Science in Christian Perspective

 

 

 

Michael Faraday:
Man of God-Man of Science

PHILLIP EICHMAN Harding University
Searcy, AR 72143

From: PSCF 40 (June 1988): 91-97.

Michael Faraday was a man of both tremendous religious faith and great scientific achievement. He was a member of a small religious group who sought to practice simple New Testament Christianity. Some historians have found such a combination of faith and science to be paradoxical, and have sought to show his faith as separate and distinct from his scientific researches. A careful study of his life, however, indicates that such was not the case. The central, guiding principle of his life was his faith in God as the Creator. For Faraday, the universe was the handiwork of God and Faraday was but a humble servant seeking to understand the workings of the creation.

Faraday did not, as some have claimed, "compartmentalize" his scientific and religious beliefs. Rather, his scientific work was an extension of his theology, which included a deeply held view of the biblical account of creation. Thus, Michael Faraday is a key figure in the history of the interaction of science and the Christian faith. The study of his life can lead us to a greater understanding of science and Christianity in our lives today.

The role of Christianity in the development of modern science has been a matter of some disagreement among scholars.1 There has been a tendency among some historians to view the Christian religion as a hindrance to the development of science.2 The so-called "conflict" or "warfare" school of thought has evolved out of this viewpoint. The writings of Andrew Dickson White and John William Draper are generally regarded as the origin of much of this type of thinking.3 There have also, however, been a number of scholars who feel that the development of modern science was influenced and even perhaps nurtured by Christianity.4

A number of those in the seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries who made major scientific discoveries were not trained scientists, but rather amateur scientists and often clergymen. The Royal Society, one of the major scientific organizations and certainly a factor in the development of science, was founded by many such individuals.5 Although not a religious organization, a significant number of its early members personally held strong religious convictions. Robert E. D. Clark has made the following observations regarding the membership of the Royal Society:

The belief that nature was to be regarded in this light [as "God's other book"] supplied the motive for most, perhaps even all, of the work of the Royal Society in its early days.... The prevalent view at the beginning of the scientific movement was that, since God had created nature, only lazy and unthankful people would be uninterested in that upon which God had lavished so much thought and care. It was this belief, held with Passion, which enabled the early investigators to overcome the discouragements and difficulties with which the beginnings of science were attended.6

Hawthorne stated in reference to this organization: "If you look at the lives of some of the early members of the Royal Society, of Bacon and his contemporaries, people who were most interested in the study of Nature, you generally find that they had a very definite Christian faith. They felt that they were studying the handiwork of God, and they expected Nature to be orderly, and to be worth studying: and that was the incentive for their scientific work.7

One such Fellow of the Royal Society, and an important figure in the history of modern science, was Michael Faraday. Colin Russell has summarized the importance of Faraday in the history of science: "Faraday ... was according to almost any criterion a giant amongst scientific men. Possibly the greatest experimentalist in the history of science, and also one of its most successful popularizers. . . .8

Russell's description of Faraday is quite remarkable considering Faraday's personal history. He was born in 1791 to parents of meager means. His father, a blacksmith, was of ill-health and died leaving the family with little financial support. Faraday's education was at best rudimentary, and at 13 he was forced to take a job as a delivery boy for a bookseller. As a young man Faraday was apprenticed to become a bookbinder. This fortunate turn of events allowed him not only room and board, but also an opportunity to read many of the important books of the time. Thus, Faraday was able to further his limited education through his voracious appetite for reading.

He completed his years of apprenticeship and served for a time as a master bookbinder, but the interest in science which his reading had kindled would not allow him to remain in that occupation. After several unsuccessful attempts, he was able to secure a position as a laboratory assistant to Sir Humphrey Davy, Professor of Chemistry at the Royal Institution.

This largely self-educated young man would one day rise from this lowly position to become the Director of the Royal Institution. This self-trained chemist and physicist would contribute tremendously to the growing body of scientific knowledge.

His discoveries were numerous and outstanding. Among them were the following: liquefaction of chlorine, discovery of benzene, development of stainless steel and optical glass, and discovery of the laws of electrolysis and electromagnetic induction. He also made the first electric motor, dynamo, and transformer.

Faraday, the great man of science, was also a devoutly religious man and a member of an obscure, small religious group, known as the Glasites or Sandemanians. Although he lived a very private personal life, his writings, as well as the writings and reflections of those who knew him, can provide us with some insights into the faith and science of this great man. Furthermore, the study of this man of science and his Christian faith can help us to understand the relationship between Christianity and the beginnings of science, and perhaps even aid us in our quest to understand the interaction between science and the Christian religion today.

Faraday and the Sandemanian Religion

The one aspect of Michael Faraday's life about which there is complete agreement among historians is that he was devoutly religious. He was born, reared, lived, and died a member of a small religious group known variously as the Glasites or Sandemanians. To understand Faraday as a person and a scientist, one must first understand his religious beliefs. To do so one must look briefly at the religious group to which Faraday belonged.This group took its name from its two most illustrious leaders, John Glas and Robert Sandeman. The members of this group were, for the most part, working class people: weavers, printers, bookbinders, blacksmiths, merchants, and other craftsmen. The leaders of the group, however, were neither ignorant nor unlearned men.

John Glas was born on September 21, 1695 at Auchtermuchty, county Fife, Scotland. He was educated in nearby schools, including a grammar school at Perth. He entered the University of St. Andrews and received a degree of A.M. on May 6, 1713. He went on to complete further studies at the University of Edinburgh. He was ordained in 1719 in the Church of Scotland (or Presbyterian Church) in the Tealing parish, which is located about five miles from the city of Dundee.9

Glas was a dedicated minister and sought to serve the needs of his flock. His sermons were noted for their depth of study, and he has been referred to by one historian as a "scholarly man."10 His devotion to Scripture was intense. As one writer commented, Glas " . . . was determined to make the Scriptures his only rule of conduct. . . . "11 Such steadfastness to Scripture would lead him to a life of controversy. As one author has commented in this regard: "He did not foresee that holding such a view would bring him into opposition with the precepts of his own denomination."12

As a result of his careful study of the Bible, Glas began to seriously question some of the doctrines of the Presbyterian Church, especially in regard to the establishment of a state church. His devotion to God's Word compelled him to speak his views on these matters. He was called into question for these teachings, and following various hearings Glas was deposed from his office as minister on March 12, 1730. This did not, however, deter Glas from ministering to the spiritual needs of his flock. Neither did it dissuade him from his belief "that Scripture is the only standard for doctrine and practice."13

Glas and his followers were counted among the other nonconformists...... seceders," and "separatists" of the time, and were often abused because of their beliefs. There is at least one account of people throwing mud upon Glas and some of his f ollowers, and also an aborted attempt to burn down their meeting house.14 His following continued to grow, even under persecution, and new churches were added in Scotland and England.

Glas was a prolific writer and authored a number of tracts, books, and other writings. He died on November 2, 1773, and was laid to rest in the family cemetery in Dundee.

The second important leader of this movement was Robert Sandeman. He was born in Perth on April 29, 1718. He entered the University of Edinburgh in preparation for the ministry in the Church of Scotland. He was a capable student and very proficient in mathematics, Greek, and other languages. While at the University, he became acquainted with John Glas and became one of his followers. Sandeman had also become dissatisfied with some Presbyterian teachings and made the decision not to pursue a career in the Church of Scotland. He returned to Perth in 1735 and learned the weaver's trade. In 1737 he married Katherine, the daughter of John Glas. After several years, he left the weaving business to devote more time to ministry in the churches begun by Glas.

Sandeman was a scholar in his own right, and his writings gained a much wider audience than those of Glas. Historians Garrison and DeGroot have commented: "Though the Sandemanians remained few and inconspicuous, Sandeman himself was a theological thinker and writer of great power. His works were widely read and highly regarded by many who had no interest in the peculiarities of his sect, and by some who probably never heard of it."15


Glas was determined to make the Scriptures his only rule Of conduct...... Such steadfastness to Scripture would lead him to a life of controversy.


The writings of Sandeman were widely read throughout England and Scotland. Probably his most noted writings were in regard to the nature of faith. Garrison and DeGroot stated that: "Sandeman argued ... that saving faith is simply an act of man's mind by which he believes the testimony concerning Jesus Christ....16 In other words, Sandeman believed and taught a "view of the intellectual nature of faith."17

Another writer stated, concerning Sandeman's teaching, that he " . . . contended that faith in Christ is not all that different from any other faith that man has, f or all faith is based upon testimony and comes through man's assent to facts."18 Robert E. D. Clark commenting on Sandeman's teachings stated that, "Sandeman's main contribution to the seet's theology was the teaching that Christ saves those who believe on him. Belief is a quiet, sensible process. . . .19

Robert Sandeman continued his ministry in Scotland and England, and in 1764 traveled to America to minister to the spiritual needs of the colonists and plant churches in the New World. He succeeded in starting several churches in the New England area. He died on April 2, 1771 at the age of 53 and was buried in Danbury, Connecticut.


To understand the life and work of Faraday, one must seek to understand his faith, for it was this faith which  guided his life and his work.


John Glas and Robert Sandeman were men who held the Bible as the highest authority. They were men of vision and were willing to endure hardships to see their dream come true. Their desire was simply to restore the faith and practice of the church of the New Testament. Such a simple faith as this is difficult for many to comprehend.

Michael Faraday lived his life by these same simple principles, and to understand the life and work of Faraday, one must seek to understand his faith, for it was this faith which guided his life and his work. Riley has stated in this regard:

... here [in Faraday's Sandemanian faith] lay the key to so much of Faraday's character-his joyful renunciation of wealth and social distinction, his ability to stride ahead of his contemporaries untrammelled by religious controversies of his day; above all, perhaps, the abounding humility in which he saw himself, not as a man raised by genius above his fellows but as one turning the pages of a book which is already written and finding therein order, pattern and design worthy of the Great Creator. To Faraday the ultimate sucmm of the "scientific adventure" was assured. It remained merely to read the signs aright and hear the music of the spheres.20

Faraday and Natural Theology

Michael Faraday lived and worked during the heyday of natural theology. One might therefore ask: what was the role of natural theology in his thinking?

Colin Russell has described natural theology in the following way: "It was at first concerned to demonstrate the existence of God from logic, the universal sense of moral values, the existence of the world, and so forth. In its narrower sense it argues for a Designer from the design and purpose in the world especially disclosed by science."21 Russell goes on to describe one of the more famous advocates of natural theology. Robert Boyle: " . . . Boyle regarded it as 'a duty' to seek for them [purposes of God], and the opposite of presumption. This became a cornerstone of his strategy as he probed the world of living creatures for signs of 'the great Creator's wisdom'and paraded them in triumph against the hosts of atheism and unbelief."22

It would seem that a man so devoutly religious as Michael Faraday would hold a view similar to that of Boyle. Yet, the writings of Faraday do not reflect such a view. This can only be understood in light of the doctrinal beliefs of the Sandemanian church. For the Sandemanians, the Bible was the primary guide to faith and needed no supplemental proofs of its validity. John Glas, though a prolific writer, made few if any references to natural theology. Sandeman did write on the subject, but his views were still a reflection of the basic tenets of faith held by this group.

Cantor has stated in regard to Sandeman's views as follows: "Like natural theologians Sandeman appealed to the argument from design, but his legitimation of this argument lay not within the power of reason but with God's revelation. Thus Romans 1:20 provided the scriptural foundation for his claim that the natural world is a reflection of the divine. "23


It would seem that there was little doubt in the mind of Faraday that the natural world reflected a divine origin.


Faraday quoted the passage cited above (Romans 1:20) on at least two occasions.24 In May 1854 he presented a lecture on mental education in which he stated: " . . . even in earthly matters I believe that the invisible things of HIM from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; and I have never seen anything incompatible between those things of man which can be known by the spirit of man which is within him, and those higher things concerning the future, which he cannot know by that spirit. "25

It is known that Faraday quoted this passage on at least one other occasion as well.26 Thus, it would seem that there was little doubt in the mind of Faraday that the natural world reflected a divine origin. The question which we must ask is: how did Faraday look upon this revelation in nature as it relates to the more specific revelation found in Scripture?

Levere has written concerning this question:

Faraday did occasionally employ natural theology, but his general theology of nature reversed the direction of Paley's argument from design in the physical world to the existence and nature of God. Paley's natural theology was from the standpoint of evangelical (including Sandemanian) theology, valueless as a guide to divine characteristics, unless subjected to rectification by biblical revelation; it would have seemed presumptuous and even arrogant, when applied on its own.... Faraday, in contrast, argued primarily from God to a limited but unimpeachable knowledge of the natural world. Within such a framework Of religious ideas, the thorough-going divorce of science from religion makes absolutely no sense, nor did Faraday attempt it, for he realized that to distinguish science from religion was not to sever them, but only to indicate the latter's absolute and logical primacy, while limiting the former's sphere.27

The natural theologians sought to understand God by studying nature (i.e., through the practice of science). Science, however, is ever changing, and thus their endeavor to understand God through science was fraught with problems. As their understanding of science changed, their view of God the Creator was likewise forced to change as well.

The existence of God was, however, for Faraday a basic presupposition. He accepted God's existence by faith, based upon Scripture-not natural theology-and then set out to understand God's creation. His faith was primary and unchanging because it was founded on God's unchanging Word. His science was everchanging; indeed, he would revolutionize the world around him through his scientific research. But this would not in the least alter his simple faith in God and in His Word.

Science and Religion in the Life of Michael Faraday

Michael Faraday was a person who held deeply seated religious beliefs, and yet was one of the most important figures in the history of modern science. This may seem paradoxical to some, for to many science and religion are thought to be incompatible. There have been those who have sought to depict Faraday as one who completely separated his science from his religion. As Seeger has pointed out, "Faraday has often been held up as the example par excellence of compartmentalization of science and religion, owing largely to Tyndall's unsympathetic comment, 'When Faraday opened the door of his oratory, he closed that of his laboratory.' In a letter to Lady Lovelace, Faraday expressed himself in this very vein: "Religious conversation is generally in vain ... in my intercourse with my fellow creatures that which is religious and that which is philosophical [or scientific] have ever been distinct things."28


Science, however, is ever changing, and thus [the natural theologians' endeavor to understand God through science was fraught with problems.


This notion of "compartmentalization of science and religion" was to some extent popularized by Gillispie who said: there were a few scientists who, like Michael Faraday, thought that there was no connection at all between physical science and religious truth. "29

There are those who would desire to demonstrate that Christianity had little to do with the beginnings of science, or even to show that Christianity has inhibited the growth of science. It would seem that some writers have emphasized this aspect of Faraday's life in order to support such a conclusion. Yet, is this a true representation of Faraday's beliefs? Or rather, is this not a misconception based upon these individuals' presuppositions?

Seeger continues his comments on this question as follows: "To be sure, he had little concern about speculative relationships between science and religion. He regarded each field as having its own proper authority and sphere of influence. Examining his science and his religion more closely, however, one finds that his attitudes toward both are quite similar; both rest upon an experimental basis and both look up to one God.30 Such a statement parallels closely the views of Glas and Sandeman described earlier.

Even the skeptical Tyndall expressed in his book Faraday as a Discoverer that, "the contemplation of Nature, and his own relation to her, produced in Faraday a kind of spiritual exaltation which makes itself manifest here. His religious feelings and his philosophy [or science] could not be kept apart; there was an habitual overflow of one into the other. "31 Thus, the faith of Faraday was not so distinct from his scientific work. As the biographer Williams stated: "Faraday always insisted that he kept his science and his religion separate, yet his deepest intuitions about the physical world sprang from his religious faith in the Divine origin of nature."32 Williams further says: "In a very real sense, Faraday's science was firmly rooted in his faith.33

Clark expressed similar thought concerning Faraday's faith. He stated: "But if there was no science in his religion, there was certainly religion in his science! It is true that he did not outwardly tie them together; he always kept them distinct in his dealings with his fellow men. He was convinced that no effort of man's reason can confirm eternal life. There are in fact two sorts of faith, and with one of them science has nothing to do.34

Thus, the view that Faraday held his scientific endeavors totally separated from his faith is not shared by all scholars. There are many who feel, as I do, that Faraday's faith was the basis for his life and his work.35 It has been noted that he did on more than one occasion make reference in public to God as Creator. In an unpublished manuscript on the nature of matter he made three references to God's creative activities."36 Thus, an affirmation of his faith was not totally absent from Faraday's writings or public lectures. Such references were infrequent, but not lacking.

It should not be surprising, given his Sandemanian background, that he did not make more frequent reference to Scripture. it should be remembered that these people held the Bible in highest regard, and would never use it frivolously. Neither were they noted for evangelism. Tyndall pointed out in his biography that Faraday never spoke of religion unless he was asked. He would then speak freely of his faith, and yet do so in a manner respectful of the beliefs of others. In general, the Sandemanians tended to keep their religion within the assembly of other believers, and this is evident in the life of Faraday as well.

It would be good at this point to give two further quotes from historians of science in regard to Faraday's faith. J.A. Crowther has said:

Faraday's religion was indeed, the very core and centre of the man, filling his whole life with power and peace, and embodying itself in all his actions. He would never force it upon others, though he was always ready to speak of it when questions I Dot with the air of one improving the occasion, but simply giving the information which was sought. If his deep religious beliefs but rarely found their way into his scientific discourses it was because he held that they were on a plane far above even that of science, a plane to which no man by mere intellectual processes could hope to rise.37

Russell described Faraday's faith in this way:

For Faraday, faith had to come first. It was then possible for the eye of faith to perceive in the universe signs of God's greatness and power. Writing to de la Rive in 1859 he confessed that when he spoke of God's 'material works' in a 'common lecture' he did not like 'to deal irreverently with religion by drawing it in at second-hand.' Nevertheless 'it is impossible to forget who hath ordered them.' Thus Faraday unlike Sandeman reversed the direction of logical inference associated with Paley and other natural theologians. He did not believe in a progress 'from nature up to nature's God', but a pilgrimage in the opposite sense. More clearly than most of his contemporaries be could see the limitations of an apologetic derived from nature either alone or as the dominant source. In his lectures and discourses the usual silence about a Divine Creator spring& therefore, not from disbelief but its opposite: a highly articulated theology based on revelation.38

The author of Hebrews said, "By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command ... and without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly, seek him" (Hebrews 11:3,5 NIV). These words provide a presuppositional foundation for all Christians, including those who work in science. A study of the life of Michael Faraday would suggest that this was also the basis for his life and work. He first accepted by faith that God is Creator. This was not for him an irrational belief, but was rather the result of careful study of the evidence. From this basis of faith, he then searched the universe for the handiwork of its Creator.


Faraday's science was ever changing as new discoveries were made. His religious beliefs were in contrast founded upon Him who is the source of all things, both scientific and religious.


This passage from God's eternal Word can still provide a foundation for our work as scientists in the latter half of the twentieth century. Belief in God as the Creator can still provide a presuppositional basis for our scientific work today. From this beginning point we can then practice our science with confidence, knowing that behind the cosmos is the Creator.

Conclusions

Michael Faraday was a man of both tremendous religious faith and great scientific achievement. It may seem paradoxical to some to find such a combination of characteristics in the life of one man. Perhaps because of this seeming paradox, some historians have sought to find in the life of Faraday something to suggest that his life as a scientist was in no way connected with his Christianity. It has been noted that Faraday made a statement which implied some separation between the two. However, as Berman pointed out, "Faraday himself denied any relationship between his science and his religion, but an analysis of the two does not bear out this denial."39 The present work confirms this view that Faraday did not completely "compartmentalize" his science from his religious beliefs.

In his public lectures and writings he seldom called upon his religious beliefs. Religion, to Faraday and the Sandemanians in general, was a private matter. They tended to keep their religious faith among themselves, and thus it is not surprising that Faraday was not known as one who paraded his Christianity before others. Yet, as Berman observed: "The single most important fact about the 'inner' Faraday was a deep religious commitment that pervaded his life and work......"40

Faraday held that belief and faith were similar, regardless of whether they were based upon God's revelation or from human activities, such as science. As a Sandemanian, however, he placed the revealed Word on a higher plane than scientific data. Scripture was, for him, the final authority; unchanging as God Himself is unchanging. As one of the foremost scientific researchers of his day, he well knew that science is not static or unchanging, but always progressing. Thus, Faraday's science was ever changing as new discoveries were made. His religious beliefs were in contrast founded upon Him who is the source of all things, both scientific and religious.

In examining his life we see the primacy of his religious faith. This was the very basis for his life and his work. His scientific research was but an extension of his faith in God the Creator. He spent a lifetime searching out the riches of God's creation. Perhaps this was best summarized by Berman, who said: "Faraday was quite literally at play in the fields of the Lord."41 Or, as Riley concluded, Faraday looked upon himself 11 as one turning the pages of a book which is already written and finding therein order, pattern and design worthy of the Great Creator.42

1988

Notes

1For a synopsis of this controversial area, see: D.C. Lindberg and R.L. Numbers, "Beyond War and Peace: A Reappraisal of the Encounter Between Christianity and Science," Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, Vol. 39, No. 3, 1987, pp. 140-149.

2See, "Introduction" in GM and Nature: Historical Essays on the Encounter between Christianity and Science, edited by D.C. Lindberg and R.L. Numbers. (Berkeley: University of Califomia Press, 1986), pp. 1-18.

3J.W. Draper, History of the Conflict between Religion and Science (New York: Appleton, 1874); and A.D. White, A History of the warfare of Science With Theology in Christendom (New York: Appleton, 1896).

4for example, S.L. Jaki, The Road of Science and the Ways to God (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1978); R. Hooykaas, Religion and the Rise of Modem Science (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1972); C. A. Russell, Cross-Currents: Interactions Between Science & Faith (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1985). 

5D. Stimson, Scientists and Anwteurs: A History of the Royal Society (New York: Henry Schuman, 1948).

6R.E. D. Clark, Christian Belief and Science (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1960), pp. 54-65.

7J.N. Hawthorne, "The Presuppositions of Science," Journal of the Transacions of the Victoria Institute, Vol. 88, 1956, p. 65.

8Russell, p. 257.

9For a more complete discussion of the lives of Glas and Sandeman, see: L.A. McMillon, Restoration Roots (Dallas: Gospel Teachers Publications, 1983); and M.W. Randall, The Great Awakenings and the Restoration Movement (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Co., 1983).

10R.E.D. Clark, "Michael Faraday on Science and Religion," Hibbert Journal, Vol. 65,1967, P. 145.

11Randall, p. 138.

12Randall, pp. 138-139.

13McMillon, P. 25.

14McMillon, p. 26.

15W.E. Garrison and A. T. DeGroot, The Disciples of Christ: A History (St. Louis : Bethany Press, 1948), p. 48.

16Garrisosn and DeGroot, p. 48.

17Garrison and DeGroot, p. 49.

18L. Garrett, The Stone-Campbell Movement: An Anecdotal History of Three Churches (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Co., 1981), pp. 53-54.

19Clark, p. 145.

20J. F. Riley, The Hammer and the Anvil (Yorkshire, England: The Dalesman Publishing Co., 1954), pp. 24.

21Russell, p. III.

221bid.

23G. N. Cantor, "Reading the Book of Nature: The Relation Between Faraday's Religion and His Science," in Faraday Rediscovered: Essays on the Life and Work of Michael Faraday, 1791-1867, edited by D. Gooding and F.A.L. James, (New York: Macmillan Press, 1985), p. 71.

24'Cantor, p. 71.

25Quoted by Cantor, p. 71.

26Quoted by Cantor, pp. 71-72.

27T.H. Levere, "Faraday, Matter, and Natural Theology-Reflections of an Unpublished Manuscript," The British Journal for the History of Science, Vol. 4, No. 14, 1968, p. 103.

28R.J. Seeger, "Michael Faraday: His Scientific Insight and Philosophical Outlook," The PhyAa Teacher, March 1967, p. 109.

29G.C. Gillispie, Genesis and Geology (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1951), P. 208.

30Seeger, p. 109.

31J. Tyndall, Faraday as a Discoverer (London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1870), P. 186.

32L. P. Williams, Michael Faraday (New York: Basic Books), p. 4.

33 Williams, p. 103.

34Clark, "Michael Faraday on Science and Religon," P. 147.

35A similar view is expressed by T.F. Torrance in Transfomwtion and Convergence in the Frame of Knowledge (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), pp. 216-217.

36See Levere for this manuscript.

37J.A. Crowther, The Life and Dise@s of Michael Faraday (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowlege, 1918), p. 26.

38Russell, pp. 259-260.

39M. Berman, Social Change and Scientific Organization, the Royal Institution, 1799-1844 (Heinemann, 1978), p. 157.

40Berman, P. 156.

41Berman, p. 162.

42Riley, pp. 2-3.

Phillip Eichrnan received his B.S. in Biology-Education from Wright State University. He holds two Master's degrees from Harding University, one in Bible and Religion and the other in Biology-Education. He also has a Master's degree in Biology (Animal Physiology) from Purdue University, and received a doctorate in Biology from Ball State University. Dr. Eichman has taught from elementary through university levels and is currently Assistant Professor of Biology at Harding University in Searcy, AR.


 

 

 

 

 

 

97