Science and Religion 277Student Questions: Talks to College Students (Boston: Houghton, Miffl in and Company,
1906), 52–53. For critical reaction to White’s work by contemporaries, see Glenn C.
Altschuler, Andrew D. White—Educator, Historian, Diplomat (Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univer-
sity Press, 1979), 209–16.
- Samuel Harris, The Philosophical Basis of Theism (New York: Charles Scribner’s
Sons, 1883), 15–16 (quote, 16); Douglas Clyde Macintosh, Theology as an Empirical Sci-
ence (New York: Macmillan, 1919), 5, 25–28; Shailer Mathews, The Faith of Modernism
(New York, Macmillan, 1924), 23 (the original was in italics), 35–36. - Hodge, What Is Darwinism? 126; Anonymous, “What is ‘Science,’ and What the
‘Inductive Method[’],” Bible Student and Teacher 7 (1907): 107; and W. B. Riley, “Skepti-
cism in Our Schools,” Bible Student and Teacher 6 (1907): 452; Ronald L. Numbers, The
Creationists: From Scientifi c Creationism to Intelligent Design, expanded ed. (Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press, 2006), 65. - Hodge, What Is Darwinism? 126–31; Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, 3
vols. (1871; New York: Scribner, Armstrong and Company, 1873), 1–17 (quote, 10);
J. Gresham Machen, “The Relation of Religion to Science and Philosophy,” Princeton
Theological Review 24 (1926): 64. - William Jennings Bryan, In His Image (New York: Fleming H. Revell Company,
1922), 94; Alfred Fairhurst, Atheism in Our Universities (Cincinnati, OH: Standard Pub-
lishing Company, 1923), 91 (original emphasis). - Numbers, The Creationists, 69–87; Judith V. Grabiner and Peter D. Miller,
“Effects of the Scopes Trial,” Science 185 (1974): 832–37; Edward J. Larson, Trial and
Error: The American Controversy Over Creation and Evolution, 3rd ed. (New York: Oxford
University Press, 2003), 28–92; Frederick Lewis Allen, Only Yesterday: An Informal History
of the Nineteen- Twenties (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1931), 195; C. H. Waddington,
The Scientifi c Attitude, 2nd ed. (Middlesex, UK: Penguin Books, 1948), 170. - Étienne Gilson, God and Philosophy (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press,
1941), 119; George H. Richardson, “Scientist and Theologian,” American Church
Monthly 24 (1928): 336. - The joint statement, along with a list of those who signed the document, is re-
printed in “Science and Religion,” Science n.s., 57 (1923): 630–31. See also Alfred North
Whitehead, Science and the Modern World (1925; New York: Free Press, 1967), 12, 185. - E. G. Homrighausen, Christianity in America: A Crisis (New York: Abingdon
Press, 1936), 80–81, 62. In my description of the neo- orthodox treatment of science
I have drawn on the following works: Ian G. Barbour, Issues in Science and Religion
(Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice- Hall, 1966), 116–19; and Langdon Gilkey, Naming the
Whirlwind: The Renewal of God- Language (Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs- Merrill Company,
1969), 82–91. - Carl Michalson, The Rationality of Faith: An Historical Critique of the Theological
Reason (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1963), 26; Langdon B. Gilkey, “The Concept
of Providence in Contemporary Theology,” Journal of Religion 43 (1963): 181–82 (quote,
182); Donald D. Evans, “Differences Between Scientifi c and Religious Assertions,” in
Science and Religion: New Perspectives on the Dialogue, ed. Ian G. Barbour (New York:
Harper & Row, 1968), 101, 111–25 (quote, 125), 102, 107, 109. See also Ian T. Ramsey,
Religious Language (London: SCM Press, 1957), 11–18, 185–86, 26. Useful discussions