Sam McKee

Dr Alister McGrath is a mainstay of both C.S. Lewis scholarship from Oxford University and science and religion scholarship. However, we have never benefited from a work addressing the great thinker’s attitude towards the relationship between science and religion from a theological or historical perspective. Therefore, I am delighted to see McGrath himself rise to this challenge to deliver a deep but highly accessible book addressing the subject. Before reading, I drew a list of the key themes and issues I hoped to see addressed in a book on the topic and was delighted to find that McGrath had pre-empted this by addressing each of them in these chapters. There is nothing significant missing from this book, and those interested in either Lewis or the theme of science and religion will enjoy it immensely.

From the full-frontal attack on evolutionary theory by the Intelligent Design (ID) creationist community comes this large work on theistic evolution. All the major names rallied their voices into an extensive text on the problems they claim make the position untenable. Given how each has marshalled their previously published works into each chapter, this is presented as a comprehensive debunk of the scientific, philosophical, and theological basis of being a person that holds to the truth of both evolution and theism.

We like to believe that reason is our pathway to truth. Yet from Popper’s demand for falsifiability to Darwin’s doubt about the mind’s origins, a more unsettling picture is emerging. Our brains were shaped not to perceive reality, but to survive within it. Evolution has optimized us for social cohesion rather than accuracy, leaving false beliefs not as evolutionary errors but as features of our survival. In an age that prizes truth, philosopher of science Samuel McKee argues that our greatest obstacle may be the very mind that seeks it.

It has been long understood that without strong, current engagement, science and religion research and discussion can fall into a niche interest of the church or confined to the interests of academics. The church, Christian apologetics, and academic science and religion research face a three-tiered challenge for staying accurate and engaged with modern science. Here I discuss three distinct levels of engagement where an intersection of scientists, theologians and philosophers can process how science and religion interact. Unfortunately, the scale and speed of scientific research and discovery outpaces the conversation of its implications and interaction with religion at such a rate that much theological derivation is rendered useless without the knowledge of the research at academic or popular congregational level. Within the life sciences alone, the problem is particularly acute. Here I outline some serious challenges for Christian engagement at each level attempting to reflect meaningfully in theological and philosophical discussion on the present scientific research.

One has to look hard to find Futurists with a religious background. When considering futurism, you may think of Lord Martin Rees, or perhaps Neil DeGrasse Tyson and Yuval Noah Harari at a popular level. For too long, futurism has been associated with secular thinkers and atheist visions of a glorious human future. Carl Sagan was an immense inspiration in the 20th century in presenting the frontiers of science during the period which spanned the Apollo and Voyager missions as well as the Silicon Valley boom of technology. However, Christian voices of the future tend to proceed down one of two tracks: the apocalyptic and the cautionary.

No one has had a NASA career quite like Dr. Michael Foale. Across six flights, he was part of three Shuttle science missions, a flight to the Hubble Space Telescope, a long duration stay on Mir that was infamous for the crash that almost killed him and his crewmates, and the Commander of a long duration stay on an early International Space Station mission. Having such a diverse range of flights, he was the first NASA astronaut to accumulate a year in space and later became Assistant Deputy Director of NASA’s Johnson Space Center.

In order to populate the Moon, Mars, and the Solar System, we will need to take advantage of modern advances in genomics and gene editing to help us survive and thrive. Missions to the International Space Station have seen targeted use of both advanced field gene sequencing devices, and CRISPR-Cas9 for gene editing, to prove the benefits of this technology in spacefaring. To assist in everything from crop growth, radiation resistance, immunology, extreme temperature resistance, and cancer resistance we should take advantage of every facet of genetics. Human genome editing will ultimately be necessary for movement further into the Solar System, but the technology is present to engineer resistance in important organisms whilst the ethics of human gene editing are processing. It is my view that as of the present, not enough discussion is being had in how this can benefit the commercial and governmental sectors, and opportunities are present for further experimentation in research rotation on the ISS and in commercial science missions. Since NASA astronaut Kate Rubins breakthrough missions in genomics and gene editing in 2016 and 2021, there is precedent for further use of CRISPR-Cas9 in microgravity, as well as genomics. Furthermore, recent developments in base editing and prime editing promise more accurate gene editing that should be tested in microgravity to demonstrate the potential benefits of the technology for human survival in the extremes of the Moon, Mars, and the Solar System. In this paper, I summarize the current landscape of genomics and gene editing in space, as well as immediate avenues for advancement in what this technology can do for human Moon, Mars and Solar System missions. I propose that the opportunity is there to solve complex problems for human physiology and food for human population of these extreme environments.

Joseph Needham’s Science, Religion and Reality, published in 1925, was an extraordinary contribution to the science and religion dialogue. Coming during the interwar physics revolution, it is a forgotten and underappreciated collection from Cambridge that helped trigger several important pieces that shaped the discussion at an academic and popular level. The collection brought together an accomplished group of religious scientists, predominantly connected with Cambridge University, that held different perspectives on how science and religion interacted but agreed on their ability to relate. However, for a variety of reasons, it has remained obscure despite its immense influence at the time. Here, I explore its content and the value it still has in the present day.

The study of evolutionary biology at contemporary universities unfolds through the lens of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis (MES). Historically, this constitutes the official marriage of classical Darwinian evolutionary biology and modern genetics, so that one cannot be studied without the other. In addition, a genetic lens is always applied to evolutionary biology, and genetics is understood evolutionarily. The founders of the MES included three prominent figures who were church-attending believers. This fact is often overlooked and unappreciated, especially by extremists on both sides of the creation vs evolution debate in the West. Herein, I examine the faith commitments and publicly expressed views of Theodosius Dobzhansky, Sewall Wright, and Ronald Aylmer Fisher. I also explore the implications of their understanding for the competing narratives, and why these figures are not more commonly known in the science and religion dialogue.

I have great appreciation for the late Professor Michael Ruse. He was an important voice in both the history and philosophy of science, and science and religion, for a very long time and his passing last year was a big loss. His examination of the challenges around evolution and religion was a strong focus of both his research and popular writing. Ruse, having personally been an expert witness in some of the clashes (the 1981 McLean versus Arkansas trial), is one of the most qualified to write a work such as Darwinism as Religion: What Literature Tells Us About Evolution.

Sir Arthur Eddington (1882-1944) was a prominent Quaker astrophysicist at Cambridge University who made an extraordinary impact on inter-war physics, helping to communicate relativity, cosmology and quantum physics to a popular audience. He was also a prolific science communicator whose philosophical reflections on the meaning of the new physics captivated global audiences. His quest for a theory of everything, though unsuccessful, came from his conviction that the nature of ultimate reality was spiritual, and is underappreciated for its historical impact. Much can be learned from his legacy of trying to harmonize science and faith to a larger audience searching for meaning. Eddington’s ambitious attempt at a Christian theory of everything deserves further examination and can still teach us much about our approach to science and religion.

Since the emergence of New Atheism under figures such as Richard Dawkins, there has been a revolution in popular Christian interest in science and religion. However, many approaches to science and religion among Christian laypeople follow an evidentialist model. In sharp contrast, Sir Arthur Eddington’s different voice, as a prominent scientist and devout Quaker, remains unfamiliar to the majority in these discussions. Heralded by some commentators as ahead of his time, his unusual yet bold ideas, which at times were misunderstood, deserve renewed consideration. His influence throughout the twentieth century ran deeper than he has been given credit for. It is time to reassess his value to science and religion as a discipline and to acknowledge that his contributions have a great deal of merit for the ongoing dialogue. In this article, we question whether evidentialist approaches are as valuable as Eddington’s contributions. We examine his works and life to see what can be learned from his perspective on the science-religion question. In doing so, we are also asking whether his attitude to science and religion would be more fruitful than the alternatives.

People often think of all whales as giants of the sea when in fact they vary in size dramatically, from the 30-metre blue whale to the two-metre dwarf sperm whale. However, almost all of the largest family by size, the baleen whales, are massive – and scientists have only recently understood how they grew so big. Adding to this understanding, a new study may help explain a longstanding puzzle in science about how baleen whales can have such a high cell reproduction rate without succumbing to cancer – a problem known as “Peto’s Paradox”.

From Aristotle to Darwin and Schrödinger to Marie Curie, understanding life has been a scientific and philosophical goal since humans were first able to conceptualise their subjectivity. Sam McKee argues that there is no point in searching for life in other worlds when we do not know what it is on our own planet. Many a debate today centres around a dispute over the definition of life, whether that be abortion politics, assisted suicide or evolutionary biology. McKee argues that we must focus on the definitional question of life before we look for it elsewhere, and to do so we must ask new questions.

Wilkinson is a professor of psychiatry at Yale University who brings his knowledge to bear in Purpose on the question of evolution’s ability to explain our nature, with particular focus on our social and individual need for meaning and relationships. He is a celebrant of nature’s capacity to form our behaviour through evolution’s constrained, yet comprehensive ability. This is the best work yet for a popular audience in expositing evolution’s formative process for our dual nature of selfishness and altruism, lust and love, aggression and cooperation, individual and societal needs, and capacity for freedom.

It has been over a century since the boom period of physics exploded with Albert Einstein, Max Planck and others, sending us spinning into a new world of chaos from our previously ordered universe. This brilliant generation of physicists ultimately peeled back the layers of the universe, as well as of the atom, to reveal a world stranger than fiction. Ever since those earliest days of quantum mechanics, the theory ruling the microworld of atoms and particles, the holy grail of physics has been finding a theory of everything – uniting quantum mechanics with Einstein’s theory of general relativity, which applies to the universe on large scales. But we still don’t have a tried and tested theory of everything. And I believe a fear of failure is a big part of the problem.