REVISITING WILLIAM PALEY with Bethany Sollereder, "Introduction to Essays in Honor of Alister McGrath"; Peter Harrison, "What is Natural Theology? (And Should We Dispense with It?)"; John Hedley Brooke, "Revisiting William Paley"; Helen De Cruz, "A Taste for the Infinite: What Philosophy of Biology Can Tell Us about Religious Belief"; Michael Ruse, "The Dawkins Challenge"; Donovan O. Schaefer, "The Territories of Thinking and Feeling: Rethinking Religion, Science, and Reason with Alister McGrath"; Andrew Pinsent, "Alister McGrath and Education in Science and Religion"; Andrew Davison, "Science and Specificity: Interdisciplinary Teaching between Theology, Religion, and the Natural Sciences"; Victoria Lorrimar, "Does an Inkling Belong in Science and Religion? Human Consciousness, Epistemology, and the Imagination"; and Alister E. McGrath, "Response: Science and Religion-The State of the Art."

Evaluations of William Paley's Natural Theology (1802) routinely refer to its philosophical and theological shortcomings, especially its vulnerability to Charles Darwin's scientific naturalism. Nevertheless, Paley still repays a visit as a subject who transcends common stereotypes, four of which invite correction: that Paley wrote in culpable neglect of David Hume; that he pretended to give a deductive demonstration of God's existence; that by making his Natural Theology a stand-alone book, his apologetic framework was neglectful of revelation and therefore inconsequential for Christian theology; and that, preoccupied with the minutiae of anatomical specificity, he was blind to laws connecting natural phenomena. Nuances in Paley's thinking, particularly his allowance for the extension of scientific naturalism, help to explain the sympathetic recognition he still enjoyed among scientific figures until the end of the nineteenth century. For Thomas Huxley, he had even created a metaphysical space that allowed for a science of evolution.