Science in Christian Perspective



Book Reviews for June 1972


THE POPULATION BOMB, by Paul R. Ehrlich, New York: Ballantine Books, Inc., 1971. Revised and Expanded Edition, Paperback, $0.95.
DIALOGUE IN MEDICINE AND THEOLOGY, Dale White, (ed.) Abingdon Press, 1968, Paperback. $1.95.
SCIENCE AND HUMAN VALUES IN THE 21ST CENTURY, B. W. Burhoe, Ed., Westminister Press, (1971). Paperback $3.45.
Press, Philadelphia. 1967. 158 pp.
THE THIRD FORCE: THE PSYCHOLOGY OF ABRAHAM MASLOW. by Frank Coble, Crossman Publishers, New York. 1970. 201 pp.
EVOLUTION ON TRIAL by Cora Reno, Moody Press, Chicago 1970. 192 pp. $3.95
THE WISDOM OF EVOLUTION, by R. J. Nogar (New York: Reprinted by the New American Library, a Mentor-Omega Book) 1966.
MATHEMATICAL CHALLENGES TO THE NEO-DARWINIAN INTERPRETATION OF EVOLUTION Edited by Paul S. Moorhead and Martin NI. Kaplan. The Wistar Institute Press, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, (1967) 140 pp., Paperback $5.00
THE BRAIN: Towards an Understanding by C. U. M. Smith, C. P. Putnam's Sons, New York, 1970. 392 pp. 810.00
THE STORY OF QUANTUM MECHANICS by Victor Cuillemin, Scribners, New York, 1968. Paperback, 332 pp. $3.95
THE GOD OF SCIENCE by Frederick E. Trink1cm, Wm. B. Eerdmaos, Grand Rapids, Michigan (1971). Paperback. 192 pp. $3.45

THE POPULATION BOMB, by Paul R. Ehrlich, New York: Ballantine Books, Inc., 1971. Revised and Expanded Edition, Paperback, $0.95.

"The Population Bomb. While you are reading these words five people, mostly children, have died of starvation-and forty more babies have been born." In this fashion the cover of this paperback volume heralds Paul Ehrlich's purpose to arouse the public to what he and many others consider an impending catastrophic international situation. This situation is, in short: too many people lead to too little food (primarily, in the developing nations) and to dangerous pollution of the environment (primarily, in the industrial nations). And indeed, the situation is already upon us. Ehrlieh predicts that it will rapidly develop into a global calamity.
The author details demographic features and causes for the burgeoning population and points to the inevitability of the greatest baby boom of all time during the next decade, because 40% of the population of the underdeveloped world consists of people under 15 years old. He estimates that two billion people out of a total world population of over three and one-half billion will not be properly fed in 1971 and that we are already beyond the point of preventing large scale famines in the next decade or so. In a chapter entitled 'A Dying Planet," Ehrlieh tells how the environment is deteriorating: land erosion and gullying, saliuization of irrigated land, salt seepage into aquifers due to a falling fresh water table, dam fill-up, pesticide effects, air contamination, industrial chemical poisoning, sewage pollution, and excessive noise level.

In three scenarios, the author speculates what the outcome of overpopulation might be within the next fifteen years in terms of war, pestilence, famine, and alternately an outcome based on international cooperation, control, and sharing of resources.

Under the topic "What is Being Done," the inadequacies of present population control measures in various world areas are cited. Ehrlich points out that "family planning" most often means planned overpopulation. Various proposed measures for increasing the world food supply are evaluated, but lie stresses that population control is the only real solution to the food problem. The author assigns the "green revolution" to a less-than-panacea status, because of the input of fertilizer and water required, and because of the consequent potential for environmental deterioration. A review is given of some measures which have been taken to stop environmental contamination. He concludes that "the palliatives are still too few and too weak" and especially singles out certain government agencies such as the United States Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration as lacking sensitivity on ecological issues.

Ehrlich suggests four broad measures by which overpopulation-food shortage-environmental deterioration can be handled: (1) decreasing the population growth rate to zero and then to a negative value; (2) concurrent increase of food production; (3) careful monitoring of agricultural programs with regard to minimizing adverse environmental effects and restoration of ecosystems; and (4) assessment and beneficient management of the world's nonrenewable resources. Specific suggestions are made for government actions to implement these proposals. Individuals are urged and told how to create pressure on politicians to achieve these desired goals. Examples of letters sent to influential officials by private citizens are included. Certain matters brought forth by the author directly touch upon Christian principles and can become the foci for discussion leading to individual and collective Christian action. Three such matters are presented as follows.

1. The United States with less than one-fifteenth of the worlds population is said to use about one-third of its raw materials (page 129). It is asserted that the affluence of our country greatly depends on many of our imports such as minerals and energy sources. In addition to nonagricultural imports, the overdeveloped countries are taking more protein from protein-deficient countries than is returned to these countries. Much of this imported protein is said to he fed to pets and farm animals (page 23). Should and do Christians in industrial nations feel convicted about contributing to this imbalance?

2. The overdeveloped countries such as the United States are also said to be the world's major polluters (page 7). Ehrlich maintains that "the attitudes of Western culture toward nature are deeply rooted in Judeo-Christian tradition" (page 155). He says that most (in our culture) hold the "Christian view" that "God designed and started the whole business for our benefit. He made the world for us to dominate and exploit" (page 156). How do most Christians really interpret Cod's command to man in Genesis 1:26-28?

3. Ehrlich advocates "a federal law requiring sex education in schools-sex education that includes discussion of the need for regulating the birth rate and of the techniques of birth control" (page 133). Such education, the author feels, should be given before junior high school at the latest. He advocates a "greater availability of contraceptives and abortion" (page 136) to solve the problem of "the unplanned results of premarital sexual activity". A suggested means the author gives to exert social pressure for population control is: "Give your child an IUD to take to 'show and tell' " (page 166). Ehrlich insists: "Above all, raise a stink. Let other people know how serious your group thinks the problem is and how determined you are to do something about it" (page 166). How active are Christians in providing adequate sex and birth control education within the context of biblical principles and the values of family life?

Most evangelical Christians would find points of disagreement with Paul Ehrlich's philosophy, methods, and language. Undoubtedly many, if not most, need to be awakened to the biological realities and effects of overpopulation. All of us need to know and carry out our Christian responsibility in the face of these realities and in the light of a proper interpretation of the Word of God.

Reviewed by Robert F. Hoyes, Associate Professor of Food Science and Nutrition, Olivet Nazarene College, Kankokee, Illinois 60901.

DIALOGUE IN MEDICINE AND THEOLOGY, Dale White, (ed.) Abingdon Press, 1968, Paperback. $1.95.

Though now four years old, this collection of papers and discussions from a 1967 Convocation on Medicine and Theology held at the Mayo Clinic and Rochester Methodist Hospital (and initiated by the United Methodist Church) still preserves the thrust and original purpose of the Convocation: "more and better communication between physicians and clergymen." The contributors apparently were selected both for their qualifications and their representativeness, and include professionals in internal medicine, pastoral counseling, psychiatry, pastoral theology, Christian ethics, systematic theology, the general practice of medicine, and the pastoral ministry. Each contributor is actively involved in the identification and investigation of the moral and ethical issues which bring the two professions together.

With the exception of Seward Hiltoer's discussion on the biblical understanding of health (which is the outstanding chapter of the book), the topics are largely ones which have become popularized in recent years through the exposure in mass media. The topics include: organ transplants, effects of specialization, abortion, contraception, euthanasia, prolongation of life, and health care. Perhaps it is the deluge of articles and reports covering these same topics in almost every current periodical that makes the reader frequently expect more in the discussion of any particular topic than the book often provides.

The case history involving an ethical dilemma is a frequent vehicle used to illustrate the various meeting points of medicine and theology. The dilemmas are the ones we have become accustomed to hearing. There is the young girl who has been abducted, raped and then finds herself pregnant. Should she have a therapeutic abortion? At what point does our specialization begin to reduce our effectiveness in treating (or ministering to) the whole person? What new ethical issues are raised by the proliferation of medical advances? What about mind-controlling drugs? When is the beginning of life and what does this have to say about conception control? Can genetic manipulation be justified? When does life end? What characteristics must be present for us to say that a being is a person?

Unfortunately, the scope of this book allows for little more than the raising of these questions. Only rarely can any one question he dealt with in any way resembling thoroughness. This opinion is not meant to fault the book, but merely to express a sense of incompleteness felt by the reader at the end of almost every chapter. In one sense it is the nature of ethics to he incomplete rather than complete, and conditional rather than final. Also, the attempt to cover several areas of the interdisciplinary dialogue necessitates a brief discussion on any one topic.

The resulting presentation in this book, from just these kinds of self -limitations, can be considered a major strength: an intensely readable general consideration of professional dialogue with suggestions for further development of the dialogue. In this way, the book becomes useful not only for the professional person but also for the interested lay reader who has puzzled for a long time over the incongruous division in our society of the care of the "physical" aspects of man and the care of the "non-physical" aspects, whether they be sociological, psychological, or religious.

Though one contributor sees the areas of psychiatry and psychosomatic medicine as the most likely loci for collaboration, it is not necessary for us to restrict ourselves in this way. Whether it was psychiatry, psychology, medicine, religion, or common sense that brought us to the renewed understanding that "one cannot be ill physically without having some emotional accompaniments to the illness and vice versa," is a moot question. That we have come to re-understand this, and that this understanding is central to an understanding of the Christian and Biblical concepts of health and disease, is the real point of significance.
Here the reader is led to reconsider the concise yet remarkably thorough presentation of "The Bible Speaks to the Health of Man." Hiltoer's chapter makes sense of both the book and the dialogue itself. His discussion is thoroughly Biblical, and he is successful in stripping away our prejudgments on the views of Scripture on health and -disease. He condemns the modern striving after health as the highest value, in which view men make of health another "work" to he (lone for its own sake. Hiltoer helps us see that in the Biblical view the highest value is "wholeness." health, as a component of that wholeness, is properly seen as that which flows from Cod's love and grace as a part of His reconciling and redeeming work among men. Health is something that is a corollary of redemption in Jesus Christ. In that sense, it is social (even cosmic), as much as individual. It is a part of the holistic view of man that Christianity derived from its Jewish ancestry, and as such is central to our understanding of the meaning of the Christian life and the way of Salvation.

It is this understanding for the basis of dialogue between medicine and theology and an appreciation for some of its possibilities in actual practice that helps us come to grips with a statement in the preface of the book.
Human illness traced back to its source in the individual patient almost inevitably provides a meeting place for the physician and the clergyman and a bright and challenging opportunity for the best efforts of both, one in support of the other. Communion between the ministry of healing and the ministry of faith is as old as man's search for Cod in the turmoil of lives beset by the malignancies of passions and plagues, of demons and death.
With such awareness this book has meaning and value for each of us.

Reviewed by Chester I. Minarcik, Jr., Medical Student, Medical School, University of Virginia.

SCIENCE AND HUMAN VALUES IN THE 21ST CENTURY, B. W. Burhoe, Ed., Westminister Press, (1971). Paperback $3.45.

The power of technological achievements resulting from the discoveries of science, and those discoveries themselves, have placed a tremendous strain on present value systems and world views, particularly upon the religions of the advanced cultures. Science and Human Values in the 21st Century, edited by Ralph Wendell Burhoe, is an attempt to prophesy the changes necessitated by the new aspects of the cosmos revealed by science. This book sprang from a symposium at the University of Pittsburgh, and contains chapters by physicist Harold K. Schilling, theologian Langdon Gilkey, psychologist 0. H. Mowrer, and biophysicist Robert L. Sinsheimer, in addition to four chapters by the editor.

Ralph Burhoe authors the first two and last two chapters (plus the epilogue) in which he attempts to establish a basis for prophecies and then proceeds to prophesy, respectively, lie is qualified for his writing and editorial tasks on the basis of his editorship of Zygon, Journal of Religion and Science, and his Professor- and Directorships at the Center for Advanced Study in Theology and the Sciences at Meadville/Lombard Theological School.

In Chapter 1, Burhoe defines life as a homeostatic physical mechanism in which the brain is the cybernetic device which centrally organizes not only individual but also social life. The brain receives information hits about the environment and then alters behavior to maintain life. Extrapolating this biological phenomenon, he suggests that man necessarily predicts his future from what he knows of his world. God in this physical system is the order-producing, lifebuilding selection principle which transcends the evolving train of living organisms.
While there have been many dire predictions made concerning present world religions and Christian beliefs in particular, Burhoe concludes in Chapter 2 that the human spirit always seeks to transcend itself and therefore religious quests will continue. FTc further predicts that the third millenium will see the development of a universal world reigion which transcends all of the current world religions, even though the time for such development is limited.

Chapter 7 presents "A Scientific View of the Role of Religion". Burhoe suggests that life is the natural consequence of stratified thermodynamic stabilities, i.e., higher living systems are the necessary result of the interaction of entropic tendencies of thermodynamics with potential structures which, in the nature of the cosmos, are preferred due to hidden stabilities. Life is thus an "entropy-consuming" process which creates greater order. This principle may be extended beyond molecules to societies in which religions have been the major order-building phenomena. Futhermore, religion is a technology which is necessary to maintain societal order, so that the human species may continue development. A religious reformation, however, is needed-a reformation which is based on the transcending principles of science and which speaks the scientific language of our age.

In "Prophecies of a Scientific Theology", Chapter 8, Burhoe continues his theme that man must draw his "do's and don'ts" from the transcending principles of the cosmos which science has illuminated. He suggests that a "natural piety" is developing among the impious scientists of the world. Unfortunately, be does not consider the fact that any new theology based upon scientific principles depends upon man's interpretation of data about the cosmos and/or man's extrapolation of the transcending principles of vaR e systems applicable to human beings.

In the epilogue, Burhoe discusses the current trend toward a universal scientific-technological world view and postulates that religions which fail to communicate their message will be weeded out by the process of natural selection. He calls for a scientifically based symbol system where the Lord, the God concept, is the man-transcending power or reality (a term which Burhoe seems to like best to denote CZod) that creates and determines man's destiny. He demonstrates the rather naive belief that a reformed symbol system will transform man from his "present patterns of self-centered indulgence, apathy, isolation, confusion, and frustration". If few religions have been able to save man from himself, even \vitls symbol systems applicable to their age, there seems little basis for believing that another system will deliver man in this age.

In Chapters 3 through 6, the four other scientists present views which vary moderately to greatly from the editor's. In Chapter 3 physicist Schilling argues that man is now at the stage where he can create his future. His thesis is that in the finite future man will become "more fully human"; he will develop into an interdependent and community oriented species. This will not be achieved easily, but with Cod, he emphasizes, it may. Sehilling seems to rely on his Christian faith for a redeeming ethic which is in harmony with the basic character of the universe. His optimism rests on his belief that science will be able to define reality and persons in an understandable fashion, and technology will he able to propagate these ideas to the entire world. He seems to have ignored the fact that man seldom (if ever) turns from independence and selfish-ness to interdependence and mutuality of his own free will.

In Chapter 5, psychologist Mowrer, after defining good and evil in a manner free of any god concept, presents deliverance from evil to good through small group participation and encounter. He places his hope in nootheistic religious groups in which estrangement is overcome and temptation resisted through interaction with and commitment to one's peers. Mutual understanding, interdependence, and good will inevitably result,
In "Science and the Quest for Human Values", Chapter 6, biophysicist Sinsheimer suggests that hope for man lies in programming values into his genetic heritage. He states that man might he less human but more humane if he "never knew hate or rage or envy or terror". Sinsheimer assumes a great deal of genetic technology which is yet to be developed. Even more naive is his assumption that this power will be used wisely and not for corrupt purposes. Who will decide that "good" men are not merciless, artless, unimaginative slaves?

Perhaps Langdon Gilkey's Chapter 4, "Biblical Symbols in a Scientific Culture", should have been placed at the end, for in it he successfully cuts the groundwork from underneath the postulations of the other authors. He states simply that history is irrational because man is a selfish, ambitions, power-corrupted being and prophecy concerning such a species is foolish. As for world views, he suggests that man return to the Biblical symbols because they are correct. The modern religious myths of Evolution and Marxism have been shown to be false. The present scientific Gnosticism prevalent among many scientists-the belief that man will shortly know enough to save himself-is self contradictory and less believable than the traditional symbols of the Bible.
While this book is basically an interesting, albeit dubious, look at the future based on a misunderstanding of man's nature, Gilkey's chapter is an excellent critique on modern scientism and a successful philosophical attack upon modern scientific Gnosticism.

Reviewed by Carl Lynch Ill, Medical Student, University of Rochester Medical School.

Press, Philadelphia. 1967. 158 pp.

Ever since science began, men have been interested in the relationship that exists between the doctrines of religion and the findings of scientific research. The conclusions of Columbus, Copernicus, Newton, Darwin and Freud, to name a few, have put churchmen on the defensive and led to heated debates about the real nature of man and his world. In the past, many of these debates have focused on the subject-matter of the natural sciences, but within our generation the emphasis seems to have shifted more to the social sciences. Undoubtedly there are many reasons for this shift, but certainly one factor must be that social scientists (and especially psychologists) so often study the very subjects which are discussed in the Bible; subjects like child rearing, interpersonal relations, suffering, healing, discouragement, aggression, and hope.

Twenty years ago the dialogue between psychology and theology was of interest only to a few theologians and a handful of social scientists. But this has changed! The existential despair of the SO's and GO's has led increasing numbers of people to look to theology and to psychology for the answers to man's problems. (There is, perhaps, an even greater interest in sociology, but I have chosen to limit my remarks to theology and psychology since these are the areas that are discussed in Dr. Odeo's hook.) And the disciplines of psychology and theology, perhaps embarrassed by the attention and caught with little that they can offer, have been turning to each other. In increasing numbers, theological seminaries are requiring that students take courses in psychology and pastoral counseling and, amazing as it may seem, psychologists are even getting interested in religion. 0. Hobart Mowrer, Abraham Maslow, Erik Erickson, Carl Rogers, and a host of lesser known psychologists have been looking to theology to see if religion can help in understanding man's behavior and solving his problems.

Books and articles on the relationship between psychology and theology continue to roll off the presses. In a footnote, Dr. Odeo notes, no doubt with tongue in cheek, that "the sheer quantity of this literature would lead one to suspect that something exciting must be happening in this area" (p. 143), but elsewhere the author reaches a conclusion with which I am inclined to agree. Discussions "on the potential rapproehment of psychology and theology . . . have borne meager fruit in this present decade with recent literature tending increasingly toward trivia and repetition....the issues between current theology and psychotherapy remain mostly muddled and unresolved" (p. 9,16). In writing his book, Dr. Oden no doubt sought to avoid the trivia and to clarify the issues, but in my opinion be hasn't succeeded very well.

The book is divided into three parts. Part one pinpoints some of the issues of debate and then presents the thesis that Bonhoeffer's "worldly theology" and Teilhard de Chardin's "Christian humanism" are the best theological positions on which to build a dialogue with psychology and psychotherapy. In the second part of the book (which in my opinion is the best) Oden critically examines the work of three men-Paul TJlich, Edward Thurneysen and Seward Hiltoer-who "stand out above all others" as representatives of the theologypsychotherapy debate. In part three the author, basing his conclusions on the systems of Bonhoeffer, Teilhard and Bultmano, suggests some future directions for the "emerging dialogue" of theology and psychotherapy.

Scattered throughout the book are a number of good insights and thoughtful conclusions. In his evaluation, for example, the author criticizes Tillich's tendency to assume that science, including therapy, should ask all of the questions while theology sits around waiting to supply answers. Surely science can give some answers just as theology can help in formulating the questions that should he asked. Borrowing from Boohoeffer, the author also criticizes the "subtle assumption in Tillich "that God seems to be working on the edge of life, just at the abyss of human meaninglessness and doubt where man is at the cud of his rope, but not at the center of ordinary existence, not in the middle of town" where man lives and interacts with people (p. 70). Thurneysen's belief that healing can be divided into two distinct spheres, one secular and one theological, is also critized. This is a point which should he heeded by many of the Christian psychologists that I know, therapists who keep their theology and their psychology so separated that the twain never meet, especially in a counseling session. 'Then Oden looks at the pastoral psychology movement in the United States and dares to criticize what a host of theologians, seminarians, and psychologists hold in great reverence. "The American pastoral care movement," Oden suggests, "has drifted along with liberal theology in general toward antisystematization and even anti-intellectualism in the sense of resisting deliberately systematic or theological substructures as a basis for its actual functioning" (p. 84). The movement has selected "an 'operation-centered' approach, which argues that theological conclusions are drawn from interpersonal relationships and pastoral experience . . . . The overwhelming weight of authority for theological knowledge is given to experience, and in this sense the American pastoral care movement belongs essentially to the tradition of a liberalizing, pragmatizing pietism." (p. 89). Prayer, scripture reading, and doctrine are nothing more than gimmicks-techniques that can be used on occasion because of their psychological effect on the counselee. Rarely have I seen such a clear-cut, and in my opinion accurate, appraisal of the pastoral care movement.

But Oden, regretfully, does not offer anything better. Having rejected the inspiration and authority of the Bible as the Word of God, the author joins with other contemporary theologians who are floundering in their search for a theological base, He gives an exposition of Colossians 1 and Matthew 25, but he rejects other parts of the Scriptures and claims, for example, that all men are automatically saved (p. 126-7, 134), that Cod is known by works (p. 116) and that the church needs to embrace a modern form of gnosticism (p. 109)-the very doctrine against which the Scriptures speak so strongly (especially in 1 John). In addition, Oden falls into a language which may mean something to theologians but certainly does nothing to clarify the dialogue with science, For example, in summarizing his "Bonhoefferian-TeilhardianChristology," the author states "The central inadequacy of a theology of culture has been a de-historieized Christology which misplaces the historicity of the accepting reality, the eventfulness of the power of acceptance" (p. 56). Equally confusing is the statement that "psychotherapy is not primarily concerned with conceptualizing authenticity as an ontological possibility, but with mediating a relationship of accepting love that will in fact free one for authenticity" (p. 114), or that "the saints are the celebrating community of those who know themselves to have been grasped by the unconditional positive regard of Cod amid their estrangement" (p. 97).

Oden's book is a serious and scholarly attempt to relate contemporary theology and psychotherapy, but the attempt gets bogged down in theological doubletalk and vagueness. Because he has no clearcut Biblically based theology, Oden finds himself led to the very trivia and repetition which he condemns in the first chapter of his book.

Discussions of this sort will continue, no doubt, but they will do little to bring secular science and Christianity together. Modern theologians have, for the most part, rejected the revealed Word of God and substituted a series of man-made speculative systems. Armed with these confusing human creations they can hardly hope to relate to modern science which has lately been doing some soul searching of its own.

It is time that more evangelicals got into the task of integrating modern science and a Biblically based theology. The task is not easy but it needs to be done and in spite of all our talk about its importance, it does not appear to me that many of us are really in the battle. Until more of us are willing to show in clearly written treatises that the findings of science and the revealed Word of Cod can and do relate to each other, then we will have to be satisfied with confused books such as the one that Dr. Oden has written.

THE THIRD FORCE: THE PSYCHOLOGY OF ABRAHAM MASLOW. by Frank Coble, Crossman Publishers, New York. 1970. 201 pp.

For many years the science of psychology has been dominated by two theoretical forces. The first of these, psychoanalysis, was originally formulated by Freud and has had a great influence on the development of both clinical psychology and psychiatry. The second force, behaviorism, grew out of the uork of John B. Watsnn and has pretty much shaped the direction of academic psychology in America during the past 50 years.

More recently, however, a third force has been snaking itself felt in psychology. Disillusioned with the impotence of psychoanalysis and the sterility of behaviorism, increasing numbers of psychologists are looking to a new theoretical position-a position which writers such as the author of this book enthusiastically proclaim as "a major breakthrough that is capable of changing the course of world history" (p. xii). Coble's book is written as a summary of the major tenets and principles of this new third force movement.

The term "third force" was first suggested by a psychologist named Abraham Maslow and it is in this man's research and writings that the new movement has found much of its theoretical basis. Maslow was a man of exceptional ability and diversified interests. A former president of the American Psychological Association, he authored numerous publications and for many years held a position on the faculty of Brandeis University. When Frank Coble decided to write a summary of Maslow's ideas and to describe the current state of Third Force Psychology, Maslow agreed to cooperate. He read the manuscript of this honk, offered suggestions for revision, and wrote an introduction. Then, suddenly in June of 1970, Abraham Maslow died of a heart attack. Coble's book appeared shortly thereafter and now stands as a comprehensive introduction both to the life work of Maslow and to the third force movement which is gaining increasing influence in American psychology.

Maslow and his followers do not reject Freud and Watson totally. Psychoanalysis and behaviorism, it is asserted, have given us some helpful information and many useful techniques, but both of these forces fail to view man as a creature who is uniquely different from all other animals. According to third force psy

The study of the mentally ill (which is the chief method of psychoanalysis) is valuable, but not enough. The study of animals (which is the behaviorists' main technique) is valuable, but not enough. The study of average individuals will not, in itself, solve the problem. In order to understand mental illness we need a thorough understanding of mental health.

Maslow proposed . . . . the idea that one could learn a great deal about man and his potential from the study of emotionally healthy, mature people.
(p. 18).

From this beginning there developed a new way of looking at human behavior. Maslow tried to find and study people who were "outstanding examples of mental health." He developed a creative list of human needs and described how people could, by developing their own "unrealized potential" move toward a state of psychological maturity which he called "self actualization." As he developed his ideas, Maslow grappled with the problems of improving mental health, making education more effective, helping neurotics to function more effectively, and enabling society to improve. He endowed the whole third force movement with a great optimism and a belief in the innate potential and goodness of man.

Goble's volume is divided into two parts. The first of these (which comprises about two-thirds of the book) summarizes Maslow's theories of human motivation and behavior, while the second part describes how others have applied third force ideas to such practical issues as mental health, crime prevention, education and industrial efficiency. In a style that is lucid, nontechnical, and very readable, Goble gives us an excellent overview of the third force philosophy. The author has an intense respect for Maslow and believes that in this new system "a breakthrough of world-wide significance has occurred in our understanding of man and his behavior" (p. 118), In spite of this enthusiasm, however, the author presents a balanced introduction to his topic and the book is an excellent summary of a way of thinking that may well influence not only psychology, but other areas of science as well (see the article by Harman, Journal ASA, June, 1971). The Third Force will be an important hook for psychologists, but it can also be read with real profit by laymen and by scientists in fields other than psychology.

Having enthusiastically endorsed Goble's book, however, I should like to comment briefly on the third force philosophy itself. (I am currently preparing a more detailed evaluation of third force psychology during a year of sabbatical leave in Europe.) There is a great deal in this formulation that can be enthusiastically accepted by Christians: the importance of both love and discipline in child rearing; the value of self understanding; the need for respect and trust in interpersonal relations; the realization that "man does not live by bread alone but by his higher needs"; the belief that responsibility is healthy while irresponsibility is costly; the approach which considers mans feelings, desires and emotions instead of examining him as one would look at a pigeon in a Skinner box; the recognition that there is such a thing as right and wrong and that values have a place in all of science including psychology. But in spite of these views we must recognize that third force psychology rests on a basic assumption which is both nonChristian and antiBiblical. This is the view that man is alone in the universe and that he is sufficient in himself.

Consider, for example, the third force views of human values as described in Gnblc's book.

The ultimate disease of our times is valuelessness this state is more crucially dangerous than ever before in history; and . . . something can be done about it by man's own effort.
Perhaps the most unique aspect of Maslow's Third Force theory is the belief that there are values or moral principles common to the entire human species, which can be scientifically confirmed. Maslow strongly feels the need for a usable system of values that does not rest upon blind faith alone. 'It is certainly true that mankind, throughout history, has looked for guiding values, for principles of right and wrong. But he has tended to look outside of himself, outside of mankind to a god, to some sort of sacred book perhaps, or to a ruling class. What I am doing is to explore the theory that you can always find values by which mankind must live, and for which man has always sought, by digging into the best people in depth. I believe, in other words, that I can find ultimate values which are right for mankind by observing the best of mankind. If under the best conditions and in the best specimens I simply stand aside and describe in a scientific way what these human values are, I find values that are the old values of truth, goodness, and beauty. and some additional ones as well-for instance gaiety, justice, and joy.' They are intrinsic in human nature, a part of man's biological nature, instinctual rather than acquired. (pp. 87-8).

In spite of its great potential for creating a new psychology, this third force movement falls short of the Biblical conception of man. Man was created in God's image, we read in the Scriptures, but he fell. Now in his fallen state, natural man may employ all of his best efforts and creative talents, but without help he cannot reform himself or cure all the ills of society. There is still a need for man to "look outside of himself to a God, to a sacred book." By himself man can only make limited progress. He needs the love of God, the power of Jesus Christ, and the direction of the Holy Spirit if he is to sec humanity pulled out of a miry clay and set firmly on a rock (Psalm 40:2).

Third force psychology has the potential of pointing the science of human behavior in a new direction. But the system that Goble describes so well in his book also presents Christians with an exciting challenge: a challenge to show conclusively that man by his own efforts can only go so far. To really change ourselves and our society we need more than psychoanalysis, behaviorism, and third-force humanism. We need a psychology with a new dimension-a psychology which is developed and tested against the truths that are proclaimed in the divine Word of God.

Reviewed by Gary H. Collins, Division of Pastoral Psychology, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, Illinois 60015

EVOLUTION ON TRIAL by Cora Reno, Moody Press, Chicago 1970. 192 pp. $3.95

Cora Reno has written this book specifically for high school students and people who work with them. She has included 12 widely used high school biology textbooks including the three B.S.C. versions. And she clearly points out that the "evolution" she is discussing is the "amoeba to man" type and not the genetic variation type which is included by many biologists under the term "evolution". She quotes freely from the various arguments given for organic evolution in these texts and for each gives an anti-evolutionist's answer. In discussing the argument that similarity indicates relationships, the author replies, "another thought that comes to the mind of a Christian to explain likenesses between living things is that they could be the result of a common plan in the mind of God, the Creator."

In another instance the author quotes from the B.S.C.S. Green version, "Evolution is neither a great many changes taking place all at once nor a random change. Rather it is a guided selective change with environmental factors ... usually playing a part in selection. Thus there is also a guiding factor in evolution." In reply she 'writes, "A consistent completely evolutionary position does not allow for the existence of a guiding factor. We feel that this is another weakness in the theory of evolution. The Christian sees creation and a guiding and sustaining force coming from the hand of God . .........

There is an affirmation of a strong faith in the Creator.

We acknowledge that we do believe in the supernatural, but we also try to be accurate in our science. There are certain things that must be taken by faith by either the evolutionist or the creationist . . . . There is a way in which our faith is not blind because we have seen the truth of God's Word in other areas. We have seen lives changed by belief in the Bible's promises concerning the new birth and we have seen and are seeing fulfilled prophecy.

The final chapter, "What's In It for You" is a challenge to accept the Bible as the supernatural "Word of God" and to seek eternal life through the Lord Jesus Christ.

In the reviewer's opinion, Evolution on Trial is a well-written book that will he of great value to high school students and people who work with them.

Reviewed by Philip Harden, Deportment of Biology, Roberts Wesleyon College, Rochester, N.Y.

THE WISDOM OF EVOLUTION, by R. J. Nogar (New York: Reprinted by the New American Library, a Mentor-Omega Book) 1966.

Father Raymond J. Nogar is a Dominican priest, theologian and biologist. He has written a very significant book which gives a cogent presentation of the classic Roman Catholic position regarding creation and evolution. Here is how Nogar describes the purpose of this book:

First, it examines the proofs for the fact of evolution, and it evaluates the power of the scientific fact in the light of biology and anthropology. Second, this book marks off the limits of evolution by logical analysis, manifesting what generalizations flow from the scientific facts and what generalizations do not. Third, the hook attempts to give a synthesis of scientific evolution and a philosophy of life which is both consonant with the known facts and agreeable to a sound Judeo-Christian philosophy (Preface.)

Nogar's first chapter is crucial. The problem of the fact of evolution is a problem in "prehistory." Nogar says that prehistory is the science of reconstructing the past which has not been witnessed by human eyes. The prehistorian must depend upon arguments from analogy, that is to say, by reconstructing one series of events. Another important instrument in reconstructing prehistory is the device of reasoning called "extrapolation," This is the reasonable projection of an established conclusion into areas in which the argument probably remains valid, areas which cannot as yet, be explored. The opposite of this device is called "interpolation" or the insertion of factors (conjectured) between two known entities.

Nogar suggests that the prehistorian is not looking for "absolute certitude, nor does he ever assert that he has it ... he quite obviously is looking for a degree of probability." (p. 39) Probable, more probable and most probable are degrees of conviction based upon the successive piling up of evidence and the successive removal of reasonable doubts. Nogar sums up in this way the procedure that will follow in his book:
Is evolution a fact? From the above discussion it is clear that our answer depends upon the ability to recognize a very special kind of fact, circumstantial fact . . . In the following pages, the case for evolution will be reviewed much after the pattern of a legal case. In this way the nonspecialist can watch the building up of the fact of evolution gradually as one by one, paleontology, genetics. embryology, comparative anatomy, biogeography and all the other main contributors to the fact of evolution give their evidence. The reader, in watching the case for evolution unfold before his eyes, can judge as to whether the verdict is just. (p. 41)
Nogar argues that we must take the findings of science seriously; not because man is autonomous, but because God has revealed Himself in nature also. He is convinced that the evidence for the theory of evolution is sufficient to make it a reputable scientific doctrine. He also limits evolution so that it does not become a world view, i.e., evolutionism. In principle the acceptance of evolutionary development implies that man also has undergone evolution. Nogar accepts the evolution of man's body as postulated by anthropologists. However, he is very careful to draw a line between man's biological nature and his spiritual nature. Nogar insists that man's spiritual nature, that which makes man a personal human being made in the image of God, was a special creative act of God.

In Nogar's perspective, any tension between evidence for evolution and the Genesis creation account is alleviated by viewing Genesis as a literary framework. The creation account has an historical character in the sense that it describes in a generally factual way real events (Cod created the cosmos; intervened to make man; there was a state of moral rectitude; our first parents did sin etc.). However, the Bible in no way speaks about the manner of creation. Nogar states that modern biblical scholarship has changed our view of the creation account (as well as that of the whole Bible) in terms of its purpose. The purpose of Scripture is to teach basic religious truths rooted in history, but not to give a precise, chronological, detailed account of history and origins.

Nogar feels that evolutionary science adds another dimension to the argument from the natural order of the universe. Not only is there a magnificent order, but there is also an unimaginable dynamic and developmental order in their history. He then asks: if the existence of God was necessary to the old conception of the rather static order of nature, how much more is the existence of God necessary to the evolutionary order of natural development? The working of the laws of nature is the working of the design and will of God. To the scientist, however, the working and the problems of research, the facts and laws and theories with which he is concerned presupposes the universe endowed with this orderly activity. To consider the providential action of God as a constant series of miracles would be a faulty view of nature and destruetive of science and of theology as well.

Nogar's hook is significant and worth reading because he makes a forthright and thorough presentation of the evidence for evolution; the author also proceeds from a clear hermeneutical and theological position. Nogar is obviously an equally competent theologian and scientist. However, in my judgment, the basic importance of this book resides in the clear and unequivocal explanation of the meaning of the "fact" of evolution and the nature of scientific evidence. This dimension has been lacking in past attempts at harmonizing creation and evolution. Thus theologians and nonscientists do not clearly understand the scientific arguments. I feel Nogar has bridged this communication gap very well.

This third part of the book will raise the most questions, especially for those who do not accept the author's starting point. Here Nogar attempts to provide a synthesis of scientific evolution and a philosophy of life which is consistent with the known facts and is agreeable to a "sound Judeo-Christian philosophy." In the author's case, this is a Thomistic synthesis. However, the hook is very well written, thought provoking and provides one theological solution to the creation-evolution dilemma. If you are interested in the evolution-creation question, be sure to read this book.

Renewed by Maynard C. Nieber, Pastor, The Mount Pleasant Christian Reformed Church, Mt. Pleasant, Michigan.

MATHEMATICAL CHALLENGES TO THE NEO-DARWINIAN INTERPRETATION OF EVOLUTION Edited by Paul S. Moorhead and Martin NI. Kaplan. The Wistar Institute Press, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, (1967) 140 pp., Paperback $5.00

In physical science a first essential step in the direction of learning any subject is to find principles of numerical reckoning and methods for practically measuring some quantity connected with it. I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it, hot when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely, in your thoughts, advanced to the stage of science, whatever the matter may be. (Lord Kelvin) 1
Scientists are always concerned with the elaboration and testing of hypotheses which may conceivably be refuted by further experience, and their attitude is scientific only in so far as the are prepared to admit this. It at any time they put forward theories for which they refuse to admit the conceivability of falsification, they have abandoned scientific method, even though they may produce masses of evidence which is supposed to be confirmatory, (Encyclopaedia Britannica )2
The current nen-Darwinian Theory has the methodological defect of explaining too much. It is too difficult to imagine or envisage an evolutionary episode which could not he explained by the formulae of neo-Darsvinianism. (Karl Popper)3
Concepts such as natural selection by the survival of the fittest are tautoluguus; that is, they simply restate the tact that only the properties of organisms which survive to produce offspring, or to produce more offspring than their cohorts, will appear in succeeding generations. (Murray Eden )4

The above quotations represent some of the questions that can he raised about the modern theory of evolution. They are the kind of questions that occur particularly to the physical scientist and, indeed, it was at an informal gathering of physical and biological scientists that the genesis occurred for the hook being reviewed. As noted in the Preface; "Actually, the seed was sown in Geneva in the summer of 1956 during the course of two picnics held at Vicki Weisskopf's house and at my house, on two consecutive Sunday afternoons. Koprowski and I, the only biologists present, were confronted by a rather weird discussion between four mathematicians-Eden, SchQtzenherger, Weisskopf and Ulam- on mathematical doubts concerning the Darwinian theory of evolution. At the end of several hours of heated debate, the biological contingent proposed that a symposium be arranged to consider the points of dispute more systematically, and with a more powerful array of biologists who could function adequately in the universe of discourse inhabited by mathematicians.

The book contains the proceedings of the conference. There were four papers presented by the physical scientists; "Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory" by Dr. Murray Eden, Professor of Electrical Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, "How to Formulate Mathematically Problems of Rate of Evolution?" by Dr. Stanley Ulam, Research Advisor, Los Alamos Scientific Laboratories, "Mathematical Optimization; Are There Abstract Limits on Natural Selection?" by Dr. William Bossert, Harvard University, and "Algorithms and the Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution" by Dr. Marcel P. Schlitzenberger, University of Paris. The biological scientists also presented four papers; "Evolutionary Challenges to the Mathematical Interpretation of Evolution" by Dr. Ernst Mayr, Director, Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, "The Problems of Vicarious Selection", by Dr. George Wald, Professor of Bi&ogy, Harvard University, "The Principle of Historicity in Evolution", by Dr. Richard C. Lewont in, Professor of Zoology, University of Chicago, and "Summary Discussion"

For to my mind, this is a certain principle, that nothing is here treated of but the visible form of the world. He who would learn astronomy and the other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere . . . It must be remembered, that Moses does not speak with philosophical acuteness on occult mysteries, but states those things which are everywhere observed, even by the uncultivated, and which are in common use.
John Calvin Commentary on Genesis 1; 15

 by Dr. C. H, Waddington, Institute of Animal Genetics, Edinburgh. In addition there are two Post-Conference Comments and seven Preliminary Working Papers.

To summarize briefly, the physical scientists attempted to formulate mathematically the various processes in the stages of evolution. Such a formulation can now be considered seriously because of the availability of high speed computers. While the one billion years assumed to he available for evolution may appear to be a long time, the number of generations is finite and the changes occurring between all generations in evolutionary history can be simulated on a computer in a few days ( 10 days using one of the mathematical formulations presented at the conference (page 73) ). The results of such analyses of the theory of evolution were, without exception, spectacularly unsuccessful.

In response to these presentations, the biological scientists reminded the physical scientists of the complexity of the evolutionary process: the historical variations in the environment, the dependence of an organism's characteristics that interact with the environment on many genetic factors, so that the effect of a genetic change is difficult to specify, and the possibility of unknown factors limiting the available routes for change (it was noted that the DNA helix is the most energetically stable form for a collection of amino acids). In a stimulating discussion of several evolutionary phenomena, Dr. Mayr demonstrated the power of the qualitative concepts developed by biologists in explaining the biological world. It also became clear that the mathematical formulation of these concepts will not be easy. Perhaps the consensus of the conference was best expressed by Dr. Waddington in his closing statement when he said:

I think we have approached each other to some extent. I hope the biologists have shown the physicists that evolutionary theories are not totally vacuous. I think the physicists have shown us that they are certainly as yet very incomplete, and I think we are ready to realize they are very incomplete. Possibly we now know slightly better in which directions they are incomplete.

Rather than review in detail the contents of the papers I will attempt to give some of the flavor of the conference by selecting excerpts from the often entertaining discussions following the papers that might be of particular interest to the readers of the Journal ASA. In view of the fact that the American Scientific Affiliation has published a monograph on the human eye it is enlightening to hear the present opinion of the "experts" on the evolution of the eye (page 97).

Dr. Waddington: "I think it is relatively simple to make an eye."

Dr. Mayr: "I don't know who should answer that but I agree there, too. Somebody quoted Darwin yesterday and, as with the Bible, you can quote him for one thing or another. In one place he said that it completely horrified him to think of the eye and how to explain it; and at another place he said once you assume that any kind of protein has the ability to react to light, once you admit that, then it is no problem whatsoever to construct an eye. If you have a light-sensitive protein, then by natural selection you obtain pigments, anything that changes the diffraction of light, and any kind of a lens-like substance. As a result-and I think there are conflicting statements in the literature-somewhere between twelve and seven teen times in the history of evolution, eyes have evolved independently, separately, in different lines of organisms.

So the eye simply means a light-sensitive structure with auxiliary organs like pigments, lenses and focusing devices of various sorts. I don't think this is as difficult to evolve as is sometimes claimed."

An entertaining anecdote was told by Dr. Fentress of the Brain Research Center, University of Rochester during one of the many discussions about the tautological nature of evolution.

I would simply like to give one example which I think illustrates how important it is to ask a precise question. When I was in Cambridge, we were working with two species of British vole.
We had a little test in which an object moved overhead; one species would run away and the ether species would freeze. Also, one species happened to live in the wends and the ether happened to live in the field. This was rather fun, and, not really being a zoologist, I went up to see some of my zoologist friends and I reversed the data. I asked them, simply, why a species which lived in the field should freeze and why one that lived in the woods should run away (when the converse was the case). I wish I had recorded their explanations, because they were very impressive indeed.

An illuminating comment was also made in the course of Dr. Mayr's lecture concerning the content of the theory of evolution.

These considerations of time, of space, of population size, result in an emerging picture of evolution which is in some respects, and particularly in emphasis, somewhat different from the classical nen-Darwinian picture that we find in the literature. I want to say that when the, mathematicians this morning talked about the nec-Darwinian model, they talked about Fisher of 1930 and Sewall Wright of 1931. The people who are most active in the evolutionary field have by no means abandoned what Fisher, 1-laldane and Sewall Wright said, but they have built on it a let of additional superstructure. Therefore, the neo-Darwinian story, what is it, really? Is it what Fisher and Wright said 35 years ago or what we believe in 1966?

It is important to remember that the theory of evolution, like any other scientific theory is modified and developed with time.

In conclusion, this reviewer is struck by the similarity between the confidence of the evolutionist and the confidence of the Christian in their beliefs. Both have a "gut" feeling that their beliefs are founded on a reality. Both can produce evidence in support of their beliefs. Yet both have had the unpleasant experience of seeing their beliefs modified as new evidence has appeared. Neither can at present, or possibly ever, give a logically convincing proof for his beliefs. Yet, neither has had his beliefs disproved. To the outsider, confidence in such beliefs is puzzling, leading Professor Weisskopf, Professor of Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, to remark at one point (p. 100):

"If I wanted to be nasty toward the evolutionists, I would say that they are surer of themselves than the nuclear physicists-and that's quite a lot."

Perhaps the sensitivity of the evolutionist as well as the Christian to criticism is rooted in this very fact that, in the end, he must resort to arguments of plausibility rather than proof to defend his beliefs.

1Lord Kelvin, "Electrical Units of Measurement" (1883) in Popular Lectures and Addresses (London, 1981-94), I pp. 72-73.
2Eocyclopoedia Britannica (1968) Vol. 20, P. 20. M. Eden 10 Ref. 3, p. 5. Philadelphia, Wistar, 1967), p. xi.
3Karl Popper as paraphrased by P. Medawar in Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretations of Evolution

Reviewed by John A. McIntyre, Department of Physics, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843.

THE BRAIN: Towards an Understanding by C. U. M. Smith, C. P. Putnam's Sons, New York, 1970. 392 pp. $10.00
THE STORY OF QUANTUM MECHANICS by Victor Cuillemin, Scribners, New York, 1968. Paperback, 332 pp. $3.95

These two books fall into the category of science books written in a popular vein for readers "without formal training in science or mathematics," which can really be appreciated only if the reader has had some such formal training. Under the latter condition, they are both excellent and easy reading, strongly to be recommended for cross-field communication and insight. What makes these two hook particularly outstanding is their recognition of philosophical and theological questions, as well as purely scientific ones. Dr. Smith, author of The Brain, is a lecturer in the Department of Biological Sciences at the University of Aston in Birmingham, England. He is also the author of Molecular Biology: A Structural Approach. In The Brain he is concerned to show how much is known about the physical and chemical basis for brain activity. To prepare for this discussion, he treats the properties and behavior of the nervous systems, and to follow up this discussion, he treats motivation, perception, memory, consciousness and the brain-mind dilemma. Although modest about the accomplishments to date of brain science.

What is consciousness and how far does it extend through the animal kingdom? has hardly yet been dragged from the realm of philosophy to that of physiology. The honest brain scientist, like St. Augustine of Hippo when faced with the analoguous problem of the origin of human souls, must conies ignorance.

Dr. Smith neverthe less takes the strong stand that,

There are no ghosts in the brain's machinery, no unmoved movers. It is all a matter of physics and chemistry. There is no gulf fixed between animate and inanimate creation. The great discoveries of modern biology leave no doubt that the 'living' has evolved from the 'nunliving.'
'Mind,' 'consciousness,' has no subsistence without matter.

In view of this position, it is striking to see Dr. Smith avoid materialistic reductionism in the later more philosophical chapters, and to opt instead for the emergence of psychological and spiritual qualities as a result of interactions within a system, viewing "mental" and "physical" not as contradictory but as complementary. When finally he is brave enough to enter the free will vs. determinism arena, he cites the argument for freedom and responsibility in a deterministically describable system advanced by the Christian scientist Donald M. MacKay. He concludes that "freedom of action and in consequence the possibility of a moral universe has entered the world with the evolution of self-awareness . . . . The physical brain theory adumbrated in this book does not eliminate the very possibility of human freedom." The book contains 15 glossy photographs and 168 figures.

The Story of Quantum Mechanics
is divided about equally into three parts: (1) quantum mechanical ideas in the atomic realm, (2) quantum mechanical ideas in the nuclear realm, and (3) deliberations on philosophical implications, causality, free will and determinism. The author, Victor Cuillemin, has been involved in
teaching and research for over thirty years in physics and biophysics at the University of Illinois College of Medicine and the Harvard University Physics Department. It is the kind of book that every student should read just about the time he is exposed to his first rigorous course in quantum mechanics. There are 36 figures and nine blank pages at the end for notes. I found the book full of fascinating insights and statements, e.g.,

A natural law is thus an assertion about what nature has been observed to do, not what it is compelled to do.
Light waves may be looked upon as a purely mathematical concept, a pattern in space given by the laws of wave optics, which determines the path of photons but has no real physical existence.

A (atomic) particle of itself has neither a position nor a momentum and . . . the act of observation creates its
mechanical state.
Each of the many elementary particles is somehow constituted of all the others.
It has been conjectured that nearly all of the neutrinos born since the dawn of creation are still coursing through space bearing most of the entire mass of the universe in the form of their energy.
Recent cosmological studies have led to the conjecture that the universe consists of matter and antimatter in equal amounts, these two kinds occurring as groups of galaxies and antigalaxies widely separated in space.
Material particles do not simply exist statically; they are centers of immense activity, of continual creation and annihilation.
A vacuum is not an empty space . . . Rather, it is a seat of continuous activity with virtual particles of many kinds winking in and out of existence.
Interacting and existing are but two manifestations of the same dynamic principles.

I could go on-but that should be enough to entice you to get hold of this book. Dr. Guillemin even indulges in a bit of teleology when he points out that the amount of energy which would hr made available within a stable nucleus by the transformation of a neutron into a proton, is less, but only by a mall fraction, than the energy required to cause it. A slight shift in the energy balance and there would be no stable nuclei except hydrogen, no world, no life, "Such is the slender margin which has favored the creation of our richly varied environment and of ourselves to enjoy it." Dr. Cuillemin considers the long debates about free will and determinism as based on a misunderstanding-and hence their proposed resolutions as unnecessary, the misunderstanding that endows the scientific conception of causality with connotations of coercion or compulsion.

Far from being incompatible with free will, determinism in the scientific sense is actually a prerequisite for it.

The book ends with an 11-page glossary of scientific terms, and a 5-page reading list.

THE GOD OF SCIENCE by Frederick E. Trinklein, Wm. B. Eerdmaos, Grand Rapids, Michigan (1971). Paperback. 192 pp. $3.45.

Imagine the following book, Football Views of Musicians. In preparing this book the author carefully interviews 38 musicians from all over the world on their views about football. He is objectively scientific about the procedure, and is careful to include European as well as American musicians, to include both rock and symphony musicians, to choose only those musicians with a good reputation for their ability in music, and to choose randomly within these constraints. By this procedure he avoids books by musicians trying to push a particular viewpoint on football. He summarizes his interviews, which typically come out looking like this:

Q. Can a musician play football?
A.1 Certainly. I love football and play at every opportunity. A2 Absolutely not. Love of music automatically roles out football. A.3 I have no interest in football, one way or the other. A.4 I suppose sandlot football is all right, but I have no use for professional football. A.5 I don't know much about football. But take soccer there's a game!

A hundred or so other similar questions follow with similar answers. What would the good of such a book be, in spite of the objective truth of its method and responses? Perhaps, if someone felt that no musician would have anything to do with football, or if someone else felt that every musician would he a devoted football fan, such individuals would be enlightened by seeing specific cases of musicians who either did or did not consider football worthwhile. But except for this extreme and somewhat trivial use, there is not much else positive that can he said. Who really cares what randomly chosen distinguished musicians have to say about football? Other musicians don't care; football fans don't care. The very effort to secure random choices has ensured the unsuitability of those interviewed for the task: some are ardent football afficianados, some have never seen a football game, some come from countries where football isn't even played etc. The quest for scientific objectivity has resulted in truth, but irrevelant and not very pertinent truth at that.

The above parable constitutes my book review of  The God of Science. Replace in the parable "football" by "God," "musicians" by "scientists," make the needed changes in the details of the parable, and you have a description of this book.

There are of course some good replies by scientists quoted in the book. There is also, however, almost every naive statement ever made by a college freshman:

I'm not interested in religion. I have my beliefs. I just simply will not join or get involved seriously in any organized church.
A man can keep his religious beliefs separate from his science. Human beings can separate contradictory states in the mind, which may he a good thing.
There must be some kind of split personality it you are at the same time active in science and believe.
To be a good Christian and a good scientist is an almost insoluble conflict.
Cod is an idea, an abstract construction.
The definition of God must be different for each individual.
We have no proof that the concept of God is more than an idea.
The concept of God is completely meaningless and useless in connection with the origin of the universe.
In none of the fields of nuclear chemistry have I found any reason to say that this is done by God.
If religion says that God created the world, intelligent children will ask, "Who created God?"
The more you find out how things work, the less the need for the magical resources of the deity.
The principle of uncertainty proves that God can exist. To me faith seems to be the blind acceptance of some thing without proof.
I do not believe in God, I do not need a God.
If there is a God, then I am very sorry to say that he has never revealed himself to me. He could have done this, in fact lie should have. But lie didn't.
I never use the word "God." ...Although I cannot prove that such a thing does not exist, I'm quite sure that it doesn't.
I don't believe that it ("God") is concerned with the fate of the individual and with every sparrow that falls from the sky.
Scientists generally don't believe in miracles. I know of no evidence for any miracles.
Miracles can be explained 1w probability.
The creation story in the Bible is not scientifically possible.
I look at miracles as folklore.
Miracles . . . are very bad signs of religious fanaticism. I wouldn't bother about such questions.
The afterlife does not have very much importance to me. I'm not interested in it.
I do not believe in the resurrection of the body. I cannot believe in the Resurrection of Christ.
Students today (are) . . . interested in religion only in terms of ethical values.
Many young people are unhappy. Perhaps they don't scant to believe in God, and one shouldn't force them to. The church should either change or ease out of existence. The future of religion among people who think like the scientist is the Unitarian view.
I do riot believe in the improvements among uncivilized people that are ascribed to missions.
Scientists don't have the time for theological training . We've had theological exposure in Sunday School, The Bible is a wonderful book . . . I regard Christ its the same sense, but I hate Paul. He was a very disagreeable person.
There is no place today for religion in its classical form.

This is the wisdom of the great minds of science on God? No, these are musicians talking about football.
There may have been more, but I was able to locate only two places in the entire book where even passing mention was made to Christ as Savior. Dr. Hubert Alyea, Professor of Chemistry at Princeton, says, "I believe, as a Christian, that he (God) did send his son, that he did come to save us." Dr. John Friedrich, chemist at USDA Northern Regional Research Laboratory in Peoria, Illinois, confesses, "Because of Christ, we can love God. . . , The only answer is Christ. He did it for us . If the Christian church would teach
this, forget about details, and talk about the love of Christ and salvation through him ... then there would he some real life put hack in the church." I'm looking for books by Alyea and Friedrich.

Reviewed by Richard H. Bube, Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California.