Science
in Christian PerspectiveScience
in Christian Perspective
Book Reviews for March 1970
Index
THE MONKEY'S ON THE RUN by D. Lee Chestnut, published by the author at 2301 West Shadygleo Ave.,
Phoenix, Arizona.
1969. 52 pp., $0.75
HISTORY OF CREATION AND THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES by Reuben L. Katter.
Theotos Logos
Research, Minneapolis 1967.
FROM SCIENCE TO THEOLOGY, George Crespy,
translated by George H. Shriver, Abingdon Press, Nashville, 1968, 174
pages ($4.00)
THE RELEVANCE OF TEILHARD, R. Wayne Kraft, Fides Publishers, Inc., Notre Dame,
Ind., 1968, 158 pages ($0.95)
AN INTRODUCTION TO TEILHARD DE CHARIDIN, N. M. Wildiers, translated by Hubert
Hoskins, Harper and Row, New York, 1968, 191 pages ($6.00)
TEILHARD DE CHADIN: An Analysis and Assessment by D. Gareth Jones,
Tyndale Press,
London 1969. 72 pp. Paperback, 7s6d.
THE SCIENTIFIC ENTERPRISE AND CHRIS
TIAN FAITH by Malcolm A. Jeeves. Tyndale Press, London 1969. 169 pp. 23s.
THE CHRISTIAN AND SCIENCE, A Symposium
held at Calvin College, April 23-25, 1969, V. J. Ehlers and II. D.
Griffioen,
Editors, 1969. 84 pp. (multilith) $1.75 (Copies available from Calvin College,
Grand Rapids, Michigan)
EVOLUTION AND CHRISTIAN FAITH by Bolton Davidheiser, the Presbyterian
and Reformed
Publishing Co., 1969, 366 pp. $6.50.
THE MONKEY'S ON THE RUN by D. Lee Chestnut, published by the author at 2301 West Shadygleo Ave.,
Phoenix, Arizona.
1969. 52 pp., $0.75
This booklet, subtitled ". . . yes, it's about EVOLUTION!",
is an attempt
to present the layman, or more probably the high school biology student, with
a reasoned critique of contemporary Darwinian and NeoDarwinian
evolutionary theory.
To do this the author employs courtroom techniques (based, one would assume, on
Scope's "Monkey Trial") against a varigated background of
recent biological
research and writing as well as scripture. If his use of these techniques had
been more consistent, the book might have been unique enough to stand out from
other such efforts; as it is, this reader became rather disconcerted
by repeated
jumps from courtroom cross-examination to author's editorializing and
back again,
and decided that the technique subtracted from rather than added to the value
of the presentation.
The author, an electrical engineer and nuclear science lecturer, in
order "to
gain a working knowledge of the subject . read approximately fifty
scientific books plus a number of technical journals." He uses some very
recent quotations from the literature to support his arguments-noteworthy among
which is the challenge flung at NeoDarwinists by a group of mathematicians at
the Wistar Institute Symposium in 1966.
A glossary containing informal definitions and explanations of technical terms
used in the text will be of value to the uninitiated reader.
Although this work contains no information not readily available to the alert
scientist, it does perform a service by collecting and translating
into layman's
language some of the pertinent criticisms of evolutionary teachings.
Reviewed by Stephen W. Calhoun, Department of Chemistry, Central
Wesleyan College,
Central, South Carolina 29630
HISTORY OF CREATION AND THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES by Reuben L. Katter.
Theotos Logos
Research, Minneapolis 1967.
This book has a great deal of what I would call "metaphysical" in it
and therefore is rather hard reading. One can say that every page is
loaded with
ideas and the author must have a wide grasp of many subjects. It would appear
that one of the purposes for writing the hook was to harmonize geology and the
scriptures.
Many debatable statements can be found but these do not cloud the obvious
erudition
of the author.
Reviewed by Irving WT. Knobloch, Department of Botany and Plant
Pathology, Michigan
State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48823
FROM SCIENCE TO THEOLOGY, George Crespy,
translated by George H. Shriver, Abingdon Press, Nashville, 1968, 174
pages ($4.00)
THE RELEVANCE OF TEILHARD, R. Wayne Kraft, Fides Publishers, Inc., Notre Dame,
Ind., 1968, 158 pages ($0.95)
AN INTRODUCTION TO TEILHARD DE CHARIDIN, N. M. Wildiers, translated by Hubert
Hoskins, Harper and Row, New York, 1968, 191 pages ($6.00)
Not less than thirty-five books have been written or translated into
English about
Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (a Jesuit) and his marriage of Christianity with an
evolutionary cosmology. Although denied permission to publish most of his ion
-paleontological writings during' his lifetime, the principal exposition of his
cosmology, "The Phenomenon of Man," was published by friends in 1955
and translated into English in 1959. Thirteen additional honks by
Teilbard, most
elaborating "The Phenomenon of Man," have been published in English
since then.
While Teilhard's professional duties were primarily in the field of
paleontology,
he felt his most valuable contribution would be to show that the
Church's separation
of God from the material world was not necessary or desirable. Since
his contributions
were pioneer explorations, he hoped others would fill the gaps and amend where
needed. His writings should be an inspiration to those firmly committed to the
unity of all "truth," whether biblical or scientific.
The books by Kraft, a metallurgist on the faculty of Lehigh
University, and Wildiers,
a Dutch (French) theologian, were both written as introductions to
the grand design
of Teilhard. The first seems to have been written for the lay person not freely
conversant in either science or theology. The latter is written, in
the reviewer's
opinion, as an apologetics of Teilhard's theological constructs. The third book
resulted from eight lectures Crespy gave while a visiting professor
at the Chicago
Theological Seminary in the winter of 1965. His book is perhaps the
most objective
of the three. Only Kraft considered the apparent conflict between
Teilhard's law
of "increasing complexity and consciousness" and the laws
of thermodynamics.
Crespy
Crespy began his lectures with a review of some of the shortcomings of popular
evolutionary theories and the generally negative reaction to evolution by the
Church. He sets the tone for the remaining lectures with the following points:
theologians in reality have argued against an evolutionary view of
the world rather
than the scientific theory of evolution. Secondly, the dogmas of the organized
churches were conceived in
a culture with a static, pre-Copernican world view. Further, the
theologians have
searched the scriptures diligently to find "proof texts" to show that
God has condemned the "evil world," thereby requiring that
man separate
himself from the world if he wishes to he holy. The second lecture outlined the
main features of Teilhard's cosmology, i.e., matter has become
increasingly more
highly organized as the earth aged until man appeared with his power
of reflective
consciousness. (Since man was derived from this material, all matter must have
some consciousness or interiority.) Man has further intensified this
consciousness
through his numerous social interactions. In the subsequent lecture
Crespy reviews
the philosophical bifnrcations of man into soul and flesh, of the
world into spirit
and matter and of God from man. Teilbard saw man as the natural consequence of
a universe oriented to create from itself a super consciousness, the
Omega Point.
Thus the division between soul and flesh is artificial, spirit can
not be separated
from matter and man will ultimately be in harmony with God. "The
Christology
of Teilhard" is the vaguest part of Crespy's hook. (It also may be the most
obscure of Teilhard's writings.) Teilhard believed the forward
movement of evolution
towards its goal "assures the transformation, or rather the promotion, of
the human milieu of the 'noosphere' into the 'divine milieu."'
In other words,
the future is intimately tied to the continual improvement of the
quality of men's
consciousness, and the early success of cosmogenesis is related to
the effectiveness
of man's involvement in the forward movement. In the fifth lecture
Crespy justifies
Tcilhard's very limited consideration of evil on the basis that no one has ever
satisfactorily explained evil. Secondly, evil is irrational and thus beyond the
scope of a rational treatment.
Crespy next criticized the theologians and historians for their failure to take
cognizance of the unity of matter and spirit in man, and to posit a
unified goal
for man. Thus they have not been able to help man decide what is good and evil
or help him find meaning in time and history. Teilhard believed that
the despair
of modern man is the product of these deficient world views. That is,
the scholars
have led him to believe that be is either marking time on a doomed
planet (Christian
dogma) or doomed to an existence without transeunt meaning which ceases at the
end of biological life (an agnostic view). Crespy concludes his third hook on
Teilhard with a plea to theologians to take note of Teilhard's cosmology and to
pose again the problem of God to this world in a new, meaningful way.
Kraft
Kraft states in the preface of his book that lie sees Teilhard's cosmology as
Christ's cosmology. The first chapter contains a brief biography of Teilhard,
short synopses of twelve books by Teilbard and concludes with an assessment of
the effect of his writings on his Church and those "outside the
Church."
The second chapter entitled "His Vision," has as its goal the summary
of the main points of Teilbard's cosmology and theology under the
following topics:
exteriorinterior properties, the law of increasing complexity and
consciousness,
eosmogenesis and geogenesis, biogenesis, noogenesis and
post-biological evolution,
and Christogenesis and the Omega Point. Al
though Teilhard described his scheme in grand, vague and newly-coined
terms, this
reviewer feels that Kraft's attempt at a "translation of
Teilhard" suffers
from superficiality in a number of areas (interiority, radial energy,
and evolution,
among others), and a very obvious attempt to align Teilhard's ideas with dogma,
both scientific and theologic.
In his next chapter Kraft makes a concerted effort to take Teilhard's writings
from the realm of the theologian and philosopher into the world of the living.
This is done with three interesting sets of quotations about the coherence of
truth, the need to clearly perceive the world around us, and acting in a manner
to bring to completion the convergence of mankind at the Omega Point.
The chapter
concludes with some "real life" situations in which Kraft
feels combined
Christian and Teilhardian principles give definitely
"better" guidlines
for action.
This short hook contains two appendices entitled "Thermodynamics, the Two
Energies and Life," and "Sin, Suffering and Hell" and a glossary
containing definitions to twenty-two Teilhardian and scientific tenns. As with
most appendices, these are much too brief to he understood by anyone
except those
that comprehend the material anyway. Further, his arguments lack the compelling
logic and confidence found in the writings he is introducing, e.g., "Who
can say with certainty that it will never be" was used to argue
the validity
of Teilhard's use of radial energy as the shriving force of
evolution. The saving
virtue of the chapter on sin is its conclusion with the prayer of Teilhard in
which he confessed his inability to comprehend this part of
traditional dogma.
Wildiers
According to Wildiers, Teilhard envisioned the personal God of Christianity intimately
involved with a real, evolutionary universe, which has meaning and is
not an abstraction
to be discarded at some later time. He further believed that the union of these
concepts must occur in the day to day thoughts and concepts of the Christian as
well as in the theologian's metaphysics. Wildiers began his discussion of the
main points of Teilhsard's writing in a manner very similiar to that
used by Crespy.
Namely, if one has some concept of the purpose of the universe, one has a much
better chance of understanding the universe, especially an evolving
one. He likewise
criticized the theologians for their failure to accept an evolutionary view of
the world, which has a future as well as a history.
Wildiers (as did Crespy) makes it clear that -when Teihhard
postulated an interiority
to matter, be slid not mean panpsychism. Rather that the interiority
(consciousness)
of matter varied greatly in its quality and concentration. Although biological
evolution apparently stopped with man, the evolution of consciousness
has continued
at the collective level. Physics, psychology and democratic
governments are trite
examples. Nowhere is Teilhard's optimism more evident than when he states his
faith that the process of evolution will continue and culminate in Christ. Men
can hasten the process by correct conscious effort or slow it (hut not prevent
it) by selfish, meaningless acts. Much that Wildiers says in this part of his
hook is also found in the other two, especially Crespy.
The remaining third of Wildiers' book deals with Teilhard's efforts to unite
traditional Christian theology
with the recently discovered Earth and Universe. First, it is pointed out that
the believers in modern cosmology tend to be as religious as
Christians, although
their
views and former are evolutive
understandings are very different. The "pantheistic, immanent, organicist
and whereas in Christianity . . . concepts
such as personality, transcendence, juridical relations, .. . fixity" are appropriate. Teilhard was confident this
conflict could
he resolved by a deeper exploration of the relationships in the
evolving universe
and the interactions of the Cod-man, Christ, with this world.
Teilhard's "phenomenological approach" to Christianity Wildiers summarized
as follows: 1) The founder of the religion is a person who is the
actual content
of his message. "One becomes a Christian . . . by being united
with him."
2) Christ said he will return at the end of the age. 3) "The
return of Christ
must be prepared for by the gradual building up of the mystical body." 4)
The commandment to love our neighbor sums up the ethics of
Christianity. Wildiers
further points out that Teilhard's views and those of the scotist
interpretation
of the incarnation are similiar in their belief that Christ was Cod's supreme
revelation to this world, and it was Cod's original plan to reveal
himself through
Christ rather than being necessitated by "the fall." Some
of the benefits
to be derived by the conceptual union of Christ and the cosmos in the lives of
men who take seriously their role as men on this earth is the high point of the
final chapter.
Summary
Since both Crespy and Wildiers are theologians their books about
Teilhard's writings
deal primarily with his theology. Kraft, even though a layman, also emphasized
the theological aspects of Teilhard's writings. Perhaps Teilhard's
greatest contribution
will he that he stimulated men to expand their theologies. But in
doing so, they
should realize that some of his postulates (interiority of all matter
and an evolutionary
force) grew more from his faith and his desire for a unified,
theological cosmology
than from "scientific facts." It would be a grand thing for someone
to conceive an experiment which might demonstrate a level of consciousness in
a mineral or that there is a type of energy available to compensate
for eutropic
energy losses.
Both Crespy's and Wildiers' books are comparable in scope. What
differences there
are between them is probably a reflection of the different
theological and philosophical
persuasions of the authors. Crespy, who holds a chair in Protestant theology,
writes as a Protestant while Wildiers' hook has received a Nihil Ohstat and has
an Imprimatur. Parts of Wildiers' hook, the discussion of biological evolution
for example, gave the feeling it had been obtusely written to avoid criticism
by the "doubters" of the evolutionary scheme.
Although each of the hooks is well worth reading, they are no substitute for a
study of Teilhard's writings, especially his "The Phenomenon of Man."
Reviewed by Bruce Phillips, Department of Chemistry, Eastern Nazarene College,
Wallastan, Mass.
A Second Review of The Relevance of Teilhard ....
In traditional terms Teilhard is an optimistic, evolutionary postmilleoarian.
His optimism is refreshing if hard to justify, his evolutionary perspective is
challenging, and his postmillennial perspective is as beset by
biblical and historical
difficulties as the classical postmilleonial view that has almost ceased to he
a live option in orthodox Christian circles since the days of the
Depression and
the second World War. The book by Kraft, a Professor of Metallurgy
and Materials
Science at Lehigh University, provides an easily read insight into Teilhard as
viewed through the eyes of an ardent disciple. If Kraft at times
seems to go out
of his way to relate the abstract concepts of Teilhard to the
concrete doctrines
of historic Christianity, he is doing no more than presenting
Teilhard a Ia Kraft.
Perhaps scholars may insist on ferreting out what it is Teilhard meant to say
by a given formulation, but the rest of us will find it more profitable to find
what there is in Teilhard that throws illumination or gives insight
into our own
Christian perspective on life and the world.
Kraft gives us a useful overview of the sweep of Teilhard's view by
pointing out
that "Teilhard's vision is simultaneously a theoretical system
encompassing
all of man's knowledge, a rule for action which can resolve man's problems, a
profound expression of Christianity and a plausible prediction of the near and
far future." He points out that "Each reader of this hook must decide
for himself whether he thinks Fr. Teilhard's theory is 'the truth of
the universe
for man,' now, as well as he can understand it, - or whether he
thinks it is merely
a meaningless or exaggerated hypothesis, or an illusion, or pseudoscience tied
together with poetical mysticism. I believe it is the former."
One harrier to the understanding of Teilhard is his invention of
phrases to suit
his own purposes. Kraft does a good job in defining such key
Teilhardisms as centratcrl-consplezitij,
within and without of things, tangential and radial energy,
co.smogenesi.s, biogenesis,
noo gene sis and Christogenesis.
He emphasizes the profoundly Christian roots of Teilbard's thought.
If l'eilhard
does not do justice to the biblical concepts of sin and atonement, he sheds new
light on the concepts of creation and incarnation. To him evolution is a mighty
work of Cod, and his optimism is rooted in the trustworthiness of Cod
rather than
a naturalistic process. The evolutionary convergence of man to the
Omega point-the
Cod of Creation, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ-should be considered as an
exaltation of Cod, not of godless man. The atonement of Christ for sin and the
whole Christian missionary enterprise can be viewed as the Codordained means by
which man responds to the responsibility he has as one who has become aware of
his own evolutionary position and destiny.
Teilhard's optimism for the future is refreshing, but is it founded? It is good
to hear a refutation of the prophets of doom and gloom; Teilhard cannot believe
that evolution is just a farce, that life is just a joke with man as
the victim.
But what is the prognosis for the futurebetter and better, or worse and worse?
It is the old question of Christian eschatology with faith in the building of
a better world through Christ on
the one hand in conflict with the apparently clear biblical prophecy
of tribulation
and faithlessness in the world on the other. Will Christ return to
receive a Kingdom
prepared for Him, or to institute a Kingdom in a rebellious world? There have
been orthodox Christians who defended the postmillennial perspective
from a biblical
point of view-can their insight he used to enlighten the vision of Teilbard, or
are they both hopelessly wrong?
Kraft interjects a number of comments from his scientific background
as a metallurgist
trained in the discipline of thermodynamics. He develops the theme
that according
to Teilhard the total energy in the universe is not constant but
continually increasing,
due to the continuous input of radial energy from Cod. Thus he points out that
Teilbard rejects the popular scientific notion of an ultimate
"heat-death"
for the universe; on the contrary, he argues that every day there is more and
more life in the universe, and life by its very nature is
anti-entropic. Information,
a growing product of our converging civilization, is also
anti-entropic in nature.
Turning to the moral realm, he defines sin as "moral
entropy," any non-Christcentered
free action of an individual. In terms of Teilhard's and Kraft's
exposition, this
suggests another definition of sin: any act that violates the direction of the
evolutionary process. Since Teilbard sees acts of love as the
criterion for cooperation
with the evolutionary process (God working in the world), this new
and strange-sounding
definition of sin may also be presented as biblical!
TEILHARD DE CHARIN: An Analysis and Assessment by D. Gareth Jones,
Tyndale Press,
London 1969. 72 pp. Paperback, 7s6d.
This little book of pithy criticism of Teilhard was published for the Research
Scientists' Christian Fellowship in England. Its very brevity rules it out as
a first reader for anyone unacquainted with Teilhard, but makes it an
easily-read
critique for one who is at least familiar with the Teilhardismi under
discussion.
It is written by a committed Christian and working biologist who does not share
Teilhard's presuppositions or way of thinking.
One of Jones' principal contentions is that Teilhard's proposed solution is at
least as much a product of Teilhard's own deep personal psychological needs to
find a purpose for man, to reconcile love for Cod and love of the world, to be
both truly Christian and fully a man- as it is of the objective data
or evidence.
"It is not surprising, therefore, to learn that Teilhard
envisaged the whole
adventure of his inner life as being the Christification of matter."
By placing man at the summit of the evolutionary process and by insisting that the cosmos is held together by spirit and not by matter, and that it converges towards persons and not things, Teilhard was able to confer upon evolution a direction, a goal and hence meaning and purpose. By bringing together a religion of the Christian type and an evolution of the convergent type, he could view as one his Christianity and his science, as ultimately-at Omega-the spiritual process and the natural process would coincide.
Jones criticizes Teilhard's scientific view of evolution because of Teilhard's
espousal of orthogenesis, the view that evolution has taken place in a set line
toward a determined goal, and because of his efforts to replace the
"without"
of genetic change by the "within" of
individual desires, which smacks of Lamarckism to Jones.
Teilhard is also criticized for repeatedly falling back on
"synthetic science,"
which Jones sees as nothing else but "belief in the pre-eminent
significance
of man in nature, and belief in the progress and ultimate success of evolution
... worked out in a logical manner," whenever "empirical
science"
cannot be used to further him along his way.
Teilhard's intense optimism is called into questiondo we really have
any evidence
at all that it is justified? Furthermore will the next stage of progressively
greater socialization result in anything other than the
depersonalization of man?
Wherever consciousness is experienced today, it is always in
connection with matter
and dependent on the biological. Is there any scientific basis for
reversing this
order, of moving from the material to the matterfree consciousness as Teilhard
proposes?
Jones argues that if Teilbard had been fully consistent to his own system, he
would have been forced to the conclusion of a natural god, to be completed only
at the end of the universal process. The fact that Teilhard does
introduce a transcendent
God into his discussion, with many of the attributes of orthodox Christianity,
signals a self-contradiction in his system.
We are faced with two alternatives. If we accept his system as a fully coherent one it amounts to no more than evolutionary naturalism. If we allow his introduction of a transcendent God, his system as a system has little value. It is internally self-contradictory, and all that remains of it are a number of instances of evocative terminology.
Why then did his synthesis work for him and for many others? Jones ventures the following opinion.
It is those in need of intellectual and spiritual deliverance from the conflicts of the modern world, and who are drawn towards some form of spiritual solution to the problem, who are likely to he instinctively drawn towards Teilhard. In the end, it is the mystical element in Teilhard's synthesis that triumphs over the rational, and it is the mystical side of Teilhardism which remains as the determinative factor in a person's approach to it.
Teilhard's shortcomings in coming to grips with the problem of evil
are also criticized.
In his system, evil and sits become simply by-products of the process
of evolution
and have nothing to do with the central issues of life. But if evil is simply
a part of the incomplete evolutionary process, then evil is
necessarily decreased
by an increase in scientific knowledge. No connection is made between sin and
evil, and the holiness of God, for example. In rejecting the juridical biblical
pictures of sin and atonement, Teilhard must defend a metaphysical rather than
a moral basis for sin and evil in the world. Individual salvation is
irrelevant,
for either all of mankind will arrive at Omega or none will.
Jones concludes with the following trenchant appraisal of Teilhard.
Whatever may have been Teilhard's own aims, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that what stands out most clearly in his synthesis is his naturalism at the expense of his supernaturalism; man at the expense of Cod; and the world at the expense of Christ (in spite of his professions to love Christ more than anything else.) Herein lies the danger of Teilhardism. Its emphasis on the ioearoational and cosmic Christ, to the detriment of the redeeming Christ, can only lead to worship of a generalized nature-deity with consequent neglect of the transcendent triune God revealed in the Scriptures.
References are given in the Preface to 9 principal publications of Teilhard, 6 publications generally fav orable to Teilhard, and 6 publications critical of Teilhard.
THE SCIENTIFIC ENTERPRISE AND CHRISTIAN FAITH by Malcolm A. Jeeves. Tyndale Press, London 1969. 169 pp. 23s.
Good show! This seems like an appropriate compliment to bestow on this highly
literate mature evangelical treatment of the major issues relating science and
Christian faith. In August 1965 thirty-six Christian men of science
from ten countries
(including several ASA members) met in Oxford, England, for an 8-day conference
sponsored by the Research Scientists' Christian Fellowship. Malcolm
Jeeves, formerly
Professor of Psychology at the University of Adelaide and now occupant of the
Chair of Psychology at the University of St. Andrews, has produced a synthesis
of the papers and discussion of this conference. Playing a prominent
role in the
conclusions presented is the creative thought of three participants
in particular:
Donald M. MacKay, Professor of Communication at Keele University, England; R.
Hooykaas, Professor of History of Science at the Free University,
Amsterdam; and
F. H. T. Rhodes, Professor of Geology at the University of Swansea, Wales. The
book faces up to and deals helpfully with every major intellectual issue in the
interaction between science and Christian faith, particularly in the areas of
cosmology, evolution, phychology and sociology. The underlying
philosophy of the
book is that "science is a true friend of biblical faith and
not, as is often
assumed, in conflict with it."
There are two essential themes that dominate the perspective of the book in a
vital way, and which must, by their very centrality, form the foci of
any comprehensive
treatment of these matters. The first is that the relationship between God and
nature must be pictured in terms of "the clear biblical teaching that God
continues to sustain the universe and hold it in being moment by moment."
Any model of Cod's relation to the universe that involves such terms
as "leaving
room for God to act," "the use of natural law by Cod,"
or "the
intervention of God into an otherwise orderly working creation"
are seriously
mistaken; they "may be seen to be condoning a radical misconception of the
relation of Cod the Creator to the created order." The second theme is the
possibility of description in terms of different levels of
experience, the description
on each level being in itself and in its own terms exhaustive but in
no way subtracting
from or making superfluous similarly exhaustive descriptions on other
levels.
An example of the utility of the first of these themes may be given
with respect
to the understanding of miracles. "Such a view .. means that
since the whole
pattern of space-time events is not only conceived but also held in
being moment
by moment by Cod, we should not regard what we term miraculous events
as interventions.
They are in fact no more and no less dependent upon God's activity
than day-to-day
occurrences which we take so readily for granted." An example of
the second
theme is given in a discussion of the validity of a religious
description of the
conversion experience. Jeeves writes., "we do not see any reason
why ultimately
we may not be able to give exhaustive accounts of the
psychophysiological changes
taking place at conversion in biochemical, physiological and
psychological terms.
. . - It is the contention of the
Christian that . . . he finds it necessary to see and interpret the
over-all pattern
of his experience not only in biochemical, physiological or
psychological terms,
but also in religious terms."
Too many scientific and religious statements are assumed to he contradictory,
Jeeves makes plain, when in fact they are truly complementary. Models
in neither
science nor religious thought should be interpreted ultraliterally or
pushed beyond
their proper realm of meaning. Scriptural revelation provides us commonly with
a multiplicity of models so that we may come to "realize that we need all
of these held in a delicate balance in order to give us as full and adequate a
presentation of the theological truths conveyed to us as possible.
'The principal
and distinctive difference between scientific models and religious
models is that
scientific models are the product of man's mind, whereas religious models are
given by special revelation.
Recognizing the impropriety of taking "the biblical narrative as
a textbook
for physical cosmology" or of submitting to the temptation to "rest
our case on naively pseudo-scientific interpretations of certain portions of
the
Bible," Jeeves argues that serious problems for Christian belief
do not arise
from cosmological theories, evolutionary theories, or theories concerning the
origin of life. Difficulties in Christian thought with evolution are traced to
the mistaken insistence upon the need for God's intervention over
against natural
law (thus failing to see the significance of the first theme mentioned above,
and implying the non-divine character of the 'naturally' explicable),
to the ill-advised
attempt to "identify particular scientific processes with
scriptural counterparts"
(indeterminacy, second law of thermodynamics), to the misconception
that the recognition
of ultimate purpose is inconsistent with the existence of randomness,
and to "the
attempt to read and interpret these early chapters of the book of Genesis as if
they are modern scientific statements." Jeeves makes the thought-provoking
statement, "God, to the theist, while being the cause of everything, is in
the scientific sense the explanation of nothing." A clear distinction is
made between evolution and evolutionism, the elevation of evolutionary theory
"to the status of a metaphysical structure . . . based upon a foundation
which by its very nature as a scientific theory is destined to he continually
changing."
There are many more treatments in this book that the reader will appreciate and
will absorb to chew over in quiet for some time to come to test their ultimate
tractability: the relationship between spiritual life,
psychological life, and physical life; the difference between
"surgical conversion"
and Christian conversion; whether a man who believes that the world
is completely
determinate can arrive at a meaningful decision concerning anything;
whether the
introduction of an element of randomness in a person's actions makes him more
or less responsible for them; the persistence of human freedom of choice even
if the functioning of the brain could be given a completely
mechanistic explanation;
and the irrelevance of determinacy and indeterminacy in natural law as far as
God's action in nature is concerned.
Surely not the least significant aspect of this book is the quiet
consensus expressed
by the international group of Christian men of science participating. This book
is not the product of a single man's culture and religious outlook; it is the
statement of a perspective of an international community of men whose
lives daily
touch deeply into the issues explored. It seems to me that what is said carries
all the more impact because of this consensus, and that every reader
of this review
would do well to add this volume to the small and select list of hooks that he
has studied well.
THE CHRISTIAN AND SCIENCE, A Symposium
held at Calvin College, April 23-25, 1969, V. J. Ehlers and II. D. Griffioen,
Editors, 1969. 84 pp. (multilith) $1.75 (Copies available from Calvin College,
Grand Rapids, Michigan)
As part of the ceremonies to mark the dedication of the new science building at
Calvin College, a Symposium on the Christian and Science was planned
by a committee
of six members from the Calvin College faculty, five from the sciences and one
from theology. The purpose of the Symposium was to provide an opportunity for
discussion between scientists and theologians. Striving to offset
both the theologians'
complaint that scientists tend to ignore theology completely, and the
scientists'
complaint that theologians contribute little to problems except
criticism of scientists
and the waging of n war against scientific discoveries of the 19th century, the
Symposium emphasized an attempt to outline many of the current and
pending problems.
It is hoped that future symposia of this type will continue the effort started
here, and both Dordt College and Trinity Christian College have indicated their
interest in sponsoring such symposia on their campuses in the future.
The symposium
itself was organized in five main parts: (1) a summary of problems of the past
by Dr. Rienstra, historian, with a response by Dr. Vander Vennen, chemist; (2)
a discussion of the nature of science by Dr. van de Fliert, geologist, with a
response by Dr. Orleheke, philosopher of science; (3) a summary of problems of
the present by Dr. Den Besten, physician, with a response by Dr. Van Elderen,
theologianarchaeologist; (4) a public address on "The Bible and
Geology"
by Dr. van de Fliert (see Journal ASA 21, 69 (1969) );and (5) a
summary of problems
of the future by Dr. Faber, physicist, and by Dr. Rottman,
biochemist. This record
of the principal papers of the Symposium is a valuable contribution
to the modern
interraction between science and Christian faith.
EVOLUTION AND CHRISTIAN FAITH by Bolton Davidheiser, the Presbyterian
and Reformed
Publishing Co., 1969, 366 pp. $6.50.
A balanced critical analysis of inadequacies in a contemporary
scientific theory
is always a contribution to understanding. The theory of evolution
with its widespread
corollaries and implications is particularly well suited for such an analysis.
In such a treatment it is necessary to distinguish carefully between
the various
ways in which the term "evolution" is used: (a) changes in
living plants
and animals, (b) a general theory that proposes a common origin for all living
plants and animals, and (c) a system of philosophical speculation
that views evolutionary
processes as basic to all life. Dr. Davidbeiser rejects all such distinctions
and as a result his treatment of the problem is a grave disappointment.
Dr. Davidheiser, PhD in Zoology and Genetics from Johns Hopkins University and
Professor of Biology at
Westmont College and Biola College, hates evolution with singleness of mind.
In his own Christian experience his interractiors with the theory of evolution
proved to be a great stumbling-block. Since he believes that he came
to a saving
faith in Christ only after release from the bondage of evolution, it
is understandable
that he should feel so strongly. He would purge even the word
"evolution"
from the vocabulary, as dealing with any real phenomenon.
Unfortunately his approach
takes the form of such an outrageous overkill that only those already
completely
committed to his point of view will respond favorably to this book.
The issue according to Dr. Davidheiser is incredibly simple.
Christian faith and
evolutionary faith are two world views locked in mortal combat.
Anyone considering
the evidence must choose between them. "Bible-believing" Christians
have no choice but to condemn any position that even suggests
evolutionary ideas.
If man evolved, then the Biblical account of the fall is false, man
is constantly
getting better, sin is only a decaying remnant of his animal nature, Christ was
only a martyred reformer and not the redeeming Savior, the Christian religion
is only a code of ethics and not the way of eternal life.
Evolutionary ideas present
a prime argument against the existence of God, a repudiation of
Scripture, a central
factor in the degradation of such schools as Ohio \Vesleyan
University from Bible-centered
to nominally liberal Christian, a cause for modernism and apostasy in
the church,
a motivating factor for scientists to play God, balm for the consciences of big
industrialists, aid to those who take advantage of the poor, a cause of racial
strife, a means for the glorification of war, and the foundation of Mussolini's
and Hitler's fascism as well as of Marx and Engel's communism.
Dr. Davidheiser 'believes that the creation of Eve from a rib of Adam
is the crucial
evidence against the theory of evolution, mentions on several
occasions the importance
of "divine intervention" into the natural order, objects to
the phrase
"man and other animals" in biology textbooks, faults
atheistic or theistic
evolution and progressive creationism alike, attempts unsuccessfully to salvage
an argument from the Second Law of Thermodynamics, feels that Whitcomb
and Morris
have reestablished the legitimacy of "flood geology",
speaks favorably
of the "apparent age" theory, and suggests that the past instances of
fossil hoaxes allow one to speculate about how many other such there may be yet
undiscovered. Dogmatic assertions abound. "Those who say there is no real
conflict between evolution and Christian faith are ignorant of the most basic
Christian doctrines, or else they repudiate them." "Espousal of the
theory of evolution leads to compromises which in turn lead to
liberalism, modernism,
and a repudiation of the gospel of salvation through the atonement of
Christ."
"Theistic evolution contradicts the Bible both historically and
doctrinally.
No matter what the approach, theistic evolution leads logically to
modernism."
Although the author himself points out the ambiguity of the method,
he uses quotations
from evolutionist authors as his main methodology. Late in the book he states,
"As is rather characteristic in matters pertaining to evolution, one can
find just about every imaginable point of view advocated by someone." In
spite of this comment, however, the book carries over 900 quotations,
or an average
of 2) quotations per
page throughout the entire hook. In one climax of this approach, Si quotations
are given on 6 pages to show that evolutionists themselves admit
ignorance about
the origin of life. In spite of his own remark, the author does not
seem to recognize
that this same procedure could be used with great apparent
effectiveness to show
the evils and shortcomings of the Christian faith as exercised by the
church throughout
history. Such out-of-context spot quoting gives the reader no basis for sound
evaluation.
The first half of the book is devoted to setting the stage for the
actual chapters
criticizing proposed evolutionary mechanisms. One hundred pages are devoted to
tracing the historical development of evolutionary ideas from Empedoeles (5th
century B.C.) to the American Scientific Affiliation, In this
historical development
the focus of attention naturally falls on Charles Darwin. The author describes
him directly and via quotations as a failure as a young man caring
about nothing
but hunting, theologically trained at a school noted for gambling, drunkenness,
moral laxity and lack of discipline, taught by Professors of Botany and Geology
who publicly admitted ignorance of their subjects, almost rejected by
Capt. Fitzroy
of the Beagle because the captain didn't like the indications of character he
read in the shape of Darwin's nose, a victim for years of illness
finally characterized
as more mental than physical, afraid of criticism, keenly desiring recognition
and honor, intentionally ambiguous and slippery in his writing, opportunistic,
equivocal, without historical sense, indirectly responsible for the
suicidal death
of Capt. Fitzroy in guilt-ridden remorse, recognized and honored by communists
as an atheist, admired by Karl Marx.
The American Scientific Affiliation comes in for about a dozen
critical comments
in the course of the book. ASA members Ramm, Mixter, Knobiocli,
Buswell III, and
Cassel all come in for their share of criticism for failing to take a
firm anti-evolutionary
stand. Buswell's statement that there are data which conflict
with the Genesis
account as interpreted in the context of the author's language and culture is
dismissed as denying the "authorship by divine inspiration. The
ASA is faulted,
not because anti-evolutionary writings do not appear in its publications, but
because all writings of the Affiliation are not anti-evolutionary.
Flashes of humor break through in various places, making the reader wish that
the author had practiced a consistently saner exposition of the major problems.
The miracle of passing through a closed door does not become easier
to understand,
he argues, because we now know that a door is mostly "empty space";
"a
chicken wire fence has less matter and more empty space than a door,
but neither
a man nor a chicken can pass through such a fence," Discussing
the difficulty
in accounting for certain structure of the body in terms of natural selection,
he says, "It is evident that natural selection is not responsible for the
fortunate position of human ears as an adaptation for wearing
glasses." Criticizing
the view that vertebrates derive front segmented worms, he writes,
"to become
a vertebrate, the worm would have to turn over on its back. Worms do not like
to do this even for a short time, not to mention staying this way
while evolving
into something else." I think my favorite is Dr. Davidheiser's comment on
reconstructed models of early man, "a picture of a restored Zinjanthropus
surely would not draw a second glance in the New York subway, provided he was
wearing a cap that concealed the fact that he had no forehead."
This attempted tour de force founders on certain basic issues. It
fails from the
very beginning to recognize that creation and evolution are not
necessarily antithetical,
that a view of the universe which depends moment-by-moment for its
very existence
on the upholding power of God need have no difficulty in seeing the
creative activity
of Cod expressed in an evolutionary process. By assuming that the
interpretation
of the Biblical creation account is obvious, it ignores the basic hermeneutical
considerations involved in such an interpretation. By seeking to
define "Bible-believing"
in a narrow and restrictive way, it tends to drive separations
between Christians.
By appealing to the weight of endless quotations and by failing to
introduce new
evidence or new perspective, it merely reorganizes and sets forth old arguments
and opinions already part of the record.
If Dr. Davidheiser were right about the dogmatic certainty of the
meaning of the
Genesis account, there would be no need for the lengthy attempt to
show that the
scientific foundations of evolution are wrong. Why belabor the point further?
But, if the interpretation of the Genesis record about the mechanisms
of creation
is ever so slightly uncertain, then we must listen at least with one ear to the
testimony of science. The final resolution of the problems in the evolutionary
description must come, if indeed they are ever to come, from improvements ill
scientific process and understanding. Evolution is a scientific
question; it would
be unfortunate indeed if a scientific question were permitted to
become the crucial
point for Christian faith.
Reviewed by Richard H. Rube, Department of Materials Science,
Stanford University,
Stanford, California 94305. The review of Evolution and Christian
Faith has been
published also in The Reformed Journal.