Volume40 Number 6                                                   NOVDEC1998


Touryan Evangelizes Russian NAS

When Kenell J. Touryan travels to Eastern Europe, he goes prepared with gospel material. He wrote:

"Because of my recent involvement with a large number of science and technology institutes in the former Soviet Union (FSU), I carry with me as many science and faith articles and books as I can and distribute them to scientists and engineers, many of whom are members of the Academy of Sciences."

One article Ken has distributed is the recent ASAN pamphlet, "A Designed Universe," by Robert C. Newman. Touryan had the article translated into Russian, along with summaries from Hugh Ross' books and several of his own articles.

There were long debates about how to translate the word 'design' in Russian, because an exact equivalent does not exist. They finally settled on 'Satvarennaya Vselennaya,' which means both a 'created' and 'designed' universe. Kenell said: "These articles go 'like hot cakes' in the FSU countries!!"

As a senior member at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), Ken manages all the renewable energy technology projects in the FSU countries, on behalf of the U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE). One of these programs is called Initiative for Proliferation Prevention (IPP), a nuclear threat reduction effort. It strives to stabilize institutes, personnel, technology, and materials formerly dedicated to developing and manufacturing weapons of mass destruction in the nuclear successor states of the FSU: Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakstan. The program addresses proliferation risks through laboratory-to-laboratory cooperative research and development projects in both the FSU and with commercialization potential involving United States industry partners. Ten DOE national laboratories are involved in this program from the U.S. side (examples are Los Alamos, Lawrence Livermore, NREL, and Sandia).

Last January, Ken was appointed coordinator of these ten laboratories, working with over 180 FSU institutes and 10, 000 scientists. He says:

This has provided opportunities for me to come into intimate contact with hundreds of scientists and engineers in the above-mentioned four countries, where I visit three to four times a year. During my personal contacts I make sure that every scientist and engineer in these institutes gets a copy of the articles that I mentioned above, in Russian. I have also taken opportunities to give seminars and lectures on the topic of science and faith, all of which have been received with enthusiasm. I hope to continue this effort through 1999. Having spent 16 years at Sandia National Laboratories (1962-1978) working on nuclear weapons, I now find it "redemptive" to reverse the trend and assist my colleagues in the DOE National Labs and the FSU countries to "learn to beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks" (Isa. 12:4).

Commentary

Science, Religion, and Education in America

Earle Fox

In 1994, the ACLU sued Moon Township, Pennsylvania, for having a class discussion of evolution and creation, thus illustrating the general ignorance abroad in America about science, religion, and the law.

Science itself has no conclusions one way or the other about how the world was created. Science is a method for finding out what truth is, not a conclusion about the truth. And so the scientific arena is where all (yes, even the religious) viewpoints are given equal opportunity to express themselves - so that the truth can be discovered. There is nothing anywhere in scientific method that rules out discussion of voodoo, magic, New Age, Christianity, Judaism, secularism, or anything else as possibly containing some kernel of truth. The scientific and academic arena is precisely the place where everything is to be discussed.

Science itself has no viewpoints. Only scientists have viewpoints, which hopefully they reach by an honest assessment of the evidence at hand. It is both immoral and unscientific for any scientist to inhibit the discussion in favor of his own viewpoint, secular or Biblical, on the grounds of "science." That all too common kind of behavior on all sides is precisely why God gave us the scientific method, to keep the discussion open. "Come, let us reason together º " (Isaiah 1:18) Thus an inquisition in the name of "science" is no more righteous than an inquisition in the name of God. God forbids both, and so does any honest scientist.

And so for the ACLU to claim that on scientific grounds certain viewpoints are not to be discussed in class for their merit is simply nonsense and amounts to the establishment of yet another inquisition. Such things are said by people who understand neither science nor religion.

And for a 9th grade boy and his father to sue on the grounds that his rights are being violated by having to listen to someone else's religious viewpoint is also nonsense. If he disagrees with a viewpoint expressed, he is welcome to critique it for its merits. If that was the aim of the Moon Township class, to promote an honest discussion of the views on how the world was formed, then they were in fact already being scientific. If the boy was harassed by his classmates for being an atheist, or if the teacher allowed that harassment, then that needs to be corrected.

Harassment is neither Christian nor scientific. But that is quite a different issue from legally disallowing the discussion of "religious" viewpoints on the spurious grounds of either science or the Constitution.

With all due respect to the Supreme Court, their interpretation of the alleged wall between church and state is a direct contradiction of every Supreme Court decision on the subject prior to the mid 1940's:

"It is unnecessary for us º to consider the establishment of a school or college, for the propagation of º Deism, or any other form of º infidelity. Such a case is not to be presumed to exist in a Christian country." (Vidal v. Girard's Executors, 1844. Unanimous decision.)

"No purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, state or national, because this is a religious people º This is a Christian nation." (Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 1892)

"The First Amendment, however, does not say that in every and all respects there shall be a separation of Church and State º Otherwise the state and religion would be aliens to each other - hostile, suspicious, and even unfriendly º We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being º " (Zorach v. Clauson, 1952)

The decisions of the Court rendering the state openly hostile to God (which began only in 1962) are poor history, poor law, and poor logic - and therefore poor science. Honest and informed citizens will work to return our schools back to honest science and respect for each other - where Biblical, secular, and other viewpoints can test each other on a level playing field.

Earle Fox is an Episcopal priest who received a doctorate in philosophy on the relationship of science and theology from Oxford U. in 1964. Earle heads Emmaus Ministries at: http://road.emmaus.org with email: efox@road.emmaus.org.

Many ASAers Active

Martin L. Price realized that his 1969 Ph.D. in biochemistry equipped him to do agriculture as much as medicine. His post-doc research was related to third-world hunger. The result is that later he founded and directs ECHO. About it, Martin says this background, plus numerous contacts with missionaries through ECHO has enabled him to come up with a number of ideas for research projects suited for the small college setting. (As reported last issue, ASAers at Judson C. in Elgin, IL are working with ECHO.) Martin supposed at first that because of the enormity of research done at land-grant colleges, there would be little for small schools to do. But most of that work is oriented toward large commercial production, leaving much research to be done for the subsistence farmer. Small colleges can often carry out interdisciplinary projects more easily than large schools.

ECHO's role is to be a "catalyst and idea generator" for these growing "centers of excellence" in subsistence-farming research. Martin can put such centers in contact with missionaries and would like to see one-on-one relationships established between college centers and agricultural training schools in the developing world. Interested small-school researchers should contact Martin for some Academic Opportunity Sheets at: ECHO, RR #2, Box 852, N. Ft. Myers, FL, 33903; tel. (813) 997-4713.

 


Science historian Edward B. Davis's article, "Debating Darwin: The 'intelligent design' movement," published in the Christian Century (July 15-22, 1998, pp. 678-681), reviews books by Behe, Johnson and Moreland. It opens with a poem (with apology to Lewis Carroll):

"The time has come," the lawyer said,
"To talk of many things,
Of Gods, and gaps, and miracles,
Of lots of missing links,
And why we can't be Darwinists,
And whether matter thinks."

The great Princeton theologian Charles Hodge wrote that Darwinism implied that God had "abandoned the universe to itself to be controlled by chance and necessity, without any purpose on his part as to the result, or any intervention or guidance." Hodge concluded that such a God was "virtually consigned º to nonexistence." The authors of the reviewed books understand Darwinism as Hodge did, Davis contends.

Davis astutely observes that "A principle goal of the ID movement is to convince scientists that information cannot and does not spring from matter, which they understand as brute and inert." Davis, the historian, notes that 17th-century mechanists Descartes, Boyle and Newton thought similarly, though today most scientists (Christian or not) do not hold to this type of dualism but have a more active view of matter and its capabilities. Davis faults the ID movement for failing to engage those Christian thinkers who recognize this.

In concluding, Davis assesses the ID movement thus far as "only a highly sophisticated form of special creationism, usually accompanied by strong apologetic overtones that tend to keep the debate at the ideological level." But he touches the raw cultural nerve underlying motivations: "Johnson is at his best when he decries what he elsewhere calls 'scientific fundamentalism,' the tendency of scientific materialists to monopolize the conversation about science in public schools." He ends with this advice for Johnson: "An accomplished legal theorist, Johnson might better direct his efforts toward persuading his colleagues to reconsider their interpretation of the Constitution rather than toward criticizing the basic tenets of what remains scientifically a well-supported theory of the origin of biological diversity." ASAers appearing in the review include Richard Bube, Howard Van Till, and Hugh Ross.


Not only is Johnson taking on scientism in government schools, but Stephen C. Meyer's local Spokane article, "Let schools provide fuller disclosure" (March 29, 1998) introduces the "dreary and unproductive" but common saga of young-earth creationism facing Edwards vs Aguillard in court. Steve points out that "This does not mean, however, that parents have no grounds for concern about the present curriculum or that nothing can be done about it." What follows is a list of difficulties with Darwinian theory usually missing from biology textbooks, ranging from the Cambrian explosion to explosive appearance, then stasis, in fossil finds.

Textbook presentations of the famous Galapagos finches and English moth populations are presented as evidence for evolution. "And indeed they are," Steve writes, "depending on how one defines evolution." The distinction between small and large-scale evolution is articulated, and the gap between them is another item for the list. Steve argues that weaknesses as well as strengths should be included, and introduces the notion of intelligent design of life. The Dean Kenyon story is told, followed by brief descriptions of the work of Michael Behe and William Dembski's case for design in science, made in his new book, The Design Inference.

Returning to the culture wars, Steve surmises: "One can hardly imagine a credible legal challenge to a teacher who wants to discuss Behe's book or Dembski's ideas with students. At the very least, teachers should feel entirely free to to inform their students of omissions in current textbooks." The article concludes with this advice: "Rather than censoring Darwinist texts or asking teachers to adopt religiously derived alternatives, parents and school boards concerned about ideological indoctrination should now insist on full scientific disclosure." * Ed Olson

It may sound like a large-scale environmental impact paper, but "Can the Universe Recycle?" appears in the Int'l. J. of Theoretical Physics (Vol. 37, No. 4, 1998), written by physicist George Murphy. The idea is that if the universe is closed and a "big bounce" occurs, at a contraction approaching quantum limits of time and space, the very laws of matter and space-time themselves might change, through parametric shift. Assuming space-time remains constant in nature in a bounce, George proceeds to explicate some constraints on cosmological models which allow recycling. If you've read this far, and can handle equations such as c2dM = TdS, you can probably appreciate how he does this; the paper is short and readable even by engineers. * George Murphy


Despite his recent retirement from 32 years of teaching physics and astronomy at Calvin C., Howard Van Till "had absolutely no plans for a teaching career," the college's alumni magazine, Spark, reported. In the 1980s, Howard wrote his book, The Fourth Day, because of dissatisfaction with the direction of the creation-evolution debate in N. America. "I was upset we were being presented as adversaries in battle." At that point Howard decided to jump into the controversy, which took more of his effort at Calvin than he anticipated. He retired early because sci/Xny is his field now and he can "look forward to working on this without worrying about making life difficult for an institution or an adminsitration." 
*
Donald DeGraaf

º nature is composed of matter plus energy plus information. John F. Haught, "Evolution, Information, and Cosmic Purpose, CTNS Bulletin 18.1

Environmental News

Lytton J. Musselman of Norfolk, VA was a Fulbright scholar for 1997-98 in the Dept. of Biological Sciences of the U. of Jordan in Amman. His third Fulbright award in an Arab country, his teaching and research activities involve bright, hard-working students. He was also able to travel extensively in pursuit of his long-standing interest in plants of the Bible as well as parasitic angiosperms. He also worked with eager, young scientists of the Royal Society for the Conservation of Nature, doing inventories throughout the country.

Amman is home to the unique Jordan Evangelical Theological Seminary (JETS), where Lytton spoke on the Christian view of creation. As he recounts: " So it was with fear and trembling that I addressed an audience of about half Christian and half Muslim on 15 March on 'Caring for Creation: A biblical view on Christian environmental concern.'" The topic was timely, as the year before, the Interfaith Studies organization, sponsored by the crown prince and now regent Hassan ibn Talat, had supported a seminar in the Vatican on the subject of comparative views of Christianity and Islam on the environment.

Lytton's involvement with JETS came about because of an essay published in PSCF two years ago [Vol. 48, no. 4, pp. 256-257] that led to his association with the AuSable Institute. In a sense, he says, he was at JETS because of PSCF. "It is always thrilling to recount and acknowledge how God is at work in arranging things through His own sovereign will!" The environment in the Muslim world, Lytton says, is one that Christians need to pay serious attention to. Would you like to know more about this? If so, contact: Lytton John Musselman, Prof. of Biological Sciences, Old Dominion U., Norfolk, VA 23529-0266.

The Seattle Times (Dec. 3, 1997) opinion piece, titled "Pro/Con: Are greenhouse gases a threat?" found Edwin Olson saying "no" and physicians David C. Hall, president of Physicians for Social Responsibility, Tim K. Takaro, and Jane Koenig, of the Dept. of Occupational & Environmental Medicine, U. of WA, saying "yes." The piece was run the week of the Kyoto, Japan environmental treaty conference.

Proponents of the proposed treaty contend that the gases are linked to global warming and pose a threat to the planet's climate. With 1,100 signatures behind them, the proponents arguments were based on the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), released in Dec. 1995, which concludes a discernible human influence on global climate. Calling for policies that increase energy efficiency worldwide, significant reductions in greenhouse gases can be achieved at little or no cost, they contend.

Against this formidable array of world councils and signatures, Olson immediately attacked the politics of the "Clinton/Gore dog-and-pony show" which intends to "soften up the American public" for the treaty. The public accepts the treaty because "Global warming has become a truism solely by constant repetition." But Clinton and Gore are silent on the personal sacrifices involving unpleasant cutbacks that Americans will face. Ed lists some facts you won't be hearing from them, such as "Almost 20 years of satellite measurements" which fail to show warming, a lack of correlation between the one degree F worldwide average temperature increase since 1890 and the rising level of CO2. From 1940 to 1970, there was actually a slight cooling as gas levels rose.

Ed cautioned against the results of computer simulations since not nearly enough is understood of climate dynamics to build trustworthy models. Despite the political jockeying and posturing, Ed thinks that "Gradually, the accord might simply wither away because it will almost certainly demand too great an economic price for what might well be a non-problem."