RE: [asa] "Evolutionary Creation" book comments

From: Alexanian, Moorad <>
Date: Wed Sep 30 2009 - 11:05:18 EDT

It seems clear to me that before the 19th century we had natural philosophy, which studied the whole of reality and so theology was an integral part of it. Today, science encompasses essentially the physical aspect of Nature and so theology does not form an integral aspect of science.


-----Original Message-----
From: [] On Behalf Of Ted Davis
Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 10:56 AM
To: Pete Enns; George Murphy; Michael Roberts
Cc: ASA; Jim Armstrong; Denis O. Lamoureux
Subject: Re: [asa] "Evolutionary Creation" book comments

Like David Lindberg, I think there *was* such a thing as the "scientific revolution," but this is today a contested issue among historians of science for reasons I don't have time and space to give here. If I were writing a full essay on this, I could state why I think early modern science differed significantly from ancient and medieval science, but I also see some continuities. One of the continuities, IMO, is that theology and science were still very strongly intertwined, right down into the mid-19th century in some cases, esp in Anglo-American natural history. Many early modern natural philosophers gave some expression to theology within their practice of natural philosophy, and some of the most important ideas they expressed are closely related to medieval notions of God and creation. For two lovely examples of modern studies related to this, see Francis Oakley, "Omnipotence, Covenant, and Order," and Amos Funkenstein, "Theology and the Scientific Imagination From t!

 he Middle Ages to the Seventeenth Century."


To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Sep 30 11:06:03 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Sep 30 2009 - 11:06:03 EDT