Basic description: You will write a 2-to-3 page summary of a personal interview you will conduct with a Christian in the natural sciences, medicine, or mathematics. The goal is to restate her or his own beliefs concerning the relation between Christianity and science. Each interview will contain some brief biographical information as well.

Scheduling an interview: The first thing to do is to find an appropriate person to interview. You must pick a Christian natural scientist, physician, or mathematician, not a social scientist or engineer. Natural scientists would include environmental scientists, physicists, astronomers, biologists, chemists, and geologists, and also some other areas. If you are in doubt about whether a person qualifies, ask Dr. Davis. It is not necessary that you know this person well, or even a little, before you interview them. It is necessary only to obtain their permission to interview them, and to write a brief summary of their beliefs.

You may conduct the interview in any of three ways: (1) in person; (2) on the telephone, at your expense (it would be rude to ask someone to call you long distance for half an hour, about a matter you initiated); or (3) on line, by exchanging messages. If you do not know an appropriate person to interview, you might try meeting someone on-line; Dr. Davis has a list of interested persons and their e-mail addresses.

KEEP IN MIND that this person is doing you a favor by granting you some of their time. Be courteous, and make sure that you tell them why you want to interview them. It is important that you tell them that you will be writing about their beliefs for a class assignment. If they don't want you to do that, then find someone else to interview. Also be careful not to take too much of the person's time; 30 minutes is all you should ask for, if the interview is conducted in person or on the telephone. If it is done on-line, it may require the exchange of several e-mail messages, but try not to prolong it.

Doing the interview: It is up to you to decide just how you will go about the task of interviewing the person, and exactly what to ask them. Questions such as these might be good to use:

Where are you from? What is your family background?
When did you decide to become a scientist?
How did you prepare to be a scientist?
What are your main areas of interest, as a scientist?
When did you become a Christian?
What does Christianity mean, to you personally?
How do you approach the relationship between science and Christianity?
Has being a scientist helped you in your faith? Has being a Christian helped you in your science?
Do you have any advice for people who want to understand more about science and faith?
(Obviously, if the person is a physician or mathematician, some changes in wording would be appropriate.)

You may have your own ideas about what to ask, and some others may occur to you in the conversation. Follow your instincts, and take some brief notes. You should not record the interview unless the person has agreed, ahead of time, that this is OK.

To write up the interview, you will need first to give a brief, single-spaced biography of the person, giving a few details about their personal and professional background -- their own history, if you will. Summarize their interests in science, their training, and their spiritual biography. This introductory paragraph should be between four and six sentences in length, and should contain the name and present position of the person you interviewed.

The main body of the paper should be double-spaced and should include a statement of the person's views about the relationship between science and Christianity. Do NOT put this in the form of questions/answers; rather make it a narrative description of their views. You may quote the person briefly and occasionally, if you wish, but you must NOT overdo it -- most of the essay should be composed in your own words, describing their ideas and beliefs. You are NOT expected to give your own view of this person's beliefs in your essay. This is simply your summary of their beliefs, not your commentary on them.

All together your essay should be no longer than three pages and no less than 1-1/2 pages.

A preliminary report, giving the name/affiliation of the person you have contacted is due as shown in the syllabus. This can be written on a single sheet of paper.

The interview itself is due as shown in the syllabus.

Basic description: You will write a comparison-contrast paper, 5 pages in length, on the similarities and differences between the creation story in Genesis and Plato's creation story in Timaeus. You should also draw on the article by Conrad Hyers (in the course reader) when it is helpful to do so. This assignment is intended to help you understand some of the basic teachings of the Christian doctrine of creation.

Deciding what to say. You should review Genesis 1:1-3:24 and the selection from Timaeus in your reader. Focus on the actions of God and Genesis and the Demiurge in Timaeus, noting similarities and differences in how they go about the work of creating the universe. Questions such as these may be helpful:  What materials are used? What is the order of events? What are the properties/characteristics of the universe that has been created? What apparent limits are there on what God and the Demiurge can do? Who are we as human beings, and why were we created? What theological and moral beliefs was each story intended to teach, as far as you can tell? What seem(s) to be the primary purpose(s) of each story?

A suggestion to help you prepare to write: fold a piece of standard-size paper into two columns. Label one column for Genesis and another for Timaeus. Then, as you go through the selections, jot down references where each story bears on each of the questions above, with a few notes on what is said for each point.

Formulating a thesis. Compare answers to the questions, looking for points of agreement as well as points of disagreement. Then formulate two or three sentences that summarize your findings. These will function as the thesis of your essay. Your thesis should answer this question: how does the presentation of God's relation to the world in Genesis compare with that in Timaeus?

For some good suggestions on writing an effective thesis, see Diana Hacker, A Writer's Reference (3rd edn, 1995), an excellent reference used in many writing courses at Messiah. Read pp. 8-9, 11-13, and 24-25 for advice on this aspect.

Making an outline. At this point you should read over pp. 20-21 (on comparison-contrast papers) and 9-11 (on outlining) in Hacker. Wordperfect has a built-in outlining feature, under "Tools"; you might want to explore it a bit.

Writing a draft.  After you have an outline and a thesis, it is time to write up a draft of your essay. The draft will be your own -- every person submits their own paper -- but it is fine to get ideas and suggestions from your peers as you write it. The draft is due as shown in the syllabus; please bring five (5) copies to class, in order to share them with peers. Your draft should be double-spaced, must be prepared on a word processor using a 10-12 point type. The minimum length is 1300 words and the maximum is 1700 words. YOU NEED TO STATE THE ACTUAL LENGTH OF YOUR DRAFT AT THE END (you can find out how long it actually is using File/Document Info.

In addition, it MUST have the following structure:

(1) The introductory paragraph, no longer than 4 or 5 sentences, should tell the reader what you are going to say in the body of the paper. It will contain an introductory sentence or two to grab the reader's attention, a clear statement of your thesis, and (perhaps) a sentence of transition to the body. Try to put together a catchy opening sentence that will draw your reader into the subject. Using a question as the opening sentence can be a good idea, as long as your paper will be answering that question. Excellent advice on writing a good opening paragraph is found on pp. 11-14 in Hacker, which you should read before starting.

(2) The main body of the paper, 4-5 pages, should draw out the comparisons you want to make. You may quote a few specific statements if you wish, but don't overdo it; usually paraphases or summaries are sufficient. As you write this section, you should pay particular attention to transitions between sentences within paragraphs, and transitions between paragraphs. Read pp. 14-18, 23-4, 26-8, and 208-9 in Hacker for some good suggestions and examples.

(3) The concluding paragraph should restate and summarize the main points of comparison that you made in the previous section, and then indicate which difference between the two stories you personally regard as most significant, and why. Your final sentence or two should leave the reader with a sense that you are finished. Some excellent advice on writing this final section is found on pp. 14-15 of Hacker.

Basic description: You will review Galileo's position on the interpretation of the Bible relative to astronomical matters, show how his ideas were used by nineteenth-century Christian geologists, and respond personally to his position.

Deciding what to say. First, you should review the selections from Galileo, Davis Young, Edward Hitchcock, and Asa Gray (in the course reader), focusing on the questions below, answers to which should be found in the first part of your essay:

What does Galileo believe in general concerning the language of scripture? What does he believe specifically about the use of the Bible in matters of science? What principle(s) of interpretation does he endorse, and why? How specifically were Galileo's ideas used by Christian scientists in the nineteenth century? (What issue were they concerned about, and how did they use his ideas to address it?)

Then, you should ask yourself the following questions in order to formulate an overall response to the issues raised by Galileo's approach; answers should be found in the second part of your essay:

To what extent do you agree with Galileo's position on the Bible and science? What specifically do you like about it (if anything), and why? What specifically do you not like about it (if anything), and why? Do you see any reason(s) to distinguish between Galileo's response to questions raised by astronomy, on the one hand, and nineteenth-century responses to geology and biology, on the other hand? If so, be prepared to state your reason(s). If not, be prepared to give a similar response to both situations.

Finally, use your thoughts about these questions to answer the following overall thesis question:

What was Galileo's overall position on the relationship between science and the Bible? Is it a good one for Christians to consider? Why or why not?

Formulating a thesis statement. Your thesis will answer the overall question above in one, two, or three sentences in the opening paragraph of your essay. For some good suggestions on writing an effective thesis, see pp. 8-9, 11-13, and 24-25 in Hacker.

Making an outline. At this point you should read pp. 8-11 in Hacker. Here you might want to know that Wordperfect has a built-in outlining feature, under "Tools." You might want to explore it a bit.

Writing a draft. After you have an outline and a thesis, it is time to write up a draft of your essay. The draft will be your own -- every person submits their own paper -- but it is fine to get ideas and suggestions from your peers as you write it. The draft is due as shown in the syllabus; please bring five (5) copies to class, in order to share them with peers. Your draft should be double-spaced, prepared on a word processor using a 10-12 point type. The minimum length is 1300 words and the maximum is 1700 words. YOU NEED TO STATE THE ACTUAL LENGTH OF YOUR DRAFT AT THE END (you can find out how long it actually is using File/Document Info.

In addition, your draft MUST have the following structure:

(1) The introductory paragraph, no longer than 6 or 7 sentences, should tell the reader what you are going to say in the body of the paper. It will contain an introductory sentence or two to grab the reader's attention, a clear statement of your thesis, and (perhaps) a sentence of transition to the body. Try to put together a catchy opening sentence that will draw your reader into the subject. Using a question as the opening sentence can be a good idea, as long as your paper will be answering that question. Excellent advice on writing a good opening paragraph is found on pp. 11-14 in Hacker, which you should read before starting.

In stating your thesis, make sure you do three things, responding to all parts of the overall thesis question above: (1) briefly summarize Galileo's position; (2) state whether or not you agree with him; (3) state a reason for your answer.

(2) The main body of the paper, 4-5 pages, should draw out the comparisons you want to make. You may quote a few specific statements if you wish, but don't overdo it; usually paraphases or summaries are sufficient. As you write this section, you should pay particular attention to transitions between sentences within paragraphs, and transitions between paragraphs. Read pp. 14-18, 23-4, 26-8, and 208-9 in Hacker for some good suggestions and examples.

(3) The concluding paragraph should restate Galileo's overall approach to the Bible and science and summarize your reasons for agreeing or disagreeing with it. Your final sentence or two should leave the reader with a sense that you are finished. Some excellent advice on writing this final section is found on pp. 14-15 of Hacker.

Basic description: You will write a 5 page argumentative essay, taking a position on the following main question: Was the church justified in censuring Galileo? Your essay will be based on the "cases" prepared by both sides for the "retrial" of Galileo in class. You do need not to argue for the same side of the question that your team supported in the trial; nor do you have to choose between one of the two sides presented. Rather you are to defend your own answer, drawing on the information presented in the trial as you see fit. Whatever position you take, however, you must support with evidence gleaned from all relevant assigned readings, the arguments given at the trial by both sides, and your own creative imagination; extra research is not expected. Emphasis will be placed on the quality of the argument mustered in support of the thesis stated -- as if you were writing a legal brief for the court in the case.

1. Your sources. The material you will be expected to draw on includes the books by Langford and Drake, and the essays in the reader by Lindberg/Numbers and Gingerich. In addition, you are expected to pay attention during the trial to arguments made by both sides.

2. Gathering evidence to answer the main question. The best way to do this is to browse all of the reading related to the essay, and to jot down points that clearly relate to the main question. You would do well to consider at least some (probably not all) of the related arguments that are listed in the "Specific Advice" you were given to help you prepare your case for the trial.

After you have thought about the related arguments and collected notes from which you can make your own argument, you must consider the following summary questions:

All things considered, why did the church censure Galileo? Was this a reasonable response to the situation? Why or why not? What lessons do you see in here for modern Christians, as they consider questions involving science and religious faith?

3. Understanding what a thesis is. In this essay, you will develop an argument to answer a specific question: the main question stated above. Your answer will be the thesis of your essay, which should be expressed in two or three sentences (while a single sentence might work in principle, in practice a combination of sentences is probably better for this essay). For some helpful points about constructing your thesis, see pp. 8 and 11-14 in Hacker. The key to a good thesis is to make it as specific as possible, and to make sure that it really does give an answer to the question set for you in this essay. A good question to ask yourself about your thesis is, does it say something definite about the subject, or does it only state what the subject will be? A proper thesis must tell the reader specifically what you will argue for, not just the subject you will be talking about!

For example, the following would is NOT a thesis, because it fails to answer the set question: This essay is about Galileo and the church. We will learn how and why Galileo ran into difficulties with the Roman Catholic Church.

The following is an improvement, because it answers the set question; but it is still NOT a good thesis, because it does not tell us specifically why the church's response was reasonable: Aspects of Galileo's encounter with Rome lead us to think that the church acted reasonably in censuring Galileo.

However, this sentence would help make a very good thesis statement, if it were combined with one or two additional sentences providing specific details. For example: Aspects of Galileo's encounter with Rome lead us to think that the church acted reasonably in censuring Galileo. Galileo's troubles with Rome began with a disagreement about biblical interpretation and escalated into a personal conflict between Galileo and Pope Urban VIII. Given the church's established position on biblical interpretation and the apparent insult that Galileo dealt the Pope, the church was justified in censuring the dissident scientist.

Here is another good example of a thesis paragraph:  By claiming that the words of the Bible are sometimes misleading if taken literally, Galileo proposed an eminently reasonable position for consideration by the Roman church. Yet they responded by hauling him before the Inquisition on charges of heresy, a response that can be attributed only to an irrational fear of change and a desire to humiliate a dissident individual. The church could have done much better; it acted unreasonably.

4. The body of your essay will contain the argument that supports your thesis. The process of putting this argument together is similar to developing a sound case for a court of law. You, as the author, must convince me, the reader, that the case for your answer is good. You need to marshall evidence to make your case as strong as possible. Some good advice is found on pp. 24-25 in Hacker.

The structure of your essay should be as follows: (1) A strong introductory paragraph, which catches the attention of your reader and contains your thesis, clearly stated in two or three sentences. (2) Several paragraphs that contain the various argument you want to use in support of your thesis. Each paragraph should contain a clearly stated topic sentence that states one of your main points, phrased in such a way as to make it clear that this point supports your overall thesis. The paragraph as a whole should give evidence to support that point. See pp. 15-17 in Hacker. (3) A concluding paragraph that sums up the whole argument, leading to a conclusion that forcefully restates your answer to the set question.

5. It is true that quoting from primary sources (as opposed to secondary sources) is usually good scholarly practice; however, in a paper this short you should avoid quoting long passages or too many short passages from any of the selections, whether primary or secondary. When faced with the choice of quoting or paraphrasing, then, you should usually paraphrase, reserving quotations for particularly nice passages that you want to present in the author's own words. If you do quote, however, be sure to follow the instructions on pp. 264-66 in Hacker; you must also document the source as follows: (Drake, 150).

6. Since this essay is an argumentative paper, the content will count fully half of the score. By "content," I mean mostly the adequacy of your thesis and the quality of your supporting arguments, but also the organization you have chosen to impose on the content. Develop the paper clearly and logically. Transitions should be smooth, not mechanical. Pay consistent attention to proportion and emphasis; avoid including extraneous information. Demonstrate control of the material.

The other half of your score will come from "style," by which I mean the fluency, clarity, and originality of your paper. The elements of good style include the following, which I will use as criteria:

• Sentences must be grammatically correct, but also precise and clear in meaning. (If you are unclear about a point of grammar look it up in Hacker.) Sentences have very precise purposes. Don't crowd them with too many ideas, or weaken them by unnecessary repetition. Hacker has excellent advice on pp. 101-2.
• Vary sentence structures, giving attention to style and rhythm. Use sentence structures that are graceful and fluent and suited to the meaning of the paper. Hacker's comments on pp. 82-3 are appropriate here.
• Words do not necessarily mean what you think they mean. Make sure the words you use say what you want them to say. If you have any doubt about the appropriateness of a word, look it up in a dictionary. For the purposes of these papers it is also important that you use as precise a vocabulary as possible. Don't use a general term to describe something if a word with a more restricted meaning is available.
• Avoid "clutter" and hackneyed expressions which "think" for you. Hacker discusses this type of mistake on pp. 102-5.
• Keep the paper virtually free of mechanical errors in grammar, punctuation, and spelling.

Bring four copies to class for peer review as shown in the syllabus. The final draft is due as shown in the syllabus.

General advice:

• Appoint a chief prosecutor, who will lead the presentation of your case in court and coordinate your team in preparing your case. Although this person could offer one or two arguments herself, she should mainly call the experts who will introduce arguments they have prepared. She also needs to respond effectively to questions from the judges, and therefore needs to be familiar with all aspects of the case.
• Decide early which assistant prosecutors will be responsible for preparing which parts of your case. It is advised that this be done in small groups rather than individually, with each group appointing an associate prosecutor to present their arguments in court, when called on by the chief prosecutor. This should be done in the following manner: the chief prosecutor will ask questions of the associate prosecutor, who will answer them.
• Your resources of first priority are the books by Drake and Langford. Be sure to study the relevant portions carefully. You may supplement these with any additional sources that you wish to consult. At the trial, the chief prosecutor will present the court with a full list of all sources used in preparing your case, so keep track of any additional sources you employ.

Specific advice:

Your job is to make as strong as case as you can for the reasonableness of the church's position that Galileo should be censured for teaching Copernicanism. Your case will stand or fall on your ability to argue points such as the following, using evidence gathered from your resources:

• Galileo was acting in ways that are dangerous to the holy faith, by interpreting the Bible for himself rather than accepting the legitimate authority of church councils. If everyone did this, it could lead to the fragmentation of Christendom and, even worse, spread false teachings about salvation that might have eternal consequences. The church responded reasonably, treating him like a Protestant heretic, but more gently.

 
• By questioning the literal interpretation of certain biblical passages (such as Joshua 10:12-14), Galileo was undermining the authority of scripture. Why should we trust biblical statements about the sons of Abraham -- or the resurrection of Christ -- if we cannot trust biblical statements about the sun and the earth? The church acted reasonably in moving to silence him.

 
• Galileo accepted the church's position that a reinterpretation of scripture should not take place, in the absence of demonstrative proof that the traditional interpretation must be wrong. He lacked such proof, but arrogantly proceeded to insist on a reinterpretation anyway. The church's response was entirely reasonable.

• Galileo's evidence for the motion of the earth was inconclusive at best, and hardly sufficient for reasonable people to be convinced that it was stronger than evidence to the contrary from common sense, ordinary observation, Aristotelian physics, the Bible, and astronomy. Not even Tycho Brahe, the greatest astronomer of his age, could bring himself to believe such nonsense.

 
• Galileo was simply an arrogant, ambitious, abrasive person who made bitter enemies when others would be content to disagree agreeably. His personal insult to the pope was just the final step in a series of personality disputes that led to his condemnation. Any reasonable person would find his conduct reprehensible.

General advice:

• Appoint a chief defender, who will lead the presentation of your case in court and coordinate your team in preparing your case. Although this person could offer one or two arguments herself, she should mainly call the experts who will introduce arguments they have prepared. She also needs to respond effectively to questions from the judges, and therefore needs to be familiar with all aspects of the case.
• Decide early which assistant defenders will be responsible for preparing which parts of your case. It is advised that this be done in small groups rather than individually, with each group appointing an associate defender to present their arguments in court, when called on by the chief defender. This should be done in the following manner: the chief defender will ask questions of the associate defender, who will answer them.
• Your resources of first priority are the texts by Drake and Langford. Be sure to study the relevant portions carefully. You may supplement these with any additional sources that you wish to consult. At the trial, the chief defender will present the court with a full list of all sources used in preparing your case, so keep track of any additional sources you employ.

Specific advice:

Your job is to make as strong as case as you can for the unreasonableness of the church's position that Galileo should be censured for teaching Copernicanism. Your case will stand or fall on your ability to argue points such as the following, using evidence gathered from your resources:

• Granted that Galileo interpreted the Bible for himself on matters involving astronomy, this was out of a desire to prevent the church from foolishly condemning as heresy and idea that he was convinced is true. How can the truth lead people into damnation? The church's fears were unreasonable.

 
• Although he questioned the literal interpretation of certain biblical passages (such as Joshua 10:12-14), Galileo did not seek to undermine the authority of scripture; nor did he actually do so. Interpretation is not the same as inspiration. The purpose of the Bible is to teach the way of salvation, not to teach astronomy. A reasonable person would not have responded as the church did.

 
• It is never arrogant for a person to state very strongly what they believe to be true. Regardless of what principles Galileo may have agreed to accept, the church could not reasonably have expected him to deny his convictions.

 
• Perhaps Galileo was unable to convince everyone that the earth moves, but the sheer unwillingness of his opponents to entertain this ideas seriously is evidence of their unreasonableness. After all, they turned out to be wrong, didn't they?

 
• Galileo's personality, whatever it may have been like, is not the issue here: truth is the issue, and Galileo had truth on his side. Besides, the pope was mislead by his advisors to think that Galileo insulted him, and the forged document used against Galileo at his trial would not pass muster in any reasonably objective court. The church did not act reasonably by censuring him; they were simply ignorant of the truth and needlessly fearful of his ideas.

Opening statement, prosecution: 3 mins

Opening statement, defense: 3 mins

Prosecution's case: 25 mins
 

Defense's case, incl. rebuttal of prosecution's case: 30 mins

Prosecution's rebuttal of defense's case: 10 mins

THE VERDICT will be delivered at the next class meeting.

Basic description: You will write a 2-to-3-page report about a book dealing with any aspect of Christianity and science that interests you: please, do choose something that you think you would like to read, if you only had time! You will become familiar with the book (though you won't have to read much of it), locate and read some reviews of the book in the library, and summarize what you learned about the book's content and what others have said about it. Finally, you will state whether you really would want to read the book, given what you have learned about it.

1. Finding a book: The first thing to do is to find an appropriate book. There are just three ground rules:

(1) It must be a book, not a journal article or a book review, and must be at least 100 pages long. It may not be a collection of articles by various authors; the entire book must be written by the same person(s), though works by multiple authors are acceptable.

(2) The book must be about some aspect of the relationship between Christianity and science. Here we understand "science" to mean the natural sciences -- e.g., astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology, geology, environmental science -- but also cognitive science and psychology, which can be rather closely related to the natural sciences.

(3) You must be able to find at least two reviews of the book (preferably more than two) in periodicals.

Once you have found a book that meets these criteria, it is a good idea to show the book to Dr. Davis, who can confirm that it would be an appropriate choice. NOTE: Dr. Davis would be happy to recommend specific authors/titles for your consideration, if you can suggest a specific area of interest.

When you have found a book you are happy with, fill out the details requested on the attached form, and submit it in class as shown in the syllabus.

2. Browsing the book. Once you have found a book that seems appropriate, you should familiarize yourself with its contents. You don't need to read the book to do this; you simply need to read in the book a little. Some suggestions:

If it is a paperback or a hardback with a dust jacket, read the information on the back cover. Skim the preface and introduction, asking yourself what the book is about (general topics) and what main claims it makes about those topics. Also examine the table of contents -- chapter headings can often help you see where a book goes in its main line of argumentation. Skim the conclusion, even if it is fairly lengthy. Finally, if you still aren't sure what the book says, browse a few chapters to get a better sense of the contents.

3. Locating reviews. You probably know that CD-ROMs and databases (such as those accessed through Firstsearch) contain book reviews. There are also some older, printed sources to book reviews that must not be overlooked if your book is more than about ten years old. A reference librarian can help you find these. Use the eletronic and printed tools to find several reviews of the book; if we don't get the journal in which a particular review appeared, use Inter-Library Loan to obtain it, and DO THIS NOW: if you wait a few days, you might not get the review in time to use it. All together, you must have at least two reviews.

Once you have found the reviews that we have in the LRC collection, photocopy them. They will become the basis for your report, and the copies must be submitted with your draft.

4. Writing your report. Begin by giving full bibliographic information about your book, single-spaced, as in the following example:

James R. Moore, The Future of Science and Belief: Theological Views in the Twentieth Century. Milton Keynes: The Open University Press, 1981.

The main body of the paper should be double-spaced and should start with a section that identifies the main topics covered by the book and summarizes the main claims about those topics made by the author(s). It is up to you to decide how many paragraphs you need to do this. Since you haven't read the book, it is not appropriate to quote the book; simply review its contents in your own words.

The next section should summarize a few, selected evaluations of the book by reviewers, again using your own words. You need not identify which reviewer said which things, but the language of your report should make it clear that you are stating the ideas of others. (You will be listing the reviews you used at the end of your report, giving proper credit at that point.)

Finally, state whether or not you would like to read this book yourself, now that you know more about it. Give a few reasons for your decision.

5. List the reviews you used at the end of your report, giving full, single-spaced citations as follows; the second example shows how to cite a review that has a title of its own. It is the author of the review, not the author of the book, who should be listed.

Edward B. Davis in Christian Scholar's Review 18 (1989), 304-306.

Edward B. Davis, "Christianity and Early Modern Science: Beyond War and Peace?" Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith (June 1994), 133-5.

6. Length, etc. AT THE END OF YOUR DRAFT, STATE STATE THE ACTUAL WORD LENGTH. (You can find the word length under "File/Document Info" in Wordperfect 6.1). In order to receive full credit, your draft needs to be 600-900 words in length.

The essay, attached with a paper clip to copies of the reviews you found, is due as shown in the syllabus.

In your blue book, write a thoughtful response to the following set of questions. Be sure to organize your answer coherently and to state your points clearly and directly. Criteria for evaluation include clarity, coherence, specificity, completeness, and depth of understanding. Answers that are particularly original or creative will not go unrewarded.

Essay question: Early in the course you were asked to write your own statement on science and faith. In this essay, you will revisit your statement, applying insights gleaned from the course, addressing the following questions in any order you wish:

In the lectures and readings you were introduced to several models for relating science and Christian faith; some of these are further developed and critiqued in John Haught's book. (a) Of all the models you have been shown in the course, which ones do you find least attractive personally? What specifically do you not like about these models? What historical and/or contemporary examples of these models have we encountered? (b) Which of these models do you find most attractive personally? What specifically do you like about these models? What historical and/or contemporary examples of this model have we encountered? (c) Which of these models (if any) does your own early statement resemble most closely? What specific resemblances do you find? If you were to rewrite your statement now, what (if anything) would you want to change, and why? When all is said and done, then, WHAT IS NOW YOUR VIEW OF HOW SCIENCE AND FAITH ARE RELATED?