I originally bought this book it for Paul's discussion of how the early apostle Orson Pratt integrated science and religion. Surprisingly the book turned out not to focus on theology that much. It thus isn't what most might expect from the title. I must confess, however, that I found the book a pleasant surprise. It focuses less on the specifics of how Mormons have dealt with scientific assertions than the general sweep of science in Mormonism. That isn't a bad thing. Indeed it is just those sorts of questions in history that have brought a recognition that science, especially in the 17th and 18th centuries, was more complex than many thought. Over the last few decades, historians have seriously rethought the relationship between science and religion. The traditional view of a "war' between them is misleading and usually incorrect. Paul adroitly applies these recent movements from the philosophy of science to the history of Mormon thought.

Given that approach, a lot of Paul's book will be familiar if you are already read recent history and philosophy of science. Paul shows how the changing view of science within Mormon corresponds to the view of science by America in general. His thesis is that the acceptance of science by Mormonism was partially due to Americans in general not distinguishing between science and technology. Since technology brought wealth and progress, science was good.

It was not until the 1940's that Mormon apostle-scientists like John Widstoe began discussing science as a fallible and tentative approach to knowledge. Before then a relatively na=EFve adoption of scientific realism was the rule of the day. (Best seen in Orson Pratt's odd adoption of Newtonian mechanism to Nauvoo theology)

Paul deals with the "anti-science" and neoliteralist movements in Mormonism but puts them, I think, into their proper context. He discusses things like how Evangelical creationist arguments made it into the CES manual of the 1980's and some of McConkies writings. However he doesn't take the myopic view that I think many commentators have. Further I think he provides a very good argument for why debate within Mormonism over Genesis tends to be largely irrelevant in the minds of most Mormons. Even when there is a caution and worry about things like evolution (as even in Widstoe and Talmage), there also is a sense that it is less pressing and significant an issue than for Evangelicalism. This is because the *important* issue for Mormon theology isn't the physical creation of man but the spiritual relationship between man and God. The focus of "creation" for Mormons isn't the creation of mortal bodies, but our pre-mortal existence. The issue of material creation is thus less a theological problem than it simply is an issue of literal approaches to scriptural exegesis. I'd not thought of the issue in that way before, but I think Paul is quite right.

Unfortunately Paul doesn't deal with the specific issue of Mormon materialism. He instead focuses in on Mormon thought relative to general cosmology and the issue of a plurality of worlds. While this once was a big issue in the history of science and religion, I'm not sure it is that interesting to a modern audience. Still he does deal with some issues in the history of Mormonism. For example he deals with Fawn Brody's discussion of Thomas Dick influence on early Mormon thought. He provides good arguments for why Dick's theological and science writings weren't that significant an impact on early Mormonism. (I've read all of Dicks works and had reached much the same conclusions)

Overall Paul doesn't deal with a lot of interesting theological issues that arise between Mormon thought and the science. For instance Moreland in The New Mormon Challenge has raised some questions regarding Mormon materialism. As I mentioned, despite ignoring many specific issues in Mormon theology, it does provide a very useful discussion of science *in* Mormonism. It is helpful to remember that within Mormonism a form of scientism reigned for nearly 40 years. Since Paul is a historian of science, he is able to discuss these issues in terms of the general history of science. This context has often been ignored when historians have examined Mormon thought. For instance many people might find Paul's discussion of hermeticism a useful balance to the way Quinn discusses the general issue. (Paul doesn't spend a huge amount of time on the issue, but does point out the relationship between hermeticism and science and ties this to Mormon theology)

If you are looking for a general book about the basic approach of Mormonism to science, then it is probably difficult to imagine anyone writing a better book. As I mentioned there are many issues the author doesn't go into. He doesn't attempt to provide a modern way of reconciling Mormon theology with science, for instance. He does, however, provide good reasons why such quests have been less relevant since the 1940's though. We simply don't have systems of theology such as by Roberts or Pratt who attempt to reconcile science and theology as a consistent system of metaphysics.

While some might criticize the book for what it isn't, that hardly seems fair. For what the book attempts to do it succeeds admirably. Overall I recommend the book whole-heartedly.

-- Clark Goble --- clark@lextek.com -----------------------------