The author of the book under review here is Senior Research Fellow at Grand State University, Grand Rapids, Michigan, who has to his credit a long list of publications in interdisciplinary studies at the crossroads of science, philosophy, and theology. As a philosopher, Clark reflects about these matters today in the interreligious setting of the Kaufman Interfaith Institute of his university.

The interreligious context also figures in this most recent work, but only in marginal ways by occasional references (pp. 64, 106, 178, 205) and by appending one chapter on “Judaism and Evolution” and one on “Islam and Evolution” (pp. 207–43). These chapters, however, are merely tokens, because they are far too sketchy and too random to advance the argument significantly. Nevertheless, they show that similar discourses on creation and evolution are pursued within Judaism and Islam as in Christianity. The main line of Clark's reasoning unfolds in the preceding twelve conveniently subdivided and systematically arranged chapters, which, except for two, all have a summarizing “Conclusion.” Although this arrangement indicates didactical skill, the author's sometimes very casual style testifies to a rhetorical gift that works with “catchy hook[s]” (p. 223) in order to attract as broad and general audience as possible. However, the same rhetoric every now and then tends to obscure and trivialize the matters discussed.

The book opens with a broad general recount of the science–religion debate in Western culture with a special focus on the statement by one prominent representative of the so‐called New Atheism, Richard Dawkins, that the “existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other” (p. 5). Passionately repudiating this assertion on grounds of the incommensurability of scientific and “metaphysical explanation” (p. 6), Clark wants to show that “theism” does not contradict science, demonstrating his point by discussing those topics which “have received the most attention in the past century” (p. 7) in the said dispute, namely cosmology and evolution.

Before delving into the subject matter, the author attempts to define “science” and “religion” so as to lay a proper foundation for what follows. Although he succeeds in explaining “science,” he fails to do so regarding “religion.” For him it is simply “impossible to define ‘religion’ in a handy, single, useful, and comprehensive way” (p. 23). Yet despite this lacuna he is eager to advance the dialogue by concentrating on “specific scientific claims … and their relationship to specific Christian beliefs” (p. 24). Convinced that “the myth of continual and irreconcilable differences” between science and religion “needs to be put to its well‐deserved final rest” (p. 25), the author pleads for the application of an “integration model” in this dialogue, which “encourages a healthy give and take between science and religion” (p. 28) of which the present publication gives a neat demonstration.

Clark finds the key to unlock the stalemate of the debate in the Augustinian‐inspired “Doctrine of the Two Books,” that is, “the belief that God revealed himself in two ways, the Book of Scripture and the Book of Nature” (p. 34; original emphasis; see also pp. 41f, 58f, 95f.). He illustrates this with biographical snapshots of outstanding scientists who were able to integrate their findings with their belief in God—Francis Bacon, Newton, Boyle, Kepler, Galileo, and others. When discussing evolution, Clark alerts the reader first to the impact William Paley's “natural theology” had on Darwin in developing his theory of evolution (pp. 64–68) before offering an informed re‐reading of the creation of humans according to Genesis (pp. 68–77). Recounting the Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925 and the Dover Panda Trial of 2005 (pp. 97–100), he then moves into discussion of the strongly rejected Intelligent Design theory on grounds that “invoking God cannot turn ignorance into knowledge” (p. 104), favoring “theistic evolution” instead, because “a careful reading of the Book of Nature teaches that the means of creation was evolution” (p. 105; original emphasis). He goes on to examine issues of divine will and randomness (pp. 106–14), evolutionary psychology of religion (pp. 115–36), evolution, ethics, and morals (pp. 137–64), and the “soul” and “free will” (pp. 165–83). His argument reaches its climax in chapter twelve, where he asks “Is God unnecessary?” (p. 185). Reviewing most recent cosmological discoveries about the “fine tuning” of the universe in a variety of aspects and the even more surprising emergence of life on earth, the author concludes by stating, “Our assessment of the likelihood that God exists … will greatly shape where we ultimately end up. For those who are inclined toward God's existence, the arguments we've considered may rationally push them from agnosticism to theism, or, may strengthen and support their already held theistic belief” (p. 206).

This plainly admits that all the intellectual efforts made in the forgoing discussion with their many interesting historical details (conveniently accessible through an index) demonstrate nothing but the thinkability of the existence of God in light of scientific findings. Such apologetic repudiation of atheistic world explanation by people like Willard Van Orman Quine, Daniel Dennett, and Richard Dawkins, however, is not really convincing, despite its clever and insightful presentation, because it remains at the level of finding “room” (p. 8) and “intellectual space … for God” (p. 43).

Although Clark repeatedly acknowledges the basic differences between a religious (“metaphysical”/“supernatural”) and a scientific explanation of world and life—insisting that when “reading” the “two books” one should avoid letting “one book intrude into the other's proper domain” (p. 54)—one wonders where this will lead, because allowing religion and science to remain so separate and distinct does not advance mutual understanding. Rather, what is needed is to make the implicit hermeneutic of each approach explicit so that each becomes accessible for discourse. Any perceiving of “nature” as “text” requires familiarity with a particular vocabulary and grammar, just as reading Scripture does. Nothing is “read” in a perceptual vacuum. All such “reading” is a dialectical process availing of a particular hermeneutic; “reading Scripture” is done with the intention of acquiring existential orientation and certainty (faith), while “reading the book of nature” is done to satisfy curiosity and with the purpose of acquiring knowledge about “nature” (science). Both these “readings” are necessary—besides others—for properly understanding human existence and the world around us as well as to cope successfully with the various challenges and demands of life. Thus, the ultimate issue Clark approaches is how to perceive the contingent complexity of life—the life of the cosmos and the life of conscious human beings—as creation so to be able to act accordingly. Unfortunately, Clark does not advance his argument this far, which makes one question if his book will have its desired impact beyond a circle of avowed theists.