The Soul of Science (Pearcey and Thaxton)

In The Soul of Science, authors Nancy Pearcey and Charles Thaxton trace the history of natural philosophy.  They provide a "historical overview of scientific practice."  Quotes below (often indented) are from their book.

The Soul of Science covers many people, subjects, and concepts, including (but not limited to):

• Aristotle, Galileo, Kepler, Copernicus, Descartes, Newton, Hume, Kant, Darwin, Einstein, Schrodinger, and Heisenberg
• Biology, physics, astronomy, chemistry, mathematics, theories of relativity, quantum mechanics, the DNA chemical code
• Biblical views of nature, man, and God (and corresponding assumptions which became fundamental to scientific study), positivist and idealist approaches to history, reductionism, three main categories of scientific thought (Aristotelian, new-Platonic, and mechanistic), the axiomatic method 

This isn't just a 'history of science' book.  Their general point is that

Throughout the history of science, from Copernicus to quantum mechanics, science has been deeply implicated in metaphysical and religious questions.

Indeed, it's impossible to separate the two.  Unlike modern claims that science is at odds with religion, there are

philosophical and religious dimensions to all scientific research.  No definition of science that ignores or denies those dimensions can claim a basis in the actual practices of science. 

Why is this?

Scientific investigation depends upon certain assumptions about the world- and science is impossible until those assumptions are in place. 

What?  Isn't is just about observing and discovering facts?

Science establishes the facts of nature.  Yet the truth is that when stripped of all interpretation, facts don't really tell us very much.  Bare facts can nearly always be reinterpreted in different ways within different theoretical frameworks.  

[Indeed, f]undamental decisions within science are necessarily affected by extra-scientific commitments.  The facts that a researcher considers scientifically interesting in the first place, the kind of research he undertakes, the hypotheses he is willing to entertain, the way he interprets his results, and the extrapolations he draws to other fields- all depend upon prior conceptions of what the world is like. 

As a result, surprisingly enough, scientific advance rarely comes solely through the accumulation of new facts.  It comes most often through the construction of new theoretical frameworks.

Therefore,

To understand scientific development, it is not enough merely to chronicle new discoveries and inventions.  We must also trace the succession of worldviews.

This reality

sheds new light on the nature of scientific controversy.  Opposition to a new theory is not necessarily due to stupidity, fear, or blind dogmatism.  In most cases, it is due to disagreement over the philosophical and religious context in which the new theory appears- and which it is being used to support.

The above quotes present their position in a nutshell, but doesn't do the book justice- as I said, so many things are discussed.

I really liked this book.  In a topic that often incites emotion, the tone here was not haughty, condescending, or judgmental.  It simply presented different worldviews and approaches to science throughout the ages.  It was informative, well-researched (and annotated), presented different viewpoints succinctly and (I believe) fairly, and covered a lot of ground in history, philosophy, and science.  I was particularly impressed with the explanations of tricky scientific principles (like relativity)- they were exceptionally well presented.  Indeed, I think some were the best I've ever read.  In closing, I recommend this book to all who are interested in how we look at science- and how, despite what some claim, there's no way to separate the practice of science from one's beliefs.

Rating: A