Another title that provides some good background on the history of thought is Diogenes Allen’s Philosophy for Understanding Theology. While it is not directly focused on the issue from the perspective of the history of science, it does provide a very good summary of why and how thinking has (d)evolved to the fragmented epistemology we have today. Though it does treat, if somewhat obliquely, some aspects of this issue vis-a-vis the history of science.

There are, as far as I can tell, two different orthodox perspectives on the relation between philosophy and science, stemming essentially from epistemological differences. One can take Stanley Jaki’s view, for instance, stemming from Pierre Duhem, which lauds the development of modern science but shows its roots in Catholic theology. This view tends to be, at least implicitly, favorable to the separation of philosophy from theology, and then of science from philosophy. It is very strong on the proper demarcations between them. It holds that modern science does indeed penetrate the inner workings of the material universe in a deeper manner than any form of pre-modern science. If one wants to push this view, then obviously anything by Jaki is worth picking up. He has an extensive catalog to choose from. This view is a stronger form of realism than the alternative mentioned below. T.F. Torrance, from my cursory readings of him, might also fit in this mold.

The other view stems from phenomenology. This view holds that modern science is tied less to a uniquely penetrating analysis of the universe than it is to a peculiarly techne-oriented mindset. Husserl would not have put the matter this bluntly, of course, but it is present implicitly in him and came out in his followers. Alexander Koyre has some interesting stuff in this regard (though I don’t believe he was an orthodox Catholic). I think that this view influenced the ressourcement theologians, who were not happy about the separation of philosophy from theology, and of science from philosophy. Bouyer’s “Cosmos,” if it is properly understood, is all about this (note that Jaki does not care for this book). Bouyer roots all human thought and culture, including modern science, in theurgy, both historically and by reason of the natural dialectic of the human mind.

Another book, which I have difficulty categorizing, is Wolfgang Smith’s “The Wisdom of Ancient Cosmology.” This is a highly intriguing series of essays. He presents some rad-trad notions which may or may not be an issue for some (I get a kick out of his “perennialist” ontology, but the average Thomist probably wouldn’t care for it).

I can think of no books though that might serve as reading options for seventh graders, however. All of the above would have to be translated to a seventh grade level of understanding.

The Institute for the Study of Nature is starting up a website with some good articles available right now that would be helpful. As for book recommendations, I will have asked Hierothee for some ideas. There are some good general books, like Stephen Barr’s whom I generally like very much. However, I do think that he unintentionally falls prey to some materialist/mechanistic presuppositions so without a critical eye some of his thinking could lead one down an almost Kantian path.

Interesting that you pointed out (well, the speaker pointed out, but same deal there) how both ID and science make the same mistake in this regard, which is (as I understood you) that they essentially both seem to believe that having knowledge of science is all you need to fully understand something. Too often, scientists do not understand what they are really learning!

Maybe this is why religion and science seem to always be at odds from each other, from the Age of Reason to the present. Science has become a pseudo-religion in some aspects. This is why it seems odd for scientists to be religious (most are not outwardly so), since this would be akin to someone being Catholic *AND* Muslim. I do wish that science would get back to its roots - namely the inquisitive nature humans possess and our unavoidable trend to want to use the laws that govern our universe to “mess with it” (scientists are really just playing with nature).

Now, should ID be taught in schools? Well, I’m still not convinced on that one. Let me make it clear, I’m not against ID theory in science classes altogether, but I do not see a reason to invoke a theory that really hasn’t had a chance to test itself in the scientific arena. If ID is really science, then let it grow on its own within the scientific community and let its theories be tested (or not?). I would *positively insist* however, to teach the fact that evolution is only a theory. There is a mountain of data supporting it, but since we (read: “scientists”) have not been able to adequately propose a model for *how* it works, it should not be thought of as if it were like gravity. I could elaborate a bit on that, but not now - this post is long. If you’ve read this far, congratulations and thanks.

That is all, this post is long and probably entirely too tangental, but there’s my 2 cents (more like 2 dollars) on the issue.