The possibility of a theology-engaged science: a response to Perry and Ritchie

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review


This article provides a response to John Perry and Sarah Lane Ritchie's article, “Magnets Magic, and Other Anomalies: In Defense of Methodological Naturalism.” In so doing, it provides a defense of some of the arguments I made in my article, “Should a Christian Adopt Methodological Naturalism?” I begin by addressing some of the confusion about my position. However, it is not simply my intention to address confusions. There remain some fundamental differences between my position and Perry and Ritchie's. It is on these differences that I wish to focus––differences that enable me to maintain my critique of methodological naturalism without falling prey to the problems they raise. Constructively, I advance the argument that the Christian scientist should be open to the possibility of theology‐engaged science, as well as the science‐engaged theology that Perry and Ritchie advocate.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1094-1105
Issue number4
Early online date21 Nov 2018
Publication statusPublished - Dec 2018


  • Christianity
  • Creation
  • Empiricism
  • Incarnation
  • Jesus Christ
  • Methodological naturalism
  • Miracles
  • Resurrection
  • Theological method
  • Theology and science


Dive into the research topics of 'The possibility of a theology-engaged science: a response to Perry and Ritchie'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this