Phil Mundt takes steps where many fear to tread in his book A Scientific Search for Religious Truth. A geologist by training and a Christian in his beliefs, Mundt conducted extensive research to answer his own life-long questions concerning religious legitimacy, as well as hoping to resolve some of the main misunderstandings between science and religion.

Mundt spent four years researching both science and religion. He compiles a comprehensive history of religion and includes a timeline of events for the three major religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam and their associated sects. He begins the book by summarizing mainstream science knowledge of astronomy, biology, geology, and chemistry and provides a short history of mankind. A separate, second part of the book is his “Science Annex,” which provides more detailed information about our scientific knowledge.

Mundt is not shy about laying blame on the various religions for the mistakes they’ve made throughout history, including the crucifixion of Jesus, The Crusades, The Inquisition, and Jihads. Also, he states with no qualms that a literal interpretation of the story of creation as told in the Bible is incongruous. Mundt proposes that a “scientific paraphrase” be added to religious teaching to incorporate indisputable scientific facts. Mundt feels this would benefit humanity: “Those who are scientifically inclined would be more accepting of religion, and it would help move fundamentalists into the mainstream,” he writes. “Then we could all be on the same page and begin to talk about the real issues rather than argue about a few symbolic or metaphorical words.”

However, Mundt takes a leap I cannot follow when he concludes that Intelligent Design answers the questions that science at present cannot. From my understanding, Intelligent Design states that since parts of the evidence are missing (for example, from evolution or the creation of the universe), then a different system that has no evidence at all is the answer. This would mean that untestable, mystical postulates have the same credibility as tested scientific knowledge.

Mundt also makes a few other bold statements that are not at all scientific, such as “Humans are the only life form to have a soul,” (how do we know that?) and seems to rationalize that since several noted scientists believe in God, therefore God must exist.

But Mundt provides a “why can’t we all get along” perspective which is refreshing in today’s all-or-nothing society where either you are right or you are wrong, with no middle ground in between. He portends that science and religion should not be separate but should work together. Religion can fill the voids of science, and vice versa.

I was eager to read this book as I have many of the same questions as Mundt. I can’t say that Mundt’s book provided the answers I was looking for, but it offers an interesting dialogue and fuel for more thought.