Science in Christian Perspective


Book Reviews for March 1970


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 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 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.


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.


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.