Science and Religion 265that he embraced as “the use of the methods of modern science to fi nd,
state and use the permanent and central values of inherited orthodoxy in
meeting the needs of a modern world.”^24
Although some liberals endorsed the notion that science and theology
employed a common methodology, a larger and ever- growing number of
Anglo American intellectuals during the early twentieth century held that
those two realms of inquiry dealt with “separate spheres” of experiential
data. In practice, they typically consigned the structure and operation of
natural phenomena to scientifi c investigation while reserving the realm
of values and ultimate causes for theological inquiry and speculation. This
had the effect of placating the many participants in the discussion who
believed that scientists should be given hegemony in dealing with natural
phenomena while simultaneously conceding that subjective and meta-
physical issues belonged to the sphere of religion.
MILITANT NAYSAYERS AND PACIFIST SEPARATISTS
Many conservative Christians, however, renounced the idea of placing
science and religion within separate spheres. Defi ning “science” as it was
found in the dictionary, they maintained that “true science” comprised
certain knowledge based on inductively ascertained and verifi ed facts and
principles; it did not necessarily embrace the theories and practices es-
poused by the scientifi c community of their day.^25
This conception of science, which nineteenth- century conservatives
had sometimes associated with Baconianism, enabled them to draw sev-
eral inferences that proved decisive in shaping their conception of the
relationship between science and religion. First, it prompted a number
of conservatives to include theology itself among the sciences. Charles
Hodge, for example, insisted that all knowledge gleaned through induc-
tion, not just data gleaned through the senses, constituted “scientifi c”
knowledge and should thus be taken into account in attempting to de-
scribe reality. Hodge maintained that since the Bible contained the theo-
logian’s “store- house of facts,” and since the theologian employed the
same inductive method of discerning the teachings of the Bible that the
natural scientist used in disclosing the truths of nature, it was appropriate
to include theology among the sciences. The equation of Christian doc-
trines with “facts” prompted the theologically conservative J. Gresham
Machen to assert that “we ought to try to lead scientists and philosophers
to become Christians not by asking them to regard science and philoso-
phy as without bearing on religion, but on the contrary by asking them