Clifford Cain, editor and also author of six of the ten chapters in this book, is the Harrod–C.S. Lewis Professor of Religious Studies at Westminster College, Fulton, Missouri. He solicited contributions by colleagues from the sciences—biology and physics—as well as from philosophy from his home institution to address the issue of cosmology (Laura Stumpe, “The Big Bang Theory,” 17–34), evolution (Gabe McNett, “Seeing the Reality of Evolution,” 45–71), genetics (Jane Kenney‐Hunt, “The Complex Relationship between Nature and Nurture,” 95–112), and intelligent design (Rich Green, “Intelligent Design,” 123–43), providing theological commentaries himself to each of these topics besides writing the Introduction (1–15) and the Conclusion (153–58). The book “is intentionally directed toward a general, nonspecialist audience, because the contributors believe that the attempt to relate science and religion should not be reserved for, or monopolized by, experts talking only to each other” (ix). This overarching goal is well achieved. The individual contributors not only explain almost every technical term they use and provide essential references in “notes” at the end of their chapters, but also unfold complex matters in plain language and in such a way that these easily can be grasped (a nice proof of their didactic skills).

While, then, nothing much needs to be said regarding the straightforward, very basic presentations of the scientific topics; it is the theological interpretations that warrant a closer examination, because it is these to which the book's title refers when speaking of “re‐vision.” What is revised and reimagined here is not scientific theory or research as such, but the theological interpretation of scientific and, as in the case of intelligent design, pseudo‐scientific theories and research in light of process theology. Process theology “picks up on both the God of the philosophers and the God of the Bible” (147, original emphasis), “promotes a view of the world that involves change, development, novelty, and organic unity,” and “posits a concept of God as having two natures … a transcendent aspect and also an immanent” one (76). Properly understood, process theology abolishes the concept of an omnipotent God and renders the literalistic, fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible impossible. To thus revise the concept of God and the study of the Bible “is critical” because in light of scientific findings “it is no longer tenable” to cling to a religiously informed deterministic worldview by asserting “a notion of God as divine Regulator with infinite power and meticulous providence” (154). The same applies to “biblical literalism,” for this “not only creates (unnecessary) conflict with science, it also does not do justice to religion's scriptures themselves” (153; original parenthesis).

With an almost pastoral concern, Cain pleads for a nonconfrontational “conversation” (12) between science and religion for mutual benefit, since both “are needed for a complete picture of reality … and make necessary contributions to human understanding” (148). He also shows how process theological categories like “divine lure,” “persuasion,” and “enticement” (77, 154) prove to be helpful in this conversation, whereas holding on to concepts of divine omnipotence, determinism, and coercion will lead to unnecessary confrontation (154). If science and religion do not “join forces” the author sees cause for serious worry, especially with regard to “solving the environmental crisis which besets the planet” (90, 156). Only the “understanding of a God who acts through influence”—as conceived by process theology—“is a concept of God that could resonate today with science, with theodicy, and with environmental challenges” (156).

While the purpose and methodology of this publication are well taken, and while Cain's comments, which draw heavily on contemporary theology and biblical scholarship besides making occasional reference to other religions, are trying seriously to do justice to the challenges presented by today's science, the book, actually, is not the conversation its editor claims it is. The book, rather, presents four scientific topics, which give cause for serious controversies in certain Christian circles, accompanied by very considerate theological commentaries apologetic in character. Statements like a theory “allows a possible place for God” (38; original emphasis), “can preserve a role for God” (80), “allows ‘room’ for a role for the Divine” (145, original emphasis), and that “theology and religion want to preserve a role for the divine in the world” (146), to name just a few, reveal a perception of the task that does not challenge scientific monism at all as expected. Christian theology at least is not about making room for God; it is about reflecting intelligently and critically on the biblical witness of God as revealed in Jesus Christ, the history of this witness throughout the centuries, and its meaning for today, whereas religion is the socially and ritualistically formalized lived expression of such witness. Instead of truly conversing with science, Cain accommodates theology and religion to scientific monism by looking for spaces to insert what truly can be known in personal encounter only. Trying to reconcile religion and science in this way ignores the incommensurability of the different approaches to life that faith and science represent. Both are human means to cope with the challenges of life, science being concerned with finding practical solutions and satisfying curiosity by means of critical reflection and observation, while faith is concerned with finding existentially trustworthy, dependable answers to live by, trusting the witness to the living God as revealed in Christ and handed down within the Church. Since mastery of the challenges of life is their common concern, science and faith/religion belong together. That they have fallen apart in such a way that they appear today to be mutually exclusive is a grave distortion which any genuine conversation between these estranged siblings has to be aware of. What is needed is not an accommodation of one to the other but a critical, thoroughgoing discussion of their methodological differences in order not to fall prey to sham controversies.