Science in Christian Perspective

Book Reviews

Book Reviews for September 1973

Index
GOD, SEX, AND YOU, by M. 0. Vincent, J. B. Lippincott Company.
I BELIEVE BECAUSE by Batsell Barrett Baxter. Baker Book House Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1971. 284 pp. $3.95 paperback.
CHRISTIAN FAITH AND MODERN THEOLOGY by Carl F. H. Henry (Ed.) Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan. 1971. 426 pp. Paperback $3.95.
EVOLUTION OF MAN, by Louise B. Young (Ed.), New York: Oxford University Press, 1970, 648 pp., $10.00.
DARWIN RETRIED: AN APPEAL TO REASON by Norman Macbeth, Gambit, Inc., Boston. 1971. 178 pp. $6.95.
WHY NOT CREATION (1970) and SCIENTIFIC STUDIES IN SPECIAL CREATION, (1971) both edited by Walter E. Lammerts. Both copyrighted by Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, Nutley, New Jersey, with Why Not Creation printed by Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan.
THE SCIENCE AND CREATION SERIES, by Henry M. Morris and Jimmy F. Phelps (eds.) Includes 8 student books, 32 pp. each; 8 teacher's editions, approximately 32 pp, each; Science and Creation: A Handbook for Teachers, by Henry M Morris, William W. Boardman, Jr. and Richard F. Koontz, 100 pp. All are published by the Creation-Science Research Center, 2716 Madison Avenue, San Diego, Calif. 92116, in 1971. $1.75 each except Science and Creation $3.50. Set $28.00.
THE NEW SUPER-SPIRITUALITY, 30 pp.' paperback (0.75), BACK TO FREEDOM AND DIGNITY, 48 pp., paperback (0.95), GENESIS IN SPACE AND TIME, 167 pp., paperback ($2.25) All by Francis A. Schaeffer and published in 1972 by InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois.

GOD, SEX, AND YOU, by M. 0. Vincent, J. B. Lippincott Company.

Numerous books have been published in recent years dealing with the subject of human sexuality. Many authors have attempted to present a Christian viewpoint of this subject. All too often these supposedly "Christian" presentations seem more geared to a defense of ethical standards of the Victorian era than to a presentation of Christian standards for the 1970's. God, Sex, and You by M. 0. Vincent, another in a series of books presenting evangelical perspectives to relevant issues of our contemporary society, is not in this mold. General Editor of this series is Dr. John W. Montgomery.

The author, Dr. M. 0. Vincent, is a psychiatrist with extensive experience that would seem to qualify him well to discuss questions of human sexuality. As he states in the Foreword, he writes as "both a psychiatrist and a Christian."

This publication presents a resume of the present "sex scene" in western culture: the role of sex in literature, films, television, and the stage. This presentation is extremely brief, but does help to present the reader to a foundation for further discussions and concept development later in the book. Sexual problems faced by both the single and married individual in our society are discussed.

Upon examining the present scene, four commonly accepted ethical systems in our society are summarized that claim "the answer" to problems of human sexuality. First the Playboy philosophy is examined. The author identifies three aspects of the Playboy philosophy which he calls the 'trinity" of the playboy "religion." This trinity is: 1) man, 2) pleasure, and 3) sex. Quotations from the writings of Harvey Cox and C. S. Lewis are used in arguing against the Playboy philosophy.

Another answer to man's sexual problems comes today from within the framework of religion. The writings of Joseph Fletcher, John A. T. Robinson, and Paul Lehman have combined to give a philosophical answer to sexual ethics known popularly as the "New Morality" or "situational ethics." An excellent review of the basic tenets of the New Morality is presented. It is suggested that this system of ethics is to a great degree a reaction to the hyper-legal positions regarding sex ethics prevalent in much of institutionalized Christianity. A well written critique of the sex ethics of the New Morality is presented. It is pointed out that the one basic difference between the sex ethics of the New Morality and the morality of Scripture is the position concerning the authority of Scripture. It might well be said that the conflict then is in reality a theological difference. A concluding statement summarizes the author's view of the New Morality system of ethics. He says, "The New Morality represents man's recurrent problem of overestimating himself, his reason, and his goodness."

A third answer to man's sexual problems is seen as a series of legalistic responses of "do's" and "don'ts." Many practical daily decisions about love, sex, and personal relationships cannot be dictated by a set of absolute rules. Man has developed a list of "do's and don'ts" which he equates to the absolutes of Scripture. Christ warned the Pharisees of this kind of activity. He similarly warns us of this legalistic ethic today.

The fourth system presented in answer to man's sexual hang-ups is the direction from Scripture of "God's answer." Documenting heavily (particularly from C. S. Lewis) Vincent explains what agape love is and places it in comparison to the concept of love as taught in the New Morality and the Playboy philosophies.

The latter section of the book places sex into a Scriptural perspective. Regarding premarital sex, there is a very strong position taken that the Biblical teaching is that sex relations are to be a part only of the marriage relationship between husband and wife. Scripture teaches that the two major purposes of marriage are for companionship between the husband and wife and for procreation. Consummation of both of these purposes can be obtained through sexual intercourse. Hence the act of sexual intercourse within marriage is seen as a good and rewarding act, created by God for the enjoyment of all of his creatures.

Vincent takes two positions that might possibly be considered questionable by many evangelicals. First, he states that " ... the Christian home must favor sex education, whether that education is in the home, the church, or the schools." Secondly, after a thorough discussion of masturbation, the author concludes that if masturbation is utilized to decrease lust or excessive sexual fantasies, it is good."

This book is a positive contribution to the literature on the topic of sex as seen through an evangelical perspective. It is well written. In spots the use of case studies or personal references by the author to illustrate a point may detract from the desired concept or idea being pot forth. Nonetheless, adults with concerns over the role of human sexuality in their personal lives and in western culture will find helpful and stimulating reading.

Reviewed by Dean F. Miller, Assistant Professor of Health, The University of Toledo, Toledo, Ohio.

I BELIEVE BECAUSE by Batsell Barrett Baxter. Baker Book House Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1971. 284 pp. $3.95 paperback.

The purpose in writing I Believe Because, says Batsell Barrett Baxter. ". . . is to help those of our generation whose lives are marked by despair to find hope through faith in God and His Son Jesus Christ" (p. 8). However, those in despair, not knowing of the "solid, respectable reasons" (p. 9) upon which Christianity rests, have not given it a serious hearing. Consequently, they do not find hope. A corollary purpose of his book is to point out ". . . solid foundations for our faith, foundations that will stand the tests of this scientific age" (p. 9), suggesting that when one knows and is confronted with "Christian evidences" (p. 18) he may be led to a faith in God and His Son. The emphasis is on scientific evidences which directly or indirectly support the claims of the Christian faith. With this kind of support, Baxter believes that the Christian faith can meet the skepticism of our age and the challenge of contemporary knowledge. It can be reasonable and academically respectable.

The book consists of thirty chapters. It is divided into the following parts: The Existence of God, How the Universe Began, The Inspiration of the Bible, Miracles, The Divinity of Christ, and Situation Ethics. The conclusions made by certain selected authorities to problems pertinent to the purpose of the book are summarized as evidences supportive of the Christian faith. There is no attempt to do a critical analysis of any of the given judgments nor to engage the reader in an argument or a detailed analytic study of the issues. Compiling and presenting them in this manner is in line with the author's purpose, which is, to persuade the reader that the Christian faith is worthy of his attention. These informative chapters will benefit a large portion of the lay public who are members and nonmembers of the Church. Clarifications on the kinds of problems that science attends to are made by scientists. The limitations of scientific claims and methodology are clearly brought out by them. It is, for example, refreshing to read Prof. Louis Bounoure's, a French biologist, comment on the evolutionary theory: "In short what science asks of us here is an act of faith, and it is in fact under the guise of a sort of revealed truth that the idea of evolution is generally put forward" (p. 134).

For the purpose of this book, Parts Three, Four, and Five and Chapter 27 are particularly informative and relevant. However, the scientific use of the term "evidence" may be strictly applied only to the problems discussed in Part Three, such as, The Limitations of Science, Age of the Earth, Theory of Evolution, etc. Proof, logical arguments, moral judgments, and justifi able beliefs are concepts more in keeping with the kinds of problems addressed in other sections, for example, The Moral Law Within.

Dr. Baxter, chairman of the Dept. of Bible at David Lipscomb College (Nashville, Tennessee), should be commended for sorting out comments by men of science on matters pertinent to the faith, for compiling and summarizing them for those who may not have the time or capacity to engage in a study on these complex and often technical scientific problems. There is much information here, in summarized version, which is beneficial to anyone. However, there are certain elements in his book which need to he reviewed critically.

Most of the chapters range from 3 to 8, sometimes, 11 pages. Significant problems, such as The Age of the Earth, Thermodynamics, Evolution, etc. are treated briefly. Cosmological and theological arguments are summarily dismissed in 5 and 6 pages. Hypothesis, theory, and fact are talked about in one paragraph (p. 26)l The light and casual treatment given these problems sometimes suggests that the author's sole purpose is to "get the message across."

The book is also marred by a number of logically questionable statements characteristic of the author's argumentation. He says: "If the Christian religion is true, it will stand whatever tests are placed upon it" (p. 17). But in what sense is Christianity considered "true?" "Whatever tests" is too wide a claim to make to fulfill it! Quoting Leander Keyser, "Christian evidences is the scientific proof of the divine authority of the Christian religion" (p. 18) adds another confused statement. What does the statement mean? "Scientific proof" and "divine authority" belong to two different types of languages and are subject to different kinds of analysis. There is simply no way of talking intelligibly about "divine authority' being subjected to "scientific proof." In citing Bernard Ramm on Christian evidences (p. 19), the author missed the point that "Christian theology assumes the truthfulness of the Christian religion" (p. 19, italics mine), hence, is not subject to scientific scrutiny. Rather, its claimed "truths" function as axioms and are better discussed in the context of "proofs" and not "evidences." If the author suggests that "true" is related to "factuality," then Christianity cannot claim uniqueness because it is "true" (factual). The conditions on factuality posited by Ramm (p. 27) could also be fulfilled by other religions.

On man's nature, Baxter says: "There is something about man, although somewhat indefinable, that reaches beyond the material universe in which he finds himself" (p. 41). But this is not saying much! If "this something" is indefinable, how can he go on to say that it is this something that reaches beyond the material universe? And, how naive to say that the lifting of one's eyes instinctively "from the earth upward to the top of the (Washington) monument," (p. 41) suggests that "there is something about the way our universe is made and the way man is made that causes him to lift his eyes to the heavens to seek God" (p. 41). What if one looks into the depths of the ocean floor, or into the heart of a flower?

Atheistic evolution, says the author, "holds that there is no God and that the natural universe and its laws originated by chance. This is a purely mechanistic outlook. It appeals to many because it eliminates the necessity of a God who requires the submission of man's will" (p. 119). But, evolution as a scientific problem cannot be given, strictly speaking, a religious connotation. The existence or non-existence of God, of course, may be inferred from it, but it is not a necessary part of the meaning of evolution. It is not an interest internal to the theory. The theory only claims that within a system and language of science, it can give a satisfactory and adequate explanation of the developmental processes of the universe. It does not claim to know whether God exists or not. Also, if the laws originated by chance, how can they be "purely mechanistic?" And, if the theory is "mechanistic in outlook," it suggests that man's will is required to submit, not to God, surely, but to its mechanistic operations. Man's whims are out! The view may, indeed, appeal to many, but on grounds other than those stated by the author. This view of evolution leads Baxter to make other odd remarks: "It is my conviction that the widespread teaching and general acceptance of the evolutionary hypothesis is responsible in a major way for these trends (materialism, permissiveness, more crimes, etc., p. 165). If a person comes to believe that he is only a graduate beast, that there is no God behind our existence, that there is no judgment to come, and that there is no eternal life hereafter, why should he not live as he pleases?" (p. 165) His conclusions cannot be granted for they are not strict derivations from the premises of the theory. Given the theory of evolution, there is nothing logically wrong in concluding that "We should do all the good we can do since there is no God to do them for us," or, "Hence, we should live, not to please ourselves but the state, some civic groups, or to give ourselves completely to our work for man's benefit." Also, the author has to show his grounds, and why he considers them defensible grounds, for correlating certain trends with the teaching of evolution. Saying that the claimed relationship is based on his conviction is not an argument. One's conviction is not equivalent to "evidence," which is the author's interest; neither is simple assertion synonymous with argumentation.

Finally, the author's insistence that the study of certain scientific evidences which tend to support the Christian faith may lead to a faith in God because they lend respectability to it is debatable. The problens of "evidence" and its relation to God's existence or one's belief in Him should have been more fully explored than is done in the book. The place and function that scientific evidences occupy in one's faith in God should have been clearly located and delineated. It is too much to assume that given "evidence," belief in the existence of God follows, as though they are logically related. But one is a scientific problem, while the other is a metaphysical religious claim, each of which requires its own kind of language, "evidence," and methodology. The piling up of all evidences does not equal the assertion that God exists/is. The evidences may he accepted scientifically; but God's existence, which some claim is supported by them, is not. This is why scientists may know the same set of established evidences while holding to different sets of beliefs about God, Knowing these evidences, even believing in them, does not necessarily lead one to a belief in God. What one knows and believes in are the evidences but not necessarily God. God's existence remains within the metaphysical realm of discourse, apart from the evidences which believers use in arguing for or talking about their beliefs.

Evidences, of course, may be used to support one's belief in God but this is not saying that belief in God and the evidences for it are the same kinds of claim. Indeed, for every "belief in" there is a corresponding "belief that." Thus, "I believe in Jesus Christ because I believe that lie is a person sent from God;" or, "I believe in socialism because I believe that it is the best societal arrangement that will realize man's potentials." The set of "beliefs-in" constitutes one's faith while "beliefs that" are the "facts," examinable for degrees of verifiability, supporting the set of "beliefs in." However, the "beliefs-that" can never be exhaustive enough such that the two forms of beliefs are identical, reducible one to the other. Even the "beliefs-that" of a "beliefin" socialism fall short of conclusive evidence that socialism is, in fact, the best social arrangement. Ultimately, one falls hack upon his "belief in" (faith) socialism, and not upon the facts that support it. Clearly, then, if God is God, one's belief in Him must finally rest on His revelations of Himself. Much caution should be exercised in drawing implications from the fields of human knowledge for the purpose of supporting one's belief in the existence of Cod or for attesting to His verifiability lest we commit errors in logic or violate the standards of knowledge.

The Scriptures suggest that the believers in Christ are the best evidences for God's existence and the meaningfulness of believing in Him. As they conduct themselves in the traffic of daily living, a certain qualitative distinctiveness of behavior, which can be described only as "Christ-like," is discerned, is sensed, is felt, and is seen by those with whom they work and live. (II Corinthians 2:15 and 3:2-3.)

Reviewed by Evelina Orteza y Miranda, Educational Foundations Department, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

CHRISTIAN FAITH AND MODERN THEOL OGY by Carl F. H. Henry (Ed.) Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan. 1971. 426 pp. Paperback $3.95.

This book is a reprint of a 1963 publication by Channel Press, New York, which originated from a Summer Seminar in 1961 at Union Theological Seminary in New York.

The book contains twenty chapters written by different "evangelical" and "reformed" scholars. Obviously, space does not allow discussion of each of the chapters. I shall discuss several which were of particular interest to me.
The first three chapters review 20th century theology in Europe, Britain and America. These are quite interesting and informative. Unfortunately, they are dated, as the drastic shifts in radical Christianity of the later 60's are not presented. It does seem as though these chapters should have been updated in the republishing of this work.
The nature of revelation is discussed by Professor J. H. Gerstner of Pittsburgh Theological Seminary. It centers on the neo-orthodox-orthodox controversy, and comes down decidedly on the orthodox side. Revelation is said to be given in "two books"-the book of nature and the book of Scripture. Not much discussion is given of the book of nature, but some very important points about Scripture are developed. He concludes with a plea for understanding between orthodox and orthodox theologians. Both schools of thought are said to "pay tribute to the Word of God which comes through the Bible."

A related topic, the nature of the Bible, is the center of thought for Professor R. D. Preus. The Bible is the Word of God. This is shown to be Christ's opinion and also the Bible's own opinion. Furthermore, Preus argues from such passages as Luke 24:25, John 10:35, and Mark 12:24 that Christ believed Scripture to be inerrant. A brief history of the "modern revolt against the Bible" is given. Starting with Sigmund Baumgarten (1706-1757), Preus discusses the view of Scripture of such men as Semler, Kant, Ritsehl, Schleiermacher, Barth, Dodd and Brunner. The positions of each of these are criticized from the viewpoint of evangelical Christianity. Preus claims that if the "high doctrine" of Scripture is rejected, theology becomes "mere human opinion, insight, conjecture. He ends his essay with a moving devotional paragraph thanking God for the joy of knowing His Word is true!

A chapter which is of obvious interest to the readers of Journal ASA is Professor Gordon H. Clark's "The Nature of the Physical Universe". This title is somewhat misleading, as the chapter deals mostly with the nature of scientific knowledge. In fact, Professor Clark's thesis is that nothing can be learned about the nature of the universe by the methods of science. Clark first discusses the views of two modern theologians (Barth and Bultmann). Barth tends to give a "twofold" view of truth, whereas Bultmann wishes to demythologize religious truth so that it harmonizes with scientific truth. Both assume that scientific truth is infallible. Over and against this view (which also is exemplified by A. D. White), Clark suggests that Henry Newman's skeptical words on alternative astronomical theories "Neither proposition is true and both are true; neither true philosophically, both true for certain practical purposes" be given further consideration.

The rest of the essay discusses three topics: Newtonian physics, modern physics and operationalism. Newtonian physics and modern physics are criticized from the point of view of operationalism.

The usual arguments for operationalism are presented, along with some implications for Christians. Since causality has been "exscinded" from science, it is argued that the uniformity of nature should also be cxscinded. If this is so, miracles cannot be logically denied. Science is said not to describe the workings of nature, nor does it discover the laws of nature. Furthermore, since science cannot answer such basic questions as, What is light?, or What is motion?, we need not expect science to answer the question, What is God? Clark ends his essay by asserting that the aim of science is invention, not description or explanation.

This is not the place to give a detailed critique of Professor Clark's essay. Two critiques of his philosophy of science are given in The Philosophy of Gordon H. Clark (Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, ed. by Ronald H. Nash). The critiques are by Professor H. H. Hartzler and Professor J. T. Stahl. However, I do believe his views are important, and warrant discussion within the Christian community.

Professor H. B. Kuhn concludes the book with an essay on the nature of the last things. He briefly describes various evangelical views of eschatology, and then discusses various "20th century revolts against eschatology." He ends his paper with what he calls the elements integral to the Christian Hope.

It is unfortunate that the postmillenial view is misrepresented. Postmillenialists do not believe as Kuhn claims, that by "earnest and dedicated efforts the church can bring about a world wide devotion to the Christian Gospel". If this is to occur (and postmillenialists believe it is), it will happen because the Holy Spirit brings it about.

Furthermore, he misrepresents the traditional Reformed postmillenial view by saying that "after the world has been conquered by the Gospel, the Lord will return to claim His Kingdom and will establish a thousand years of peace under the Messiah's reign". Hodge, Warfield and Boettner all state quite clearly that at the end of this age when the Lord returns, the resurrection of the dead will occur; following which the last judgment will take place. Then the kingdom will he finally established in the new heavens and earth. No literal thousand year earthly reign is supposed by these postmillenialists.

The essay ends with the important assertion that it is only after the fulfillment of the last things that we will be able to say "This is that glorious event". Such humility in prophetic interpretation is indeed rare!

Other topics in the book include: God, man, sin, redemption, history, Jesus of Nazareth, the Holy Spirit, resurrection of Christ, regeneration, faith, justification, sanctification and the Church. A biography of over 100 books is given at the hack of the book.

In all, it is an important hook. It certainly fulfills its description of "a reasoned defense and elucidation of traditional Christian perspectives to the modern world."

Reviewed by David E. Laughlin, Research Associate, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

EVOLUTION OF MAN, by Louise B. Young (Ed.), New York: Oxford University Press, 1970, 648 pp., $10.00.

That books continue to be written (and published) about evolution in general, and about human evolution in particular, reflects man's obsessive and persistent desire to know his origin and nature. Significantly, the plethora of these works demonstrates that certain problems remain unresolved among scientists who endeavor to grapple with the complex questions bearing upon the understanding of man. The thoughtful Christian cannot ignore the challenge in these writings, for he may find it necessary to reconcile the conclusions with Biblical statements, or even modify traditional interpretations of Biblical passages, as he becomes cognizant of research results by evolutionists.

In any case, the scientist who holds Christian assumptions must not renege in his responsibility to achieve understanding of evolutionistic thought, and, if necessary, to "contend for the faith once delivered." Many Christian scholars will note with interest that even scientists who do not hold a theistic Waltanschauung continue to reexamine and reaffirm their evolutionistic conclusions-a poignant commentary on existing uncertainties which linger to plague serious evolutionists. The logical conclusion one reaches is either that the issue preserves doubts in many scholars' minds, or that some scholars have become evangelists in order to proclaim the assumed merits of their position with the hope to gain converts.

In Evolution of Man, the editor, Louise B. Young, has compiled an impressive array of writings which for the most part reveal the intense desire by evolutionists to explore fundamental problems that attend their position, together with the possible results inherent in their conclusions. The wide range of relatively brief selections, mostly excerpts from extended treatments, include the views held by sixty-five thinkers from diverse professions. Each representative view has had significant influence upon contemporary thought, Christian and nonChristian, about the nature of man. The range of writers includes such diverse personalities as Charles Darwin, Theodosius Dobzhansky, Ernest Haeckel, Julian S. Huxley, L.S.B. Leakey, George C. Simpson, B.F. Skinner, Adolph Hitler, Friederich Nietzsche, William Paley, George Bernard Shaw, and Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. Of course, all of the authors do not necessarily favor evolution, or they may differ somewhat in their interpretations of the theory.

It must be emphasized that the editor has not assembled an incoherent pot pourri to obscure or complicate the problems. Rather, there is remarkably commendable organization which presents in logical sequence the following major problems: (1) Is there sufficient evidence for evolution? (2) What causes evolution? (3) Does evolution imply progress or purpose? (4) What is the origin of man? (5) Did mind evolve by natural selection? (0) Is civilization a new aspect of evolution? (7) How successfully is man controlling his environment? (8) Is civilization retarding the evolution of man? (9) Should man control his own evolution? and (10) Can science lead mankind into a better world? It is readily apparent that, despite eclecticism in selection, the editor favors evolution as the most satisfactory answer by which to account for the amassed evidence from various disciplines.

The value of such a compilation to the Christian scholar is that it constructs a convenient and encyclopedic form which permits an evaluation of key problems confronting those who espouse evolution. While I remain unconvinced that one must accept evolution (or more specifically, "macro-evolution") as the only reasonable interpretation of the adduced data and evidence, I believe firmly that every serious Christian, be he "Creationist" or "Theistic Evolutionist," will find Young's compilation to be very useful as a collection of relevant ideas. Admittedly, some Christians who find themselves wavering in indecision, which has induced tensions and anxiety in relation to theft faith, will find the book somewhat threatening. This observation rests upon the obvious fact that the thematic outcome in the volume's progression from questions of validity to terminal questions of application is intended to buttress the evolutionist's stance.

Since this view is geared primarily to those who hold theistic views about the world and man, including some who deny that ardent evolutionists retain any degree of "objectivity," we may select (albeit inadequately due to the compilation's comprehensiveness) certain key statements containing ideas which reveal the cautionary attitude held by those who recognize that science deals with theoretical probabilities rather than absolutes.

In the initial section which treats the problem as to adequate evidence to sustain evolutionary theory, there is a description of facts and observations which led to the general acceptance of the theory. But, since science is the implementation of the "proof," the problem is not completely resolved, for there remains such questions as: "Is the proof final and irrefutable?" and "What constitutes scientific proof and what is the value of a scientific theory?" Dobzhansky, in this section, notes correctly that "antievolutionists still exist. But it is fair to say that most of them are not well informed, while the informed exceptions display biases which make arguments futile and facts useless" (p. 58). Certainly many members of the American Scientific Affiliation will accept this statement, but some will respond that bias is not an exclusive for "antievolutionists" only. EN. da C. Andrada's observation, when he contrasts religious and scientific positions, should be noted by every Christian scientist:

The difference, then, between any religious belief and a scientific theory is that the former has for the believers an element of absolute truth: it is a standard by which they stand or fall, and to abandon it is dishonour and sin. The scientific theory is, however, only true as long as it is useful. The man of science regards even his host theory as a makeshift device to help him on his way, and is always on the lookout for something better and more comprehensive (p. 61).

The series of articles in section two probes causatory problems. The key question posed is: Does the theory of natural selection account for the facts of evolution in the light of present day knowledge? Natural selection is, of course, but one mechanism (albeit a crucial one) involved in the acceptance of any form of evolution. That there exist reasonable doubts as to the complete adequacy of mutations and natural selection in evolution is described by Ludwig von Bertalanffy thus:

Here we come to an important problem. The theory of evolution, based upon an enormous amount of factual evidence, states that the animal and plant kingdoms have arisen, in the course of geological time, from simpler and more primitive forms to more complicated and more highly organized ones. Genetical experience leads us to accept as a fact that this has happened by way of step-like mutations. Actually, however, we find no evidence either in the living world of today or of past geological epochs for a continuous transition. What we actually find are separate and well-distinguished species. Even the existence of more or less numerous mutations, races, subspecies, etc., within the species does not alter the basic fact that intermediate stages from one species to another which should be found if there were a gradual transition, are not met with. The worlds of organisms, living and extinct, do not represent a continuum but a discontinuum (p. 123).

Section three attends to the problems of progress and purpose in evolution. A contrast is set forth wherein ancient man is cited for his belief in cosmic purpose but not in the idea of progress. Now, however, many scholars believe in progress but they reject the notion of cosmic purpose. The question that emerges is this: Has evolutionary theory contributed to this change of beliefs? The editor includes certain concluding remarks made by Charles Darwin in his epochal work; here is a pertinent example:

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved (p. 143).

This earlier view, with its assumption (or was it concession?) of purpose has been vigorously challenged by many contemporary evolutionists. In their rejection of purpose, some share the rather despairing position expressed by the erudite George Gaylord Simpson:

I was at this point in the summary, when I coincidentally came across some highly pertinent remarks in a recent example of the legions of articles deploring the decline of religious faith. The author, a distinguished philosopher, finds himself agreeing with certain ecclesiastical dignitaries that chaos and bewilderment in the world today result from loss of faith in God and religion. This has become almost banal by constant repetition (although I beg leave to note that repetition does not establish truth). From this point, however, the author takes a less beaten path and one not likely to comfort the godly. He finds that, indeed, the old religious faith was unjustified and that the truth is quite otherwise. He does not question or even particularly deplore the fact that the universe does not operate by divine plan, but he thinks it a great pity that we ever found this out. He is a little petulant with scientists for discovering that the world is purposeless and thus forcing abandonment of religions that require the postulate of purpose. He can only face the fact that childish dreams of a meaningful universe must be laid aside, and he exhorts mankind to become adult and to live as honorably as may be in a stark and bleak world (p. 173).

This, of course, is not Simpson's view, for he is merely summarizing the thoughts of the "distinguished philosopher" who is W.T. Stace (as explained in a footnote). The pathos is not only in the fact that Simpson refers to the despondancy of Stace, the philosopher, and believes that "it is even more juvenile to blame the loss rather on the scientists (unkind adults) who exposed the sham than on the falseness of the dream or on the dreamers" (p. 173). Listen, indeed, to Simpson's conclusion:

The ethical need is within and peculiar to man, and its fulfillment also lies in man's nature, relative to him and to his evolution, not external or unchanging (p. 173).

The problem of man's origin as discussed in section four centers on the present knowledge of the evolution of man as well as the way in which this knowledge affects man's understanding of his own nature. Ultimately, the discussion leads to this poignant question: Is man merely an animal that is distinguished by certain unique characteristics? Even those of us who are ardent theists and who hold reservations adamantly about evolution cannot deny the fact that man as a biological organism is in that sense an animal. However, in reading the statements of the distinguished thinkers included in this section, I cannot but bemoan the fact that they are agreed that, at best, there is merely a quantitative difference between man and the animals. Perhaps, however, there is room for the view that man is a creature in the "image of God" with an eternal soul and/or spirit in this argument by Julian Huxley: (even though I am inclined to believe that he would deny my proposal):

We have tended to misunderstand the nature of the difference between ourselves and animals. We have a way of thinking that if there is continuity in time there must be continuity in quality. A little reflection would show that this is not the case. When we boil water there is a continuity of substance between water as a liquid and water as steam; but there is a critical point at which the substance H20 changes its properties. This emergence of new properties is even more obvious when the process involves change in organization (p. 181).

Closely associated with the problem of man's uniqueness in the animal kingdom is the question raised in section five of Young's compilation. The inquiry is: Did mind evolve by natural selection? Darwin and Wallace as two pioneers in evolutionary research differed on this question. Darwin believed that man's mind occurred by the process of natural selection but Wallace contended that the process was not sufficient to account for it. With my theistic presuppositions, and my reservations about evolution, I find Loren Eisley's comments striking a harmonic chord in my symphony of ideas (although other of his views represent dischord to me!):

Ironically enough, science, which can show us the flints and the broken skulls of our dead fathers, has yet to explain how we have come so far so fast, nor has it any completely satisfactory answer to the question asked by Wallace lung ago. Those who would revile us by pointing to an ape at the foot of our family tree grasp little of the awe with which the scientist now puzzles over man's lonely ascent. As one great student of paleoneurnlogy, Dr. Tilly Edinger, recently remarked, "If man has passed through a Pithecanthropus phase, the evolution of his brain has been unique, not only in its result but also in its tempo . . . Enlargement of the cerebral hemispheres by 50 per cent seems to have taken place, speaking geologically, within an instant, and without having been accompanied by any major increase in body size (p. 271).

I will attempt little more than to abbreviate further comments in this review. Section six by Young is concerned with civilization as a new phase in the evolutionary process; the influence of Teilhard de Chardin is obvious in the suggestion that a synthesis in which each human being may cease to he a conscious individual by merging in a super-consciousness! Section seven seeks to explore the problems following in the wake of man's irresponsible exploitation of natural resources leading to an "artificial environment." Optimism and pessimism occur with some authors believing that, ironically, the "inventive mind that gave man his unusual adaptability, and resulted in his dominance, could be leading him into the evolutionary cul-de-sac of overspecialization" (p. 374). The imperative, say others, is to stop thinking in terms of solving isolated mechanical problems and more in terms of understanding the total biotype. Cast in a non-scientific context, this conclusion is reminiscent of the Hopi Indian's view that the individual must see himself cooperating within the system of the universe!

Section eight notes that improved standards of living and advance in living have altered the death and birth rates of mankind; hence, the evolutionist is confronted by new factors which may be adversely affecting human evolution by enabling other than the "fittest" to survive. My reaction to such thinking is that "playing God" is a game with rules that are hard to come by. Section nine considers the affinal question as to whether or not man should control his own evolution on the assumption that he is increasingly able to do so. And, finally, section ten projects problems of evolution and application onto a larger screen with the question now becoming: Can science lead mankind into a better world? In an analogous generalization, these last sections reflect mankind's advanced state of pregnancy in which, with ambivalence, it will attempt to bear, through attentuated and intense labor pains, a civilizational offspring, hopefully free from the anatomical, social, and cultural "sins" that have characterized previous evolutionary "procreation s." But mothers have died in childbirth while others have experienced only regret in an offspring. Personally, I feel that the state of euphoria postulated in Revelation 21 and 22 provides me more than that postulated in the conjectural ultimate of many of Young's contributors.

Nevertheless, the value of Young's book has led me to ask myself this question: How could I have overlooked this heuristic compendium of ideas on evolution? The book has been in my library for about a year. Certainly fiat creationists like Davidheiser, Morris, and Wilder Smith may frown upon my suggestion that there is much to be learned from those who probe the meaning of life and man with the evolutionary perspective. Admittedly most of them ignore the Supernatural-God in the Biblical sense-while they tend to apotheosize science. While I retain reservations about "theistic evolution" as allowed by Bube, Eckelmann, Overman, and others, I find common ground for my thinking in an intermediate position that posits God's creative activity (see Bube, "We Believe in Creation," in Journal ASA, December, 1971). Perhaps Mixter's "developmentalism" can be used to reveal my opinion in reference to this recommendation: Young's Evolution of Man is a superior compilation that is both comprehensive and well-organized; it should be included in the reading of every Christian who is characterized by maturity and intellectual interest in the nature of life and man. Cautionary note: The book is not a devotional tract on godliness.

Reviewed by George J. Jennings, Department of Anthropology, Geneva College, Beaver Falls, Pennsylvania.

DARWIN RETRIED: AN APPEAL TO REASON by Norman Macbeth, Gambit, Inc., Boston. 1971. 178 pp. $6.95.

In the spirit of Kerkut's famous implications of Evo lution, Norman Macbeth, a lawyer by profession, presents the fruits of his ten year study of Darwinian evolution. He cites evidence that classical Darwinism has been almost completely abandoned as untenable by the evolutionists themselves but that the public is still led to believe that all is well in Darwiniana. Macbeth has done his reading homework well as he constantly catches evolutionists denying or deflating their own or others statements in his profuse quotes of Simpson, Mayr, Dobzhansky, Huxley, Eisley, Hardin, Stebbins and many others.

Macbeth takes apart Darwin's ideas chapter by chapter throughout most of the book. First, it seems that comparative anatomy and embryology cannot in themselves be unquestionable evidence because they pose too many problems such as family trees with only branches, too many dead ends, and fossil horse ancestral pictures that seem to be straight line evolvements but do not follow the real evidence. Darwin had great interest in the work of breeders; they have however, never been able to bring about more than very small changes because of "the limits of variability, the curse of sterility, the dangers of extrapolation, the hopelessness of trying to convert bears into whales or of breeding winged horses

In the past a number of pet phrases and ideas such as natural selection, the struggle for existence, the survival of the fittest, adaptation, and sexual selection have permeated the field of evolution. Macbeth attempts to prove that natural selection, the struggle for existence and the survival of the fittest actually turn out to be tautologies that would never stand up in a court of law as proof of an idea. In fact, each of these cardinal ideas is rejected by various evolutionists or, at least, not used by them while others continue to cling to these ideas. Adaptation is said to present problems because there are organisms that are not well adapted but still continue to survive (clowns) while others have such intricate behavior patterns (wizards) that it is hard to fathom how they got their start and continue to hold their own. Furthermore, those who fit expertly (craftsmen) have never been able to take over the earth. Even sexual selection had its inconsistencies when it was discovered that in some species "hens mate with the defeated cocks as readily as with the victors".

According to Macbeth, one of the greatest problems is that natural selection is mindless; therefore all intermediate evolutionary steps must be advantageous to the species but there is little evidence for these stages and too much perfection along the way. Natural selection turns out to be a Paley-type Watchmaker for some, including Darwin, using words like scrutinizing, rejecting, preserving and improving as they described the processes of natural selection. Youthful mountains, migrating polar regions, frozen mammoths with buttercups in their mouths, and the tremendous lava beds of the northwest area of the United States are some of the evidences that pose problems for absolute uniformitarianism. Macbeth does not think that evolutionists can explain either extinction or survival. Finally, Macbeth finds it difficult to think that Goldschmidt's "hopeful monster" helps the situation either.

While presenting evidence against the major points of Darwinism, Macbeth leaves the reader in a vacuum as he does not attempt to propound any other theory. He does not deny the idea of evolution but thinks that scientists ought to get busy looking anew for the proper evidence instead of continuing to mislead the public by defending insufficient ideas. He suggests "that the standards of the evolutionary theorists are relative or comparative rather than absolute." Since the burden of proof lies with the proponent while the critic or skeptic may peck away at "every link in the chain of reasoning", it is not enough to say that the present evolutionary theory is "best-in-field fallacy". Macbeth thinks that the best way for a scientist to work is to present a reasonable theory, hold that theory lightly, and part with it cheerfully the moment there is even small contrary proof. This, of course, is the idea under the scientific method, and Macbeth thinks that many scientists have lost their objectivity as they have made evolution more than science.

Macbeth is just as hard on those who accept a mode of creation as he is on evolutionists. The cover itself talks about the "fairy-tale philosophy of creation" and he reiterates the old questions concerning the creation of horrors in nature by a benevolent god (ignoring the fall of man and earth) and how an omniscient god could let 99 out of 100 created species become extinct. Paley-type Watchmakers are outside the realm of science and Macbeth denies that creation need be the only alternative to natural selection-scientists must start looking for a third true alternative. Macbeth thinks that creationists are now generally on more sophisticated grounds than Wilberforce or Bryan and that they see the facts more clearly as evidenced by the symposium Evolution and Christian Thought Today (an ASA publication edited by Russell Mixter) in which the major authors are described by Macbeth as professional scientists "though not in first-class universities".

Macbeth says that "Darwinism itself has become a religion" with missionaries, unassailable doctrines, proofs by the brethern, and a future heaven on earth (as evolutionary directions become better controlled). After giving Simpson a rather hard time in the book, Macbeth defends him for overcompensating in justifying evolution because Simpson is probably trying to topple Watchmakers. In fact, Macbeth thinks that one of the big problems is that evolutionists "fear that the fundamentalists will gloat over their discomfiture" and that this is what keeps them from airing their dirty linen in public. But he believes that scientists "are not expected to be infallible, confession is good for the soul, and candor is always highly valued".

Generally the book is like a case study in court with Darwin and those that followed him standing trial for their theory. The book is easily read even by nonscientists, keeps one's attention, is witty at times, and gets right to the point. For creationists, who have made similar sudies, there are very few thoughts in the book; for them the real value seems to be the placing of the information under one cover and the credentials of the one who says it. Macbeth will probably be read by hard core evolutionists while creationists, who have often been saying the same sorts of things, are generally ignored. It appears to be healthy to clear the air by bringing important criticisms to the forefront. The book is certainly provocative reading for those who are interested in the problems that beset Darwinian evolution and especially important reading for those who think that there are few, if any, problems.

Reviewed by Donald Muuro, Department of Biology, Houghton College, Houghton, N.Y.

WHY NOT CREATION (1970) and SCIENTIFIC STUDIES IN SPECIAL CREATION, (1971) both edited by Walter E. Lammerts. Both copyrighted by Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, Nutley, New Jersey, with Why Not Creation printed by Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan.

These two books consist of selected articles reprinted from The Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol umes I-V (1964-1968), a period of time during which Dr. Lammerts served as president of The Creation Research Society.

The authors of these articles are Christians, most of them with training and experience in science. The arti cles deal with a wide range of topics, including theol ogy, geology, radiometric age measurements, paleontology, several areas of biology and anthropology, biochemistry, and philosophy of science. Most of the articles are written so as to be understandable by the untrained reader, although some background knowledge in science would be helpful. A few papers become quite highly technical and difficult for the lay reader.

I know of no one who is competent to judge the merits and deficiencies of articles in all these areas. My comments are based primarily on my reactions to articles dealing with geology, chemistry, and radioactivity, which are subjects in which I have spent considerable study and claim some competence. Comments touching on theology and on philosophy of science come from my laymen's viewpoint.

There is discernible a common tone which runs through nearly all of these papers. That tone reflects the particular view of Scripture and of science which the authors hold in common, and which is probably expressed most clearly in the credo of The Creation Research Society. I think that quotations from this credo are helpful as background for evaluating these books.

Creation Research Society members affirm that "The Bible is the written Word of God, and . . all its assertions are historically and scientifically toe in all the original autographs. All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week described in Genesis." They subscribe to "a concept of dynamic special creation (as opposed to evolution), both of the universe and the earth with its complexity of living forms." And they "propose to re-evaluate science from this viewpoint." Their "eventual goal is the realignment of science based on theistic creation concepts."

One way in which that credo is put into practice is in arguing for a young earth, not more than about 6000 or so years old. This view demands that the results of radiometric dating of rocks, fossils, and artifacts somehow be in error. Accordingly, attempts are made to discredit radiometric dating in articles by B. H. Brown, Robert L. Whitelaw, and Robert V. Gentry in Why Not Creation? and by D. 0. Acrey, Melvin A. Cook, and Harold L. Armstrong in Scientific Studies in Special Creation. One approach used is to point out "problems" in radiometric techniques. Scientists who do the experiments know and admit that some problems do exist, and that not all samples have concordant ages when measured by more than one method. But the articles make no mention of the fact that the majority of samples are concordant, and the evidence overwhelmingly points to an old earth. In attempting to discredit potassium-argon (K-Ar) dating, Robert L. Whitelaw is mistaken when he criticizes the supposed assumption that the Ar36 to Ar-40 ratio has remained constant through the ages; that assumption is not made (p. 98 of Why Not Creation,'). The Ar-36 to Ar-40 ratio is used to correct for air impurities which have somehow entered the mass spectrometer used for measuring the Ar-40 content of the sample (the mass spectrometer is operated under high vacuum, and air would enter any leak). On p. 99, in the same connection, Mr. Whitelaw makes a statement which is flatly false, namely, that "quantities of radioargon . . . are the difference between two quantities . . . each a thousand to ten thousand times greater." In fact, radioargon is more than 50% of the total Ar40 for many samples, and, except for very young rocks, is more than 10% of the total for nearly all samples, which is far greater than the 0.01% to 0,1% claimed by Mr. Whitelaw.

Another approach is to attempt to construct the evidence in such a way as to support the idea of a young earth. This sometimes backfires, as it did in the case of the treatment of Carbon-14 dating by Cook (pp. 79-83 of Scientific Studies in Special Creation) and Whitelaw (pp. 93-96 of Why Not Creation?). They note that the measured decay rate of 54C in living organisms is well below its estimated production in the atmosphere. If that estimated production rate is accurate, and if it has remained constant throughout past history, then this indicates a young earth, with the 54C production mechanism being only about 6000 to 15,000 years old. If this is so, then living organisms would have contained less 54C in the past than they do at present, with the 54C content being less and less as one goes farther and farther hack in history. This has been checked by measuring 54C decay rates of samples whose ages are known from historical documents or tree ring dating, and several papers on the subject have been published since 1965. The results indicate that 54C decay rates in living organisms have remained nearly constant for the past 2500 years, and that they were 10% higher 7000 years ago than they are today. The agreement between historical and tree ring samples is very good, and the ages of these samples are known with good accuracy. These data argue that '4C contents of living organisms have not been increasing regularly (exponentially) with the passage of time, and therefore the discrepancy between '4C decay rate and production rate cannot be used as an argument for a young earth, The estimated production rate may be inaccurate, or it may have increased recently, or there may be an unknown reason for the difference between rate of production and rate of decay, but the argument for a young earth on this basis fails in any ease. (When he was confronted with this evidence through personal correspondence in 1972, Dr. Cook persisted in the claim that '4C data support the idea that the earth is young.)

In an article entitled "Science versus Scientism in Historical Geology" in the book Scientific Studies in
Special Creation, Dr. Henry M. Morris seeks to exclude the study of geologic history from the realm of science by definition, saying (p. 105) "science deals with the data and processes of the present, which can be experimentally measured and observationally verified." He warns against extrapolating physical laws beyond the limits of "a certain time" into the past or future. If he means a rather short time, as he obviously does with regard to historical geology, his too narrow definition of science also excludes most of astronomy. In the same discourse (p. 108), Dr. Morris claims that "the second law of thermodynamics is proved beyond question, with no known exceptions" (in about 100 years of experiments). On the next page he states that "ALL geochronometers are suspect" because "there is never any assurance that the decay rates will be constant", although (in about 70 years of experiments) the most drastic changes of conditions that we have been able to produce on earth have not produced changes in decay rates of radioactive materials used in radiometric age measurements. (One experiment has produced a change of 0.07% in 713e, the isotope whose decay rate has the greatest known sensitivity to changes in chemical conditions.) It seems to me that consistency of results from 70 years of study merits nearly as much confidence as consistency of results from 100 years of study.

It is regrettable that the argument against evolution by an improper application of the second law of thermodynamics crops up in several places in these books. As has been stated elsewhere and often, the earth is not a closed system, and the energy we receive from the sun makes it possible for decreases of entropy to result from natural processes, and we observe such occurring. It may be possible to refute the claims of evolutionary theory, but it is not possible to do so on the basis of the second law of thermodynamics.

It is also regrettable that some of these papers launch vigorous arguments against a straw man in the form of a misunderstanding of the meaning of uniformitarianism in geology. I quote from Geology by Putnam and Bassett, (2nd. Ed., Oxford University Press, 1971) p. 22, "Modern interpretations of the principle of uniformity do not require that all of the processes that act upon the earth must be going on at the present time. Nor is it assumed that processes have always proceeded at the same rate, or at a necessarily slow rate. What they do assume is that physical and chemical laws operate now as they did in the past; the laws that apply to matter and energy are unchanging. The conditions under which they operate are, however, constantly changing." That interpretation is the one which geologists use, and it is approved by Dr. Morris (p. 109 of Scientific Studies in Special Creation). Why does he yet accuse geologists of scientism? (p. 112)

I join the writers of these books in confessing the God of the Bible to he the Creator of the universe. I join them in confessing Jesus Christ as His Son and as my Saviour and Lord. The examples cited above, however, demonstrate the inadequacy of the science which these books present. The Bible claims that God reveals Himself to us in nature, too. Though we should not be uncritical in evaluating the claims of science, that Biblical confession should produce in us an openness to the results of scientific study. These books fail to display that kind of openness to knowledge to be gained by the study of God's world,

One final comment. It is interesting that Dr. Henry M. Morris, a prominent leader in an organization called "The Creation Research Society" in an article in a book called Scientific Studies in Special Creation should write (p. 117) "it is fundamentally impossible for science to learn anything about origins."

Reviewed by Clarence Menninga, Department of Physics, Calvin College, Grand Rapids, Michigan.

THE SCIENCE AND CREATION SERIES, by Henry M. Morris and Jimmy F. Phelps (eds.) Includes 8 student books, 32 pp. each; 8 teacher's editions, approximately 32 pp, each; Science and Creation: A Handbook for Teachers, by Henry M Morris, William W. Boardman, Jr. and Richard F. Koontz, 100 pp. All are published by the Creation-Science Research Center, 2716 Madison Avenue, San Diego, Calif. 92116, in 1971. $1.75 each except Science and Creation $3.50. Set $28.00.

Science and Creation was written to state the fiat creationist (anti-evolutionary) view as an aid for teachers wishing to present both creationist and evolution ary theories of origins as alternatives. I personally agree with this notion, and Science and Creation does a good job. Any reader who hasn't read The Genesis Flood or a comparable work owes it to his intellectual honesty to read something by Morris and or Whitcomb, and this little guide would serve well. It has thought-provoking comments and references on a wide variety of subjects from astrophysics to zoology.

One particular asset is the extensive use of footnotes and a valuable listing of resource materials. However, I am led to ask why the members of the Creation Research Society do not publish in the referred literature? How can they expect to have any effect on the scientific community at large if their findings and speculations are confined to their own publications? Mulfinger's critique of stellar evolution and the studies on fossil human footprints deserve wide circulation. Judging by the references in Science and Creation, they have not received it.

There are flaws in Science and Creation, of course. The authors attack uniformitarianism in geology and use it to show that by population growth estimates, the first men appeared a few years ago, rather than a few million! They fail to recognize the fact that increasing the mutation rate may increase fitness in changing environments. (Science, 162:1456; 169;686) There are misspellings (Cenexoic, p. 78).

The eight student books, one per grade, are as follows: (subject matter in parenthesis)
1. This Wonder/al World (Design and Causality)
2. Our Changing World (Work, Energy and Entropy)
3. The World of Long Ago (Fossils)
4. The Living World (Biology)
5. Man and His World (Scientific Method, Origin of Man)
6. Worlds Without End (Atoms, The Universe)
7. Beginning of the World (Biological Evolution)
8. The World and Time (Dating)

These books are much too short for any study longer than a unit. They consider essentially nothing except as it relates to creationism. There is nothing about weather, the planets are not named, etc. Thus the series can be only supplemental to existing materials.

The photographs are stunning, but the art work varies from fair to ghastly. The first book, which has no non-cover photographs, and relies mostly on art rather than text, is terrible. There are 2 spiders on the same page, one with four legs and one with six. Ants are drawn with legs coming from the thorax, the abdomen, or both, all on one page. A fly's eye facets are represented as square, rather than hexagonal. The pictures of people throughout this volume are mostly so poor as to suggest deformity. I would argue with a photo of "footprints" in The World of Long Ago. It is not clearly a human footprint, (a more convincing picture of a fossil footprint appears in another volume) and two halves of one rock are claimed to show two separate footprints. Worlds Without End has some misleading photos of atomic models. There are no drawings of minority people in the entire series with one possible exception. Except for This Wonderful World, the series is exceptionally attractive.

The editors have not coordinated the series well. The teacher's manual for This Wonderful World lacks any introductory material at all. Two of the teacher's books have glossaries, the rest don't. The pupils books should have them, but Our Changing World is the only one that does, and it consists solely of a listing of the pages on which certain words are found! Another error is the reference to entropy, potential and kinetic as "funny" words in the same volume. The most serious inconsistency is in philosophy. Chittick, Boardman Blyth and Olson in the teacher's The World and Time say that "the teacher should he very careful to allow students to reach their own conclusions regarding [what dating methods tell about the age of the earth]", but Beckman, Dudeek and Danielson in the teacher's edition of Our Changing World state "young [children's] ... everyday experience - . . . makes it easy and natural for them to see the strong influence of an initial special creation. This natural inclination should be reinforced, not thwarted and confused by the illusory concepts of evolution, if the child is to attain the highest goals of which he is potentially capable." Both these statements have merit, but it is a mistake to use both philosophies in one series.

Overall, the series is acceptable for the purpose for which it was intended. It promotes creationism, does not mention evangelical fundamentalism, and attempts fairness to other views, which is more than most science books do. There are errors, and usefulness is limited by the length and depth of the books.

Reviewed by Martin LaBor, Central Wesleyan College, Central, S.C. 29630

THE NEW SUPER-SPIRITUALITY, 30 pp.' paperback (0.75)
BACK TO FREEDOM AND DIGNITY, 48 pp., paperback (0.95)
GENESIS IN SPACE AND TIME, 167 pp., paperback ($2.25)

All by Francis A. Schaeffer and published in 1972 by InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois.

Review of Richard H. Bube    response by author    rebuttal by reviewer
Review of David F. Laughlin

In the last four years Francis Schaeffer has published more than 13 books or booklets. His writings have had a tremendous impact on the evangelical Christian community to the extent that his name is probably more widely known than almost any other contemporary Christian author. In 1969 he won top book-of-the-year honors from Eternity magazine, and in 1972 three of his books were in the top 20 on Eternity's list, including the first and third of the titles above, plus He is There and He is Not Silent. All Christians can be thankful for the positive intellectual impact that Schaeffer has had on a wide cross section, not least of all on students around the world.

And yet it is precisely because of his wide appeal and following among those concerned with evangelical integrity that a few critical remarks on his relationship to scientific understanding must be added to those previously made by various other reviewers on the occasional shallowness of his historical and philosophical analysis. These remarks are concerned with pointing out that Schaeffer is at his most effective when dealing with personal, social, theological, philosophical and ethical problems, but that he becomes progressively less effective when he begins to treat subjects in which there is appreciable scientific content. Indeed, by the position he takes in Genesis in Space and Time, it is the opinion of this reviewer that he is in danger of setting evangelical Christian faith back 50 years. The above three booklets illustrate Schaeffer's effectiveness as we move from the first listed through the last.

In The New Super-Spirituality Schaeffer points out some of the dangers of modern movements both within and outside the Christian context. After the evident failure of the drug ideology and the New Left, Schaeffer sees young people becoming a new bourgeois who don't care who supports them as long as they have peace and affluence, or turning to transcendental mysticism with a basic denial of reason. He sees us as being in the midst of a great struggle with what he calls a "new Platonic spirituality" with two major branches: the new Pentecostalism and the new super-spirituality of groups like the Children of God. He finds the New Pentecostalism to be based only on experience with little intellectual content, and the Children of God to be practicing a stricter legalism than anything to be found in a fundamentalist church. The marks of Super Spirituality are (1) an incorrect exegesis of I Corinthians 1,2 as though it attacked wisdom and reason per se, (2) a despising of discussion and apologetics, (3) a despising of the body, (4) the failure to ask pertain questions any longer, and (5) an emphasis on the spectacular and the extraordinary with an eschatology-centered theology. Schaeffer's response for the Christian to these problems is to remember that those who are true Christians are really brothers in Christ, to emphasize content based on the propositional revelation of the Bible, to resist the trend toward the new super-spirituality, to emphasize that the whole man belongs to Christ, and to avoid overreacting by stressing the intellect or the cultural significance of Christian faith. In all of these judgments and recommendations Schaeffer seems at his best, and speaks for the mainstream of a vital and dynamic evangelical biblical faith.

In Back to Freedom and Dignity Schaeffer appears to be on somewhat less sure ground; not that his content is defective, but that his method and depth fall short. His criticism of Monod and Skinner is sharp but sometimes borders on the petulant. Whereas Schaeffer finds it relatively easy to criticize the non-Christian presuppositions and conclusions of these men, he does not find it easy to provide significant Christian alternatives. At the end of the booklet he argues that "as true Christians we must be ready," but he doesn't tell how to face the reality of the situations Skinner is facing without falling into the pitfalls that Skinner is subject to. Without taking scientific data into account, it is relatively easy to dismiss anti-Christian conclusions, but it is considerably more difficult to interpret those same data in a wholly Christian context. Schaeffer's sources are strange; in dealing with scientific problems one might well be expected to use basic scientific sources, but Schaeffer has chosen to base his arguments on reports from the New York Times, Newsweek, Time and Look. Before attacking Skinner, Schaeffer devotes considerable space to attacking Francis Crick which begins with the ad hominem statement that "Francis Crick is an atheist; he bates Christianity and would do anything to destroy it." Schaeffer then finds ominous undertones in Crick's wondering whether someone who believes in astrology ought to be at a university, in Crick's desire to know what portion of mental health is genetically determined and what portion depends on the environment, and in Crick's concern that our success in medicine is having for its main purpose "to make the world safe for senility."

Schaeffer apparently does not think in terms of the possibility of complementary scientific and theological descriptions of man, that man can be both a machine and a unique creature made in the image of God. He confuses scientific determinism with total determinism in a way not greatly different from that supported by the men he argues against. They think that scientific determinism demands total determinism; he argues as if the admission of scientific determinism is tantamount to admitting total determinism. Schaeffer leaves us, therefore, not knowing what to do before the abundant evidence that "the source of man's hungers, drives and needs lies . . . (at least partially) . . .in the brain's circuits-in the mechanism of man." That "God made the human brain" is not sufficient argument for man not to try to improve it; God also made the human body, but Christians hardly feel that medicine is out of place.
With regard to Skinner, Schaeffer avoids the pitfalls of supposing that there is no chemical or psychological conditioning, but he argues that man is "not only the product of conditioning" because "man has a mind; he exists as an ego, an entity standing over against the machine-like part of his being." But what does "standing over against" mean? What are the boundaries of the ego and of "the machine-like part?" Somewhat curiously Schaeffer speaks against "pattern drills" in language teaching because they are based on a behavioristic approach; but surely "patterning" has been found to he an effective approach in some areas-the instilling of good habits is a way we would all favor some kind of patterning. There is no question that Schaeffer is right in attacking that view of man which reduces him to only a machine, but he is much less effective in showing how Christians can be faithful in the real world, not by just abhorring and regretting developments.

It is in Genesis in Space and Time, however, that Schaeffer's lack of feeling for science leads him to suppose requirements for his biblical conclusions that might well lead to a crisis in the relationship between scientific understanding and evangelical Christian faith. One reviewer describes the book as one in which Schaeffer avoids the problems of science; if this is so he avoids them only by ignoring science completely.

For this is the book in which Schaeffer reveals his treatment of the first eleven chapters of Genesis-that one area of the biblical record about which battles between science and Christian faith have been waged for half a millennium or more. His biblical conclusions with regard to the meaning and significance of these chapters are unassailable; how regrettable it is, therefore, that he feels a particular dogmatic interpretation is required to defend his conclusions. Whereas his approach may be viewed as philosophically inevitable in the light of his consistent emphasis on unrestricted propositional revelation, it is still a shock to read it.

In no sense would we have any cause to disagree with Schaeffer when he argues that these chapters teach us that "'in the beginning' the personal was already there," that "because He is infinite, He created originally out of nothing," that " God by fiat brought the world into existence," that "the Bible gives us true knowledge although not exhaustive knowledge," that Genesis 1 and 2 are complementary, that "without choice the word love is meaningless," that "man was and is a sinner," that "man as he stands since the Fall is not normal, and consequently the solution must be appropriate to what we know to be the cause of his problems and his dilemma."

How unfortunate it is, therefore, that Schaeffer in transigently presents these conclusions as requiring that one also believe that these opening chapters of Genesis are to be viewed completely as normal history, the same kind of history as we speak about ourselves or as records concerning Abraham, David, or Jesus Christ; that God's subsequent creative acts after the initial creation by fiat must also he interpreted as fiat acts; that the Bible is propositionally true where it touches on the cosmos; that God created man by fiat by a specific and definite act; that the historicity of Adam is essential to the entire structure and strength of Christian faith; that what happened in the Garden of Eden was a normal space-time historic event. Such statements could be multiplied further. At every point Schaeffer insists on as dogmatic what cannot by its very nature be dogmatically maintained. Christians have learned very slowly the penalty of insisting on eventually indefensible dogma, where a position open to various possibilities but holding fast to the content of biblical revelation is far preferable.

This is a sufficiently important book that a few other features might well be mentioned. A regrettable insensitivity to words occurs on page 30 which twice speaks of man's despair as his "blackness." On page 93 Schaeffer remarks that "it seems clear that if man had not rebelled there would not have been as many children born." On page 105 Schaeffer speculates that the animals slain in Genesis 3:21 "were the first animals to die." He does not believe that the genealogies can be used to date early events in earth's history, and states that "prior to the time of Abraham, there is no possible way to date the history of what we find in Scripture." He is not dogmatic about the meaning of Genesis 6:1,2 but admits seriously the possibility of fornication between angels and human women. Again he is not dogmatic about the universality of the Noahic flood, but he is strongly in favor of a universal interpretation. As a semantic device to emphasize the supernatural sovereignty of God over the universe, Schaeffer repeats that God is able to "act into" the machine of the universe. It is difficult to know exactly the model that Schaeffer intends, but the language implies a universe which can get along without God's activity into which God can act upon will. Such a view does not do justice to the full biblical revelation of the complete dependence of the universe moment by moment upon the free activity of God for its very existence. There is no machine of the universe for God to act into; there are only modes of God's free activity.

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

(Dr. Schaeffer has requested that this review be responded to by the inclusion of quotations from the Appendix to Genesis in Space and Time, which we are happy to include as follows.

There may be a difference between the methodology by which we gain knowledge from what God tells us in the Bible and the methodology by which we gain it from scientific study, but this does not lead to a dichotomy as to the facts. In practice it may not always be possible to correlate the two studies because of the special situation involved, yet it both studies can be adequately pursued, there will be no final conflict. For example, the Tower of Babel: whether we come at it from biblical knowledge given by God or by scientific study, either way when we are done with our study, the Tower of Babel was either there or it was not there. The same thing is true of Adam. Whether we begin with the conceptual apparatus of archaeology and anthropology or whether we begin with the knowledge given us in the Bible, if it were within the realm of science's knowledge to do so, in both cases we would end with knowledge about Adam's bones. Science by its natural limitations cannot know all we know from God in the Bible, but in those cases where science can know, both sources of knowledge arrive at the same point, even it the knowledge is expressed in different terms. And it is important to keep in mind that there is a great difference between saying the same thing in two different symbol systems and actually saying two different exclusive things but hiding the difference with the two symbol systems. What the Bible teaches where it touches history and the cosmos and what science teaches where it touches the same areas do not stand in a discontinuity. There indeed must be a place for study of general revelation (the universe and its form, and man with his maunishness), that is, a place for true science. But on the other side, it must be understood that there is no automatic need to accommodate the Bible to the statements of science. There is a tendency for some who are Christians and scientists to always place special revelation (the teaching of the Bible) under the control of general revelation and science, and never or rarely to place general revelation and what science teaches under the control of the Bible's teaching. That is, though they think of that which the Bible teaches as true and that which science teaches as true, in reality they tend to end with the truth of science as more true than the truth of the Bible.

Words have become so devalued today that we often have to use cumbersome terms to make what we mean understood. The word fact does not necessarily mean anything anymore. Fact can just mean upper-story religions troth, and therefore we have to use an awkward term like brute fact. In this particular case, we are fortunate because the liberal theologians themselves use the term brute fact for what they don't mean by facts. The historic Fall is not an interpretation: It is a brute fact. There is no room for hermeneutics here, if by hermeneutics we mean explaining away the brute factness of the Fall. That there was a Fall is not an upper-story statement-that is, it is not in this sense a "theological" or "religions" statement. Rather, it is a historic, space-time, brute fact, propositional statement. There was time, space-time history, before the Fall, and then man turned from his proper integration point by choice, and in so doing there was moral discontinuity; man became abnormal.

In speaking of facts and brute facts, we are speaking of facts in the space-time sense, that which is open to the normal means of verification and falsification. As I stress in the Appendix to The Church before the Watching World, this does not mean they are then to be taken as sterile facts. These biblical facts are facts in past history, but they have, and should have, meaning in our present existential, moment-by-moment lives.

Furthermore, in speaking of the Bible's statements as propositional truth we are not saying that all communication is on the level of mathematical formula. There can he other levels (for example, figures of speech or the special force of poetry); but there is a continuity-a unity not a discontinuity-between these "other levels" and a flow of propositions given in normal syntax and using words in their normal definition, and this is a continuity which reason can deal with. Take an example outside of the Bible: Shakespeare's communication with his figures of speech is a much richer human communication than is mere mathematical formula. The "other levels" (for example, his figures of speech) add enrichment. Yet, if, as in far-out modern prose and poetry, there are only, or almost only, figures of speech, with no adequate running continuity that can be stated in propositional form using normal syntax and words with normal meanings, no one knows what is being said. As a matter of fact, some modern writers and artists deliberately work this way so that this will be the case. Their work becomes only a quarry for subjective experiences and interpretations inside of the head of the reader or viewer. The early chapters of Genesis quickly come to this place if they are read other than as in propositional form using normal syntax and words in their normal meaning. As an example, Paramhansa Yoganada did this in his book Autobiography of a Yogi and most easily turned these chapters into a powerful Hindu tract.

The reviewer responds that there ore at least three critical issues for the Christian in these areas:

1. Is all "natural" activity the activity of God, or is God's activity to he found and experienced only at special occasions?
2. Does a description in natural categories eliminate a theological description, or is it not rather the case that both descriptions are complementary and required?
3. If a Christian must choose between "safe" apologetics and "dangerous" truth, which is he constrained to choose?

A Second Review of Genesis in Space and Time

David F. Laughlin

This book by Francis A. Schaeffer traces the "flow of biblical history" through the first eleven chapters of the book of Genesis. It is quite broad in scope, touching briefly on such topics as metaphysics, morals, and epistemology. (His book He is There and He is Not Silent, 1972, IVP, covers these topics in more detail.) But the core of the book is involved with the presentation of biblical anthropology, theology proper (i.e. doctrine of the Trinity) and biblical hermeneutics.

His hermeneutical principles are quite refreshing. Holding that the Scriptures are the Word of God, ha says "the early chapters of Genesis are to be viewed completely as history." He holds to this principle, because the "mentality of the whole Scripture - - - is that creation is as historically real as the history of
the Jews (p. 15).

It is not surprising then that he considers Adam and Eve and the Fall to be historic persons and events respectively. The early chapters of Genesis certainly come across as being historical.

But where Scriptures do not speak unequivocally, neither does Schaeffer. For example, the meaning of "day" in the creation account is left open for discussion. Furthermore, the geneologies of Genesis 5 and 11 are not to he taken as chronologies. (They do not claim to be.) Therefore, Schaeffer can accept nearly any age for the antiquity of man. If I understand him correctly, he would agree with B. B. Warfield when he said:

far aught we know instead of twenty generations and some two thousand years measuring the interval between the creation and the birth of Abraham, two hundred generations, and something like twenty thousand years, or even two thousand generations and something like two hundred thousand years may have intervened. In a word, the Scriptural data leave us wholly without guidance in estimating the time which elapsed between the creation of the world and the deluge, and between the deluge and the call of Abraham. So far as the Scripture assertions are concerned, we may suppose any length of time to have intervened between these events which otherwise appear reasonable. The Antiquity and Unity of the Human Race PTR IX (1911) p 10

Much of what Schaeffer says can also be traced to the writings of Professor William H. Green of Princeton; The Pentateuch Vindicated from the Aspersion of Bishop Colenso (1863) and an article in Bibliotheca Sacra, April 1890.

Of course, he substantiates these views from Scripture. Many New Testament verses plead implicitly, if not explicitly, for a "literal space-time fall" by Adam and Eve. As usual, once one part of Scripture is attempted to be explained away, the rest of it soon topples. If Adam did not truly represent mankind at the fall, what basis have we to claim that Christ Jesus truly represented His people in His "substitutionary" death? If the atonement is not substitutional, what happens to the justice and holiness of God? And so forth. Where Scripture speaks, we must; where it is silent, there we too should be silent.

In the book, Schaeffer discusses the various topics included in Genesis 1-11. Creation heads the list, followed by a discussion of the Trinity and the concept of origins. A chapter on the "Goodness of Creation" posits itself as a starting point for a discussion of where history is going. The Fall is discussed, along with its resulting separations: God from man, man from himself, man from man, man from nature, and nature from nature. However, man still is made in the image of God, and, therefore, has value and dignity. As fallen, however, he needs redemption, so that salvation history along with its two seeds, the Godly and the ungodly, begins its course. While the Godly seed is always present, at the time of Noah it evidently had diminished to only eight people, as that is how many were preserved by God during the flood. Schaeffer believes the flood was universal (especially with respect to the destruction of mankind. See Genesis 7:23, 9:15). However, this doctrine is not to be taken as a test for orthodoxy.
In his discussion of Noah's faith, Schaeffer states, "faith is standing against what is seen at the moment, and being willing to be out on the end of a limb in believing God." This, of course, is not a blind leap in the dark. It is simply taking God at His word in spite of the prevailing circumstances or philosophies. I feel this is exactly Schaeffer's position when he takes the early chapters of Genesis as history. It may not be popular, but it is taking God at His Word. We all need to do this more. It is all too easy to change our beliefs to fit the current scientific philosophies. Of course, at times we may have to change our interpretation of certain passages of scripture. (cf. C. Hodge's discussion of this is Systematic Theology I pp. 57f, 170f, 571.) But, certainly, not until there is a least a well-defined, agreed-upon theory that does no violence to Scripture should we do this.

The book concludes with a brief look at Genesis 8-11. The covenant made with Noah is discussed, along with the covenant mandate of capital punishment for murder. After a discussion of the tower of Babel, the book ends with a section entitled "The Flow of History: The Significance of Man". The importance of a historical interpretation of Genesis is stressed; without such an interpretation there would be no basis for man's quest for significance. While we may agree with some in claiming that man is dead, we must affirm that by the power of the Holy Spirit he can be made alive unto faith and repentance.

Reviewed by David F. Laughlin, Research Associate, M.I.T., Cambridge, Massachusetts.