I finished reading “Science, Evolution and Creationism” (SEC) last night, and overall I think that the National Academy of Science and the Institute of Medicine should be pleased with what they have written.

Chapter 2 presents a thorough yet non-technical discussion of the major findings of evolutionary biology. Anyone who is looking for a primer on evolution could do worse than look here.

Chapter 3 deals with the difference between scientific ways of knowing and “creationist perspectives”, arguing that any and all forms of creationism do not qualify as science (according to the criteria of scientific practice discussed in chapter 1) and therefore should not be taught in science classrooms. The authors do a particularly good job in this chapter of responding to typical complaints or misunderstandings about evolutionary theory raised by proponents of creationism, a task they continue in the “Frequently Asked Questions” section (which follows the 1-page conclusion, chapter 4).

Despite all of these positive features, SEC is still a little disappointing. The book is not particularly helpful for those who may wish to explore alternatives to the NOMA position, nor for those who seek to understand how science interacts with expressions of religious faith other than creationism. Of course, one can’t expect (nor should one wish for) a scientific organization such as the National Academies to back a particular faith tradition of theological view, but given the vociferous opposition to religion in general coming from many scientists, a more thorough exploration of the boundary between science and religion, along with a more detailed argument as to why the authors of SEC concluded that science and religion should be considered separate human endeavors, would have been helpful.