TOWARD UNDERSTANDING THOMAS KUHN

On occasions in history certain books have come to the forefront on a popular level to evoke radical change in society with the popularizing of an idea. The writings of Martin Luther in German, the language of the people, including a German translation of the Bible, set flames to the Reformation. John Calvin’s Institutes, originally written in French for the people, had the same effect. The writings of Marx and Engels set in motion a whole movement for social transformation that now shapes three-fourths of the world. The works of certain men in the scientific community have also had a phenomenal effect on man’s understanding of himself, his world, and his universe.

One book that has come to the forefront as an attempt to explain the radical transformations in science is Thomas Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions. While this book is somewhat controversial within and without the scientific community it is an attempt to analyze parallel movements that lead to the radical shift in the way men understand the universe and a radical shift in the scientific enterprise.

In trying to gain an understanding of Kuhn’s book, this writer could not help but see Kuhn as a keen student of the scientific community much like Alex de Tocqueville was a student of social science.

As a serious student of the conditions necessary for revolution, Tocqueville tried in the late 1840s to warn the governing powers in France about the possibility of overthrow. He was convinced that the government and the Court had so offended the people that democratic passions would soon overturn the government. On January 27, 1848, Tocqueville, a deputy, rose in the Chamber of Deputies. “They tell me that there is no danger because there are no disturbances,” he said. “They say that as there is no visible perturbation on the surface of society, there are no revolutions beneath it. Gentlemen, allow me to say that I think you are wrong. Disturbance is not abroad but it has laid hold of men’s minds.” Within four weeks the people revolted, the king fled, and the Second Republic was proclaimed. (Ferguson, The Aquarian Conspiracy, p. 37)

What Tocqueville understood about social science Kuhn is attempting to understand about the physical science (and resulting sciences). As this paper attempts to move toward an understanding of Kuhn’s book, rather than analyzing its content, there are two broad ideas that must come under scrutiny: revolution and paradigm. Without attempting to offer a critique of Kuhn’s book, this paper now moves to gain an understanding of these two concepts.

I. Toward Understanding Revolution

One basic problem that must be approached in understanding Kuhn’s analysis is arriving at an understanding and definition of the term “revolution.” After one comes to an understanding of this concept then one can seek an understanding of how Kuhn uses the term in reference to his analysis of the history and development of science.

A. A History of Change

The term “revolution” whether in English, Latin, or other languages) has gone through the process of slow change and transformation. And, if one is not careful, it is easy to get lost in the ambiguous definitions of the term. A history of the development and changes in meaning is necessary. Unfortunately, this is lacking in Kuhn’s analysis. However, such an historical account does exist in the writings of researchers of like concern with Kuhn. See for example, I. Bernard Cohen’s book, Revolution in Science, section IV, pages 197-269. This book gives a thorough examination of the development of the term from its ambiguous beginnings, until it come to mean, in this writer’s words, a radical discontinuity and change. It is in this vein that “scientific revolution” becomes used in Kuhn’s work. See also The Journal of the History of Ideas, vol. 37, 1976, an article by I.B. Cohen entitled, “Eighteenth Century Origins of the Concept of Scientific Revolution” (pp. 257-288). Here Cohen reasons that it was d’Alembert and Diderot who were chiefly responsible for the popularization of the interpretation of the history of science in terms of revolution.

Stanley L. Jaki criticizes Kuhn’s thesis and use of paradigm and revolution as a sort of historicism. He reminds his readers that Kuhn’s critics “paid less attention to the lack of rigor in Kuhn’s use of the word revolution which played an equally important role in his theory” (The Road of Science and the Ways of God, p. 273). And, while Jaki does not fully develop his criticism along these lines, he does serve to remind Kuhn’s readers that an understanding of Kuhn’s use of “revolution” must be understood before one can comprehend Kuhn’s thesis. In fact, the use of “revolution” as a principle of radical discontinuity of one science for change into another understanding of science lies at the foundation of Kuhn’s book. Jaki says again, “He had hardly passed the midpoint of his book when he declared that its remainder served to demonstrate the striking similarity of paradigm changes to political crises resolved by revolutions” (The Road to Science, p. 237). Kuhn believes that scientific change (revolution) occurs in parallel fashion to political change (revolution). He seeks to demonstrate this as fact through the second half of his book. This is how one can determine whether a revolution has actually occurred in science—the “assumption” of revolution.

B. The “Assumption” of Revolution

Kuhn seeks to defend his position that science changes in a revolutionary fashion rather than in an evolutionary fashion by paralleling political and scientific change. “In the face of the vast and essential differences between political and scientific development, what parallelism can justify the metaphor that finds revolutions in both?” (Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, p. 92) Kuhn then moves to define two parallels.

1. Stagnate institutions replaced by new ones in keeping with current need.

2. This change always goes radically against the structure of the first institution.

Kuhn develops the first parallel as follows:

One aspect of the parallelism must already be apparent. Political revolutions are inaugurated by a growing sense, often restricted to a segment of the political community, that existing institutions have ceased adequately to meet the problems posed by an environment that they have in part created. In much the same way, scientific revolutions are inaugurated by a growing sense, again often restricted to a narrow subdivision of the scientific community, that an existing paradigm has ceased to function adequately in the exploration of an aspect of nature to which that paradigm itself had previously led the way. In both political and scientific development the sense of malfunction that can lead to crisis is prerequisite to revolution (p. 92).

The second parallel has to do with the crisis that comes to exist either in the political life of a nation, or the scientific understanding of the scientific community. This crisis leads to those defending the older institution and those defending the new institution, or way of doing things. “Political revolutions aim to change political institutions in ways that those institutions themselves prohibit” (p. 93). Kuhn and his supporters look to the actual development of science to defend this position of revolution over evolution. A few examples will serve to illustrate this.

C. Historical Examples

Alexandre Koyre’s work, The Astronomical Revolution, is one example of using Kuhn’s thesis as a framework to understand the radical shift from the Ptolemaic understanding of the universe to the Copernican model, and to the latest model. Copernicus represents a radical break from earlier views of astronomy, even though Copernicus’ understanding and method did not radically differ from that of Ptolemy (and was later replaced). In fact, Koyre begins his book with a section entitled “Copernicus and the Cosmic Overthrow.” He then goes on to establish the leaders of the radical discontinuity of the Ptolemaic system in favor of the Copernican change, men such as Kepler, Borelli, Tycho Brahe, and others. The impact of this new understanding of the universe had a revolutionary impact on Western society.

History has provided man with other examples of this radical shift from one understanding to another. A revolution in scientific understanding was caused by Newton in mathematics with the invention of calculus, and the application of mathematics to physics and astronomy. A biological revolution was instigated by Vesalius, Paracelsus, and Harvey as they moved to replace the Galenic doctrines of understanding the human body.

Without going into detail, this writer refers the reader to Cohen’s book, Revolution in Science, to gain an understanding of the revolutionary ideas of men like Charles Darwin, Sigmund Freud, and Albert Einstein, who along with many others evoked a revolution in their respective sciences.

But just as important to understanding Kuhn as a discussion of “revolution” is a discussion of “paradigm” must be taken up. This discussion will serve to further clarify Kuhn’s thesis. With that in mind, this paper now turns to a discussion to help move toward understanding paradigm.

II. Toward Understanding Paradigm

Perhaps the most misunderstood concept underlying Kuhn’s work on scientific revolutions is his use of the term “paradigm.” This is a concept that he has come increasingly under attack concerning. Indeed, Kuhn has sought to defend himself from many of his critics by writing further on the concept. Still it is a concept that is difficult to understand. First, then, one must search for a definition of the term.

A. Searching for a Definition

Attempting to define “paradigm” is a difficult process. Kuhn uses the term in a number of different ways in his book. Margaret Masterman, in Lakatos and Musgrave’s Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, attempts to identify the various categories of meaning that Kuhn gives to the term in her essay “The Nature of Paradigm.” Masterman says, “On my counting, he uses ‘paradigm’ in not less than twenty-one different senses in his 1962 edition, possibly more, not less.” (p. 61) Here is Masterman’s list of Kuhn’s twenty-one senses of paradigm:

(1) As an universally recognized scientific achievement (p. x);

(2) As a myth (p. 2);

(3) As a ‘philosophy’, or constellation of questions (pp. 4-5);

(4) As a textbook, or classic work (p. 10);

(5) As a whole tradition, and in some sense, as a model (pp. 10-11);

(6) As a scientific achievement (p. 11);

(7) As an analogy (p. 14);

(8) As a successful metaphysical speculation (pp. 17-18);

(9) As an accepted device in common law (p. 23);

(10) As a source of tools (p. 37);

(11) As a standard illustration (p. 43);

(12) As a device, or type of instrumentation (pp. 59-60);

(13) As an anomalous pack of cards (pp. 62-63);

(14) As a machine-tool factory (p. 76);

(15) As a gestalt figure which can be seen in two ways (p. 85);

(16) As a set of political institutions (p. 92);

(17) As a ‘standard’ applied to quasi-metaphysics (p. 102);

(18) As an organizing principle which can govern perception itself (p. 112);

(19) As a general epistemological viewpoint (p. 120);

(20) As a new way of seeing (p. 121);

(21) As something which defines a broad sweep of reality (p. 128).

While one may see some of these uses as being a bit trite, they nevertheless illustrate the necessity of coming to an understanding of Kuhn’s uses of paradigm. What does he mean by the term? Masterman goes on to put these twenty-one differing uses of the term into three broad categories:

(1) Metaphysical paradigms—equaling those sues in which Kuhn “equates ‘paradigm’ with a set of beliefs” as a metaphysical notion or entity, rather than a scientific one.

(2) Sociological paradigms—when used in a sociological sense, i.e., as a universally recognized scientific achievement (p. x).

(3) Construct paradigms—when the term is used in a more concrete way, such as an actual textbook or classic work (p. 10).

The rest of Masterman’s paper is an attempt to coming to an understanding of the uses of “paradigm” in these three contexts. Obviously this varied use of the term by Kuhn has led to much criticism, and rightfully so. Jaki, for example, says, “While Kuhn himself admitted that he used the word as a substitute for ‘a variety of familiar notions,’ minor consternation was felt when it was pointed out that he had attached to the word at least twenty-one different meanings within the covers of a not very long book.” (The Road of Science, p. 273)

Masterman concludes her analysis of Kuhn’s use of paradigm by giving it the following guidelines:

I wish to say that a paradigm draws a ‘crude analogy’; and further to define a crude analogy as an analogy which has the following logical characteristics:

(a) a crude analogy is finite in extensibility.

(b) it is incomparable with any other crude analogy.

(c) it is extensible only by an inferential process of ‘replication’, which can be examined by using the computer-programming technique of ‘inexact matching’, but not by the normal methods of examining inference (p. 79).

If this writer may oversimplify the discussion, it seems to him that “paradigm” is the structural standard upon which a given group of people (i.e., scientists/theologians/governments) bases their actions and concerns. Kuhn openly acknowledges the vagueness of the term in his paper “Reflections on my critics,” (Lakatos and Musgrave, pp. 231-278) and in his Postscript to the second edition of Structure of Scientific Revolutions. In his Postscript he says, “A paradigm is what a scientific community shares, and conversely, a scientific community consists of men who share a paradigm” (p. 176). In this sense a paradigm becomes an unwritten structure that sets off a group of people in their understanding.

In attempting to move toward understanding Kuhn and paradigm, revolution comes again into play as that thing which causes a shift from one paradigm (way of doing things?) for another paradigm. Cohen has attempted to define what brings about a revolution in science and thus a shift in paradigm.

B. Paradigm Shift

Cohen attempts to give four tests in which one can determine whether a scientific revolution, or paradigm shift has occurred. First, Cohen describes Kuhn’s understanding in this way: “Kuhn’s characterization (1962) of a revolution in science as a shift in ‘paradigms’ (to use his original language) that arises when a series of ‘anomalies’ has produced a ‘crisis’ helps us in our attempt to formulate a definition and test.” (Revolution in Science, p. 40) Cohen sees the process of revolution or paradigm shift as moving from anomaly to crisis to a new paradigm. His four tests are given as follows:

1. The testimony of witnesses: the judgment of scientists and nonscientists of that time.

2. An examination of later documentary history of the subject.

3. The judgment of competent historians, notably historians of science and philosophy.

4. The general opinion of working scientists in the field today. (pp. 41-44)

Though Cohen’s analysis differs slightly from Kuhn’s, it still gives the reader criteria for judging historical events which have been considered revolutionary in the history of science. The accumulation of anomalies forces the “normal science” (to use Kuhn’s words) into a crisis, for this crisis resolution is only found in a revolution, a paradigm shift, to a new model of understanding and doing science.

Selective Bibliography

Bellone, Enrico. A World on Paper: Studies in the Scientific Revolution. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1980.

Cedarbaum, D.G. “Paradigms.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science. Vol. 14, 1983.

Cohan, A.S. Theories of Revolution. London: Nelson, 1975.

Cohen, I. Bernard. “The Many Faces of the History of Science.” The Future of History. Charles F. Delzell, ed., Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press, 1977.

________. The Newtonian Revolution. Cambridge University Press, 1980.

________. Revolution in Science. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1985.

Crombie, A.C. “Historians and Scientific Revolution” Physics. Vol. 11, 1969.

Ferguson, Marilyn. The Aquarian Conspiracy. Los Angeles: J.P. Tarcher, 1980.

Gutting, G., ed. Paradigms and Revolutions. University of Notre Dame Press, 1980.

Hacking, Ian, ed. Scientific Revolutions. Oxford University Press, 1981.

Hollinger, David A. “T.S. Kuhn’s Theory of Science and Its Implications for History.” American Historical Review. Vol. 78, 1973.

Jaki, Stanley L. The Relevance of Physics. Chicago University Press, 1966.

________. The Road of Science and the Ways of God. Chicago, 1978.

Kazin, Alfred. “The Freudian Revolution Analyzed.” The Freudian Paradigm: Psycho-Analysis and Scientific Thought. Chicago: Nelson-Hall, 1977.

Koyre’, Alexandre. The Astronomical Revolution. Trans. By Dr. R.E.W. Maddison. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1973.

Krammick, I. “Reflections on Revolution: Definition and Explanation in Recent Scholarship.” History and Theory. Vol. 11, 1972.

Kuhn, T. The Copernican Revolution. Harvard University Pres, 1957.

________. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press, 1970.

________. “Second Thoughts on Paradigms” Structures of Scientific Theories. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2^nd edition, 1977.

Lakatos, I. and A. Musgrave, editors. Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. London: Cambridge University Press, 1965.

Toulmin, S. “Conceptual Revolutions in Science.” Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Vol. 3, 1968.

A Select Bibliography: Problems in Epistemology

Albert, Hans. Treatise on Critical Reason. Princeton University Press, 1985.

Astley, Jeffrey. “Ian Ramsey and the Problem of Religious Knowledge.” The Journal of Theological Studies 35 (October 1984): 414-440.

Ayer, A.J. Language, Truth and Logic. NY: Dover Pub., 1952.

________. The Problem of Knowledge. Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1966.

Blackstone, William T. The Problem of Religious Knowledge. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1963.

Bouillard, Henri. The Knowledge of God. NY: Herder and Herder, 1968.

Bradley, Denis. “Transcendental Critique and Realist Metaphysics”. The Thomist 39 (1975): 631-667.

Buber, Martin. The Knowledge of Man. London: George Allen and Unwin, 1965.

Burks, A.W. Chance, Cause, Reason: An Inquiry into the Nature of Scientific Evidence. University of Chicago Press, 1977.

Carr, G. Lloyd. “Three in Moral Context”. The Gordon Review 11 (1968): 38-49.

Cassirer, Ernst. The Problem of Knowledge. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1950.

Chamberlain, Gary L. “Faith as Knowing: A Study of the Epistemology in Faith Development Theory”. The ILIFF Review 38 (Spring 1981): 3-14.

Derr, Thomas S. “Science and Theology”. The Ecumenical Review 28 (April, 1976): 131-140.

Forshey, Gerald E. “Popular Religion, Film and the American Psyche”. Christian Century 97 (1980): 489-493.

Gadamer, Hans-George. Philosophical Hermeneutics. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1976.

Gilson, Etienne. Thomist Realism and the Critique of Knowledge. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1986.

Hefling, Charles C. “Liturgy and Myth: A Theological Approach Based on the Methodology of Bernard Lonergan”. Anglican Theological Review 61 (April, 1979): 200-223).

Heinemann, F.H. “The Principle of Alternatives”. Hibbert Journal 59 (1961): 268-275.

Hunnex, Milton D. Chronological and Thematic Charts of Philosophies and Philosophers. Grand Rapids: Zonderan Pub. House, 1986.

Isaacs, Peter. “Theology, Rationality and Contemporary Epistemology”. St. Mark’s Review 102 (June, 1980): 13-18.

Kant, Immanuel. Critique of Pure Reason. NY: Modern Library, 1958.

Klienfelter, Donald S. “Our Knowledge of God in the Theology of John Baillie”. Scottish Journal of Theology 30 (1977): 401-427.

Lee, Ronald R. “Epistemology and Pastoral Therapy”. Journal of Pastoral Care 35 (1981): 111-119.

Levi, Isaac. The Enterprise of Knowledge: An Essay on Knowledge, Creedal Probability and Chance. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1980.

Lovejoy, Arthur O. Epistemology. LaSalle, IL: The Open Court Pub. Co., 1930.

Lundin, Roger. The Responsibility of Hermeneutics. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1985.

Lutzer, Erwin W. The Necessity of Ethical Absolutes. Zondervan, 1981.

McCarthy, Harold E. “Knowledge Skepticism and the Individual”. Philosophy East and West 14 (1964): 353-369.

McKelvey, Charles. “Christian Epistemology and Social Scientific Method: Bernard Lonergan’s Achievement”. Thought: A Review of Culture and Idea 59 (1984): 334-347.

McNicholl, A.J. “Epistemology and Metaphysics”. Angelicum 38 (1961): 200-212.

McRae, Robert. The Problem of the Unity of the Sciences: Bacon to Kant. University of Toronto Press, 1961.

Matilal, Bimal Krishma. Epistemology, Logic and Grammar in India. Mouton: The Hague, 1971.

Mayor, Robert J.G. Reason and Common Sense. London: Routledge/Kegan Paul, 1952.

Milavec, Donald A. “The Bible as Inspiring and Authorizing Incompatible Doctrines and Practices”. Eglise et Theologie 7 (1976): 189-218.

Mueller, Franz H. “Comparative Social Philosophies: Individualism, Socialism, Solidarism”. Thought: A Review of Culture and Idea 60 (1985): 297-309.

Olds, Mason. “Varieties of Nineteenth Century Unitarianism.” Religious Humanism 16 (1982): 150-160.

Painter, John. “Johannine Symbols: A Case Study in Epistemology.” Journal of Theology for Southern Africa 27 (June, 1979): 26-41.

Pruyser, Paul W. Between Belief and Unbelief. NY: Harper and Row, 1974.

Shoto, Hiatt. “Recent Japanese Philosophical Thought 1862-1962: A Survey.” Journal of Religion 5 (1967): 63-73.

Smith, Norman K. A Commentary to Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason. Atlantic Highlands, NY: Humanities Press, 1984.

Weigel, Gustave and Arthur G. Madden. Knowledge: Its Values and Limits. Englewood Cliffs, NY: Prentice-Hall, 1961.

Whitehead, Alfred North. The Function of Reason. Boston: Beacon Press, 1958.

Wolfe, David L. Epistemology: The Justification of Belief. Downers Grove, IL: Inter Varsity Press, 1982.

Stanley L. Jaki Bibliography

The Relevance of Physics. University of Chicago Press, 1966.

Brain, Mind and Computers. South Bend, IN: Gateway Editions, 1969.

The Paradox of Olbers’ Paradox. Herder and Herder, 1969.

The Milky Way: An Elusive Road for Science. Science History Pubs., 1972.

Science and Creation: From Eternal Cycles to an Oscillating Universe. Scottish Academic Press; Science History Publications, 1974.

Planets and Planetarians: A History of Theories of the Origin of Planetary Systems. Scottish Academic Press; John Wiley, 1978.

The Road of Science and the Ways to God. University of Chicago Press, 1978. This is Dr. Jaki’s Gifford Lectures, University of Edinburgh, 1974-75 and 1975-76.

The Origin of Science and the Science of Its Origin. Gateway Editions, 1978, Fremantle Lectures, Balliol College, Oxford, 1977.

Cosmos and Creator. Scottish Academic Press, 1980.

Angels, Apes and Men. LaSalle, IL: Sherwood Sugden, soon to be published.

Translations with Introduction and Notes:

Giordano Bruno, The Ash Wednesday Supper, Mouton, 1975.

J.H. Lambert, Cosmological Letters on the Arrangement of the World Edifice, Science History Publications; Scottish Academic Press, 1976.

Immanuel Kant, cosmological Letters on the Arrangement of the World Edifice, Scottish Academic Press, 1981.

Major Essays

Jaki, Stanley. Paul Duhem, To Save the Phenomena. University of Chicago Press, 1969.

________. The System of the World. University of Chicago Press, contracted.

________. Etienne Gilson, Methodical Realism. South Bend: Gateway Editions, 1981.

________. “The Metaphysics of Discovery and the Rediscovery of Metaphysics.” Proceedings of the Catholic Philosophical Association. 1978, 52: 188-196.

________. “Lambert and the Watershed of Cosmology.” Scientia, 1978, 113: 75-95.

________. “The History of Science and the Idea of an Oscillating Universe.” Cosmology, History, and Theology, W. Yourgrau and A.P. Breck, editors. NY: lenum Pub. Corp., 1977, pp. 233-251.

________. “The Role of Faith in Physics.” Zygon, June, 1967, 2.2: 187-202.

________. “Theological Aspects of Creative Science.” Creation, Christ and Culture. Richard W.A. McKinnery, editor, Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1976, pp. 149-166.

________. “Chance or Reality: Interaction in Nature versus Measurement in Physics.” Paper given at the 5^th International Humanistic Symposium.

________. “God and Creation: A Biblical-Scientific Reflection.” Theology Today, July 1973, 30:2: 111-120.

________. “The Forces and Powers of Nature.” Theology Today, April 1979, 36:1:87-91.

________. “Goethe and the Physicists.” American Journal of Physics, March 1967, 35:3:200-210.

_________. “The Chaos of Scientific Cosmology.” The Nature of the Physical Universe. D. Huff and O. Prewett, eds., NY: John Wiley and Sons, 1979, pp. 103-104.

________. “Knowledge in an Age of Science.” University of Windsor Review, 1975, 4:1:80-103.

________. “A Hundred Years of Two Cultures.” University of Windsor Review, 1975; 11:1:55-79.

Bibliography Concerning the Christian Faith

And the Philosophy of Science/Cosmology

Avis, Paul. “Apologist from the World of Science: John Polkinghorne FRS Scottish Journal of Theology 43 (1990): 485-502.

Barbour, Ian. “Religion in an Age of Science: The Gifford Lectures” Vol. 1, San Francisco, Harpercollins, 1990.

Barrow, John D. Theories of Everything: The Quest for the Ultimate Explanation. NY: Fawcett Columbine, 1991.

Capra, Fritjof. The Tao of Physics. 2^nd edition, revised. NY: Bantam, 1988.

Cohen, J. Bernard. Revolution in Science. Cambridge: Belknap Press, 1985.

Davies, P. and Gribbin, J. The Matter Myth: Dramatic Discoverings that Challenge Our Understanding of Physical Reality. NY: Simon and Schuster, 1992.

Dyson, Freeman. Infinite in All Directions (1985 Gifford Lectures). NY: Harper & Row, 1989.

Ferris, Timothy. Coming of Age in the Milky Way. NY: Doubleday, 1988.

________, editor. The World Treasury of Physics, Astronomy, and Mathematics. Boston: Little Brown & Co., 1991.

Fritzsche, Harald. The Creation of Matter: The Universe from Beginning to End. NY: Basic Books, 1984.

Gange, Robert. Origins and Destiny. Dallas: Word, 1986.

Gleik, James. Chaos: Making a New Science. NY: Penguin Books, 1987.

Gribbin, J. The Omega Point: The Search for the Missing Mass and the Ultimate Fate of the Universe. NY: Bantam, 1988.

Griffiths, B. A New Vision of Reality: Western Science, Eastern Mysticism, and Christian Faith. Springfield: Templegate, 1989.

Hafner, Paul. Creation and Scientific Creativity: A Study in the Thought of S.L. Jaki. Front Royale, VA: Christendom, 1991.

Hawking, Stephen. A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes. NY: Bantam, 1988.

Houghton, John. Does God Play Dice? A Look at the Story of the Universe. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989.

Jaki, Stanley L. God and the Cosmologists. Washington, D.C. Regnery-Gateway, 1989.

________. The Absolute Beneath the Relative: And Other Essays. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1988.

________. “Cosmology and Religion.” Philosophy in Science 4 (1990):47-81.

________. “Determinism and Reality.” Great Ideas Today: Encyclopedia Britannica Yearbook 1990, pp. 276-302.

________. “Science and the Future of Religion.” Modern Age. (Summer 1990): 142-50.

________. The Only Chaos: And Other Essays. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1988.

________. The Savior of Science. Washington, D.C.: Regnery-Gateway, 1988.

________. Miracles and Physics. Front Royale, VA: Christendom Press, 1989.

________. Relevance of Physics. 2^nd ed.. Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press, 1992.

________. The Road of Science and the Ways to God. University of Chicago Press, 1978.

________. Science and Creation: From Eternal Cycles to an Oscillating Universe. Revised and enlarged edition. Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press, 1986.

________. Chance or Reality: And Other Essays. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1986.

________. Cosmos and Creator. Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press, 1980.

________. Angels, Apes, and Men. Peru, IL: Sherwood Sugden & Company, 1990.

________. Scientist and Catholic: Pierre Duhem. Front Royale, VA: Christendom Press, 1991.

________. Cosmos in Transition: Studies in the History of Cosmology. Tucson, AZ: Pachart Pub. House, 1990.

________. “Christology and the Birth of Modern Science.” The Asbury Theological Journal 45 (1990): 61-72.

________. “God and Creation: A Biblical-Scientific Reflection.” Theology Today 30 (1973): 11-20.

________. The Purpose of It All. Washington, D.C.: Regnery-Gateway, 1990.

________. Brain, Mind and Computers. 3^rd edition, Washington, D.C.: Regnery-Gateway, 1989.

________. “From Scientific Cosmology to a Created Universe.” The Intellectuals Speak Out About God. Edited by R.A. Varghese. Chicago: Regnery-Gateway, 1984, pp. 61-78.

________. The Origin of Science and the Science of Is Origin. Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press, 1978.

________. Universe and Creed: The Pere Marquette Lecture in Theology 1992. Milwaukee, WI: Marquette University Press, 1992.

________. Genesis 1 Through the Ages. Front Royale, VA: Christendom Press, 1992.

Kaiser, Christopher. Creation and the History of Science. Eerdmans, 1991.

Knopp, Richard A. “Religious Belief and the Problems of Cognitivity and Commitment: A Reappraisal Based on Contemporary Philosophy of Science.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois, 1991 (available for checkout at LCC/LCS library).

Lindberg, David C. The Beginnings of Western Science:. . .in. . .Context, 600 BC to AD 1450. University of Chicago Press, 1992.

Lucas, Ernst C. “God, Guts and Gurus: The New Physics and New Age Ideology.” Themelios 16 (April/May 1991): 4-7.

Moreland, J.P. Christianity and the Nature of Science: A Philosophical Investigation. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1989.

Moreland and Kai Nielsen. Does God Exist? The Great Debate. Nashville: Thomas-Nelson, 1990.

Morris, Richard. The Nature of Reality: The Universe After Einstein. NY: Noon Day Press, 1987.

________. The End of the World. Garden City, NY: Anchor Press/Doubleday, 1980.

Nagel, Ernst. The Structure of Science: Problems in the Logic of Scientific Explanation, 2^nd ed. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett, 1987.

Neidhardt, W. “The Creative Dialogue Between Human Intelligibility and Reality—Relational Aspects of Natural Science and Theology.” The Asbury Theological Journal 41 (1986): 59-83.

Nickel, James. Mathematics: Is God Silent? Vallecito, CA: Ross House Books, 1990.

Peacocke, Roy E. A Brief History of Eternity. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1990.

Penrose, Roger. The Emperor’s New Mind. NY: Oxford University Press, 1989.

Peters, Ted, editor. Cosmos as Creation: Theology and Science in Consonance. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1989.

Polkinghorne, John. One World: The Interaction of Science and Theology. Princeton University Press, 1986.

________. Reason and Reality: The Relationship Between Science and Theology. Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1991.

________. “God’s Action in the World.” Cross Currents (Fall 1991): 293-307.

________. The Quantum World. Princeton University Press, 1984.

Prigogine, Ilya and I. Stengers. Order Out of Chaos: Man’s New Dialogue with Nature. NY: Bantam, 1984.

Rae, Alastair. Quantum World. Princeton University Press, 1984.

Riordan, M. and D. Schramm. The Shadows of Creation: Dark Matter and the Structure of the Universe. NY: Freeman, 1991.

Ross, Hugh. The Fingerprint of God. 2^nd edition revised. Orange, CA: Promise Pub., 1991.

Russell, R.J. “Theological Lessons from Cosmology: Two Case Studies” Cross Currents (Fall 1991): 308-21.

Russell, R.J., W.R. Stoeger, and G.V. Coyne, eds. Physics, Philosphy and Theology: A Common Quest for Understanding. Notre Dame Press, 1988.

Snoke, D. “Toward a Unified View of Science and Theology.” Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 43 (Sept. 1991): 166-73.

Stannard, Russell. Grounds for Reasonable Faith. Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press, 1989.

Strauss, James D. Foundation of Faith: A Review of Stanley Jaki’s Continuing Contribution to the History and Philosophy of Science. Revised edition. Editor Chris Hvezda. Lincoln, IL: Lincoln Christian Seminary, 1992. Not a published paper but hardbound (52 pages) and available for checkout from the LCC/LCS library.

Van Till, Howard J., et.al. Portraits of Creation: Biblical and Scientific Perspectives on the World’s Formation. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990.