NEWSLETTER

of the

AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC AFFILIATION - CANADIAN SCIENTIFIC & CHRISTIAN AFFILIATION

Volume 24 Number 2                                                                                                     April/May 1982

DON'T MISS IT

By now you've received the call for papers for the 1982 ASA ANNUAL MEETING to be held AUGUST 13-16 on the campus of CALVIN COLLEGE in GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN. The meeting will be hosted by a large contingent of ASA members on the Calvin faculty and at nearby institutions.

Papers will cover many areas, but the meeting will have a biological theme keynoted by geneticist V. Elving Anderson, a former ASA president. Elving is associate director of the Dight Institute of Human Genetics at the U. of Minnesota and currently president of the Society of Sigma Xi, national scientific research honorary society. His three lectures on "Designer Genes" will deal with scientific, ethical, and even theological aspects of genetics.

Chairing the program is Wayne Frair of the Biology Dept. at The King's College in New York and a participant in the Arkansas "creation-science" trial. Don Munro, ASA Executive Council member and chair of biology at Houghton College, is organizing a special one-day workshop for biology teachers at Christian colleges to precede the regular meeting sessions. Russell Camp of Gordon College is also working on the program.

Wouldn't this be a good year to get together with others who share a common interest? You could lead an evening discussion session on a topic you think important. Or you could form a "committee of correspondence" by writing to a few people now, then assemble at Calvin as a "task force" to accomplish a particular objective. How about a joint writing project9 Or-some ingenious scheme for promoting ASA?

We recently heard from Bron Taylor at the U. of Southern California, for example. Bron is doing preliminary work for a nationwide evangelical conference coming up in a year or two on "The Church and Peacemaking in the Nuclear Age." He wants to get input from individuals in ASA and perhaps enlist the organization itself in that program in some way. Bron plans to be at the Calvin ANNUAL MEETING. Want to make peace? Want to make progress on some other project where science and faith meet?

Well, make yourself a promise-not to miss the 1982 ASA ANNUAL MEETING.

We need to bail ourselves out financially, sure. On a deeper level we need to develop our sense of mission, of serving the Lord together. Attending an Annual Meeting is one of the best ways to do that. But if you can't make it to Michigan this summer, how about doing something else for ASA or CSCA instead? Think of something creative, do it, and tell us about it. Or tell us about it first and we'll try to get some others to work with you on it. Or get together and do it and then tell us about it.

We have a calling to serve our profession and to serve the church and the world through our profession. Faith in Jesus Christ gives us a sense of direction and a reason for hope. Training in science and technology teaches us how to solve problems. Let's put 'em together, but not merely to look for evidence that God exists and dwells among His people. Let's be that kind of evidence, too.

We can start now by setting aside some time to pray for the witness of our Affiliations. Where should we focus our energies? How shall we solve our current financial problem? Are we ready for some bold new ventures? Or have we neglected doing some simple things, like recruiting our friends as new members?

Come to think of it, have I returned that questionnaire sent out with the call for papers? ASA needs that information from every member, for a new Directory but also to establish a list of speakers and to form interest groups or task forces. The old files of member information were lost in 1979 when the building housing the ASA office (then in Elgin, Illinois) was destroyed by fire.
Now it's time to fire up our imaginations.

A PRESIDENTIAL RESEARCH PROJECT

"Soon after I joined the American Scientific Affiliation the April 1962 issue of the Newsletter caught my attention. In it Henry Weaver, then ASA president, presented replies he had received from a number of Christian scholars to the question: 'What is the most critical issue that modern science poses to the Christian church today?'

"The respondents included such well-known writers as Gordon Clark, Bernard Ramm, Carl Henry, and William Pollard. I found the statements so incisive, stimulating, and in formative that I translated them into Chinese and published them in the magazine Ambassadors in 1963. (Weaver's presidential message was later adapted into a paper in the March 1964 JASA.)

"Our former presidents' replies appear below and in the next issue of the Newsletter, in the order received."

-Chi-Hang Lee (ASA president, 1981).

"The most critical issue I see is that we have not conveyed to our fellow Christians the importance of the immanence of God, so that too many have an image of a universe created and then left running according to 'the laws of nature' with no further divine direction. In The Clockwork Image, Donald MacKay says that 'If God is active in any part of the physical world, he is in all. If the divine activity means anything, then all the events of what we call the physical world are dependent on that activity' (p. 57). In a book with a terrible title, Adam and the Ape, R. J. Berry also stresses the immanence of God: 'The Bible describes God as controlling His creation from without while working within it-both transcendent and immanent' (p. 27). Most Christians understand the transcendent part but should not ignore Hebrews 1:3 ('upholding the universe by His word of power') or Colossians 1:17 ('in Him all things hold together').

-Donald C. Boardman (1971 -72).

"My answer is contained in one word: 'scientism,' the philosophical position which states that all truth is obtained by means of science. That position excludes all subjective and non-empirical data from the realm of truth. In the final analysis it tends to become a semi-religious cult while denying all other religious sects and cults.

"I believe that scientism has at times entered into the thinking of some ASA members, although there are many who do not subscribe to this point of view. I believe that scientism, at least in part, is the cause of the rift between our Affiliation and the Creation Research Society. Further, I believe that scientism is the root cause of the current dispute concerning the two-model approach to the teaching of science in the public schools.

"As Christians engaged in various aspects of science we need to recognize this threat to the Christian church. With all diligence we need to continue to preach and to teach that the methods and the results of scientific investigation give us only a part of the entire realm of truth. Science is a good thing, but it is more important that God is good and that he has given us his Word and his only Son. Without belief in Jesus Christ as our personal savior we are lost in our sin."

-H. Harold Hartzler (1954-61).

"Currently there is a critical need to communicate more effectively the contributions that science, religion (Christianity), and other 'ways of knowing' provide as we seek to understand and benefit from the natural order. Today's court confrontations and overblown rhetoric stem, in large measure, from lack of understanding of the methods and limits of scientific and theological interpretation. Robert Fischer's recent paperback, God Did It, But How? signally speaks to a broad cross-section of Christians, but little has been said concerning ways of reaching a wider public."

-John W. Haas, Jr. (1977).

"The first thing to be said in response to the question is that authentic science never poses problems for the Christian church since both are committed to the truth. Perhaps the most critical issue resulting from unidlimensional interpretation, however, is the tendency of modern science to lead to reductionistic thinking and a neglect of the whole person -as though acquiring information on an elementary physical and biological level does away with the need for more holistic descriptions on the level of the whole person."

-Richard H. Bube (1968 ).

"If we are good scientists we master the techniques and procedures of our trade. If we are Christians we are concerned with the purpose of the resulting knowledge and the technology based on it."

                                                                   -Henry D. Weaver, Jr. (1962).

"I believe the most crucial question is: What confirms the reliability of our belief that God is the infinite and perfect Spirit? Scientific discovery appears to many to reveal no assurance that the supernatural exists. In simpler words, how do we know that what the Bible says is true about God and humanity and the rest of nature?"

-Russell L. Mixter (1951-53).

"The application of scientific principles has advanced technology to such a level that it has completely revolutionized our way of life. We can see in our living room events taking place simultaneously on the other side of the earth, or even on the moon. If we desire, we can also tune in to some of the most gifted preachers in America. Gone are the days when Christian orthodoxy and fundamentalism can hide the real issues under man-made 'thou shalt nots.' The church must practice, as it always should have, absolute adherence to the Word of God, without imposing further strictures and prohibitions. Our educated young people, in some instances, are staying away from the established churches and forming their own fellowships where the blood atonement of Christ and His resurrection are the central messages preached and no 'other burdens' are laid on the worshipers. In my opinion, that is as it should be!"

"While advances in the biological sciences are leading to new ethical questions for Christians, I believe that a different feature of modern science poses the most critical issue for the church today. That feature is the belief that everything in the universe can be explained without any reference to God. That view of the universe arose with the mathematical description of the solar system and was extended to everything else, including human beings, with the philosophical development of the theory of evolution. The apostle Paul's assumption that God is self-evident in his creation does not coerce the modern mind into agreement as it did the minds of the Jews and Stoics of his day. Thus an important task for the Christian church today is to remind the secular world that only a very small portion of human experience is presently susceptible to a mathematical description. It is therefore a matter of faith that the remainder can be so described. Further, a description of events without God (as in a secular historical account) need not be a complete description of the events (as evidenced by a theistic description of the same events in the Bible)."

"A pervasive and subtle assumption of much of modern science is that belief in a supernatural creator and the biblical revelation is both unnecessary and irrational. That view is a direct assault on the basic tenets of historic Christianity. It is seldom perceived that such a viewpoint is really 'scientism' and not science. Mechanistic theories of human personality, the excessive reductionism so common in contemporary molecular biology, and 'evolutionism' represent particular examples of  that  approach. Sadly, the response of the church has often been an attack on the science in question rather than the philosophy underlying it. The current 'scientific creationism' movement is a tragic example of such a reaction. Christian scientists and theologians need to accommodate the data of science into their world view. At the same time they must aggressively proclaim the relevance and reasonableness of the historic truths of Christianity for the modern world."

Del had worked as a physicist at Argonne National Laboratory in Argonne, Illinois, for the past twenty years, working right up to January 22. He graduated from Illinois State Normal U. in 1935 and obtained his M.S. in physics at Illinois Institute of Technology in 1947. At the time he joined ASA he was employed as a research chemist at Armour and Company in Chicago. His first scientific publications were a series of papers in J. Am. Chem. Soc. on electrical conductivities and other properties of aqueous solutions of quaternary ammonium salts of fatty acids-hot new detergents in those days.

Del also began publishing reviews of significant developments in physics in JASA. "Garnow's Theory of Element Building" appeared in the sixth issue of JASA (Vol. 2, No. 3, Sept 1950) and "Methods of Dating the Earth and the Universe" in the eighth issue (Vol. 3, No. 1, Mar 1951). With the tenth issue (Vol. 3, No. 3, Sept 1951), he became editor of JASA, replacing the first editor, Marion D. Barnes. Eggenberger continued in that post through Vol. 13 (1961), then served as associate editor under David 0. Moberg and then under Russell L. Mixter (through 1968) until Richard H. Bube became editor.

During Delbert Eggenberger's ten-year tenure as editor, our Journal grew from a rather primitively-stapled mimeographed format into a distinguished printed publication. Del also served on the ASA Executive Council in the years 195256.

Many of us old-timers knew Del Eggenberger as a sof tspoken but effective servant of Jesus Christ and of our Affiliation. We will miss him. We pray that Hazel will have God's peace as she adjusts to life without Del, until she and we are reunited with him in the Lord's presence.-Ed.

The purpose of the Center is "to promote rigorous, creative, and articulately Christian scholarship which is addressed to the solution of important theoretical and practical issues." Applicants for Fellowships must describe their interest in the year's topic and the contribution they anticipate making to the study, and provide written evidence of their understanding of the topic and competence for independent research and writing.

This year's study is devoted to the nature and role of the behavioral sciences, with psychologist Mary Stewart Van Leeuwen serving on the team. The Center's 1978-79 study of environmental stewardship resulted in the excellent book, Earthkeeping (Eerdmans, 1980), edited by Loren Wilkinson.

Individuals interested in applying for a Visiting Fellowship can get more information from: Dr. John Vanden Berg, VicePresident for Academic Affairs, Calvin College, Grand Rapids, MI 49506. (And why not drop in to look over the situation at CALVIN COLLEGE this summer, AUGUST 1316, when the ASA ANNUAL MEETING is held there?)

The recent resurgence of the creation-evolution controversy is giving many Americans the mistaken impression that no good Christian can accept evolution, and that no evolutionist could be a consistent Bible-believing Christian.

That this is not the case is demonstrated by the fact that there is in this country a large society of Bible-believing scientists, many of whom reject the tenets of "scientific creationism" in favor of the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution. This organization, the American Scientific Affiliation (ASA), consists of some 2500 evangelical Christians who hold degrees in the sciences. For the past 40 years the ASA has been seeking to promote understanding between the sciences and the Christian faith. The Affiliation's Executive Director, Dr. Robert Herrmann, explains ASA's viewpoint as follows:

"We in the ASA usually seek to avoid dogmatic assertions or position statements on the creation-science/evolution issue, since we recognize that Bible-believing Christians may have legitimate differences of opinion about both scientific and biblical interpretations. However, the recent polarizing and politicizing trend demands that a voice from the wider evangelical community be raised for moderation and fair play.

"As scientists, we in the ASA decry the dogmatic assertions of some evolutionists that evolution is an established fact rather than a theory. This is rhetoric, not good science, and scientists must resist the temptation to elaborate organic evolution into an allIencompassing philosophy. The theory of evolution is undergoing revision and modification-even at this meeting of the AAAS-as part of the normal process of science. Much work still needs to be done that demands the highest level of critical scholarship and scientific integrity.

"We in the ASA are likewise saddened by some of our Christian brothers and sisters who insist-with inadequate scientific support-that Genesis supports only their own theory of a 6000-year-old earth and of special creation of each kind of plant and animal.

"The Affiliation indeed affirms its belief in God as the Creator of the physical universe, but leaves open to individual judgment the question as to the means of creative activity. We are equally firm in our rejection of the notion that the theory of evolution invalidates belief in God as the Creator and Sustainer of the world.

"The Affiliation applauds the efforts of the AAAS to promote understanding among scientists and theologians, since we are convinced that God is the source of both the Bible and the subject matter of science. As Francis Bacon has said, 'The one displays the will of God, the other His power.' Rather than being antagonistic, the two present complementary views of one reality.

"In a culture increasingly fragmented and depersonalized, we need more than ever before to understand our place in the cosmos. We believe that the Scriptures provide the most appropriate philosophical framework, the raison d'etre for life.

"Science, whose explanations are of necessity largely mechanistic and impersonal, serves to impose stability and continuity on our fragmented experience, and when properly understood, enhances the dignity and purpose of our earthly existence.

"The discoveries of the scientist in a laboratory often provoke feelings of awe and wonder, of reverence for an all-wise Creator, which are not unlike the feelings of the worshiper when discovering the love of God as revealed in the Bible."

The American Scientific Affiliation is based in Ipswich, Massachusetts. Dr. Robert Herrmann has been a medical school professor and researcher for 22 years. He is a member of the American Society of Biological Chemists and a Fellow of the AAAS.

Leaders of the "creation-science" movement now focus their attention on a court test of the Louisiana bill, confident of winning that one. Most mainstream scientists seem to think something definitive happened at Little Rock, but many are probably keeping a wary eye on Baton Rouge.

Recent-creationists are having their year in the press as well as their days in court. Time magazine's story on Arkansas, headlined "Darwin Wins" (18 Jan 1982), ended with a statement by the bill's legislative sponsor. State Senator James L. Holsted feels that his side "really won, because people are talking about it."

A public controversy touching on science is just what publishers of popular science magazines hope for. Science 81 (Dec 1981) featured a special section on "The Creationists" with articles on creationism as science and as asocial movement, plus a side-bar on the Institute for Creation Research and ICR biochemist Duane Gish. Discover ("The Newsmagazine of Science") named Harvard geology professor Stephen Jay Gould its "Scientist of the Year" (Jan 1982). An editorial described Gould as "a leading defender of evolution against attacks by scientific creationists"; much of the six-page profile on him amounted to his counterattack. Cover story in the following issue (Feb 1982), "Judgment Day for Creation," even had color photos of witnesses on both sides at Little Rock. The story was followed by an essay "In Praise of Charles Darwin" by Stephen Jay Gould.

Science News, published weekly by Science Service, Inc., devoted three pages (16 Jan 1982) to the evidence presented by two witnesses on the creationist side. In a thoughtful article, "They Call it Creation Science," Janet Raloff took seriously not only the courtroom testimony of Nalin Chandra Wickramasinghe and Robert V. Gentry but also their philosophical positions, referring to them as "reputable scientists." (Our thanks to Mack Goldsmith of Modesto, California, for sending us that one.-Ed.)

Science, the AAAS weekly, has provided extensive coverage. Before we could urge Dick Bube to publish Judge Overton's decision, the full text appeared without comment as "Creationism in Schools: The Decision in McLean versus the Arkansas Board of Education" (Science, 19 Feb 1982; 10 pp.). Maybe JASA should reprint it, too.

Several major stories by reporter Roger Lewin have appeared under "News and Comment" in Science. "Creationism on the Defensive in Arkansas" (1 Jan 1982) was Lewin , s two-page description of what went on at the trial. In a longer story, "Where Is the Science in Creation Science?" (8 Jan 1982), Lewin examined the pretrial depositions, testimony, and cross-examination of the seven scientific witnesses on the "creation-science" side. The generally careful Lewin, or his editor, misspelled Wayne Frair's name as "Friar" in that story, but seemed to be quoting verbatim excerpts of the cross-examination.

In "Judge's Ruling Hits Hard at Creationism" (22 Jan 1982) ' Lewin gave his analysis of Judge Overton's decision. According to Lewin, the negative decision came as no surprise, only the "scope and power" of it. He also discussed possible effects of that decision on the legal outcome in other states, even though it is legally binding only in Arkansas. In the same issue of Science a report on the Washington, D.C., annual meeting of AAAS described efforts to organize "national opposition to the teaching of creationism." The AAAS passed a resolution against "forced teaching of creationist beliefs in public school science education," after devoting a full day to sessions on "Science and Belief" at a symposium on the history and philosophy of science.

In the 29 Jan 1982 issue of Science, Lewin probed behind the scenes in "A Tale with Many Connections," subtitled "Was the Arkansas creationism law the result of a conservative conspiracy? Or did it just happen? More of the first than the second, it seems." Lewin tried to trace the religious and political interconnections of Arkansas state Senator James Holsted, Paul Ellwanger of Citizens for Fairness in Education, North Little Rock math teacher Larry Fisher, pastor W. A. Blount of the Greater Little Rock Evangelical Fellowship, Arkansas Moral Majority leader Rev. Roy McLaughlin, the Institute for Creation Research, Family Life America under God (FLAG), Citizens for Balanced Education in Origins, and the Creation Science Legal Defense Fund.

The American Chemical Society weekly, Chemical & Engineering News, ran an unusually long story by writer Rudy Baum, "Science Confronts Creationist Assault" (18 Jan 1982). In an editorial ("Creationism: It Matters a Lot"), C&EN editor Michael Heylin echoed Baum's closing sentences: "Much has been made of the scientific illiteracy of a significant segment of the American public and, indeed, it is that illiteracy that has contributed to the rise of creation science. But the issue of scientific illiteracy pales beside the issue of scientific ignorance enforced as dogma. It pales beside the fact that a sizable group of religious fundamentalists in the U.S.-a group that works to elect public officials and then influence those officials' decisions-demand that their dogma be taught as science. It does matter. It matters a lot."

The 1 Mar issue of C&EN included a letter from Vincent V. Lindgren of Horse Shoe, South Carolina, calling Baum's story one-sided. Lindgren said he found nothing in science to disprove his belief that "God created the world and all in it. If this classifies me as a 'fundamentalist,' so be it." But he said his opposition to teaching that belief in the public school system made him wonder if he were among the "scientifically illiterate" or the "intellectually elite," two loaded terms Baum had used in his story.

We're indebted to several ASA physicists for some other clippings. Bob Shacklett of Newark, California, sent the highlights of the American Physical Society council meetings, published in the APS Bulletin (Feb 1982). That report included the text of the "APS Statement on Creationism" and a short bibliography "to illustrate the issues encountered in the Creationist problem." The statement was officially adopted in November 1981. A story in Physics Today, "Mainstream Scientists Respond to Creationists" (Feb 1982), was sent to us by Kirk Bertsche of Berkeley and also by Don DeGraaf of Flint, Michigan. It noted that the APS Education Committee, which drafted the APS statement, plans a symposium on creationism at the April 1982 meeting of the American Physical Society in Washington, D.C.

The same Physics Today story analyzed physical aspects of several arguments used by "scientific creationists": creation of light from apparently distant galaxies "en route"; decay of Earth's magnetic field (rather than field reversals); the second law of thermodynamics; and rate of accumulation of meteoric dust particles on Earth. Physicist Russell Akridge of Northside Christian Academy in Atlanta and astronomer Gerardus Bouw of Baldwin Wallace U. in Berea, Ohio, two witnesses gathered but not called to testify for the Arkansas defense, were interviewed by the Physics Today reporter. The Feb 1982 issue also carried an exchange of letters on the "historic relation of the church to scientific advance," with Lawrence Cranberg of Austin, Texas, arguing that established religions support science by opposing occult and pseudoscientific ideas such as astrology.

Scientific societies that have adopted or reaffirmed positions opposing legislative efforts to force creation-science into science curricula now include the American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Chemical Society, American Physical Society, American Geological Institute, and National Association of Biology Teachers, among others. The National Academy of Sciences has also joined the fight. of course, as Jon Buell of the Foundation for Thought and Ethics points out, the Little Rock decision did not rule out the teaching of creation in Arkansas schools. It is still legal to teach creation-science voluntarily there. Judge Overton merely eliminated the legal requirement that it be taught whenever evolution is taught.

Richard says that it makes him suspicious to see ASA members in favor of the Arkansas decision because they seem to be favoring indoctrination: "Should science fall into dogmatism and prejudice or should it be the democratic search for truth and reality?" We doubt that many ASA members are exclusivists or reductionists, or would assert anything as "total fact." And in our search for truth and reality, ASA/CSCA News tries to give both sides a fair hearing and then judge, not "pre-judge." For example, since three ASA members appeared for the defense in Little Rock, we've asked them what they thought of the trial.

Biologist Wayne Frair of The King's College in New York, who spent eight days at the trial, says that the atmosphere was generally cordial but "thejudge showed an anti-creation bias as also did the news media." Wayne thought the defense witnesses (which included more Ph.D.s than the prosecutors') did an excellent job. "The ACLU resorted over and over to smoke-screen tactics to obscure substantive issues, and they focused on religious aspects of the questions."

Wayne does think that because teachers will not study the issues as thoroughly as they would have if the law had passed, students will receive a more one-sided approach. He thinks that some excellent testimony from the creationists was virtually ignored but "at least the issue was exposed." Among the best reports of the trial was coverage in the Pea Ridge County Times (Pea Ridge, AR 72751), which gave most of its front page and about four additional full pages to the trial, publishing the essence of the testimony of each witness. "I suggest that people wanting to get this account write to the office of that newspaper."

Robert V. Gentry of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee said he didn't have time to answer all our questions about the trial in writing but graciously offered to answer them over the phone. He sent us a copy of Janet Raloff's account of his testimony on polonium halos in granitic rocks that lead to anomalous ages (Science News, 16 Jan 1982), and an exchange of correspondence following a 1978 symposium on geochronology at which he had presented his evidence (EOS Trans. Am Geophys, Union, 29 May 1979). Scientifically competent reporters acknowledge that Bob has a piece of data that "just doesn't fit" our present understanding. Most show respect for the fact that he publishes in regular scientific journals and seems genuinely open to any satisfactory explanation for his data. Further, Seventh-Day Adventist scientists like Bob often seem able to present their views without a big chip on their shoulder. -Ed.)

Geisler and George Marsden, professor of history at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan (where YOU KNOW WHAT will be held AUGUST 13-16,1982!-Ed.) were both featured in Christianity Today's account of the Little Rock trial ("Creationists Lose in Arkansas," 22 Jan 1982). Marsden testified for the ACLU against what he described as a "badly framed law." Geisler was quoted by CT as feeling that Marsden had misread the law. In a more recent issue (19 Mar 1982), CT let both evangelical scholars have their say. In "A Law to Limit the Options," Marsden said that "Creationists are fighting the right battle, but on the wrong front." In "Creationism: A Case for Equal Time," Geisler argued that "Any theory of origins, creation, or evolution is necessarily religious in nature."

Editor Kenneth Kantzer stated that CT published the two statements "in an initial move to sort out the issues." The Arkansas trial left evangelicals "appalled at the adverse publicity given biblical faith by the public media." That turn of events "left evangelicals of all stamps-from far Right to far Left-puzzled and divided." With evangelicals testifying on both sides, "Who stood for what became thoroughly muddled."

In the interest of unmuddled unprejudice, we're glad to print the following story just as we received it.

"As a witness at the Arkansas trial and a member of the ASA I would like to share a few observations. First, the trial was grossly misrepresented in the press as religion vs. science. It was in fact a creationist's interpretation of origins vs. an evolutionist's interpretation of origins. This is spelled out clearly in the law-which apparently few have read. It states clearly that it is a law 'to prevent establishment of religion; to prohibit religious instruction concerning origins.' It allowed only 'scientific evidence for evolution [and creation] and inferences from those scientific evidences.' Why did the press misrepresent the issue? The recent poll would seem to support the theory that they have a secular, humanistic bias, since less than 10 percent have any religious affiliation.

"Precisely what did occur at the trial is spelled out in our documentary book, The Creator in the Courtroom (to be released this summer). In brief it was this. A humanistic media combined with a double-tongued ACLU and a biased judge to overrule students' constitutional rights to hear both sides of an issue. The evidence?

"First of all the media. They stressed the religious convictions of the defense witnesses (if they were evangelical), but generally neglected to mention those who were agnostic and Buddhist who witnessed for creation. Also, strangely absent from the press was the fact that the ACLU witnesses were largely liberals, agnostics, atheists, and Marxists. There was virtually nothing in the media about the fact that nearly all those who opposed teaching creationism did so in accordance with their religious convictions, as indeed some witnesses admitted.

"Second, a few words about a biased judge. 1) He was a liberal Methodist. 2) He was an evolutionist, the son of an evolutionist biology teacher. 3) He inserted several prejudicial statements against creationism into the trial record. Here is one:

'Witness: I think that people need to be able to experience that there are two thoughts on the origin of life. Why narrow your possibilities to only one when ...

"4) The real bias came out in the purely naturalistic grounds from the judge's decision. He ruled any reference to a supernatural cause unconstitutional, saying that creationism 'is not science because it depends upon supernatural intervention which is not guided by natural law. It is not explanatory by reference to natural law. . . .' He added, 'There is no scientific explanation for these limits which is guided by natural law and the limitations, whatever they are, cannot be explained by natural law.'On these grounds, then, theistic evolution isn't science either.

"Finally, a comment about the ACLU. In the Scopes trial (1925) the ACLU attorney, Clarence Darrow, correctly argued that it'is bigotry for public schools to teach only one theory of origins.' But 56 years later they argued in effect that it is bigotry to teach more than one theory of origin! That, in my opinion, is a dangerous double-edge tongue.

"Don't get me wrong. I do not believe the Arkansas law was unimprovable. In fact, the Louisiana law has a better chance of winning for several reasons. First, it is briefer and does not wave unnecessary red flags to the opposition such as young earth and catastrophism. Second, the creationists have the momentum of being the plaintiffs. Third, the creationist attorneys, Wendell Bird and John Whitehead, are sharp First Amendment lawyers. Fourth, there is very little chance they can draw a more biased judge than the Arkansas judge. Fifth, the history of the Louisiana bill is less tainted with potentially damaging religious comments and associations.

"One thing seems evident to me. Whether we personally believe in long earth or young earth, uniformitarianism or catastrophism, creation or evolution, every freedom-loving and scientific-minded person should support the legal effort to assure that opposing points of view have a right to be heard, even if they are minority points of view. Remember Galileo. Love the CRS brethren. Amen."

-Norman L. Geisler, Dallas Seminary

1. Never mind what the Asian calendar says-this must be the Year of the Dogma.

2. Have you seen the magnificently filmed "Life on Earth" series on PBS television? Narrator David Attenborough is an agnostic who can't understand why evolution shouldn't be seen by Christians as God's means of creation. It's nice to hear someone who doesn't believe in a personal Creator refer to some animal as a "marvelous little creature"-especially in a British accent.

3. Is catastrophism coming back? We saw an ad for a new book on "dynamical systems theory" entitled Instabilities and Catastrophes in Science and Engineering (Wiley, 1982). It includes such topics as the "exotic astrophysics of collapsing stars."

4. The Pacific Division of AAAS, meeting at U.C. Santa Barbara in California this summer, will feature a symposium on "Testing the Creationist Hypothesis" on Tuesday, June 22. The symposium is being arranged by Frank Awbrey and William Thwaites, two evolutionists who invite ICR scientists to lecture in their "two-model" biology course at San Diego State University. (Whatever happens to "the creationist hypothesis," we're confident that the Creator-and the biblical doctrine of creation-will endure.-Ed.)

F. Michael Zimmerman (1437 W. Hammer Lane, Stockton, CA 95209; tel. 209-478-5087) is looking for a position in psychology/social science, preferably in SF Bay Area. Mike has an M.A. in psychology from Cal. State U. Sacramento with coursework in all phases of theory and method of psychological research. He has special experience in computer applications in psychological research.

Washburn University in Kansas has an opening for an instructor or asst. professor of physics. A Ph.D. with strong background in solid state electronics is needed to teach physics at all undergrad levels and to reshape the electronics program. Tenure track position at a chartered municipal university receiving some state funding. Four fulltime physics faculty members, active in community service. Send resumd to: Dr. Darrell R. Parnell, Chair, Dept. of Physics, Washburn University, Topeka, KS 66621. (Received 8 Feb. 1982 from Darrell, who says he enjoys teaching in a secular university where he can have a positive Christian witness and serve as faculty advisor for the campus IVCF group.)

Taylor University in Indiana has a fall 1982 opening in information sciences. For this tenure track position, a person with a doctorate in computer science or related field is desirable but extensive professional experience in business or industry might also qualify a person with considerable breadth. Teach in areas such as introductory computer science, computer organization, discrete structures, computer design, operating systems, possibly in systems analysis or statistics; advise students in business practicurns. Ability and interest in college teaching, commitment to evangelical Christian higher education, and interest in missions support (through Taylor's Computer Assistance Program) are essentials. Direct inquiries to: Dr. A. J. Anglin, Office of Academic Affairs, Taylor University, Upland, IN 46989. (Received 22 Feb 1982 from Waldo Roth, chair of the Information Science Dept.)

John Brown University in Arkansas has a 1982-83 academic year opening for a teacher of mathematics and/or computer science with an M.S. or Ph.D. John Brown is an accredited, independent, evangelical Christian college in a town of 7,000, a "conservative Christian atmosphere, where smoking or drinking of alcoholic beverages is not permitted." Academic rank is open, with salary beginning at about $17,500 for a person with a doctorate. Submit resume to: Dr. Richard Ruble, Academic Vice President, John Brown University, Siloam Springs, AR 72761. (Received 9 Mar 1982.)