\noindent
{\it Mary Arnold -- Faith and the Everyday Practice of Science}
\bigskip
Mary, this is a very good start on an essay concerning Grinnell's
ideas about complementarity of science and religion.  However, I
don't think you have really ``nailed'' a description of the
differences between the two fields, at least according to common 
thinking (what Grinnell is arguing {\it against}).
Your first paragraph points to the distinction between pragmatic
concerns and theoretical concerns.  But that is not so clear-cut
(see comment 1 below).  Your second paragraph says the 
fundamental conflict between science and religion is in how
they draw conclusions.  There certainly is a difference 
there, but is that the most central difference?  It might be
good to start a revised version of this (if you decide to 
write one) by addressing another question:  What are the 
ultimate goals of science and religion, and how are they
different (and/or similar)? 
\bigskip
\noindent
{\it Specific Comments}
\bigskip
\item{1.}  It sounds as though you are equating science with the 
pragmatic and religious with the theoretical here.  But I would
say that science and mathematics certainly have a theoretical 
side as well as a pragmatic side.  So the difference between
science and religion is not only the difference between pragmatic
and theoretical concerns.
\item{2.}  {\it Everyday Practice of Science} is a rather unclassifiable
book, so it could be called ``novel,'' meaning new or unusual.
I'm guessing that is what you were thinking here.  But when I read
this the first time, it seemed that you were calling the book
a work of fiction.  It would be better to rewrite this to
eliminate the possible confusion.
\item{3.}  I think it would be better to say here that {\it courts 
held that the introduction of creationist science curricula
was a breach of the separation of church and state}.  This is 
a somewhat controversial legal issue.  Your flat statement 
makes it sound too cut and dried.  Also, it's interesting
to consider the way creationism is often presented as 
a {\it ``scientific''} theory and an alternative to 
Darwinian evolution.  Why do you suppose
the supporters of creationism try to do that?   
\item{4.}  This is still a part of an expression of Grinnell's opinion.
It would be good to make that clearer because there are certainly
lots of scientists who would disagree violently with this statement.
\item{5.}  I am not sure what you meant by this.  Do you mean
science cannot {\it explain} the human feelings of a connection
to the divine??  
\item{6.}  This idea that embracing complementarity could lead to 
mutual respect and acceptance between religious and scientific
viewpoints is a very good one.  You could say more about that!
\bigskip
\vfill\eject
\noindent
{\it Amanda Cabrera -- One Natural World, Two Visions}
\bigskip
I got your email message accompanying the paper, and I agree
that this is still somewhat rough and unfinished.  I hope you
will have the time to think over the following comments and
resubmit a revised version of the paper.
\bigskip
\noindent
{\it Specific Comments}
\bigskip
\item{1.}  Saying ``integrated'' here sounds a little strange.
Many scientists might say that when religious concerns impact
how science is taught and practiced, then it is more an 
{\it intrusion} than an {\it integration}.  (The primary meaning
of {\it integration} is {\it inclusion or mixing} in a more neutral
way.)  Your second sentence is making a very different point (following
Grinnell).  So this probably deserves to be expanded and explained a
bit more -- you need to give the reader a clue that you will be
dealing with two very different things.
\item{2.}  The people who have been agitating for ``creationist
science'' in schools are primarily fundamentalist Protestants.
In recent times at least, the Catholic Church has been much less
prone to that sort of literal interpretation of Scripture and 
much more open to modern geological theories of the age of the 
Earth and biological theories of evolution.  So 
I think this sentence is somewhat inaccurate.    
\item{3.}  Grinnell's idea of ``intelligible design'' is also 
a very good point to spend more time on.  The idea here is
the feeling (which comes down to a form of faith, for Grinnell
at least) that there are underlying patterns in Nature that 
humans are able to understand.
\item{4.}  I don't really see the connection between what you 
are saying about Biblical literalism and Grinnell's complementarity
here.  This is something you probably want to rethink.
\item{5.}  Is it {\it faith} that is expressed through the 
reasoning of where to go on the bicycle?  Isn't this sort of 
reasoning more closely related to ethics or morality?  Aren't
those different from {\it faith}?
(That is, religion also includes ethical and moral statements of
what we {\it should do}.)  
\item{6.}  Could you say more about why you think Grinnell's dabbling in
philosophy is dangerous here?  Are you saying he is not qualified
to offer those opinions because he is ``only'' a scientist?
\bigskip
\vfill\eject
\noindent
{\it Stephanie Craig -- The Battle Between Effect and Passion}
\bigskip
I like your first draft paper very much -- it has a number
of good points and it strikes a good balance between your
personal experience and the ideas expressed by Grinnell in
his book.   There are a few places where you had typos or
minor slips.  Also there were a few examples of what I would
call overly colloquial language -- ``zapping the life out of''
(page 1) in particular.  
\bigskip
\noindent
{\it Specific Comments}
\bigskip
\item{1.}  I gather that a lot of students feel the way you 
describe here (that is, that having to explain a solution
takes the fun of out finding the solution).  Could you say
more about why you have that feeling?  I don't really understand
that myself, since I always think that the best way to make
sure you really understand something is to try to explain
it to someone else.  Any gaps in one's thinking become painfully
clear then, either because of the uncomprehending stares
that you get from one's audience, or from the feeling of
``hand-waving'' that comes from trying to dance around a point
that is not entirely nailed down.
\item{2.}  I like this example very much -- I think it is 
exactly right!
\item{3.}  You are also correct that statistics is often
used in the way you describe -- as a way to summarize a large
collection of information and make it easier to deal with.
You seem to be saying that this is like the process of writing
a short and to the point research article without any of the 
distracting extra information that might have been developed
along the way to the final results.  Am I catching your
point here, or did you mean something different?
Also, aren't there times when you might {\it discover} new things
in the process (patterns that were not apparent in the 
whole data set at the start).  That is, couldn't working
with the statistics be part of the discovery process, in addition to
or rather
than the credibility process?
\vfill\eject
\noindent
{\it Josh Hauser -- Practice of Science and Mathematics}
\bigskip
Your first paragraph was a little rough (see the suggested
corrections marked on the paper).   But after you got
started, your writing improved quite a bit.  One suggestion -- 
``kids'' sounds too informal for this kind of writing.
What you really mean is ``students'' so say it that way.

I agree with a lot of what you are saying here, and you 
present your points pretty well.
\bigskip
\noindent
{\it Specific Comments}
\bigskip 
\item{1.}  This is a very important point.   This kind of training
in logical thinking and mental discipline is also one of the
traditional reasons for including mathematics in school
curricula.  This goes all the way back to the ancient Greeks.
\item{2.}  I'm not sure it's really accurate to say that there
is ``much room for extra information'' in research articles.
After all, textbooks are usually hundreds of pages long, but
articles are only rarely longer than 20 or 30 pages.  There is
a difference too in the level of knowledge assumed of the readers.
In research articles, the audience is the community of experts
in a field, so not all of the background needs to be filled
in.
\item{3.}  I'm not sure I follow what you are saying here.
It is not that common, I think, for later articles to 
re-work the data from earlier ones.  So I don't think
``taking the results from a previous experiment in order
to find different patterns and characteristics'' happens
that often (at least not in the parts of science I know
the most about).  Instead, people might try to reproduce other
scientists' results by redoing the experiments in a different
way and generating new data of their own.   
\vfill\eject
\noindent
{\it Paige Carr -- Faith in Religion and Science of the Natural World}
\bigskip
Your essay is well-structured and presents a good synthesis
of Grinnell's ideas about the relation between faith, science
and religion.  I only have a few small corrections and comments.
\bigskip
\noindent
{\it Specific Comments}
\bigskip
\item{1.}  You say that ``without religion, there would be no point
in discovering the reason why things in life work.''  Does Grinnell
say anything like that?  Or is this a personal opinion of your own?
It would be good to say more about this and try to justify it, 
because I think this is a statement that many people might disagree 
with.  Isn't it possible for an atheist to be a scientist and want 
to understand how nature works?  Can't an atheist be a good, moral 
person and be concerned with the welfare of others?  Is religion 
the {\it only} source of moral and ethical values that provide the 
basis for a good life?
\item{2.}  Toward the end of the essay when you are discussing Grinnell's
idea of {\it complementarity}, there are a few instances where
you are misusing the word.  This is a noun -- the property of being
complementary.  The adjective form is {\it complementary}.  
\vfill\eject
\end
