darwin, design, and the unification of nature 179- John Brooke,Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives(Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1991), 117–151. - For example, Steven Weinberg,Dreams of a Final Theory: The Search for the
Fundamental Laws of Nature(New York: Pantheon, 1992). For a recent critique of the
drive for unification, see Nancy Cartwright,The Dappled World: A Study of the Bounda-
ries of Science(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999). - Alfred Whitehead,Science and the Modern World(New York: Mentor Books,
1964), 19. For a much fuller account of the interpenetration of scientific and theologi-
cal discourse in the formative processes of Western science, see Amos Funkenstein,
Theology and the Scientific Imagination from the Middle Ages to the Seventeenth Century
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986). - Keith Hutchison, “Idiosyncrasy, Achromatic Lenses, and Early Romanti-
cism,”Centaurus34 (1991): 125–171. - Rene ́ Descartes,Philosophical Writings: A Selection, ed. Elizabeth Anscombe
and Peter Geach (London: Nelson, 1954), 296. - Ian Hacking, “The Disunities of the Sciences,” inThe Disunity of Science,ed.
Peter Galison and David Stump (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1996),
37–74. - Richard Westfall, “The Rise of Science and the Decline of Orthodox Christi-
anity: A Study of Kepler, Descartes and Newton,” inGod and Nature: Historical Essays
on the Encounter between Christianity and Science, ed. David Lindberg and Ronald
Numbers (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1986), 218–237. - Kenneth Howell,God’s Two Books: Copernican Cosmology and Biblical Interpre-
tation in Early Modern Science(Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2002),
109–135. - Peter Hess, “ ‘God’s Two Books’: Revelation, Theology and Natural Science in
the Christian West,” inInterdisciplinary Perspectives on Cosmology and Biological Evolu-
tion, ed. Hilary Reagan and Mark Worthing (Adelaide: Australian Theological Forum,
2002), 19–49, especially 32–33; James Moore, “Geologists and Interpreters of Genesis
in the Nineteenth Century,” in Lindberg and Numbers,God and Nature, 322–350. - Galileo, “Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina” (1615), inThe Galileo Affair:
A Documentary History, ed. Maurice Finocchiaro (Berkeley: University of California
Press, 1989), 87–118. - For the contextualizing of this particular analogy, see Peter Harrison,The Bi-
ble, Protestantism and the Rise of Natural Science(Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1998). - John Brooke and Geoffrey Cantor,Reconstructing Nature: The Engagement of
Science and Religion(Edinburgh: T and T Clark, 1998), 144–145. - Hacking, “The Disunities of the Sciences,” 46.
- Ibid., 47.
- Isaac Newton,Opticks(New York: Dover, 1952), 376.
- Penelope Gouk,Music, Science and Natural Magic in Seventeenth-Century En-
gland(New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999), 224–257. - Cited by Richard Westfall,Force in Newton’s Physics(London: Macdonald,
1971), 397.