Book Reviews

Table of Contents

BIBLICAL AUTHORITY edited by Jack Rogers, Word Books, Waco, Texas (1977). 196 pp. Paperback. $4.50.
THE DEBATE ABOUT THE BIBLE by Stephen T. Davis, Westminster Press, Philadelphia Pennsylvania (1977), 149 pp. Paperback. $5.45.
HEALING AND WHOLENESS by John A, Sanford, New York: Paulist Press, 1977, 162 pp. $5.95.
MEDICAL/MORAL PROBLEMS Robert Hover, editor, New York: Paulist Press (1976), paperback, 64 pp. $1.75.
FIRE IN THE FIREPLACE: CONTEMPORARY CHARISMATIC RENEWAL by Charles C. Hummel, InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois, 1978, 275 pages, $4.95.
CHARISMATIC SOCIAL ACTION: REFLEC TION/RESOURCE MANUAL by Sheila MacManus Fahey. New York: Paulist Press, 1977, 174 pp., $4.95.
ALL TRUTH IS GOD'S TRUTH by Arthur Holmes, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 1977, 145 pp. $3.95 (pb).
RELIGIOUS ORIGINS OF MODERN SCIENCE by Eugene M. Klaaren, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, Michigan (1977). 244 pp. Paperback. $5.95.
RECONCILING MAN WITH THE ENVIRON MENT by Eric Ashby, Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA (1978). 104 pp. $7.95.
NATURE AND MIRACLE by Johann H. Diemer (1977). Paperback. 37 pages.
REFLECTIONS ON THE TECHNOLOGICAL SOCIETY by Eghert Sehuurman (1977). Paperback. 66 pages. Both published by Wedge Publishing Foundation, Toronto, Canada.
SCIENCE TEXTBOOK CONTROVERSIES AND THE POLITICS OF EQUAL TIME by Dorothy Nelkin. Cambridge, Mass. and London: MIT Press, 1977. xi, 174 pp. $12.95.
CREATION AND THE FLOOD: An Alternative to Flood Geology and Theistic Evolution, by Davis A. Young, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House, 1977, 213 pp., $6.95.   (Three Reviews)
FALLACIES OF EVOLUTION by Anile J. Hoover, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1977, 85 pp., Paperback, $2.50.
FROM EVOLUTION TO CREATION: A PER SONAL TESTIMONY by Carl E. Parker, Creation
Life Publishers, Inc., San Diego, California. 1977. 40 PP.
GENESIS ONE AND THE ORIGIN OF THE EARTH by Robert C. Newman and Herman J. Eckelmann, Jr., Inter Varsity Press, Downers Grove, Ill. (1977) paperback, 135 pp. $3.95.
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION by Henry M. Morris, Ph.D., Creation-Life Publishers, Inc., San Diego, California. 1977, 87 pp., $1.95.

BIBLICAL AUTHORITY edited by Jack Rogers, Word Books, Waco, Texas (1977). 196 pp. Paperback. $4.50.
THE DEBATE ABOUT THE BIBLE by Stephen T. Davis, Westminster Press, Philadelphia Pennsylvania (1977), 149 pp. Paperback. $5.45.
These are two examples of the flurry of books that have appeared in recent years both before and especially after Harold Lindsell's The Battle for the Bible. The issue is the relationship between such fundamental and traditional concepts as inspiration, authority, and inerrancy.

Biblical Authority might be described at least partially as Fuller Seminary's reply to Lindsell, Fuller Seminary having been one of Lindsell's prime targets. It includes six quite diverse chapters by Jack Rogers, Clark Pinnoek, Berkeley Mickelsen, Bernard Ramm, Earl Palmer and David Hubbard. It features a Foreword by Paul Rees, Vice-President-at-large of World Vision International, who argues on behalf of the authors of the book that biblical authority need not rest upon a particular interpretation of "total inerrancy."

"...is it not right to say that there is a difference between the evangelical attitude toward the Bible and ass evangelical's dews about the Bible? Go back to Warfield and Berkouwer. Their views of how to construe the Bible's matchless revelatory quality and authority are not precisely the same, just as Luther's and Calvin's were not. But their attitude toward the Bible is identical God's Word that shines in our world's darkness, the unerring pointer to the One . . . (p. 13)"

Personally I found Rogers' historical analysis of attitudes toward inerrancy both fascinating and illuminating. He traces the Platonic emphasis that faith precedes reason and the Aristotelian emphasis that reason precedes faith through the church fathers. He sees "a significant shift in theological method ... from the neo-Platonic Augustinianism of Luther and Calvin to the neoAristotelian Thomism of their immediate followers." (p. 29) Of particular significance is the thought of Francis Turretin (1623-1687), who might be called the father of modern "total inerancy;" his writings were the principal textbooks in systematic theology at Princeton University from its founding in 1812 to 1872 when Charles Hodge wrote his Systematic Theology to replace it, but firmly based upon it. While A. A. Hodge and B. B. Warfield refined this approach still further, the neo-Platonic Augustinian tradition of reformed theology was kept alive through such theologians as James Orr, Herman Bavinck, Abraham Kuyper, and C. C. Berkouwer.

Pinnock argues for the need to "maintain with equal force both the humanity and the divinity of the word of Scripture." (p. 71) Ramm regards the efforts to make a theory of inspiration the most important doctrine in theology as a theological oddity; he presents several arguments to support this view. Palmer feels "that the greatest dangers to biblical interpretation today are the various grid systems we superimpose upon the text ahead of time and through which we then demand that the text be read." (p. 140) Hubbard also strives for a middle-ground perspective.

The questions, as I hear them, do not turn on whether the Bible is errant or not. Biblical inerrancy is not an option for most evangelicals. The questions are (1) Is inerrancy the best word to use to describe the Bible's infallibility and truthfulness? (2) If inerrancy is to be used, how do we define it in a way that accords with the teachings and the data of Scripture? That is an important agenda, but one far too limited for use to divide over. (p. 178)

A Foreword for The Debate About the Bible is provided by Clark Pinnock who starts by questioning why he, "an evangelical theologian committed to the position of Biblical inerrancy which Dr. Davis is endeavoring to overturn," should write a Foreword on its behalf. His answer is that "We need to listen to Dr. Davis, who strives to present a sturdy concept of Biblical authority without employing the category of inerrancy in it." (p. 11) Davis is willing to apply the term "error" to areas not crucial to faith and practice, and is willing to sidestep the authority of the Bible in those exceptional instances where he finds "good reason" to do so. What Davis does is to consider the three main arguments in favor of "inerrancy": (1) the Bible claims to be inerrant, (2) if the Bible is not inerrant, we have no sure word of God, and (3) the denial of inerrancy is part of a domino process that leads inevitably to the denial of other evangelical doctrines, and to attempt to show the insufficiency of each of these arguments. This he does carefully and systematically in a manner that is instructive regardless of one's personal conviction. Davis' arguments might be even more persuasive except for evidences of "softness" in his overall theology-apparent loopholes that Davis has plugged but which may easily spring leaks in the hands of others.

In a sense, the whole community of Christian believers helps me to decide what I will believe, whether or not there is compelling reason to reject some Biblical claim. For me this does not occur often, but it does occur occasionally. It has never yet occurred on a matter of faith or practice, and . . . I hope it never will. (p. 76) I believe that the Bible is or ought to be authoritative for every Christian in all that it says on any subject unless and until he encounters a passage which after careful study and for good reasons he cannot accept.

Reason must help determine what the Bible says and ultimately, whether or not what it says is acceptable. Those who deny that this is their procedure, I argue, are only fooling themselves. (p. 117)

It is easy to denounce these statements of Davis as the typical apostasy that follows a rejection of "total inerrancy." They need to be considered fairly, however, within the context of Davis' total position. We need to consider our own reasons for "rejecting" what the Bible says on the grounds that it is obviously culturally conditioned (an activity true of even the most conservative defendant of "total inerrancy"), and perhaps we need to temper Davis' language a little with a more complete understanding of the guidance of the Holy Spirit and of the distinction between traditional interpretations of biblical passages and the authentic intent of divine revelation.

Reviewed by Richard H. Bube, Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305.

HEALING AND WHOLENESS by John A, Sanford, New York: Paulist Press, 1977, 162 pp. $5.95.

What does ft mean to be ill? What does it mean to be healthy? John A. Sanford, Jungian analyst and Episcopal priest begins this book on Healing and Wholeness with these questions. He has used a composite of many sources, enriched by the sufferings and discoveries of the people who have consulted him, the insights obtained from his teachers, and from the fruit of his own personal search for healing, to write this hook. He includes understanding of healing from the Ancient Greeks, the lore of shamanism, the American Indian, early Christianity and the psychology of C. G. Jung.

Chapter I, "Journey toward Wholeness," begins with the definition of illness, "something that results its a malfunction of consciousness." The center of consciousness, he states, "is the ego, the 'I' part of us that does the willing suffering, choosing in life; the part of us of which we are most immediately aware. If this part of us is not able to function, it would seem that we are ill." Sanford then shows how the aim of wholeness cannot be met in the idea of adjustment, peace of mind, or adaptation of personality. The hook firmly stands upon the movement toward wholeness as the individuation, the process that moves one to become a complete, unique person, as the source of all true health. This means, he states, a "synthesis of the conscious and unconscious personalities, and the establishment of a relationship between the ego, as the center of consciousness, and the Self, which is the whole personality and which functions like our inmost center." Consequently, he deduces that unless our conscious personality develops and increases and becomes a channel for the life of the whole person to flow through, the process of individuation cannot take place. Then the life's energies that seek to bring about wholeness are dammed and thwarted and may turn against us. Herein lies the potential for illness.

Throughout the book the emphasis is not upon physical or spiritual wholeness but that real wholeness of personality can come only from integration of the unconscious with the conscious. Examples of this integration of personality are taken from the cult of Asclepius of ancient Greece and Rome, which he feels people who are ill today can follow as they pursue their own healing; and all the widespread phenomenon of Shamanism. "All the major religions of the world are all shamanistic at their core for they teach the need for a death and rebirth of the faithful, and all proclaim in addition to the boxlike world of ego consciousness, there exists another dimension to reality," Sanford claims. Illness, therefore, can he a form of initiation into our own process of individuation. Unless the meaning of our illness is made conscious, our healing will not be complete and its intended goal will not be renewed. Moreover, in all of us, the price of continued health is the continued development of consciousness.

In later chapters the author emphasizes that the psyche is a self-healing organism when the conditions for such healing are present. Sanford establishes the basis of his concept of wholeness in Healing in the Payeology of C. G. Jung in chapter V. Here he explains what Jung described as the different archetypes of the collective unconscious. For psychological healing to occur there must be a relationship between the ego and the forces of the unconscious, which is achieved primarily through becoming conscious of the contents of the unconscious. The optimum psychological health occurs when the ego completely represents the Self, for then the whole range and potentiality of the personality is expressed in consciousness. Yet, this ideal state cannot ever be realized perfectly, he admits. For this reason, he claims, the key to psychological health does not lie in achieving a certain state of consciousness and holding on to it, but in achieving a relationship to one's Self.

The last chapter, Healing Ourselves, provides the steps in our search for wholeness: developing relationships, keeping a journal, healing through the body, meditation, active imagination, and dream analysis. Sanford concludes by saying, just as individuals are more complete if they relate to their dreams, so a culture will he more whole if it becomes a dream culture. Our culture needs dreams badly. We are a spiritually deprived people. Our souls are hungry, and if we are not filled with the right food we will fill ourselves with the wrong food. Man cannot go empty for long. It is a marvelous thought that every night the Spirit scuds us food for our souls in the form of dreams. Mao does not live 01) bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of God, Jesus once declared, (Mt. 4:4) and dreams may be the most frequent and important way in which the Word of God is spoken.

In the final analysis it seems to me that Sanford writes more from the psychological perspective than the Christian. Wholeness entails more than trying to heal ourselves. Wholeness centers upon God who through Jesus Christ reconciles its to himself. Even if we could completely bring about a state in which our ego completely represents our Self, we still would need the inner cleansing of our soul that can he accomplished only by a dynamic relationship with God through his grace and our faith.

Reviewed by Kenneth E. Sehernsoer, General Surgeon, and Clinical Professor of Pastoral Counseling, Anderson School of Theology, Anderson, Indiana.

MEDICAL/MORAL PROBLEMS Robert Hover, editor, New York: Paulist Press (1976), paperback, 64 pp.' $1.75.

Recently, newspaper headlines around the world heralded the birth of the first "test-tube" baby, formed from a human ovum fertilized by human sperm outside the body and then placed several clays later into the uterus of the mother for further growth and development. The day the news broke I was in attendance at a scientific meeting where we discussed, among other matters, questions of genetic screening and approaches to the diagnosis and treatment of metabolic disorders. The talk is no longer in the realm of "What if ....?; the biological revolution is here, is real and opens new doors both for scientific advancement and for knotty mural problems.

Consideration of various aspects of medical ethics often takes place under one of two sets of circumstances: (1) a dry, remote, impersonal discussion of what can he done with careful, balanced analysis, often leading to fine moral prescriptions that give little thought to the humanness of those involved, or (2) an emotional, sometimes fearful look at the evil that science is foisting off on an unsuspecting mankind in the name of progress. Medical/Moral Problems takes a middle ground, perhaps because several of the writers are involved on a day-to-day basis with the problems and with the emotional, physical and spiritual impact these problems have on the individual. Many of the writers wrestle constantly' with the questions raised in this book because they are expected to provide answers and make decisions, not in isolation, but in the context of real humans, real needs and real dilemmas. Most of the articles are quite personal and are more telling because of this personal involvement.

The writers come from many backgrounds: Eunice Kennedy Shriver, actively involved in the care of the mentally retarded; Frank lula, a physician who tries to achieve both physical and spiritsial healing for his patients; Samuel Natale, psychotherapist, and others. The articles give brief overviews of many basic questions being asked today. The issues discussed are not those to he resolved primarily by professionals, but are issues that each of us must find answers for. One limitation of the discussion is an overwhelming reliance in several instances on Roman Catholic teaching and church law; this emphasis limits the value of the hook to non-Catholic readers. The issues are not dealt with in depth, but do allow a "feel" for some of the complexities involved. An especially interesting feature is the "Adult Education Program" at the end of the hook, a series of discussion programs that allow for profitable group study. Medico//Moral Problems' can serve as' 'a useful introduction to the field of medical ethics and a means of making its all more sensitive to some of the very real human issues with which modern science confronts us.

Renewed by Donald F. Calbreath, Department of Laboratory Medicine, Durham County General Hospital, Durham, North Carolina 27704.

FIRE IN THE FIREPLACE: CONTEMPORARY CHARISMATIC RENEWAL by Charles C. Hummel, loterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois, 1978, 275 pages, $4.95.

Among the books written to evaluate the present-day charismatic renewal, Hummel's Fire in the Fireplace is
the most ironic I have read. His title comes from an analogy likening revival to a fire around which an organization, a fireplace, is built to best utilize its energy. In time the flue becomes clogged and the flame dies down. The fireplace needs a cleaning, yet its custodians resist. So the kindlers of the flame may move out onto the flour where either the fire rages out of control or dies for lack of a hearth. "The best place for a fire is in the fireplace. But it should he cleaned and, if necessary, remodeled." (p. 16)
The hook is divided into four parts. The first sketches the author's own encounter with the charismatic renewal and its development in the twentieth century. The second and third parts review the doctrine of the Holy Spirit given in the Luke-Acts narrative and the Pauline letters, respectively. Lastly, from this biblical groundwork Hummel addresses contemporary issues concerning the charismatic renewal.

Unlike most revival movements in the past, the charismatic movement cannot he traced to one human leader. It is a pattern of Christian experience which the twentieth-century churches find springing up near-spontaneously within and without their ranks. While we always need to evaluate our subjective experiences according to Scripture, nevertheless the experience of life in Christ throws light on poorly understood texts and can demand a remodeling of one's theology. "Experience lies at the heart of biblical faith" (p. 171). Hummel found himself in this position when in 1962 he, as an InterVarsity executive, witnessed the charismatic experience revitalizing the Yale (University) Christian Fellowship. In 1970 he, then as president of Barrington College, encountered the spirituallythriving Word of God community in Providence, Rhode Island, which profoundly influenced his thinking.
In this first section Hummel cites three broad streams flowing through this basically spontaneous phenomenon. Classical Pentecostalism arose early in this century, and borrowed language from the nineteenth-century Methodist-holiness groups to describe their experience. They believed there is a "second blessing" which follows conversion, called "baptism in the Holy Spirit." The Pentecostals were the first to link "speaking in tongues" with this "second blessing." Neo-Pentecostalism began to flow in the mainline denominations in the late 1950's. Unlike Pentecostalism it did not become separatist, but stayed within the churches. In varying degrees it drew upon the language of Pentecostalism to describe its experience. Catholic Pentecostalism which arose in the late 1960's remained even more closely knitted to the church community. The great divide between classical and Pentecostal theology is the latter's doctrine of the baptism with the Holy Spirit as "subsequent to conversion, experienced through the fulfillment of requirements and initially evidenced by speaking in tongues" (p. 61).

Can this position find adequate support in Scripture? Turning to the biblical material, Hummel examines the references to the Holy Spirit in Luke-Acts to conclude that Luke's intent is to portray the Holy Spirit as inaugurating a new age of prophecy and proclamation, empowering the mission of the church. Hummel disagrees with those who derive doctrine from only the didactic passages in Scripture and not the historical. But he affirms historical passages have only the doctrinal value the author intends for them to have (p. 107). No normative model for Christian growth can be derived from Luke-Acts (contra Pentecostalism) because Luke does not intend to provide one. He is concerned with the mission of the church, not inner life (p. 109). The presence of the Spirit in Acts "is 'charismatic' in the sense of directly manifesting his power," but his empowering is always for proclamation which he inspires with "initial and repeated [his emphasis] fillings with the Spirit" (p. 95).

For Paul, Hummel continues, the essential activity of the Spirit in a believer's life is cultivating Christlike character, the "fruit" of the Spirit. Spiritual gifts are given to promote this fruit within the church. Their purpose is to serve others, not the recipient. All believers are given spiritual gifts, though not all the same, for the strengthening of the church. To fulfill its mission the Christian community today needs the full range of spiritual gifts which were not limited to the first century. Prophecy, as it strengthens and encourages the church, will always be needed. Paul gives it priority in public worship over uninterpreted "tongue-speaking" which nevertheless has a valid place in private devotions. As in Luke, the phrase "filled with the Spirit" connotes for Paul not a settled state but a repeated activity. But, whereas in Acts "baptism in the Spirit" is a clothing with power for witness, for Paul the phrase is synonymous with "incorporation into the body of Christ."

What implications does this biblical material have for today? Western Christianity has become institutionalized and individualized, and ministry has become an office rather than a charism. The resurgence of spiritual gifts as actions initiated by the Spirit through all the members in the body reverses this over-specialization of religious professionals, returning the locus of ministry to the body of Christ. Hummel rejects the doctrine of a second experience distinct from conversion as not taught in the New Testament (p. 183). What people experience is either conversion, rededication or a new openness to the Spirit's manifestation. Neither can "speaking in tongues" be taken as the sign of an inner spiritual development. It is but one of many gifts, though "as a form of prophecy it is an evidence of the Spirit's . . . empowering the church for witness" (p. 197). "'Speaking in tongues' is also a rebuke to our rationalistic age whose intellectual pride affects even the church" (p. 204). The heart of the charismatic renewal is not a second experience or "speaking in tongues," but "is commitment to the full range of charisms as manifestations of the Holy Spirit to meet the needs of the Christian community," (p. 229) a range not adequately expressed by the categories of classical theology. "The Lord is renewing his church by many means. One of them is the charismatic renewal which was not humanly conceived, planned and organized" (p. 236).

Hummel deals quite fairly with all sides of this embroiled issue. His notes embrace a most inclusive bibliography on the subject. His parts two and three survey Luke-Acts and First Corinthians quite comprehensively, and one wonders if all this material was needed. His exegesis and interpretation of "filled" and "baptized" with the Holy Spirit would not satisfy all nco-pentecnstals (cf. Howard Ervin's These Are Not Drunken As Ye Suppose), nor does his (and Gordon Fee's) hermeneutical principle regarding "intent of the author" find universal acceptance (cf. Philip Payne, "The Fallacy of Equating Meaning with the Human Author's Intention," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Vol. 20, No. 3 (Sept, 1977), p. 243). I feel there needs to be a better understanding of the initial charismatic experience people have than either the concepts "second blessing' or "rededication" give us. I recommend Thomas Smail's book Reflected Glory as a more satisfactory treatment of this point. Fire In the Fireplace gives us a very fair and broad introduction to a complex subject from a viewpoint as willing to be instructed by the evidences of the Spirit's movement among us today as to criticize from an established theological position.

Reviewed by Bruce Hedman, Candidate in Mathematics, Princeton University, M. Div. Candidate, Princeton Theological Seminary. Princeton New Jersey.

CHARISMATIC SOCIAL ACTION: REFLECTION/RESOURCE MANUAL by Sheila MacManus Fahey. New York: Paulist Press, 1977, 174 pp., $4.95.

Charismatic Social Action is intended primarily as a resource manual designed to provide charismatic
communities and prayer groups with some practical guides to Christian social action. The book opens with an introductory chapter which presents an orientation to Christian social action. The next nine chapters deal with individual social issues including: the aged, correctional reform, drugs and addiction, the environment, hunger, the media, mental illness, poverty, and race relations. Each chapter contains a general introduction to the issue, a small study bibliography, a reflection on the issue from a Christian perspective, questions for reflection and discussion, and a list of suggested actions. In addition, it contains an appendix which includes an address list of key organizations which may be relevant for a social action program.

The opening chapter leaves one with a curious sense of anticipation. While it recognizes the importance of prayer and personal experience, it asserts that a consequence of this experience is a concern for social evils. The book is disappointing, however, in two respects. First, it treats issues with such vague generalities that one is left wondering what the issues really are, and what the appropriate Christian response should be. This is, of course, inevitable given the territory which the book attempts to cover.

But what is even more disappointing is the almost unconditional acceptance of stereotypes and common sense conceptions of the social problems discussed. Alcoholism, for example, is discussed as a disease, warranting treatment, not punishment. While this is certainly the prevalent paradigm adopted by treatment programs, it is by no means universally accepted. It is particularly important to question it seriously from a Christian value orientation which stresses personal responsibility.

The discussion of correctional reform is no less problematical. For example, Uniform Crime Report statistics are used to support the argument that our correctional system isn't working and that what is needed is a more "humane" correctional system that will be more effective in reforming the criminal. It has been well documented that UC Reports are more a function of funding maneuvers than of actual incidences of crime. Use of these statistics is hardly convincing evidence. Furthermore, Fahey places the New Testament covenant in opposition to the Old Testament covenant in her argument for correctional reform from the Christian vantage point: "Grace and law have two different meanings in the Old and New Testaments.': (p. 33). In fact, in both the Old and New Testaments God's law must be met, and in both it is ultimately met by the initiative of God through grace. Fahey's argument hardly provides a theological basis for the kind of correctional reform she is advocating. Indeed, the argument has been made that one's dignity as a human is most recognized when his personal responsibility for wrong-doing is affirmed and lie is punished accordingly. (e.g. C. S. Lewis)

The remaining issues are treated in the same less than-rigorous manner. In short, the issues are glossed 
over with such vague generalizations and with a naive acceptance of prevailing stereotypes that the book's resourcefulness as a Christian guide to action is questionable. In essence, it represents a liberal orientation to society, couched in misapplied theological concepts.

We do not, however, want to overlook the contribution the hook does make. Particularly of value to the
socially concerned and action oriented Christian is the relatively extensive list of agencies provided in the appendix. Nearly 100 agencies and addresses are listed which are certain to be of value to a social action program. Probably more importantly, the hook does represent a response on the part of the Charismatic community to the needs of the world around them. In a literature so pre-occupied with the value of the charismatic experience for the individual, it is refreshing to see in print an argument for the necessity for an orientation to service as a fruit of this experience.

Reviewed by Charles E. Fanpel, Department of Sociology, University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware 19711.

ALL TRUTH IS GOD'S TRUTH by Arthur Holmes, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 1977, 145 pp. $3.95 (pb).

Professor Holmes' book is a sort of preface to a Christian worldview and concerns itself with questions of "truth," "reason," "justification," "error," et cetera, as these relate to the hope of constructing and defending a philosophical system within the parameters of a Judeo-Christian tradition.
The division of sacred and secular is regarded as artificial. On the hypothesis that God sustains to the world the relation that the above tradition affirms, the impress of deity must of necessity be upon all reality: a consideration certain to have positive implications for a Christian liberal arts college. Even the mission effort must transcend the narrower concept of evangelism and relate God's cosmos to his Great Commission. As our author remarks, ". . . if truth is one, are not other matters connected?"

The problem of error is regarded as virtually an inevitable consequence of man's finiteness and freedom. Error and evil exhibit privations from truth and the good. Evil is an almost intractable problem, one which perpetually challenges the asumption that God is good. I think that Holmes shows that this problem is not utterly unmanageable. The doctrine that error and evil are privations is doubly strengthened by the considerations that (1) we do intend something meaningful when we use these words and (2) there is nothing substantively real in either error or evil as such. The remaining possibility (3) is that these words refer to a positive good that has missed the mark of its essentiality. The "privation" position provides an interesting reply to the contention of Epicurus that evil is incapable of being reconciled with the omnipotence and total beneficence of God in that the very meaning of evil implies the good from which it is a departure. Without the norm of good, evil would have no meaning at all. At the practical level, God permits the possibility of error and evil that man might learn about truth and the good from the baffles imposed by these privations.

Profesor Holmes would hold a high view of truth and reason. He deplores the loss of truth, the loss of a worldview, the loss of meaning so characteristic of much of the thought of our day. "We simply cannot avoid reasoning . there is no other way to grasp truth than by using the rational powers God created in us." And Holmes does not hesitate to use reason as a tool-indeed, All Truth Is God's Truth is throughout a reasoned statement-but as for a justification of reason, whether in its pure form of rationality or in its applied form of induction, Holmes finds that there is an inevitable circularity that leaves us with no alternative but to settle for a "practical necessity" in lieu of the "logical necessity" that cannot be demonstrated. Reason, in its purest form, rests upon the principle of noncontradiction and in its applied form adds the assumption of nature's uniformity. But the "proof" of reason must be reasonable and no psychological expectancy generated by nature's behavior justifies the claim to a theoretical insight of necessary uniformity. Thus: either circularity or a step down to "practical necessity."

Professor Holmes is entirely right in sensing that in these momentous matters, we are at the far-flung edges of epistemological empire. As a result, "proof" and "justification" take on a somewhat different aspect than that involved in the more limited proof of a geometric theorem or the acceleration rate of a freely falling body. However, the account of reason in terms of "purposes," "practical demands," "practical necessity," etc. strikes me as an unnecessary compromise. I would think that "Those underlying principles" [of reasoning] depend on something essential to the nature of reason itself rather than as Holmes says, "on the purposes of reasoning." Even at the level of experiencing our participation in rationality, it would appear that rationality's nature is that of an overarching norm to which we appeal. And we do so appeal because it is of our essence that we can do nothing else. Herein, then, lies the peculiar nature of a "proof" of reason or rationality: an alternative cannot be thought! For to attempt to say that there is no rationality or that the rational is a product or effect of the non-rational is itself a statement with rational form and is intended to speak a truth which re-admits rationality in the stating of it. And, interestingly, even the uniformity principle is not without its rational overtones. The only ultimate alternative to uniformity must be complete randomness, But again, the mind cannot even conceive of an utterly non-structured state of affairs.

The next step in apologetic effort would be that of rendering explicit the nature of a world in which reason is thus so necessarily displayed. And those repeated cautions against "autonomous" reason, "autonomous" ideals, "autonomous" rationality: might it not be more fruitful to search out the ground of such autonomies and thereby take firm steps towards the necessary inclusion of God in epistemological concerns?

Reviewed by Charles W. Mason, College of Arts and Science, University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware 19711.

RELIGIOUS ORIGINS OF MODERN SCIENCE by Eugene M. Klaaren, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, Michigan (1977). 244 pp. Paperback. $5.95.

This book by Dr. Klaaren, on the faculty in the Department of Religion of Wesleyan University, Middletown, Connecticut, is subtitled, "Belief in Creation in Seventeenth-Century Thought." His purpose is to emphasize the primary role played by the presupposition of Creation in the development of modern science approach is to document carefully the thought of several 17th century scholars, particularly that of Johan Baptist von Helmoot and of Robert Boyle.

Klaaren sees three principal theologies of creation as having played a basic role in classical Christian thought: Creator as Divine Being, Creator as Spirit, and Creator as Will. Of particular significance for Klaaren is the development of a voluntarist tradition.

Central to this tradition was the insistence that the efficacy of God's will, His power in action, was more important than God's foreknowledge and final purposes in creation. (p. 47)

Klaaren selects von Helmont as an example of the Spiritualist theology of Creation: "simultaneity of time and history, and of all kinds and orders of genuine thought, vision, and practice, is the distinguishing mark of Spiritualism." (p. 58) Out of this approach came an exaltation of empirical investigation into the nature of "things themselves," rather than following the classical devotion to reason and the method of analysis and synthesis. However, Spiritualism's complete emphasis on wholistic judgments deprived it of the powers of discrimination typical of a voluntaristic approach.

More modern trends typical of Bacon, Boyle and Newton are also traced in some detail. Boyle's achievements in particular are noteworthy.

He differentiated chemistry and medicine, developed a carefully delimited experimental chemistry, including th distinctive genre of the laboratory report, differentiated a critical reflective philosophy of science, and advocated the distinct integrity of empirical knowledge. (p. 116)

His theology emphasized neither the Reformation concern with redemption, nor the medieval confidence with Being, but expressed the greatness, power and love of God through a primarily optimistic involvement with creation. It is relatively easy to see how such emphases led on to Deism and to a rejection of a well-balanced biblical perspective among Boyle's successors. It is somewhat anachronistic to read of Boyle's triumph in formulating the "clockwork" image of the world and God as Cloekmaker, in which he made the giant step of breaking away "from traditional organic views of nature." (p. 155) Now the cycle has reversed and we are daily impressed through areas such as ecology with the importance of a wholistie and organic view of nature!
Rich in historic detail, I think the casual reader will find the scholarly density of this text hard going. The text ends with 37 pages of explanatory notes, an Appendix of 30 works by Boyle cited in the book, an 8 page index of subjects, and a 3 page index of names.

RECONCILING MAN WITH THE ENVIRONMENT by Eric Ashby, Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA (1978). 104 pp. $7.95.

Lord Eric Ashhy, a Fellow of the Royal Society and recipient of 21 honorary degrees recognizing his contributions both as a plant biologist and as an educator, delivered the Leon Sloss Junior Memorial Lectures in Humanities in 1977 at Stanford University, with this book resulting as the text of these three lectures.

It is Ashby's thesis that primitive man identified himself with his environment through animism, and that modern man is proceeding to reestablish such an identification through the evidences of modern science. His argument starts with a curious aside in which he cites the interpretation of Genesis as "a license to exploit the environment" and then quotes twice from Cicero to show the effect of such a belief!

Ashby is dissatisfied with environmentalists who tell what "must be" done without telling how to do it. He sets forth a three stage "chain reaction" which he sees bridging the first realization of an environmental hazard to the final political solution leading to its removal: (1) public opinion has to be raised, (2) the hazard has to be examined objectively, and (3) this objective information has to be combined with the pressures of advocacy and with subjective judgments to lead to a final political decision. Ashhy sees a growing questioning of whether we ought to do anything we can do, as a sign 0f human reconciliation with nature.

Particularly helpful is his analysis of the meanings of the term "value;" value can indicate (1) cost, (2) usefulness, (3) intrinsic worth, or (4) symbolic significance. Ashby argues effectively for the importance of concentrating on intrinsic worth, as opposed to only cost or usefulness. He offers many helpful suggestions and analyses of real economic and political questions, as well as technical ones. His contention is that "The idea of man as lord of nature is, in the minds of scientists, replaced by the idea of man in symbiosis with nature." (p. 83) Sadly I do not think that Ashby's humanistic morality is able to pull off the task he assigns to it when he calls for an environmental ethic with the premise "that respect for nature is more moral than lack of respect for nature."

Reviewed by Richard Bube

NATURE AND MIRACLE by Johann H. Diemer (1977). Paperback. 37 pages.
REFLECTIONS ON THE TECHNOLOGICAL SOCIETY by Eghert Schuurman (1977). Paperback. 66 pages. Both published by Wedge Publishing Foundation, Toronto, Canada.

These two very brief booklets expressing the perspective of men from the Netherlands who are involved with the thought of Herman Dooyeweerd, who himself wrote a memorial for Diemer's book, provide some challenging and stimulating reading.

Diesner's book is described as having been conceived over 30 years ago, but it is still very much relevant to the question of how God interacts with the world. It rejects the category of "divine intervention" in favor of a model in which God is constantly active in the world. Martyred in the Second World War at the age of 41, Diemer made a beginning at "reformed science in the area of biology." Some of his pithy statements will provoke immediate reaction:

(The days of creation in Genesis) are basically dateless and cannot he measured by any human standard of time measurement. (p. 3)

To say that the beginning of a new phylum is grounded in creation means in no way that God created in a supernatural way by intervening in independent natural events. (p. 5)

the miracle of creation lies in the spontaneous appearance of the structural principles within which the generations of creatures pass and through which the existence of these creatures becomes possible . . . the miracles of its creation is continually present also. (p. 10)

The fall brought no change in God's design because the fall was included in the design as a possibility even before the creation began. (p. 12)

When we explain the miraculous by the supernatural, the miraculous is in fact denied. (p. 21)

I leave to the reader many other such statements that either strike a responsive chord or raise the theological hackles. Whether or not Diemer has indeed made a beginning at a "reformed science of biology"-or whether in fact such a "reformed science" is possible-are topics that are not easily resolved.

Schuurman, Professor of Christian Philosophy at the Delft and Eindhoven Institutes of Technology, tackles a Christian evaluation of modern technology and provides a Dooyeweerdian parallel to the criticisms of Jacques Ellul on the same topic. Schuurman differs from Ellul, however, by arguing "that autonomy is not inherent in technology but that it is the religiuspiritual assumption of post-medieval modern man." (From Foreword by Bernard Zylstra) lIe sees at the two extremes the technocrats on the one hand, who believe that what is good for technology is good for all culture, and the revolutionary utopians on the other hand, who dream of a revolutionary overthrow of technocratic society. Schuurman strives to show how each of these polar extremes can be avoided in a Christian assessment of technology. He sees the controversy between technocrats and utopians as a family fetid within the context of humanism, guided by the concept of human autonomy.

"...the thinking of technocrats and revolutionaries actually approaches two rival forms of nihilism . . . . The nihilism of the lifeless mechanical order of the technocrats has its obverse in the nihilism of revolutionary turmoil and chaos. (p. 16)"

Arguing that it is indeed the pretension to human autonomy that lies at the root of the problems of our time, Schuurman offers a Christian analysis of science, planning and the meaning of technology. He chooses environmental pollution as a specific area within which to illustrate his approach.

While stressing that the root cause of trouble lies in man himself, Schuurman does stray off from time to time to point a particular finger at the engineer as the one who is "inspired by the idea of technology for its own sake," who contends "that whatever can be made should he made," (p. 33), who "emerge from their training naively engrossed with the idea of permanent progress brought about by technology," (p. 41), and as exemplars of "the imperative of technological perfection . . . . Whatever can be made and perfected must he made and perfected." (p. 52) Such a leaning on the engineer per se may move away from an indictment of a human pretension of autonomy toward the raising up of a scapegoat, and needs to be avoided. In fact, elsewhere Schuurman does point out that 

"Engineers are now asking questions which were not posed until recently. Reflection on those questions should he part of the prescribed programme of the engineering student, (p. 42)"

It may be cogently argued, however, that what the engineer steeds is not so much to be less naive about technology, as to be less naive about human nature and the political process. Certainly we can agree with Schnurman that a beneficial addition to most technological curricula would be an authentic opportunity (as opposed to an establishment defense of status quo) 11 to reflect philosophically on the technological-scientific culture." Whether such an addition is possible, and how to bring it about are not simple questions.

Reviewed by Richard H. Babe, Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305.

TEXTOOKS ON TRIAL by James C. Hefley, Wheaton, Illinois: Victor Books, 1976, 212 pp., $6.95. Avail
able from: Educational Research Analysts, P.O. Box 7518, Longview TX 75601 $5.00 (prepaid).

Just at the point when I was beginning to doubt that any child takes his textbook very seriously, my 9thgrade son came in with an announcement. He solemnly revealed that his history text in commenting about an ancient Tigris River flood declared that, "the story of the Flood described in the O.T. was probably based on this actual flood in Mesopotamia." When asked if he habitually scours his texts for accuracy, he replied, only when it contradicts what I know is true."

With this recent personal introduction in mind I picked up Textbooks on Trial with some degree of interest. The reader soon discovers the primary targets of Mel and Norma Gabler's battle: textbooks encouraging increased centralized government with a corresponding de-emphasis on free enterprise, sexual promiscuity, "doctored" history, new math and "phoney" phonics, and biological evolution.

Jim Hefley got inside the story and sharply etched the fascinating tenacity of the Cablers who, beginning in 1961, fought against great odds to become the textbook conscience of America's conservative Christians. It is a dramatic story which Hefley lets "happen" right before the reader's eyes. The issues repeat themselves in great detail over every chapter, but rather than exhaust the reader, the reoccurring battlegrounds become symbols of a consistent press for improvement in the target areas of reform.

Mel and Norma become such familiar personalities that it is quite disappointing that there are no photographs of these people. In fact, what is now a proper, tightly written narrative filled with Texas textbook hearings, could have been a journalistic "spectacular" with snapshot coverage of the main events. Perhaps one cause for the conservative rendering is the awkwardness which Victor Books (Scripture Press, Sunday School Curriculum Publishers) may have felt in tiptoeing into "controversial" reporting.

The caution was well-advised. The possibility for over-statements and even extremism in the political, social and religious issues portrayed is ever present. But only in the Foreword by former Arizona Congressman Conlan and in the slight overdoing of "conspiracy" thinking elsewhere was there a problem. As concerned as we all are about the impact of bad textbooks on youth, few would go so far as the Congressman's declaration that bad textbooks ". . . will ultimately destroy the family (and) decent social standards . . "

On the positive side is the clear impression that the Gablers' mission was not to put down all unacceptable texts, but to bring alongside the current renderings alternative historical, social and biological viewpoints more rooted in Christian values. The approach is seen most clearly in the case of evolution where Mel and Norma fought for the inclusion of a creationist alternative to exclusive evolutionary teaching.

The conservatism is very complete in this Texas arena: the adversary is big government, black activists, Vietnam protesters, values and education and new math. But regardless of the reader's politics, the Gablers' story chronicles an inspiring manual of how persistent, committed people can get inside the system and move it back towards the people.

Reviewed by Dirk Nelson, Professor of Christian Education and Acting Dean of Students, 1vtelodylond School of Theology, Anaheim, California.

SCIENCE TEXTBOOK CONTROVERSIES AND THE POLITICS OF EQUAL TIME by Dorothy Nelkin. Cambridge, Mass. and London: MIT Press, 1977. xi, 174 pp. $12.95.

The author is Associate Professor in the Cornell University Program on Science, Technology, and Society and Department of City and Regional Planning In this book she seeks to explore the motives and perceptions that underly contemporary criticisms of science as expressed in the area of public education, and as illustrated primarily by the textbook controversies over creation/ evolution and Man: A Course of Study, a year-long course of study for the fifth and sixth grades dealing with fundamental questions about human beings. Her approach is to provide a partial historical overview of some of the details entering into these controversies, and then to attempt an analysis of the basic causes of the conflict.

One 0f the most perceptive parts of this book appears in the final chapter on "Science and Personal Beliefs." Here she pinpoints some of the attitudes of scientists that contribute to the confusion: (1) scientific values are "founded on a view of science as an autonomous system distinct from its political, personal, or social context;" (p. 145)) (2) "that 'value-free' truths can be derived from an accumulation of evidence;" (p. 147) (3) reliable scientific guides for behavior are sometimes exaggerated by scientists "who sometimes claim excessive territory for the concepts and
tools of their disciplines;" (p. 147) (4) problems in the communication of science in which science is frequently represented as "authoritative, exact and definitive;" (p. 148) (5) loss of the tentative nature of science so that "in the process of simplification, findings may become explanations, explanations may become axioms, and tentative judgments may become definitive conclusions;" (p. 148) (6) an incomplete image of science in textbooks that "seldom includes analyses of the organization of research, the personal motivations of scientists, or the relationship of science to cultural and social attitudes;" (p. 149) (7) the presence of "dogmatism" (p. 149) in textbook treatments of contemporary research; (8) a tendency for scientists to respond to criticism by non-scientists "with their own kind of fundamentalism . . . apparently forgetting that science itself is approximate and metaphoric." (p. 149, 150) Such all too common attitudes on the part of scientists do little to prepare the ground for meaningful interaction with non-scientists who do not understand the workings of authentic scientific inquiry and who are seeking to assert their own values and power through the often misguided processes of "populist democracy." (p. 152)

I must confess that this concentration on the final eight pages of the book does not constitute a comprehensive review, but I have proceeded in this way to highlight the insight of the author that is often missing in the main body of the text. Here all too often she appears to support, or at least imply three main fallacies or facets that obscure the issues under discussion. First, Nelkin makes no effort to define the meaning of either "evolution" or "creationism" while using the terms extensively as if their meanings were self evident. She fails to point out the crucial distinctions between currently observable genetic change (micro-evolution), a general historico-scientific theory (macro-evolution), and a philosophy or worldview based on evolution (evolutionism), and she does not appear to realize that every Christian must be a believer in Creation (hence some kind of "creationist") even if he accepts evolution as a scientifically viable model. Second, Nelkin does not adequately make clear (until that last chapter) that the real issue joined with science often involves scientific reductionism, i.e., the non-scientific philosophical assumption that science provides the whole and only picture, and not authentic science itself. Thirdly, Nelkin often writes as though she accepted the myth of scientific objectivity (until that final chapter again) in which it is maintained that scientific theories are derived from objective "fact" without subjective inputs from the scientist or the scientific community in which he/she works.

Detailed comments on the creation/ evolution and the MACOS debates would take us beyond the scope of this brief review. As one intimately involved in the textbook controversy in California, however, a few com-ments on Nelkin's treatment of this question may be justified. Following many commentators, she focusses on "fundamentalist" opposition while running through such names as Oral Roberts, Herbert W. Armstrong (who is the founder of his own church), Carl McIntire (noted for his schismatic excesses), and Billy James Hargis (an extreme right wing personality), while failing to pay any attention to authentic evangelical Christians whose perspective is less garish but far more typical; she even includes Jehovah's Witnesses with their opposition to evolution as part of  the same movement. Therefore it is easy for Nelkin to draw a caricature of such textbook watchers as "antiliberal, often anti-intellectual, and certainly antiestablishment," (p. 56) without coming to grips with the authentic intellectual defenders of evangelical Christianity and their reactions to these issues.

Highly commendable is the inclusion of Table 8 on pages 98-100, comparing original statements in science textbooks with the suggested changes by our committee, thus allowing the reader to judge the understatement in Nelkin's remark, "Most changes were basically unobjectionable and, indeed a few did correct some unnecessarily dogmatic statements." (p. 96) Again it is very helpful when on pp. 108 and 109, Nelkins lists some of the objections that were raised against the MACOS curriculum, so that the reader can perceive more completely the nature of the objections raised.

Chapter 8 on "Social Sources of Textbook Disputes" is also helpful in developing the three main themes characterizing the textbook debates: "1. disillusion with science and technology as threats to traditional values; 2. resentment of the authority represented by scientific expertise as it is reflected in public school curriculum decisions; 3. defense of the pluralist and egalitarian values that appear threatened by modern science." (p. 128) These are helpfully summarized in Table 11 on p. 139. All those concerned with the communication of authentic science would do well to ponder the lessons of Nelkin's hook and plan to act in accord with them.

This review is a partial reprint from the Journal of Library History, Vol. 14, No. 1, Winter 1979, published by the University of Texas Press.

Reviewed by Richard H. Babe, Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305.

CREATION AND THE FLOOD: An Alternative to Flood Geology and Theistic Evolution, by Davis A. Young, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House, 1977, 213 pp., $6.95.   (Three Reviews)

Davis Young is one of the few writers in evangelical and fundamental circles who has studied the geological sciences to the degree that he is worth listening to in the natural sciences-biblical religion dialogue. His undergraduate work in geology was at Princeton. He received a MS. in geology at Pennsylvania State University and his Ph.D. at Brown University. These schools are all highly regarded as centers of geological education and research by professional geologists. At the time of writing Young was an Associate Professor of Geology at University of North Carolina in Wilmington. His credentials are above reproach. On the other hand, he is somewhat hampered in writing this book in that he is a "hard rock" geologist, a specialist in igneous and metamorphic rock. "Soft rock" geology, such as sedimentology and paleontology, is obviously not his strength, and his hook shows a certain lack of understanding especially of the fossil record. Young mainly takes up two topics in his book, theistic evolution and flood geology. He disapproves of them both.

The most powerful part of the book in this reviewer's opinion is that which decisively refutes neo-catastrophic flood geology. From his own field of igneous and metamorphic petrology alone Young is able to show how foolish it is to ascribe the origin of the fossiliferous strata to the Noachian flood. On the basis of the cooling rates of magmas, radiometric dating, metamorphic terrains, and of plate tectonics he shows the utter impossibility of ascribing fossiliferous strata to the flood.

In another sense, however, Young's arguments are undoubtedly an exercise in futility. Anyone with even just a limited background in geology understands the complete ridiculousness of viewing the fossil record as a result of the Genesis Flood. The Noachiass Deluge couldn't account for one tenth of one percent of the fossiliferous strata as it is known, measured, and mapped today. This being the case, those who promulgate flood geology just aren't serious scholars. They are not interested in the pursuit of science for knowledge and insights gained, but rather as a source of evidence that can be twisted to support preconceived dogmatic formulations. No amount of reason or data will convince people who are basically propagandists to the uninformed.

Another purpose of Davis Young's hook is to take issue with those who would espouse theistic evolution. Young agrees that living organisms may evolve in a limited way, but he feels that a proper understanding of Genesis 1 and 2 does not permit the view that God used the evolutionary process as His way of bringing the present life on this planet into being.

Young argues that Genesis 1 and 2 are historical accounts and that to interpret them poetically or parabolically is to allow sources of knowledge outside the Bible to color our interpretation of the Bible. On the other hand, when he argues his case for regarding the days of creation as being long periods of time rather than twenty-four hour days he states,

"Mature creationism is incompatible with sound geology and therefore it is less acceptable than the alternative interpretation of Genesis 1 that we will develop in chapters four through six."

It seems inconsistent that geology can influence his interpretation of parts of the creation story but not his interpretation of the creation story as a whole.

It also seems strange that Young can argue that he can take the references in the Old Testament regarding the earth being held up by pillars in a poetical sense, but he would deny a similar interpretation to those who believe that there is good reason to interpret Genesis 1 and 2 poetically or parabolically. There is an ancient hermeneutical principle that says that we should take the meaning of a biblical text in a literal sense unless we have a very good reason for taking it in a symbolic sense. The record of His activities that God has preserved for us in the fossils of the earth give us very good reason for taking Genesis 1 and 2 in a symbolic sense.

Young's greatest problem, however, is his very sketchy understanding of the fossil record. His discussion on page 109 of "Genesis 1 and Paleontology" is rather unsophisticated. When he writes concerning palcohotany on page 128,

"There is nothing that says that grasses could not have come first, followed by herbs at some later time, and followed by fruit trees at some later time, he shows no understanding of the place of grasses either phylogenetically or in the fossil record."

His arguments that because of the wording concerning God's activity in the fifth day of creation that "Sea creatures and birds are in any interpretation not directly related to one another" is one that no paleontologist who knew the fossil record would want to make. But if his attempt to make the order of the appearance of life on the earth as known from the fossil record correspond to the sequence of the six days of creation is to succeed, such statements and other labored reasoning are in order.

Davis Young's obvious lack of familiarity with more than the roughest outline of the content of the fields of paleontology is the greatest weakness of the hook. He should not have attempted to write concerning a field with which he is so plainly at sea.

His lack of success in dealing with the fossil record does not mean that all his comments concerning theistic evolution are in vain. If Davis Young wants to believe in a punctuated creationism in regard to fish, birds and man, etc., that can be a matter of belief for him and can never really be proved or disproved in a way that would absolutely compel assent. In Roman Catholoeism, for example, the papal encyclical Hurnani Genesis takes this approach. On the other hand, the Roman Catholic paleontologists I have known are rather embarrassed by the encyclical. The fossil record, which from any understanding is a record of God's activity in history, just does not lend itself to the interpretation of punctuated creationism.

So read the book for its easy demolishment of flood geology from the point of view of a "hard rock" geologist. Davis Young is obviously a master of igneous and metamorphic geology. He is also to be commended for his evident concern with relating the world of knowledge and the world of faith.

Reviewed by Harold F. Roellig, Department of Earth Science, Adeiphi University, Garden City, New York 11530.

In the preface to his book Young states:

I believe that it is possible to combine good theology and good geology by having a truly Biblical view of geology. To do this, one needs to reject both the flood geology and theistic evolutionism, It is imperative that theologians . . . and Christian lay people have this Biblical perspective on science if they are to avoid undermining Christianity itself and if they are to avoid detracting from the gospel of Jesus Christ by adding to it the human foolishness of pseudo-science. This book seeks to develop such a Biblical perspective of geology through a fresh reexamination of both Biblical and geological data.

Young is well qualified for his task because he is both a professor of geology and the son of the late Edward J. Young, professor of Old Testament at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia. He cites his father's work frequently in the book, and, as we shall see, accepts his father's interpretation of "yom" (day).
In the opening chapter Young states his aims: to do justice to divine revelation in the Scripture and to geological theory. He feels there is no conflict between Scriptures and science, but the message of the Scriptures must never be twisted to suit scientific theories. The second chapter is a critique of theistic evolutionism which, Young feels, accepts the thrust of the biblical narrative but in its interpretation of Genesis elevates scientific theory over Scripture.

Chapter three discusses topics connected with "apparent age" and "mature creation," and briefly summarizes pertinent geological theories. Young is of the opinion that "young earth" theories which hold that creation was instantaneous and devoid of process are on a collision course with the findings of modern geology.

Young attempts to analyze what the first chapters of Genesis do, and do not, say. He asserts that the concept of creation, as it is used in the Old and New Testaments, does not rule out processes over long periods of lime. The word "yom" (day), as it is used in Genesis, would permit this theory, according to Young. He feels that exegesis of Genesis should not put burdens upon scientists and laymen which the Scriptures do not require. Thus, the processes observed by modern geologists, he feels, are not contradictory to the historical facts revealed in Genesis.
Although Genesis would not prevent taking a similar view of the origin of man, Young states in chapter seven that other passages, especially Romans 5, have convinced him that man was "directly created by God." If this causes disagreement between geology and Scriptures, Young is willing to accept this conflict rather than making interpretation of Scriptures subordinate to a (temporary?) scientific theory.

Although he is critical of "flood geologists" and theistic evolutionists alike, Young states that his book is a response to The Genesis Flood by Whitcomb and Morris (Presb. and Reformed Publishing Co., 1961). The debate on the significance of Noah's flood in contemporary geological studies is a heated one. Morris has staunchly defended his viewpoint in a review of Young's book in Impact Series (No. 55, Creation Research Society, San Diego, Ca.). Morris even questions the propriety of Baker Book House in publishing Young's book. In such a charged atmosphere, few issues are likely to be resolved.

I agree with the comments of Dewey K. Carpenter in the ASA newsletter (Oct./Nov., 1977, p. 17):
His [Young's] criticisms of theistic evolution are familiar enough, covering ground known to most people interested in these matters. This part of the book will reinforce the views of those who already reject theistic evolution while appearing superficial and unconvincing to those who hold such a position.

However, I am pleased to see a critique of "flood geology" because this theory seems to me to he speculative, going much beyond the Genesis account. Many books have been written about the flood. Most are intended to save the Bible from the attack of evolutionists. However, the Bible does not need to he saved. It stands, without support from speculative theories which have little basis in the Scripture themselves.

It is regrettable that Young did not include a discussion of some of the recent hominid skull finds, particularly skull 1470 found by Richard Leakey in Kenya. (Implications of these finds have been discussed by Claude F. Stipe in the Dec. 1976 issue of the journal ASA.) Furthermore, the absence of an index and bibliography at the end of the hook is also a drawback.

R. Hodgson, in another review of the book (in Pro lIege, Dec. 1977, Dordt College, Sioux Center, Iowa) states the following:

On p. 172 Young inclines toward accepting the idea of a universal Flood without an adequate exegetical study, something not characteristic of him elsewhere. What does 'all flesh' and 'all the earth (or land)' mean, especially in the Hebrew? Is Moses thinking in global terms, or would an extensive regional flood be agreeable to Scripture? The question is not easily settled from the Bible.

These are not major criticisms, I feel. Young's book can be the beginning of a profitable dialogue about the validity of "flood geology" theories.

Reviewed by Harry Cook, Dordt College, Sioux Center, Iowa 51250.

Davis A. Young has made a valuable contribution to the Christian community in providing an alternative to Theistic Evolution and Recent Creation/Flood Geology. While maintaining an uncompromising view of Scripture, he suggests that Christians should not dogmatically insist on one interpretation of Scripture where a certain latitude of legitimate interpretation is possible. He claims that failure to allow legitimate latitude in interpretation of Scripture has produced many unnessary conflicts between the Bible and Science, most of which are more apparent than real.
Young begins by critiquing the writings of theistic evolutionists, showing what he believes to be the theological shortcomings in their respective views of Scripture. Next, he critiques the mature creation/flood geology views of Whitcomb and Morris, critisizing the geological implication of their theory. He then proceeds to develop his alternative. Young's harmonization of Scripture with scientific observation includes an interpretation of the days of Genesis 1 as periods of time and the "creative" acts of God as being a mixture of miracles and process, i.e., God acting in extraordinary ways, and in customary ways through the so called natural laws. The permisible latitude of interpretation of Scripture in Genesis 1 is discussed in a surprisingly rigorous manner, considering the author's training is in geology, not theology. The level of scientific information provided is certainly in keeping with what one would expect from a knowledgahle geologist.

A whole chapter is devoted to the Genesis flood. Here the author rejects the \Vhitcomb-Morris model of the flood while affirming that the scope of the flood may indeed have been worldwide. Young's arguments here deal with quite specific geological problems that cannot be adequately explained by the WhitcombMorris flood model.
Young strongly advocates belief in a historical Adam and then gives a fascinating summary of the fossil finds of prehistoric man or manlike creatures with an interesting interpretation of their possible significance.

The book has a few shortcomings which should be mentioned. The question of geological dating and the age of the earth is not dealt with in a comprehensive, unified manner. Sedimentation is discussed early in the book and strontium-rubidium radiometric dating is discussed late in the hook. A critique of other dating methods proported to give indications of a young earth (dust on moon, earth's magnetic field, salination of seas, footprint in Puluxy River, etc.) is absent and would have been helpful. While the author's model is very similar to progressive creationism, he seems to avoid any detailed discussion of the gaps in the fossil record and their pertinence to such a model. He implies process may be an adequate explanation for the origin of life. This reviewer finds the current scientific evidence for spontaneous generation quite uncompelling. Finally, a more specific discussion of the positive alternatives to the Whitcomb-Morris model of a universal flood would have been helpful.

The author's willingness to resist the temptation to produce a superficial harmony of science and scripture where a real harmony is not possible at present is noteworthy The breadth of coverage is extremely good and the style of writing makes for easy reading. The technical level will allow the book to he appreciated by the scientifically unsophisticated reader as well as the student of science. I highly recommend it to anyone interested in harmonizing Scripture and science.

Reviewed by Walter L. Bradley, Deportment of Mechanical Engineering, Texas A & H University, College Station, Texas.

FALLACIES OF EVOLUTION by Anile J. Hoover, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1977, 85 pp., Paperback, $2.50.

Evolution, as it has been popularized to the public, has been under heavy attack of late from a variety of sources. Arlie J. Hoover's Fallacies of Evolution is yet another voice joining the chorus crying out that "The Emperor has no clothes!" Dr. Hoover, dean of Columbia Christian College, Portland Oregon, and participant in a televised creation/ evolution debate with Berkeley scientist Dr. Dick Lemmons, has written this book expressly for the layman. He thinks that scientists intimidate the laymen with their verbiage and jargon and seeks to encourage the average citizen to participate in the evolution/ creation discussion. Hoover's approach is not to educate the laymen concerning scientific arguments per se, but to present the errors in logic and the thinking frameworks involved in the controversy. The premise of the book is whether the problem of origins is either an open or closed question. If it is indeed, an open question, then Hoover states that it is unjust to teach only one theory of origins in our classrooms.
The first and main fallacy Hoover presents is "scientism," which he defines as an uncritical worship of the empirical scientific method, an excessive veneration of laboratory technique. This fallacy makes "science" a sacred word and the phrase "science has proved" has the force of a Papal Bull. Eventually scientism destroys the recognition of all abstract things: mind, values, morality, beauty, God, love, freedom, etc., and therefore creates a framework of thinking which cannot interpret facts in terms of abstract concepts. The results of thinking in these terms of reduced reality are shown in the chapter on Social Darwinism where laissez-faire capitalism, imperialism, war, eugenics, and racism are discussed. Hoover briefly covers some scientific topics involved in the evolution/ creation controversy (but not the Second Law of Thermodynamics) as well as other logical traps (e.g., asserting the consequent). He concludes that evolution does not address the unique features of man; reason, language, art, morality, and religion, and therefore is unjustly being forced upon students.

Hoover's book is short and quickly read. For nontechnical people it is a good introduction to the creation/evolution debate and I recommend it for them. 1 think American Scientific Affiliation members may find only the logical approach and "scientism" interesting. For those wishing to pursue the logical approach in greater depth and detail, I recommend the referenced hook Darwin Retried by Norman Macbeth.

Reviewed by F. T. McMullen, Air Force Insttiute of Technology, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio

FROM EVOLUTION TO CREATION: A PERSONAL TESTIMONY by Carl E. Parker, Creation
Life Publishers, Inc., San Diego, California. 1977. 40 PP.

This small book consists of the transcripts of four radio talks in which Dr. Gary Parker responds to questions from the program host, who is obviously another young-earth creationist, and discusses his ". . . conversion, both Scriptural and scientific, from evolution to creation."

In the first talk, "Evolution as Religion," Parker mentions the "zealous," emotional, defensive ways in which he, like some evolutionists, used to respond to challenges to evolution. As a teacher, he consciously tried to get students to fit their religious feelings into the fact of evolution. Parker then compares the evolutionary concepts of sin and salvation, absence of God, and freedom to teach "evolutionary religion" in public schools, with their Christian counterparts. He believes that "evolution is really a faith and heart commitment, a complete world-and-life view; in other words, a religion." He concludes this talk with "To be quite honest with you, if God hadn't changed my heart, I believe I would be happy and content as an evolutionist today."

The second talk, "Conversion from Evolution to Christianity," describes his change from evolution to theistic evolution and progressive creation, neither of which completely satisfied him.

The next talk, "Scientific Conversion," centers around his "conversion" to become a young earth creationist, a process which occurred while reading The Genesis Flood by Whitcomb and Morris, and taking some geology courses for his Ed.D..

The last talk, "Creation in Science and Education," touches on some differences which evolutionist and young-earth creationist perspectives make regarding current topics such as pollution, population control, abortion, and disease.
The general tone of this book is much like other publications from this school of creationist belief, even to the lack of a clear definition of "evolution". This word is often misunderstood, especially when used in the limited sense implied in this book. An explanation of what Parker means by "scientific conversion" would also help readers understand what was "scientific" about his conversion to a young-earth creationist. Some will question his implication that the mature, thinking Christian will eventually become a young-earth creationist too. However, it is probably not fair to regard this book as a scientific or theological publication which has gone through the usual process of being carefully thought out, written and rewritten, and edited for publication. It is just what the title and preface say, transcripts of Gary Parker's personal testimony given on radio. As such, it will be welcomed by young-earth creationists.

Reviewed by L. Duane Thurmen, Department of Natural Science, Oral Robe its University, 7777 South Lewis, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74171

GENESIS ONE AND THE ORIGIN OF THE EARTH by Robert C. Newman and Herman J. Eckelmann, Jr., Inter Varsity Press, Downers Grove, Ill. (1977) paperback, 135 pp. $3.95.

This is one of a number of very useful books published recently supporting the progressive creationist viewpoint. Both authors appear well qualified to discuss interactions between Christianity and astronomy in view of their theological degrees and their work experience or advanced degrees in astrophysics. Earlier work by Robert Newman has appeared in the Journal ASA. Their present discussion centers on the evidence (especially astronomical) for great ages, the formation of the earth, and the reconciliation of these with the Genesis account. They do not consider biological questions and deal only briefly with geology.

The scientific discussions are intended for a nonscientific readership and are probably at about the right level for college students. The extensive footnotes refer primarily to textbooks or compendia and only rarely to primary sources. While such practice would be incorrect in a technical book, it is probably appropriate and helpful for a general audience.

The theological section of the book first covers familiar ground regarding our inability to date creation using the Genesis geneologies. This is followed by a detailed discussion of Gen. 1:1-19, including exegesis and the proposed relationship of each section with an astronomical model for the origin of the earth. At this point the novel idea is suggested "that the 'days' of Genesis 1 are twenty-four-hour days, sequential but not consecutive, and that the creative activity largely occurs between days rather than on them. That is each Genesis day introduces a new creative period" (p. 74). Furthermore, these creative periods do not end with the coming of the next day, but rather continue on through the present. In particular, God's work in redeeming man is seen as part of the activity following the sixth day, with God's rest on the seventh day still in the future. There is no attempt made to reconcile this last point with the past tense reference to God's rest in Exodus 20:11, but the point is not critical to the majority of their discussion.

An astronomer can find a number of minor points to criticize in the scientific sections. For example, most red giant stars are not as luminous as indicated in Figure 1 (p. 25), nor do most of us believe that "stars heavier than 1.2 times the mass of the sun become neutron stars rather than white dwarfs" (p. 24), in view of the enormous amount of evidence for stars losing mass. More serious in the present discussion is the neglect of interstellar molecular clouds and their role in star formation. Young-earth creationists have argued correctly that typical interstellar clouds cannot contract under their own gravity. They need to be told that the high densities and very low temperatures observed in molecular clouds will lead to such contraction.

In conclusion, the book can be highly recommended. It should not be taken, however, as representing the views of all progressive creationists. As the authors emphasize, their proposals are offered for consideration, not as the final word on the subject.

Reviewed by Kyle M. Csidworth, Yerkes Observatory, Dept. of Astronomy and Astrophysics, University of Chicago, Williams Bay, Wisconsin 53191. For a previous review, see Journal ASA 30, 91 (1978).

THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION by Henry M. Morris, Ph.D., Creation-Life Publishers, Inc., San Diego, California. 1977, 87 pp., $1.95.

This book summarizes the main viewpoints on evolution and creation held by Dr. Morris, Director of the
Institute for Creation Research (ICR) and former president of the Creation Research Society. Although described as "the scientific case for creation," it has the strong antievolution approach characteristic of other publications by the ICR. Most of the references, however, are from the scientific literature.

The first two chapters briefly describe the only two models of origins discussed, evolution and a young earth, flood-geology model of creation. He mentions but does not discuss other models considered to be "pseudo-creationist." The main message is found in chapter 3, "Is Evolution Possible at Present?"; chapter 4, "Did Evolution Occur in the Past?"; and chapter 5, "Is the Earth Really Old-or Just Tired?" The last chapter (6) discusses some implications of the young earth creation model. Of the 67 pages in these six chapters, 17 are figures and a table, all on a pleasant green background. At the end of the book are 11 pages of annotated bibliography describing additional books supporting this model of creation. There is an index of figures but no index for the book which, because of its small size, probably does not need one.

This book is quite readable and well-organized. The several quotations are enlightening and used effectively. Scientists may be uncomfortable with the frequent use of words such as "impossible," "never," and "only," where probability statements are generally used. Morris also uses the term "evolution" in an undefined but restricted sense that may be misunderstood by newcomers to the subject. Rather extensive use of the laws of thermodynamics and catastrophism characterize most of his case for creation. For someone who wants a readable treatment of the evolution and young-earth creation viewpoints held by the ICR and Creation Research Society, there is probably no better book than this one.

Reviewed by L. Duane Thurman, Oral Roberts University, 7777
South Lewis, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74105