Hard as one may try not to, a reader cannot come to a book without a certain expectation. That expectation is generally rooted in the questions the reader hopes the author intends to answer or expects the author will answer based on the title, the cover, or the blurb on the flap.
The trouble with reviewing a book is that the reader, in my view, must set aside his own expectations as best he is able and attempt to judge the book, at least partially, on whether or not it answers the questions the author intends to answer. Of course, we’re all human and, unfortunately, authorial intent though something to reach for, is seldom grasped, adequately. So much for my disclaimer.
As you may have noted, I said, partially, just now. I mean that the book should also be judged on a number of other criteria, and not only on whether or not it answers the questions the author intends to answer. Readers often want to know how well it was written, how cogent the arguments were, and whether or not it added something new or significant to the conversation.
Most of all, whether they know it or not, readers want to know whether the book is, as Plato describes in Phaedrus, “a noble lover.” That’s what this review of Science and the Mind of the Maker by Melissa Cain Travis hopes to uncover.
My original goal was to review the book on or before its release date (July 3rd), but having received it at a time when deadlines for other writing projects were also imminent, I changed my course and decided to write a series of posts that would allow a more measured and fair treatment of the book.
By this I hope to do it justice as it seems at the outset to be an important contribution to the current conversation about the “nature of ultimate reality” and whether or not there are valid explanations for why the world appears to be “rationally organized and thus intelligible to mankind.”
This, in any case, is the first installment on that debt.
An initial consideration worth noting is that the cover is not a collection of secret Masonic symbols, as one misguided reader fancied upon viewing it. Rather, it is a faithful and fashionable representation of what New York Times Bestselling author, and noted apologist, Lee Strobel, suggests the book communicates: “A clear and compelling case for science pointing toward God.”
As Travis affirms in the prologue, the title of the book reflects on the classic work written by Dorothy Sayers, The Mind of the Maker. Like Sayers’s classic work, Travis’s book is similarly divided into eleven chapters that will serve to develop what she calls the “Maker Thesis,” the meaning of which will be addressed, shortly. A notable difference is that whereas Sayers focuses on the relationship between the nature of God and imaginative creativity, Travis focuses the relationship between the nature of God and scientific inquiry.
Unlike Sayers, who asserts right out of the gate, that her work “is not an apology for Christianity,” Travis’s book is clearly a work of apologetics. Her argument chiefly being that within the various disciplines there is a large amount of corroborating evidence that suggests the universe and all that we know about it is the product of an intelligent Creator.
She asserts in the first chapter, “the scientific and philosophic pieces that will be discussed in the following chapters fit snugly and coherently within the Maker Thesis framework (and therefore, within Christianity).”
At this point, it is fair to note that Travis is not necessarily breaking new ground in the field of apologetics, and one who expects this is going to be disappointed. Where one will not be disappointed is the manner in which Travis offers a new voice with fresh perspective and insight on the theistic position that much of what science has discovered actually suggests there is a Creator, not the opposite. This she delivers well. (Plus, readers will, undoubtedly, enjoy the various historical vignettes she supplies, like the time Darwin ate a bug.)
The particular focus of Travis’s apologetic work asserts that by gleaning from “observable reality in conjunction with philosophical argumentation,” the Maker Thesis functions like the wooden board of one of those “peg puzzles small children often play with,” in that it provides “a unifying and logical framework…a satisfying explanation for the origin, rationality, and intricacy of nature as well as the stunning fact that the natural world is comprehensible to the human mind.”
In other words, within the realm of human knowledge, “we have an accumulation of assorted facts from cosmology, physics, earth science, neuroscience, philosophy of mind, and biochemistry that all seem to be leading to the same conclusion: the existence of a Maker of all things who made us in his images and gave us a cosmic home in which the natural sciences can thrive.”
All in all, the first chapter accomplishes what its title suggests and lays out some of the more salient and pivotal aspects of the conversation, namely the relationship of philosophy and science, some valuable nomenclature the reader should be familiar with and, of course, her assertion of a “Maker Thesis.”
Three Qualities
To conclude this first installment, I would like to mention three general qualities I think the book offers that are worthy of the reader’s attention.
First, Travis provides a welcome female voice to the traditionally male-led conversations in Christian apologetics. Recently, credible female voices like Travis’s have been more engaged in apologetics, and because these voices offer a full-orbed perspective that accounts for the complexities and intricacies of the Imago Dei, the conversation is deprived without them.
Second, the tenor of this book successfully navigates the tension between academic objectivity and accessible readability. This is also a rarity and a very pleasant surprise given the typical nature of writing in the fields of philosophy, science, and apologetics.
Finally, in the first chapter, Travis offers a couple of important statements (one is actually a quotation) at the outset that are remarkably encouraging for the reader hoping to understand and defend his or her faith in the midst of a rather complex conversation.
First, quoting Dr. John Lennox, the Oxford mathematician, Travis reminds the reader, “Statements made by scientists are not always statements of science.” Christians whose lives do not often intersect the academy frequently find themselves in a bit of a quandary when trying to answer those intellectual sophists who attempt to make the worse seem the better cause. This is a great reminder that there is more going on in the debate about the nature of the universe than pure scientific inquiry.
A second statement I thought worth noting is Travis’s “Mere Creation” approach to this discussion. Too many times (more often than not in my experience), potentially fruitful discussions get side-railed by well-meaning Christians over secondary or tertiary disputes. On the issue of creation, the discussion would be better served if Christians could remember, that even where agreement exists about the nature of creation, we all affirm “human beings occupy a special place int he creation because of their unique relationship to the Maker.”
Future installments of this review of Science and the Mind of the Maker are forthcoming. Be sure to subscribe if you’d like to follow along.