Genesis and the Decay of the Nations (Ken Ham)

In Genesis and the Decay of the Nations, Ken Ham argues that "Genesis is the foundation book of the Bible and, therefore, of all Christian faith and life."  He believes in taking Genesis literally; therefore, he is a young-earth creationist and gives evolution no credence.  Further, he claims that evolution is the basis of humanism and creation the basis of Christianity.  The book explores this concept further and discusses related events (like the worldwide flood) or doctrines (like marriage) found in Genesis.

Though I agree with some of what Ham says, this is not a great book.  First, his tone is unnecessarily abrasive and condescending throughout (indeed, he's been criticized for things like this from others).  Second, some things he claims are obvious in Scripture don't always appear to be so.  His reasoning can be a little off, and some of his claims (about history and the current state of the church) overly generalized or even false.

I agree with him that science always requires a framework; there's no such thing as straight data- it always requires interpretation.  And he makes an occasional good point.  But there are much better treatments of this topic out there (like The Soul of Science or God's Undertaker).

Rating: C

The Story of Science (Susan Wise Bauer)

The Story of Science, in author Susan Wise Bauer's own words, "is not a history of science."  Rather, "it traces the development of great science writing- the essays and books that have most directly affected and changed the course of scientific investigation."  She covers from ancient to modern times in her survey; each chapter provides some background and context to a given work, and she then lists recommended editions (some of which are e-books available for free on her website) for further reading.

Bauer writes well . . . but this wasn't what I was looking for (my fault, not hers).  It's a good resource/reference for those interested in learning more about (or reading) foundational science texts, but you'll get no formulas or equations here (more in line with my interests).  I read a third and decided to move on.

Rating: B+

Mathematics: is God Silent? (James Nickel)

As we have surveyed the history of mathematics, we have noticed that what an individual or culture believes concerning the origin, purpose, and destiny of the cosmos affects the way mathematics is viewed and ultimately, the way mathematics progress. . .  mathematics is not a neutral discipline; it is always linked with presuppositions. - James Nickel, Mathematics: is God Silent? 

Similar in spirit to Soul of Science, Mathematics: is God Silent? traces the history of mathematical development and worldviews associated with its various trailblazers.  Author James Nickel's main point is that worldview matters in everything- even in mathematics.  How we view the world affects not only our thoughts on man's "origin, value, and destiny", but even how we approach the study and understanding of mathematics and construction of formulas to understand the world around us.  The first part of the book is the aforementioned history; the second provides recommendations for teaching mathematics from a biblical perspective.

Nickel certainly provides a differing viewpoint to the current mindset on math (or science, for that matter).  For example, he claims that adherence to the Greek mindset slowed Medieval development, and only Christian-minded folks (freed by Reformation, literacy, and mass printing) worked advances.  He also shows how things went off the rails when the focus became man:

In summary, note the progression of thought from the Bible to [Immanuel] Kant.  Genesis 1:1 states that God created everything: the universe and man (including his mand).  Kant said that man creates everything:  i.e., everything is a part of man and this thinking.  The world as we know it is at least relative to our mind if not an outright construct of our mind.  The world is something that we have dreamed up; it is our creation.

Interesting food for thought.

There's a lot of good information in this book- the author knows his stuff, has done his homework, and provides valuable references and resources.  Still, I read only about 50% and skimmed much of it.  I agree with the author's main point, but some of his other arguments I should study more.  In places, he gets repetitive and I'm not sure the practical differences (especially concerning how it changes mathematics education) come through.  Worth the time, in the end, but I think Soul of Science presents the same arguments in a more polished form.

Rating: B+

Renewable Energy: Power for a Sustainable Future (Boyle, ed.)

And now for something completely different: a review of what I used as a college textbook.

As my undergraduate degree wound down, I decided to do an independent study- on wind energy.  I looked forward to the concept- no endless hours in class, no exams; it would be a dream.  Boy, was I wrong.  Every week I had to prepare a paper on a different aspect of wind energy- and each paper was ~10-15 pages long.  By semester's end, I had (if memory serves) over 150 pages written on the blasted topic.  It was a valuable experience, to be sure, but one I hope to never repeat.

During those long hours of self-study, a resource I turned to again and again was Renewable Energy: Power for a Sustainable Future, edited by Geoffrey Boyle.  It covers every category: solar, biomass, hydro, tidal, wind, wave, and geothermal power- and does each well.  I, of course, focused on the wind chapter, but it's all quality.

I've had it on my shelf for 10 years now; it's time to part with it, as the field has undoubtedly advanced much in the last decade.  Still, it's a worthy read for those interested in the topic- I'm sure a newer edition is out.

Rating: A

God's Undertaker (John C. Lennox)

Science and religion- two areas that spar often in modern culture.  Quoting the back of the book:
"If we are to believe many modern commentators, science has squeezed God into a corner, killed and then buried him with its all-embracing explanations.  Atheism, we are told, is the only intellectually tenable position, and any attempt to reintroduce God is likely to impede the progress of science.  In this stimulating and thought-provoking book, John Lennox invites us to consider such claims very carefully."

In this work, John C. Lennox, Professor in Mathematics at Oxford, investigates a variety of areas in his investigation, to include:
- the scope and limits of science
- irreducible complexity
- micro- and macro-evolution
- the origin of the universe
- the genetic code
- information and the relationship to matter
- origins of information and life

Lennox shows in many areas of science how, regrettably, some scientists have fallen from the scientific ideal of examining the evidence and drawing conclusions from it, and moved instead to trying to force evidence into preconceived notions on "how it ought to be."  He discusses the inconsistencies and/or self-contradictory nature of some scientist's claims, and examines evidence for everything from the extremely large (the universe) to the extremely small (the simplest organisms).  He argues that science is "overstepping its bounds" in some areas, and resorting to rhetoric and ideologies rather than sound scientific method, in a quest to (at all costs) eliminate the possibility that there may be a design to the universe.

Why would science do this?  Why do some scientists care so passionately about eliminating the possibility of intelligence behind life?  I believe there are two main factors:
1) a design implies a designer, which in turn implies a being that is more powerful than ourselves.  We, as humans, don't like to consider such possibilities- we want to be "top dog."  If there is a God, He's stronger than we are; humans have never liked that idea.
2) in the Middle Ages, the Church was known for overstepping its bounds, and in some cases impeding science through its edicts.  Today, I'd argue science is doing the exact same thing.  Like the Church of old, anyone who points out weaknesses or inconsistencies in current mainstream scientific thinking is ostracized or called a fool.  Interesting that most scientific progress has been made by departing from mainstream thinking of the time.  The saddest part of it is, no matter how much we claim to have progressed in recent times, we still hold the same basic mindset that has plagued humanity for centuries- "what we currently believe is correct.  Yes, there are gaps, yes, there are inconsistencies, but this is correct- you're a fool to think otherwise."

As one who believes in God, of course I enjoyed this work.  But, I daresay, I do try to be as analytical as possible about such arguments.  I have read (and will continue to read) works from both sides of the issue, and would encourage all to do the same.  And, Lennox's work is a good starting point to understand the claims of those who believe there is a design inherent in the world.  His style is both scientific (there are calculations in this book), but relatively accessible, and his tone is (to me) "friendly"- it's not a confrontational, Bible-thumping work.  He's debated Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens (among others), and is highly credible.  Overall, this is a worthy read.

Rating: A

A Briefer History of Time (Stephen Hawking)

My British reading list contains three science selections, and I decided to finally tackle one.  Science interests me, but I find most texts in this area rather boring, so I wasn't looking forward to it.  I was pleasantly surprised.

A Briefer History of Time is a condensed and significantly revised version of Hawking's A Brief History of Time (published ~30 years ago).  The newer version is only slightly shorter, but updated to both appeal to a broader audience, and include major advances made in understanding in the past three decades.  It covers a range of topics, to include relativity, quantum physics, wormholes, time travel, and string theory.  It discusses each at an extremely high, non-technical level.  I'd be lying if I said I understood everything- but I did learn a bit from this.  It's a surprisingly fast read at ~150 pages, and an interesting "foundation" book if you're interested in these topics.  One surprising (to me) conclusion is that we have so many "holes" in our current theories- there are so many observations made that don't quite agree with our models.  There are lots of inexplicable things going on.  Will we ever understand them?  Will it matter if we do?  I don't know- but it's fun to think about.

One final comment here: the universe is a mighty weird place, yet amazingly beautiful.  The fact that life exists at all, or even inanimate things like the stars and planets, seems a miracle.  It's good to think about this as we learn more about some of the "guts" of our universe. 

Rating: B