Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Notes 1 I am using these terms, as is Gregersen, in ways consistent with their use by scholars such as Nancey Murphy and Tom Tracy in the CTNS/Vatican Observatory publications on scientific perspectives on divine action (http://www.ctnsorg/books.html). 2 Niels Henrik Gregersen, “Complexity: What is at Stake for Religious Reflection,” in The Significance of Complexity: Approaching a Complex World Through Science, Theology and the Humanities, eds. Kees van Kooten Niekerk and Hans Buhl (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2004), 153. 3 Robert John Russell, “The Theological Consequences of the Thermodynamics of a Moral Universe: An Appreciative Critique and Extension of the Murphy/Ellis Project,” CTNS Bulletin, 19:4 (Fall 1998): 19 – 24. 4 Gregersen, “Complexity,” 154. 5 For a helpful introduction see Christopher Southgate, “God and Evolutionary Evil: Theodicy in the Light of Darwinism,” Zygon, 37:4 (December 2002): 803 – 824. 6 Holmes Rolston III, Science and Religion (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1987), 144 – 146, 289 – 292; idem, “Does Nature Need to Be Redeemed?,” Zygon, 29:2 (June 1994): 227. 7 See, Robert John Russell, “Bodily Resurrection, Eschatology and Scientific Cosmology: The Mutual Interaction of Christian Theology and Science,” in Resurrection: Theological and Scientific Assessments, eds. Ted Peters, Robert John Russell and Michael Welker (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2002), 3 – 30. 8 Gregersen, “Complexity,” 153. 9 Wesley J. Wildman and Robert John Russell, “Chaos: A Mathematical Introduction with Philosophical Reflections,” in Chaos and Complexity: Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action, eds. Robert John Russell, Nancey C. Murphy and Arthur R. Peacocke (Vatican City State: Vatican Observatory and Berkeley, Calif.: Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences, 1995), 49 – 92. 10 See, for example, John C. Polkinghorne, The Faith of a Physicist: Reflections of a Bottom-up Thinker (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1994).