a research

books.

scientist at Oxford University before he became

2. Be proactive. Encourage members of

your church community who are scientists
to witness to their faith and to help other
people to think through the relationship of
science and faith.

a theologian. He holds doctorate degrees from

Oxford in the fields of molecular biophysics and
theology. He is presently Professor of Theology,

College, London.

3. Draw up a reading list of accessible

works that will help people think through
these issues. In addition to the recent
books by Gingerich and Collins, consider
these helpful writings:

END NOTES
Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (Boston: Houghton
Mifflin, 2006).

Ministry and Education, and Head of the Centre

for Theology, Religion and Culture, at Kings

Denis Alexander, Rebuilding the Matrix:

Science and Faith in the 21st Century.
Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002.

Alister

E.

Universe:

McGrath,
The

Quest

Fine-Tuned

for

God

in

Science and Theology. Louisville, KY:

Westminster John Knox Press, 2009.

John C. Polkinghorne, Faith, Science

and Understanding. New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press, 2000.

You are also strongly recommended to visit the

website of the Faraday Institute, Cambridge
University.13 It provides a rich range of resources,
including

audio

files

of

leading

scientists

speaking on the relationship of science and faith

and Faraday Papers on related themes.

Ibid., 5.

Peter B. Medawar, The Limits of Science (Oxford:

Oxford University Press, 1985), 64-7.

Owen Gingerich, Gods Universe (Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press, 2006).

Other Short Pieces (London: HarperCollins, 2000), 21.

B.B. Warfield, Evolution, Science and Scripture, Selected
Writings, edited by Mark A. Noll and David N. Livingstone
(Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2000), 115-16, 163-4.

Ibid., 208-9.

Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, V.xx.41.

10

Ibid., V.iv.11.

Francis S. Collins, The Language of God: A Scientist

Presents Evidence for Belief (New York: Basic Books,
2006).

11

Ibid., VI.xi.19.

12

Ibid., VI.xiii.23.

C.S. Lewis, Is theology poetry? in Essay Collection and

13

Http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/

45