First, I received the following in an email: A book, For the Glory of God by Rodney Stark, was recently published by Princeton University Press that contains a chapter, God's Handiwork: The Religious Origins of Science which places our current struggle over origins in a much larger context: the deliberate diminution of importance of religion in the development of science that can be traced back to so called "enlightenment". The following paragraph from the introduction to the book gives an overview of the chapter: "Chapter 2 shows that there was no "scientific revolution" that finally burst through the superstitious barriers of faith, but that the flowering of science that took place in the sixteenth century was the normal, gradual, and direct outgrowth of Scholasticism and the medieval universities. Indeed, theological assumptions unique to Christianity explain why science was born only in Christian Europe. Contrary to the received wisdom, religion and science not only were compatible; they were inseparable. Hence the last portion of the chapter demonstrates that the battle over evolution is not a conflict between religion and science but between True Believers on both sides." In line with this, I find theistic evolutionists to be in the impossible position of trying to pretend they are true believers for both sides! The close interplay between Christianity and science is also explored in The Soul of Science by Nancy Pearcey and Charles Thaxton. The beginning of chapter 5, on biology, for instance, states, If any area of science seems more clearly hostile to Christian faith than others, it is biology. The evolution controversy that began in the last nineteenth century became a rallying point for anyone opposed to Christianity or the church. Reading the typical history textbook today, one gets almost no clue to the rich interaction that existed for three hundred years between Christian faith and the study of living things. Near the end of this chapter, they add the following interesting observation, with which, by the way, I fully agree: Clearly, science is not simply a matter of observing facts. Every scientific theory also expresses a worldview. Philosophical preconceptions determine where facts are sought, how experiments are designed, and which conclusions are drawn from them. It is only by grasping the worldview traditions that have shaped the development of biology that we really understand what motivated a Cuvier, a Buffon, or a Darwin. We end this chapter, as we began it, with the quotation by William Coleman -- that the advocates of all three historical traditions "ultimately borrowed their biology from their metaphysics."