NEWSLETTER

of the

American Scientific Affiliation & Canadian Scientific & Christian Affiliation

Volume 38 Number 1 JAN/FEB 1996

Symposium Statements Checked

ASA's Annual Meeting symposium this year on whether to recommend the book, Of Pandas and People from Jon Buell's Foundation for Thought and Ethics (tel. (214) 669-3400), has generated continued discussion and response. One participant, biology professor Kenneth Miller of Brown U., enumerated problems with the book, which, in Buell's newsletter, were acknowledged as having "some worthwhile criticisms of Pandas, at least of some minor points which will be corrected in the next printing."

On-going investigation of Miller's claims about assertions in the book center around two issues. First, in Buell's words, "Pandas tells students that biochemical comparisons of certain proteins from diverse life forms show the absence of expected evolutionary relationships." Miller disagrees. Buell continues: "Since five of Pandas' authors and reviewers were biochemists, we were skeptical of the allegation." Biochemistry prof. Gordon Mills was then asked to examine this point. Mills subsequently said in a letter to Miller:

The treatment in Pandas provided direct comparisons of amino acid differences of cytochrome c of fish (carp, p. 38, and dogfish, p. 140) with representatives of other classes of vertebrates (reptiles, amphibia, birds, mammals). Although this type of presentation is unusual, it is not truly in error. ... At this time, I believe the data can be explained as satisfactorily by a theory of intelligent design as by a theory of monophyletic ancestry with changes due only to natural selection.

A second major point of investigation is whether the red panda uses its slightly enlarged radial sesamoid as an opposable thumb, like the giant panda. Buell argues in his newsletter that Pandas was correct, citing "one of many scientific sources," John L. Gittleman, in Bioscience, Jul/Aug 1994: "Both the red and giant panda possess relatively large molar teeth that are used for masticating bamboo and enlarged radial sesamoids (the so-called panda's thumb) used for pulling apart leaves." Jon also remarks that "the keeper of the red panda at the Dallas zoo says that it uses an opposable grip to hold bamboo shoots, etc."

ASA's Affiliation of Christian Geologists president, Paul H. Ribbe, recently noted awards and accomplishments of some ACGers. John Suppe at Princeton U. was elected to the National Academy of Sciences. He announced to fellow ACGers: "The Lord does bless us more than we can imagine. It was good to hear about Ward Sanford. Along similar lines I was humbled to learn last spring that I was elected to the National Academy." Paul asked, "Is this a first for ASA? I'm sure it's a first for ACG." (Previously, Richard Bube was a member of the Academy of Engineering.)

John mentioned Ward Sanford, hydrologlist with the U.S. Geological Survey at Reston, VA, who was given the Geological Society of America Donath Medal, their "outstanding young scientist" award, at GSA's Annual Meeting in New Orleans last November. About 30 ACGers met at this event and heard a lecture by Steve Dutch, prof. at the U. of Wisconsin, Green Bay, on exposing the anti-intellectualism of cultural modernism and the return of academia to objective ethics and personal responsibility. Finally, ACG's John Wagner was elected Second Vice-President of the National Assoc. of Geology Teachers, and will become its president in 1997-98. John Suppe, Paul Ribbe

Lectures and seminars given by visiting scientists are eagerly welcomed by many leading faculty members of Eastern Europe, and these contacts often provide openings for evangelistic evening lectures and book tables in departmental lobbies. After initial visits to department heads, permission is usually granted collectively for all activities of the visiting group. (It is understood that the team will not proseletyze for a particular church or sect.) The scientific seminars, attended by students and faculty, are followed by Q&A periods that can result in personal spiritual testimonies from speakers. After a Kaliningrad professor attended two evening meetings, he requested sample copies of PSCF, ASA's refereed journal.

In all of these places, the Swiss team was cordially -and sometimes strategically - supported by American and Canadian "tent-maker" missionaries and short-term workers. This help was especially appreciated, Peter notes, as

  Continned on page 7, ASAers in Action

This fall I represented the ASA at various meetings. The Evangelical Environmental Network (EEN) met at Bear Trap Ranch, an InterVarsity retreat high up in the mountains above Colorado Springs. Because ASA is now on their Program Committee, the EEN financed my travel and meeting costs. It was a wonderful weekend retreat with spiritual and physical refreshment. We had great hikes, food, speakers and so much more. A resolution to the United States Congress about the gutting of the Endangered Species Act also emanated from the group. As we left it was snowing - something that I would not see again for about six weeks. The plane ride to Chicago was memorable as we hit the wake of another plane and turned violently from side to side. It was a little like the Pittsburgh experience except that we stayed aloft and people were not seriously hurt - just cuts and bruises.

The following weekend (Oct. 27-29) 1 flew to Toronto. On Friday Dan Osmond and I spent the afternoon visiting two colleges at the U. of Toronto to view their facilities and meet the conference center directors. Either college is acceptable but one has facilities that fit our meeting better. We are working to get a reasonable cost. Dan and Faith graciously had me stay at their home for two nights. On Saturday I had the privilege of attending the CSCA Annual Meeting put together by Thaddeus Trenn and others. It was a good discussion about Christian witness on the campus that included the area director of InterVarsity. Attendance was good for a beautiful afternoon in Ontario. The business meeting, led by president Gary Partlow, followed. Doug Morrison, CSCA Executive Director, announced that he had a recurrence of cancer and faced a serious operation for the removal of a lung. The group decided to name Esther Martin as Assistant Executive Director to help while Doug is laid up. The operation has taken place and Doug came through well. We remember him and others in our weekly, staff prayer meeting. I am sure that Doug would appreciate your prayers too.

The next weekend I attended the three-day conference entitled "Consumption, Population, and the Environment: Religion and Science Envision Equity for an Altered Creation" at the Campion Renewal Center in Weston, MA. It was sponsored by the Boston Theological Institute and the AAAS. Among those participating in the program were ASA members Calvin DeWitt, Meredith Handspicker, Barbara Smith-Moran, and Richard Wright. The conference was opened by a very moving and intimate talk by Bruce Babbitt, Secretary of the Interior. With tears in his eyes he alerted us to the strong attack on environmental legislation. He told us how during his early years, he was put off by his church in Flagstaff, AZ since it made no connection between the Creator and the beauty surrounding the church. Since then. he has carefullv read Genesis and sees how often God reminds us of our need to care for the creation. This was followed by two more solid days of symposia and devotional periods.  I elected one field trip which was a touur of Thoreau'- Concord including Waldon Pond. What a wonderful afternoon of history. Our guide was full of interesting tidbits.

On November 9, 1 stepped up to the podium in the beautiful chapel on the Gordon College campus for a Friday convocation. My topic was "Genetic Engineering: God's Gift to Man?" Academic Dean Dorothy Chappell gave the opening prayer and Russ Camp introduced me. I want to thank those of you who prayed for me as I felt God's strength. There was a good response and several students and faculty have struck up conversations that we plan to continue. A fine group of Gordon students took my genetics course last semester and many of them are joining me this semester for a course in biochemistry. Some are just gluttons for punishment!

Among other things, prayer is needed for two future endeavors. For January 19 and 20 we have a booth for ASA at Congress 96, a ministry of the Evangelistic Association of New England. It is at the Hynes Convention Center in Boston. Frances Polischuk, Jack Haas, and I will man it. This will be well attended and feature some outstanding speakers. Then February 9-13 1 will be sharing a booth with Leon Dennison at the AAAS meeting at the Baltimore Convention Center in Maryland. Leon has rented the booth for his own display but has graciously given us a portion to publicize the ASA. If you are at AAAS, please look for the booth.

In December the Council and staff struggled to present a balanced budget for 1996. It is a bare bones budget and there are uncertainties in it. Some increased costs include paper for our publications, postage, printing, equipment rental, and office supplies. We can all help by continuing to recruit new members and digging deeper into our tithes for ASA support. Last year the matching grant helped us so much in the beginning of the year. This year we do not have that to see us over these slow times so we really need your help. Thank you for seriously considering what you can do to enlarge this ministry.

ASA Science Brief

A School Board Success Story

Consider this scenario: A science teacher gives an assignment on evolution or earth history, letting students read "creationist" materials. Some parents hear about it, demand to see the assignment, and ask to visit the classroom. The teacher fears that they are out to get him fired. Various groups take the side of the parents or the teacher, and the complaint is finally dealt with at a packed board meeting. Getting wind of the story, the press builds it up as a confrontation between liberal, open-minded parents and "the radical religious right."

When a local battle in today's "culture wars" is taking shape, citizens often call on nationally prominent organizations for assistance. But instead of helping to negotiate a satisfactory solution, some groups are eager to chalk up another "win" for their side. The losing side then smolders in resentment. That has happened in some well-publicized controversies over the teaching of evolution.

Most scientists undoubtedly consider evolution a harmless term, merely a name for whatever processes produced the kinds of living things we know today. To the Institute for Creation Research, however, the word connotes an atheistic conviction that the God of the Bible had no part in the origin and development of life, especially human life. ICR leaders also contend, primarily on the basis of their interpretation of the Bible, that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Books and booklets flow out of ICR headquarters in El Cajon, California. Some argue that Genesis depicts a sudden, recent creation of all forms of life. Others avoid mentioning the Bible but assail the claim that evolutionary processes took place over billions of years. In heated school board controversies, ICR literature has often added fuel to the fire.

"Scientific creationism" is the label used for ICR's position. Legal battles over state laws mandating balanced treatment for scientific creationism culminated in a 1987 U.S. Supreme Court decision known as Edwards v. Aguillard. The courts have ruled that the young-earth creationism fostered by ICR is "religious doctrine masquerading as science," which cannot be taught as science in public schools.

In subsequent political maneuvers, a major player has been the National Center for Science Education, which was founded to protect the teaching of evolution from inroads by scientific creationism. Citizens concerned that "creationism" may be creeping into local classrooms frequently request help from NCSE's headquarters in Berkeley, California.

NCSE is more overtly political than ICR and is generally praised in the media, whereas ICR is ridiculed. Both organizations are supported financially by zealous "believers" in their causes. Both seem to benefit from ambiguity in the public's perception of what they stand for.

Opinion polls consistently show that a majority of Americans believe in a divine Creator, not merely a "fundamentalist" minority who view creation as relatively recent and static. Hence, creatt . oni . sm can be taken to mean either the religious commitment of many devout people, or the narrow dogma of a few, depending on how the word is defined.

Similarly, is evolution a fact, hypothesis, theory, or an ideology amounting to a belief system? It could be any of those, depending on how the word is used. Such ambiguity leaves people confused about whether or not they want evolution taught at all. Some parents worry that exposure to creationism could keep their kids from learning real science. Others are concerned that evolutionary theory will be taught as dogma, or that their children will be exposed to a naturalistic, anti-theistic evolutionism.

The most satisfactory solution is to keep both "isms" out of science classrooms by adopting a policy that clearly defines terms. That is what the school board of Hemet, California, did on September 5, 1995.

Hemet is about fifty miles from Vista, California, a town torn apart by controversy and scrutinized by the media. More recently, excerpts of an acrimonious school board hearing in Merrimack, New Hampshire were aired on a network television special, "Faith and Politics: The Christian Right."

Nobody in Hemet wanted that. Four of the seven seats on the governing board of the Hemet Unified School District (HUSD) had been filled by individuals of a conservative frame of mind. By the time "creationism" came up, the board had already suffered one setback: after adopting an abstinence-based sex education program, they dropped all sex education in response to a lawsuit by Planned Parenthood and People for the American Way.

With another conflict facing them, concerned parents sought help from the Science Education Commission of the American Scientific Affiliation (ASA), whose chairman agreed to meet with them to help them find their way through a potentially explosive situation. He first explained that, by law, "scientific creationism" cannot be taught in science classrooms. What most parents who are attracted to the ICR position really want, however, is assurance that their children will not be taught that they are "cosmic accidents."

The problem, he said, is that when theists (such as Christians, Jews, Muslims) object to that evolutionary interpretation, they are met with the argument that evolution means merely "change over time," which obviously occurs. But is that all that evolution means? Consider, for example, a 1995 position statement of the National Association of Biology Teachers, that evolution is "unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable.", A widely used high school textbook says that evolution "works without either plan or purpose ... is random and undirected."2 Those are statements by scientists. Are they scientific statements? No, because science, carried out in a purposeful way, has no way of determining whether or not purpose plays a role in evolution. Students who believe in a divine purpose for life should not be fooled by switches back and forth between a scientific meaning of evolution and an ideological one.

When "common descent" is presented properly as a working hypothesis supported by considerable evidence, it is no more a challenge to theism than "change over time." As to the neo-Darwinian theory of how evolution took place, natural selection's role in changing the color of moths, the shape of beaks, etc., has been extrapolated to explain such major innovations as the radically different body plans of new phyla. Yet there is reluctance to admit that the extrapolation is based more on commitment to the Darwinian paradigm than on actual knowledge of macro-evolutionary mechanisms. Few biology texts even mention the sudden, unexplained "explosion" of animal body plans that took place 530 million years ago in the Cambrian period. Facts that biologists believe they will someday establish should not be taught as facts that are already established. Otherwise, an "ism," not science, is being taught.

Three final paragraphs distinguish between scientific facts, hypotheses, and theories; bind science teachers "to limit their teaching to science," and prohibit any discussion in science classes of "philosophical and religious theories" based "at least In part, on faith" and 11 not subject to scientific test and refutation." The wording of all five paragraphs comes from the 1990 Science Framework for California Public Schools.

The Policy statement is followed by a two-page Regulation on how the evolution/creation controversy is to be handled. It begins by noting that sensitive issues of evolution and religion must be handled within "the current policy statements of the California Department of Education and within the constitutional principles enunciated by the United States Supreme Court." Five numbered paragraphs are quoted from either the California Science Framework or U.S. Supreme Court opinion in Edwards v. Aguillard ([1987] 482 U.S. 578, at 591, 594).

2. Nonscientific explanations of origins should be taught elsewhere;

3. No theory should be taught dogmatically and no student should be compelled to believe or accept any theory;

4. Science classes may include relevant scientific evidence concerning origins, including scientific evidence critical of current evolutionary theories; and

5. Scientific terms must be precisely defined and used with consistency of meaning.

Therefore, the terms evolution and theory of evolution will
be carefully defined and used consistently. Further, to make
classroom instruction more stimulating, while guarding stu
dents from ideological indoctrination, the teaching of evo
lution will include: (1) forceful presentation of well-estab
lished scientific data and conclusions; (2) clear distinction
between scientific evidence and inference; and (3) candid
scientific discussion of anomalous scientific data, and un-
solved problems and unanswered questions.

The second page of the Regulation provides explicit definitions. (See next page.)

The September 5 meeting of the board included the legally required "third reading" of the proposed Policy and Regulation. School superintendent Stephen Teele explained that he had formulated the document as part of a "remedy" for certain complaints made to the board. In June 1995, two parents had filed complaints that a teacher at Hemet High School and at a middle school had given assignments in which students were asked to defend evolution or debate its validity.

Those who had requested to speak included the cornplaints and the teachers whose actions led to the complaint. A high school teacher, who had for several years given the same research project without complaint, said he would be willing to remove from his resources some objectionable materials from ICR. A middle school teacher had made available to inquiring students a supplementary text questioning evolutionary theory but not endorsing "scientific creationisM."4 Both denied trying to introduce creationism into science classes and said that in their attempts to teach critical thinking they were following guidelines laid down in the 1990 California Science Framework.

Two University of California professors had come to speak at the request of the complainants. One was U.C. Berkeley biologist Kevin Padian, NCSE president and a primary author of the California Science Framework. The other was biologist David Reznick of U.C. Riverside. When Padian said he didn't like everything he saw in the superintendent's proposal, one board member asked if he could quickly make some changes, which Padian penciled in on a copy of the proposed document.

1. Evolution: In a general sense can be described as change through time, and virtually all natural entities and systems change through time. But it is not just the history of natural things, it is also the study of patterns and processes that shape these histories. These patterns and processes may be astrophysical, geological, biological, or behavioral, and all contribute to the evolution of the universe as we know it. (Science Framework, p. 29)

a. Change Over Time: For example, observed change in the gene frequencies of closely related types of organisms such as finches or peppered moths (microevolution); or observed changes in the types of life forms that have existed over time as represented in the sedimentary rock record (fossil succession). Because such changes have been repeatedly observed, evolution of this type is a fact.

b. Common Descent: the view that all (or most all) life forms, extant and extinct, are related by common ancestry: a theory about the history of life. An inference made from several different types of observations, such as fossil succession, the biogeographical distribution of organisms, the existence of rudimentary and (apparently) imperfect organs and the existence of homologous structures and embryological similarities in disparate organisms. These lines of evidence, combined with the commonsense observation that all offspring have parents, have led many scientists to treat the inference of common ancestry as though it were a fact.
c. Natural Selection: The theory (acting upon genetic variations, such as mutation) has been the primary mechanisms for the biological changes described in definitions one and two. In the case of small variations, such as those observed in peppered moths or finches, this neo-Darwinian mechanism is accepted as well-established. Whether this mechanism can be extrapolated to account for major innovations, such as new complex organs and phyla level body plans is an open question in biology and paleontology. ("The Meanings of Evolution," by Keith Stewart Thomson, American Scientist, Sept./Oct. 1982, pp. 529-531)

3. Theory of Evolution:

Like other theories, it is more than the sum of the facts from which it is derived. It is the best explanation for the facts, and it has predictive value. How evolution has worked - its patterns, processes, mechanism, and history - comprises the theory of evolution, which is constantly being modified as new evidence emerges. (Science Framework, p. 23)

Another teacher reminded the audience that Hemet ranks high in sending students to the state science fair and thanked the board for working out a clear-cut policy that expressed trust in the district's teachers. Some tension arose when Padian's hasty emendations came up for a vote. Among other changes, he deleted the sentence requiring inclusion of the "clear distinction between evidence and inference," and of "candid scientific discussion of anomalous scientific data, unsolved problems, and unanswered questions." He also deleted 2(c) of the Regulation substituting unspecified "mechanisms of evolutionary change," in place of the specific definition and question of extrapolation from minor variation to major innovation cited therein (see previous page).

With some board members wanting to defer to the two professors as "the experts," another proposed inviting Berkeley law professor Phillip E. Johnson, author of Darwin on Trial, to Hemet to debate the issues. Few really wanted to do that for fear of becoming "another Fox TV special." One board member read from an article written by Padian soon after his work on the Science Framework.5-7 The article almost gloated over the fact that "the term evolution appears more than 200 times in the document." Padian had also written that "as for the religious right itself, the new Framework leaves them totally disenfranchised from the public educational system in California."

Sensing that he was among conservatives, Padian quickly responded that he had not been talking about board members who, like himself, didn't want creationism taught; he meant the people who do want creationism taught. Then he complimented Dr. Teele for being "in control of the situation" and said, "I think you're headed toward a good policy here." Padian's changes were rejected, 4-3; the Policy and Regulation were then adopted.

After the final vote, reporters seemed to recognize that a workable solution had been achieved. A story in the Press-Enterprise ("It's Final: Religion, Science Can't Mix") emphasized that board policy now "keeps creationism theories out of science classrooms." A story in the Hemet News ("HUSD Ducks Scopes Trial") quoted Professor Padian as acknowledging that on the whole the policy adopted was "pretty good."

Important factors in getting the Hemet document adopted were hard-working school board members willing to think for themselves and search for a broadly acceptable solution; a relatively united conservative community willing to put aside differences to support the board majority; the backing of many teachers dedicated to teaching good science but concerned about their academic freedom if harassed by parents with an axe to grind; and the holding of some training sessions in advance of the final meeting to advise supporters on what kind of opposition to expect.

For starters, the Commission recommends that board members read Teaching Science in a Climate of Controversy, which now has over 100,000 copies in circulation. Though written for teachers, this ASA guidebook has been welcomed by school board members and parents as well. The 4th (1993) edition contains the text of a 1991 resolution, "A Voice for Evolution as Science," which served as a model for key parts of the Hemet Regulation. Teaching Science in a Climate of Controversy can be ordered for $7 postpaid (quantity discounts available), from the American Scientific Affiliation, P.O. 668, Ipswich, MA 01938-0668. Tel: (508) 356-5656. FAX: (508) 356-4375.

For extra copies of this report or copies of the complete Hemet document, contact ASA's Science Education Commission: John L. Wiester, 7820 Santa Rosa Road, Buellton, CA 93427 or jwiester@aol.com. Wiester or others may be available to conduct training sessions in your community similar to those that proved effective in Hemet.

2 K. R. Miller and J. Levine, Biology, p. 658, 1993, Prentice Hall.

3 The complete text of the first four paragraphs was drafted by attorney David Llewellyn, Dean of Simon Greenleaf University School of Law.

4 P. Davis and D. H. Kenyon, Of Pandas and People (2nd edn.), 1993, Haughton Publishing Co., Dallas. Available from Foundation for Thought and Ethics, P.O. Box 830721, Richardson, TX 75083.

5 K. Padian, "The California Science Framework: A Victory for Scientific Integrity," NCSE Reports, pp. 1, 10- 1 1,Vol. 9, No. 6, Nov-Dec 1989.

6 John L. Wiester, "Teaching Evolution as Non-Science: Examples From California's 1990 Science Framework," PSCF, Vol. 43, No. 3, Sept. 1991.

7 M. Hartwig and R. Nelson, Invitation to Conflict: A Retrospective Look at the California Science Framework, Access Research Network, P.O. Box 38069, Colorado Springs, Colorado 80937-8069 ($5).

the enemy was extremely busy trying to sow discouragement, organizational chaos, and stealthy opposition. Nevertheless, new student Bible study groups have started at the universities of Panevezys, Klaipeda, and Kaliningrad. They need much prayer and further encouragement on later visits. For Peter, "this combined scientific/evangelistic mission to Eastern Europe has been a new experience for me. But it was also very gratifying, despite the language difficulties (I don't speak any Russian or Lithuanian). It is especially pleasing to meet people there who love our Lord Jesus Christ, and some who [have started] getting the News about him."

Remernber Aldert van der Ziel? He was an active ASAer and an expert on electronic noise at the U. of Minnesota. Long after retirement, he still came to his office to do his noise work. In Electronic Design (p. 8, May 30, 1995) the "40 Years Ago" column - a rerun of articles from old ED issues - announced Aldert's book, Noise, with its 450 pages for $10.35. Editorial commentary states: "This is the book that explained noise theory for a generation of engineers."

Is nature rationally comprehensible? Science has proceeded in that belief, but Wall Street Journal staff reporter Dennis Farney senses a postmodernist influence on science (I I JUL 1994, "Natural Questions"). For instance, environmental historian Donald Worster at the U. of Kansas has his doubts about nature's predictability. He sees chaos theory as undermining progress in science, reducing the world to nothing but flux and flow. Another critic of secular humanism's faith in progress through reason is Rutgers U. biologist David Ehrenfeld, author of The Arrogance of Humanism. Instead of progress, we have only change. "There's a transition going on - but to what, nobody knows," says Irving Kristol, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, who is seeing the collapse of " secular, rationalist humanism." What story will fill the vacuum? "Today," says Worster, "there's just enormous uncertainty about the narrative."

Meanwhile, evolutionary biology research shows signs of going the other way. James Shapiro of the U. of Chicago explains that "The evolutionary watchmaker is blind. But for about a decade there have been hints that the watchmaker may, in fact, see." (Newsweek, I MAY 1995, p. 76) The development is "adaptive mutations" by which useful mutations in bacteria arise about 100 times more often than allowed by Darwinian theory. In "Adaptive Mutation: Who's Really in the Garden?," (Science, Vol. 268, 21 APR 1995, pp. 373-374), Shapiro cites these experiments in more detail and concludes that adaptive mutation "has returned to the mainstream of molecular genetics." It 'moves mutation beyond the realm of 'blind' stochastic events and provides a mechanistic basis for understanding how biological requirements can feed back onto genomic structure." Now that some of the longsought mechanism of evolution is in sight, fascinating causal behaviors of "a genetic engineer" have a chance of displacing randomness as an explanation. M David Swift, Timothy Chen

In the "Better Late Than Never" category is Mike Epstein's article, "Creationist Missteps - The Paluxy River Footprints" in Skeptical Eye (Vol. 7, No. 2, 1992, pp. 10-12), put out by the National Capitol Area Skeptics. Mike gives arguments about this well-known issue of whether a human footprint was found within a dinosaur's, ostensible evidence for contemporaneity of humans and dinosaurs not possible in prevailing scientific theory. The ASA figures into the article when Mike refers to ASA as "an alliance of Christians in the sciences" and quotes from ASA's book, Teaching Science in a Climate of Controversy (available from ASA; contact office in Ipswich; tel. number in "ASAN box"). he even gives ASA's address!  Z Mike Epstein

Roger Burgus was reported last issue, but what was not said was that he came the closest of any ASAer yet to winning the Nobel Prize. Walter Hearn informed the Editor of some of the rest of the story. And he should know; Roger was one of his biochemistry students when he was teaching at Baylor U. He recommended Roger to colleague R. Guillernin who subsequently shared the 1977 Nobel Prize in physiology or medicine (for unraveling the structure of the first "brain hormone") with rival scientist Shalley, and also with Rosemary Yalow. Burgus was in Continued on page 8, With the Lord

"British ASA" Journal Available at Discount to ASAers

Christians in Science and the Victoria Institute sponsor a journal, Science & Christian Belief concerned with the interactions of science and religion, with particular reference to Christianity. Editor Denis Alexander, author of Beyond Science, has informed the ASA office that a special subscription price of $16 per year (2 issues, 96 pages each, including handling) has been arranged for ASA members in the U.S. and Canada. Recent articles include:

  "Creation and the environment," R. J. Berry

"Contemporary perspectives on chance, providence and free will," Jonathan Doyle, et. al.

"A critique of aspects of the philosophy and theology of Richard Dawkins," Michael W. Poole

"Genesis 1-2 and the recent studies of ancient texts," Richard S. Hess

  "The eruption of Santorini and the date and historicity of Joseph," Colin J. Humphreys & Robert S. White

"Scientific Truth and New Age thinking," Ernest Lucas

"Natural law in the natural sciences: the origins of modern atheism?", John Hedley Brooke

Subscriptions begin in March and must be prepaid. Make checks to: American Scientific Affiliation; write "S&CB" on the memo line of the check, include address and mail to: ASA, P.O. Box 668, Ipswich, MA 01938-0668.

strumental in key achievements needed to win the prize. The story is told in more detail in Nicholas Wade's book, The Nobel Dual: Two scientists' 21year race to win the world's most coveted research prize, Anchor Doubleday, 1981. After the Prize, the book states, in the chapter called "Parting of the Ways":

With all the praise he was getting for the work on GIF and the other releasing factors, he [Guillemin] seemed to forget, or perhaps he remembered too well, the extent to which his colleagues had helped achieve these successes. "Before his operation, he would understand the debt he owed to someone like Burgus, but after he had received so much of the credit Burgus should have gotten, time after time, award after award, he just seemed to forget, and started to relax in his attitude toward Burgus," says a member of the group. [p. 247]

Walt may have more to say about the Roger Burgos story later, given his closeness to the events and the people involved. He has almost finished the ASA book for graduate students, On Being A Christian in Science, which includes some of the Burgus story.

Mark S. Peterson of Elgin, Illinois passed away Aug. 24, 1995, after a long illness.