NEWSLETTER
of the

AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC AFFILIATION - CANADIAN SCIENTIFIC & CHRISTIAN AFFILIATION

Volume 24 Number 3  JUN/JUL 1982


TRIALS

Ever since it headed for the courts, the creationist controversy has generated news-too much news. Other stories get bumped to later issues of the Newsletter, which can wreck the balance we strive for. Longer pieces have to be shelved or trimmed to the bone. Comments from Jerry Bergman on the creation-evolution controversy didn't make it into this issue, for example.

At least the Newsletter's more or lesson time. Copy for June/ July is actually getting zipped up in April. The new schedule makes the editor's life easier, but it's hard to feel good about any deadline. (Doesn't Scripture say that a deadline is worse than a miserable, flea-bitten hound-dog? See Eccl. 9A. Ed.)

We're trying, but even with a head start we may be late with several announcements:

1. A June 2-4 conference on "A Christian Perspective in the Human Sciences" at the Institute for Christian Studies in Toronto, with speakers from the Calvin Center for Christian Scholarship in Grand Rapids.

2. A June 16-19 conference of Sociologists Teaching in Christian Colleges on "Secularization: Science and Service," with David Lyon of England as keynote speaker, at Tabor College. Contact: Dr. Stanley Clark, Dean of Faculty, Tabor College, 400 S. Jefferson, Hillsboro, KS 67063. Russell Heddendorf of Geneva College is program chair.

But there's plenty of time to remind you of the 1981 ASA ANNUAL MEETING to be held at CALVIN COLLEGE in GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN on AUGUST 13-16.

A FULL AGENDA

In spite of a temporary imbalance in the Newsletter, ASA and CSCA are not preoccupied with "creation science." Plenty of other topics will be considered at the 1982 ASA ANNUAL MEETING, for example.We mentioned in the Apr/ May issue that our technical and moral support is being sought by evangelicals concerned about stopping the nuclear arms race. The fact is that Physicians for Social Responsibility, rather than an explicitly Christian organization, seems to be waking up the church to the dimensions of the nuclear weapons threat.

Political controversy, about what is taught in public schools or about our country's preparation for a nuclear holocaust, is by nature divisive. That's one reason we often shy away from such issues. But as scientists and Christians we must learn to sort out the technical aspects and the biblical and moral aspects of vital issues, and deal with each in an appropriate way.

An example of how to do that comes from Paul Fayter, U. of Toronto Ph.D. candidate in the history and philosophy of science. Paul has served on a committee of the Muskoka Presbytery of the United Church of Canada grappling with the growing problem of "acid rain." The committee's report, All Nature is Groaning, devotes Part 1 to defining the acid precipitation problem: sulfur and nitrogen oxides from industrial stacks mix with atmospheric moisture and fall to earth as dilute sulfuric and nitric acids. Eastern Canada "gets it" from both Canadian and U.S. industrial centers because of the prevailing wind pattern. Already 140 of Ontario's lakes have been declared biologically dead and thousands more are endangered. The quality of drinking water is being affected. Studies are indicating harmful, perhaps irreversible, effects on cropland and forest soils, as well as evident damage to structures. Effects on human health are unlikely to be good, to say the least.

In Part 2, All Nature is Groaning considers responses to the problem appropriate for individuals, for a democratic society, and forthe church of Jesus Christ. Questions are raised in a nonpartisan spirit about the politics and economics of stopping the threat. Why is the Reagan administration so reluctant to cooperate with the Canadian government in addressing the problem, for example? What can the church do to exercise stewardship in this complex situation? Part 3 makes some specific recommendations to the Toronto Conference of the United Church, concluding that acid rain is a critical environmental problem, "contrary to the loving will and purpose of God for his Creation," and is therefore "a manifestation of human sinfulness." Specific courses of action for the churches are suggested, for which resources are supplied in Part 4. Sermon outlines, liturgical materials, and press releases are included. Appendices provide a technical discussion of pH, church documents on ecology and justice, and a bibliography of reference works and audiovisual resources.

Paul Fayter says that in spite of its preliminary nature, the Muskoka "Acid Rain Report" in an edited form will be printed and distributed across the United States by the United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.

(Who knows? Might the "creation science" controversy get theologically conservative Christians interested enough in science to understand pH? Might litigious biblical literalists learn how to get laws passed to exercise our mandate of stewardship? In even the most unpleasant court battles, might not God be working for the good of those who love him, after all? See Rom. 8:18-28.-Ed.)

 "LET THOSE OF WISDOM SPEAK," CONTD.

Three more former ASA presidents have replied to 1981 president Chi-Hang Lee's question: "What is the most criticalr issue that modern science poses to the Christian church today?" Their replies follow in order of receipt, with the years of their presidency in parentheses after their names. (Still to be heard from on this question are ex-prexies Frank Cassell, Elving Anderson, Robert Fischer, Charles Hatfield, Gary Collins, and James Buswell.-Ed.)

"After the realms of philosophy and theology have been searched thoroughly for an answer to the question, I suspect that the true answer is to be found in the life and witness of the lonely Christian scientist surrounded by agnostic and humanistic colleagues. Aggressive 'buttonholing' is less effective in such circumstances than patient day-to-day demonstration of the Christian graces. A Christian grace irresistible to unbelieving colleagues is excellence in performance of the scientific task at hand. Then follows the big opportunity when a spiritual subject is initiated by an unbelieving colleague. If we are convinced that we are called of God to science, then surely only ourvery best isan acceptable goal. Excellence is a path to earning the right to speak one's convictions on the Christian way." -F. Alton Everest (1941-1950).

"The most critical issue that modern science poses to the Christian church is the proposal by its secular humanist practitioners that all of human existence may be defined by a mechanistic, deterministic description. To the extent that the church regards this as a valid possibility, it will either retreat into anti-scientific thinking exemplified by some of the current 'creation science' writers, or else settle for a kind of dualism in which Christian faith has only a cultural, traditional-but not personal-significance."  -Robert L . Herrmann (1981, pre-Lee).

"Although I do not presume to know what the most critical issue is, I consider the tendency to consider science and religion as polar opposites to be an important issue. It is common to see 'science vs. religion, ''creation vs. evolution,' etc. I see this tendency as due to the narrowness and arrogance (and often ignorance) of many scientists, as well as of many Christians. Such polarization seems to be exacerbated by the current attempt to have 'scientific creationism' taught in the public schools. Many non-theistic scientists characterize that position as religion claiming to be science, but not using scientific methodology. One such scientist reported that when a main proponent of scientific creationism was asked to present his model of creation, he responded that God himself was the model.

"In an exchange I had with a linguist on the attitudes of anthropologists toward missionaries, he stated that anthropologists (and all other fieldworkers) were scientists and rationalists, but that 'Christian dogma insists that at some point one must abandon reason and rely entirely upon faith.'

"it is crucial that scientists who are Christians help both the scientific community and the Christian church to understand that science and Christian faith are not opposite ways of looking at the world, but that they may be complementary." -Claude E. Stipe (1976).

COLUMBIA, THE GEM

When NASA's space shuttle Columbia made its record-breaking third voyage into space in March, Marine Colonel Jack Lousma was in command. News media reported a number of "glitches" ("snafus" to WWII veterans) before and during the week-long flight, including a severe case of motion sickness developed by Lousma on the first orbit. Nevertheless, Time Magazine (5 April 1982) called the mission another "NASA television spectacular" with Lousma, copilot Gordon Fullerton, and the Columbia as its stars.

Time did not mention that Jack Lousma is a Christian. He and ASA member Dave Fisher shared "centerfold" status in another publication, though-the March/April 1982 issue of Breakthrough, newsletter of the Slavic Gospel Association. Dave is program editor for the Radio Academy of Science (RADAS), an evangelistic project of the Association. RADAS is a weekly program in the Russian language aimed at reaching a skeptical audience continually exposed to a barrage of "scientistic" atheism.

According to Dave, astronaut Lousma had provided him with program material in advance of the scheduled March 22 launch. That enabled RADAS to broadcast it to all of the USSR during the Columbia's orbital flight. The programs were also aired during the following weeks, while Col. Lousma's credibility was still "at its apogee."

In one broadcast Lousma recalled the orbital flights of Soviet cosmonauts Yuri Gagarin and Gherman Titov, who ridiculed the idea of God. Their statement now appears on atheistic propaganda posters, implying that the cosmonauts had explored all or most of space. Lousma cut that claim down to size, pointing out that he and his Russian counterparts in the Skylab mission had been less than a light-second out into the 15-million-light year expanse of space-less than the distance between Moscow and Leningrad. Lousma orbited the earth 859 times aboard Skylab in 1973.

In another broadcast on "God's Mission Control," Lousma first described the complex guidance system of the space shuttle, then used that system as a parable of how God guides Christians, and as an invitation to contact God personally through Jesus Christ.

RADAS, now in its third year of programming, is carried by eight mission stations around the world, covering all eleven time zones of the USSR. It is also translated into several other languages, giving it a potential audience of over a billion people. For Christians, RADAS counters the eroding effects of atheistic attacks on their own certainty about God. For some atheists, RADAS has become the road to belief.

Dave Fisher is always looking for ASA or CSCA members with a story that could be told on RADAS to build credibility for the Christian message. His address is: Radio Academy of Science, Slavic Gospel Association, P.O. Box 1122, Wheaton, IL 60187.

(As a headline for this story Dave Fisher suggested "AN APOLLO-GETIC APPROACH," because of our "perverse and persistent penchant for puns." Where did he get that idea? Even so, it's good to see a young fellow show respect for a senior's old-age penchant.-Ed.)

BALANCED TREATMENT

Marilyne Flora has taught biology for the past four years at Wheaton Christian High School in Wheaton, Illinois. She won't be teaching there next year, despite past evaluations that she is a good or even excellent teacher. At the end of February 1982 she was told that her contract won't be renewed. Why? Well, there was a problem with the way she taught the unit on origins. The problem, it seems, was that she tried to give a "balanced treatment" to the various views of creation held by Bible-believing Christians. The board, or the principal-or whoever may have exerted pressure on them-wanted only fiat creationism taught.

At the 1981 ASA Annual Meeting Marilyne had been enthusiastic about Wheaton Christian High School as a place to teach. In March, though dismayed by what had happened, she still had That disappointed reporters who wanted a nasty flap to write about. The press
got wind of Marilyne's dismissal through an employee of the Fermi National Accelerator Lab in Batavia, Illinois, who heard about it from Marilyne's husband Robert, a physicist there. Stories appeared in the Wheaton Journal, the Chicago Tribune, and the Suburban Tribune of Northern DuPage County.

Then United Press International picked it up, and stories went out over the UPI wires that Marilyne had been fired for teaching a "non-biblical account of creation." "It's hard to read about yourself in the morning news," Marilyne said, " especially when the press doesn't get things straight."

We hope we got things straight, even if UPI didn't. One story categorized Marilyne and other members of ASA as "creative scientists," a group "rejected by both the militant creationists and evolutionists for believing that Darwin and God can mix." Marilyne found at least moral support from such "creative scientists" as Robert Herrmann, Elving Anderson, Richard Aulie, and Walter Hearn, with whom she got in touch after the blow fell. Reporter Bruce Dold of the Suburban Trib quoted Bob Herrmann and biology professor Russell Mixter of Wheaton College. From the quotations one can even guess what they must have said, more or less.

In spite of some garbling, though, Dold's story on "Religion vs. Science: Evolution Fight Ignores Plea for Balanced View," did get across the idea that there is a middle ground which was one of the views Marilyne discussed in her biology classes. Dold wrote: "The chances of the middle-grounders becoming a potent force in the evolution-creation debate appears to be slim. They debate their theories in little-noticed magazines such as the American Scientific Affiliation's 5,000-circulation Journal, but attract little general attention."

(Marilyne, we're sorry you were treated that way-even if you did attract some general attention to alternative views of creation.-Ed.)


POINT MUTATIONS

1. Trial date has been set for the test of the Louisiana "Balanced Treatment" law: 26 July 1982, in Baton Rouge. According to Roger Lewin (Science, 30 April 1982), "A tangle of lawsuits and motions by both sides makes the Louisiana situation far more complicated than the one in Arkansas, and it could well be that the trial will not begin as scheduled in July." Further, the ACLU, this time on the defendants' side, will move for a summary judgment on the basis of written material (including the Little Rock decision), which might mean the case wouldn't go to trial at all.

2. Although those arguing for the constitutionality of the "Balanced Treatment" law in Louisiana are the plaintiffs, their support group is still called the "Creation Science Legal Defense Fund." The fund has opened an office at P.O. Box 78312, Shreveport, LA 71107.

3. In "Darwinism and the Expansion of Evolutionary Theory" (Science, 23 April 1982), Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould tries to honor Darwin while criticizing the two major claims of Darwinism: 1) that natural selection is a creative force, and 2) that selection upon individual organisms is the locus of evolutionary change. Gould's side of the internal squabble strives for more than a "comfortable extension" of Darwinism but "much less than a revolution." Calling "the modern synthesis" incomplete, not incorrect, Gould admits that some of his earlier writings contributed to confusion in terminology. The Science article doesn't exactly clear things up but serves as a kind of score-card to help identify the players. Francis Hitching's "Was Darwin Wrong?" (Life, April 1982) is a more popular account of the same controversy.

4. "Evolution versus Creation: Weighing the Evidence" is the title of a new documentary motion picture released in February by Quadrus Films. According to ICR's Acts & Facts, the 40-minute 16mm color film was produced in association with ICR and can be rented from Creation Film, 610 EastStateSt., Rockford, IL 61104.

5. When ICR's Duane Gish lectured on "Creation vs. Evolution" at U.C. Berkeley on 9 April 1982, he ran into a swarm of hostile reaction he later described as "totally unexpected." His lecture was sponsored by Collegiates for Christ of Oakland's Chinese Bible Church, who had sponsored campus lectures by Gish in earlier years without such a ruckus. This year the Daily Californian ran a front-page story before the lecture mentioning some faculty moves to challenge Gish, then devoted several pages to reporting the outcome. (Throw a Little Rock at a hornets' nest and what do you expect?-Ed.)

SALTATIONS

Members of our Affiliations continue to make news in the current controversy over origins. Some examples of major efforts to clarify the issues:

1. Edwin A. Olson, professor of geology and physics at Whitworth College in Spokane, Washington, had a featured article in the 23 April 1982 issue of Christianity Today: "Hidden Agenda Behind the Evolutionist/Creationist Debate." Ed says he shares the deepest goals of "scientific creationists" who want to promote respect for the divine authorship of the material realm and to disseminate the gospel of Jesus Christ. But he considers their approach "poor strategy for a truly Christian impact on the world." Ed sees the scientific enterprise as capable of weeding out any errors in our understanding of earth history, however long that might take.

2. Cover story of the April 1982 issue of "Canada's urban magazine," Quest, focused on "The Creation Debate: Does God Belong in the Classroom?" Writer Jerry Americ, who described the "creationist" scene across Canada, quoted former CSCA president Daniel Osmond of Toronto on his frustrations with both the narrow creationists and with "scientists who claim evolution is fact." According to Americ, the Bible Science Association of Canada was formed in 1967 and then changed its name to the Creation Science Association of Canada. Concern about "encroachment of religious fundamentalism in schools" has led in Vancouver to formation of "Citizens Against the Undermining of Science Education" (CAUSE), which is investigating the teaching of science in B.C. school districts.

3. Ben Broderson of Lexington, Kentucky, a Ph.D. in biomedical engineering employed by a consulting engineering firm, sent a copy of his article on "Methodist Pluralism and the Issue of Origins (subtitled "What's all this fuss about evolution and creation?"). It was featured in the March/April 1982 issue of Good News, "A Forum for Scriptural Christianity within the United Methodist Church." Ben presented the view that "scientific creationism" offers hope for "a more faithful convergence between science and Genesis" which 11 can become the greatest new synthesis in modern thought." He argued that the theologically pluralistic United Methodist Church ought to support the teaching of both creation and evolution in public schools. In fact Ben has founded a Lexington citizens group to advocate the teaching of both in public school science education. He lectures widely on the issue himself.

4. Origins Research (P.O. Box 203, Santa Barbara, CA 93116) continues to cover the origins issue from a recent creationist perspective with admirable openness. The current (Winter/Spring 1982) issue has a major story on Robert Gentry's puzzling polonium radiohalo evidence that the Po radioactivity and certain rocks containing it must have been formed simultaneously and almost instantaneously. An article on three prominent British scientists who have "abandoned evolution" discusses astronomers Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe (co-authors of Space Travelers: The Bringers of Life, 1981) and paleontologist Colin Patterson, editor of the journal of the British Museum of Natural History and a leader of the "cladist" school of systematic classification. (None of the three could be said to support the recent-creation position, however.-Ed.) OR editor Dennis Wagner and technical editor David Johannsen are both members of ASA.

PICKING UP THE PIECES

All of us can say "Amen" to Norm Geisler's exhortation in the Apr/May Newsletter to "love the Creation Research Society brethren." Yet our love for them-and for the evolutionists they oppose-should not blind us to the unpleasant harvest we shall all reap together from misunderstandings sown in the current controversy. People who turn the doctrine of creation into a pseudoscience and those who make a pseudoreligion out of evolution seem to agree on only one point: that there is no middle ground, Perhaps fighting each other in a no-win situation is what each side needs to keep going.

Dan Wonderly of Oakland, Maryland, writes that the special section on "Creationism" in the January Science 82 should make all evangelicals weep. He thinks that recent-creationists must feel some repentance by now for "publicizing their obscurantist views as the only biblical position." Dan doubts that even the new graduate programs at the Institute for Creation Research (which we said we welcomed-Ed.) can be free of obscurantism if already committed to a young earth interpretation.

Jerry Albert of San Diego, California, also expresses concern about misunderstandings fostered by recent-creationists. Jerry sent us a newspaper clipping about a debate he had with ICR's Duane Gish at San Diego State U. on 28 September 1981, plus a paper he wrote afterward on "The Dangers of Creationism to Christian Faith." In response to Gish's charge that evolution is inherently atheistic, Jerry had stated that science is "neither theistic nor atheistic; religion is simply not on its agenda." After explaining why evolution could not possibly threaten his Christian faith, Jerry suggested that "creationism" is itself a rigid, mechanical interpretation of creation that not only doesn't make sense of the Genesis accounts but ignores biblical teaching about God's continuing relationship to his creation. Further, with its fixation on instantaneous creation of features with apparent ages (such as photons on their way to earth from apparently distant galaxies), it "makes God a malicious and willful deceiver."

Jerry admits that those are strong accusations but feels he has been pushed in that direction by intractable recent creationist propagandists. He says they often let their ends justify their means, as when a speaker "snows" a general audience with an argument from the Second Law of Thermodynamics, even though the same speaker would admit to other scientists that the 2nd law can't rule out evolution.

Christians who take evolution seriously have seldom wanted to debate "the CRS brethren" in public, preferring to try to reason with them quietly whenever possible. Elving Anderson of the U. of Minnesota had ' the unusual experience of standing in for a recent-creationist at a December 1981 conference on "Evolution and Public Education." The conference was sponsored by the Minnesota Association for the Improvement of Science Teaching, the Minnesota Sic~ Teachers Association, and the National Association of Biology Teachers. Elving says he was asked to prepare a paper on "Scientific Creationism and Its Critique of Evolution" because his scientific colleagues couldn't think of a creationist 11 of that type" whom they could trust.

(We saw a preliminary draft of that paper, a clear and respectful outline of "scientific creationist" arguments and the kinds of evidence interpreted by some as supporting them. We hope Elving Anderson describes that conference in one of his keynote addresses at the ASA ANNUAL MEETING at CALVIN COLLEGE in GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN, this AUGUST 13-16.-Ed.)

Jon Buell and Charlie Thaxton at Foundation for Thought and Ethics in Richardson, Texas, are trying to put the pieces back together in yet another way. They are producing "a sound biology textbook to banish all the misconceptions about teaching creation by demonstrating how it can be taught rationally and with scientific and constitutional integrity." They think that if the textbook they have in mind had been written before the Little Rock trial, "it would have disarmed the ACLU of virtually all of their allegations."

And of course many intelligent letters-to-the-editor have appeared in various journals publishing articles on the controversy. None of the half-dozen responses to Rudy Baum's story on the creationist issue published in Chemical & Engineering News (22 Feb 1982) seems to be from an ASA member but several expressed the same points made in the ASA statement released at the AAAS meeting in January. An excellent letter from W. H. Hildemann of UCLA medical school appeared in Science (5 Mar 1982), but he doesn't seem to be an ASA member either. Hildemann offered the following paragraph as a sample introduction for elementary science textbooks:

"A few scientists believe in a relatively recent inception of earth and living organisms by sudden creation of the universe, energy, and life from nothing. Most scientists, however, believe that the earth and all forms of life gradually evolved over several billion years. Evolution can be viewed as a creative process continuing over a long period of time. Students should be aware at the outset that the extensive evidence of evolution is not necessarily in opposition to religious concepts of creation by a supreme being. Note that the causative beginning or primeval appearance of matter and life in our universe, the inception of something from nothing, is not at issue."

Hildemann's suggestion brought two replies in the 16 April issue of Science, both referring to McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education. One writer cited testimony of a science teacher under cross-examination by a defense attorney; the teacher said he couldn't give "balanced treatment" to creationist beliefs if he hadn't seen valid evidence to support that position. The other writer argued that when scientists are doing science they do not "believe in" anything "except their ability to gather reasonably objective information about the universe." That writer, James C. Hickman of U.C. Berkeley, closed his letter with this paragraph:

"Science and religion provide different ways of knowing. Scientific assessments of truth cannot be mixed with religious beliefs and remain scientific. Making that point in science classes would also assure those assuming otherwise that science is not 'anti-God' because it cannot be used to address anything supernatural at all. As individuals we may mix scientific assessments of natural phenomena with supernatural beliefs into a happy whole, but one of the main lessons of Act 590 is how dangerous to freedom of inquiry it can be if we cannot tell the difference between the two."

One letter writer who is an ASA member is Bruce W. McClelland of Bend, Oregon. Bruce's fine letter in response to a crusty guest editorial by humanist philosopher Delos B. McKown appeared in Chemtech (Sept 1981). McKown had written on "Contemporary Religion vs. Science." Bruce argued that Christianity is not inherently anti-science, citing two lines of evidence: 1) Walter Thorson's point in JASA that historically the Judeo-Christian tradition was a necessary underpinning for the scientific enterprise, and 2) the existence of an organization like ASA today. After showing that Christianity has fostered science, Bruce said that Christianity does "oppose philosophies which say that science alone can lead into all knowledge and all truth. These philosophies make science a god, and Christians may have no gods save the Lord God. McKown has reason to fear that these philosophies are threatened by Christianity." (incidentally, Chemtech said that McKown's blast drew more letters than any other single article, except perhaps its own editor's earlier article on three "fatal flaws" in implementing nuclear power generation.-Ed.)

Kirk Bertsche and Keith Clemenger are roommates, ASA members, and physics grad students at U.C. Berkeley. We've seen a copy of a letter they sent to Last Days Ministries (Box 9, Lindale, TX 75771) expressing concern about a three-part series on "Creation or Evolution?" in the LDM newsletter. The series was written by New Zealand-born evangelist Winkie Pratney, who was evidently an organic chemist atthe time of his conversion 15 years ago. Kirk and Keith objected to Pratney's treatment of a number of facts but pointed especially to the basic flaw of presenting only the two extreme views of godless evolutionism vs. recent-creationism. They briefly stated both affirmation of God as Creator of the universe and their conviction based on independent scientific estimates that God created it "long ago, over aeons of time." Then they suggested the article on "Creation" in Unger's Bible Dictionary as a summary of the variety of creationist positions held by conservative Christians. They also recommended Thurman's How to Think About Evolution, Ramm's The Christian View of Science and Scripture, and "the publications of the American Scientific Affiliation (P.O. Box J, Ipswich, MA 01938), an evangelical science/faith society."

Ed Yamauchi of Miami University in Ohio spotted a guest editorial in the Cincinnati Enquirer (23 Feb 1982) by his colleague in political science at Miami, Reo M. Christensen. Christensen mentioned ASA as an example of a "third group" largely overlooked by the press but with a stake in the public school controversy. Students should know that a large number of scientists "believe that the evolutionary process, however lengthy it may have been, was set in motion and directed by a Supreme Being." Christensen argued that to deny God any role in the creative process represents hostility to religion, which "does not belong in the classroom any more than religious indoctrination does." Ed Yamauchi wrote a brief letter to the Enquirer expressing appreciation for Christensen's editorial, clarifying ASA's "open" position on origins, and pointing out that ASA publishes a journal and newsletter. Ed received at least one letter as a result, asking for the name and address of the ASA journal.

Paul Arveson of Silver Spring, Maryland, has had a lot of practice picking up the pieces lately. When he and Bob Herrmann delivered the ASA press release to the press rooms at the Washington AAAS meeting (Apr/May Newsletter), he found himself surrounded by reporters. The next day he was interviewed (at random) by a local TV channel, whose reporter asked what he thought of the ruling delivered in Little Rock that day. It was the first Paul had heard of it, but he recovered quickly enough to say he guessed he favored it, "with some reservations." Asked about those, he was able to identify himself as a Christian with a broader view of creation than the young-earth position; he was concerned that the decision might trigger a secular backlash against the JudeoChristian faith in general. After a few other questions the reporter turned his camera on someone else. Paul never saw the broadcast but some of his friends did.

Later that same day Paul was in one of the press rooms chatting with Elving Anderson about the AAAS resolution against creationism. A reporter from a Memphis newspaper overheard them and interviewed them on the spot. Paul wonders if any ASA members in Memphis ever saw that interview in print. (Tennessee, anyone?-Ed.)

Elving Anderson introduced Paul to Frank Moyer of the National Association of Biology Teachers, who is organizing one of the "committees of correspondence" to do public relations work with teachers at the local level on behalf of evolution. Moyer seemed genuinely interested in having church-related groups participate. Paul thinks some ASA members could serve as a moderating and "depolarizing" influence in such committees without compromising their beliefs or principles. That would help prevent secular forces from creating the general anti-Christian backlash he is concerned about.

Paul Arveson also sent us a tape of a 25-minute radio show, "Focus on Issues," on which he was interviewed after the producer picked up a copy of the ASA press release. The program is produced by International Media Ministries, a Christian radio-TV outlet with about 150 affiliates around the country. The questions covered lots of ground about creation and evolution, creationism and evolutionism, biblical interpretation, what ASA is, and what happened at the AAAS meeting. Paul wasn't completely satisfied with the outcome of his first radio interview, but he managed to clarify a number of issues.

Walt Hearn: Finally, a personal experience at peace-making (or piece picking-up). Ralph, a seminary graduate who recognized your Newsletter editor as a Christian brother, called to get some help for teaching an adult class on Genesis. He had some basic questions, such as "What's a gene, anyway?" I said I would lend him a couple of books and if they didn't answer his questions, I'd be glad to try.

A week or so later, after reading Thurman's How to Think About Evolution and my chapter on the origin of life (with Dick Hendry) in Mixter's Evolution and Christian Thought Today, Ralph called again. I cleared up a few things for him, then asked him what hethought of my chapter. He said it was the kind of thing evolutionists always said. It was full of expressions like "it seems probable that . . . " "many scientists believe . . . " "perhaps," and so on. I said that's the cautious way scientists express themselves. Ralph said that if he took out all those wishy-washy sentences, "well, there just wouldn't be much left."

When I asked him about his own picture of creation, Ralph began delivering what was essentially a lecture on the scientific difficulties with evolution. After about half an hour I began to think that was quite a performance for somebody who'd had to ask what a gene was. I was picking up whole sentences I'd heard before. That was it-he had essentially memorized large chunks of familiar recent-creationist works. I let him get it off his chest for another half-hour, thinking he would soon slow down or pause for breath. But he seemed to be gathering momentum.

Finally, since I was already behind on my ASA/CSCA News deadline, I broke in with a comment. "Look, Ralph," I said gently, "remember what you said about all those qualifying phrases in my chapter on the origin of life? Do you realize that you've been denouncing evolution for over an hour without using a single qualifying phrase? Not once have you said 'it's reasonable to assume. . .'or l believe...'or maybe.' You said you've had very little training in science, but I think it would strengthen your case if you would learn at least that much about how to talk about science."

That seemed to be a turning point. The monologue ended, and we had a good conversation about the problems inherent in each of our views on the mechanisms of creation. It lasted another hour, in fact-and I got even further behind with my Newsletter copy. (Well, confession is good for the soul. And creation seems to be good for a lot of Newsletter copy. But maybe enough is enough, already.-Ed.)

POSITIONS LOOKING FOR PEOPLE

World Vision International in California has openings for which technical training is desirable, for aid and evangelism projects in 85 countries. Some require experience in research planning, data processing, economics or business, communications, or personnel management. Contact: John Spencer, World Vision International, International Human Resources, 919 W. Huntington Dr., Monrovia, CA 91016. World Vision's missions research agency, MARC, is looking for a senior research associate with experience in cross cultural evangelism plus a background in missiology and social sciences. Research experience desirable; travel necessary. Write to: Samuel Wilson, Director, MARC, 919 W. Huntington Dr., Monrovia, CA 91016. (Received in Feb/Mar from Ed Dayton of MARC).

Richard E. Johnson of New Hampshire is looking foran M.D. or Ph.D. able to plan and develop a clinical counseling service. A group of pastors and laypeople are trying to set up a Christian counseling service for the southern New Hampshire area. Contact: Richard E. Johnson, M.D., RR#3, Holt Rd., Amherst, NH 03031. (Received 25 March.)

Messiah College in Pennsylvania seeks an organic chemist for fall 1982 at any appointment level for a permanent position. Contact: Dr. Noel Falk, Messiah College, Grantham, PA 17027. (Received by phone in March.)

Westmont College in California is reorganizing chemistry and physics into a single department. The two positions in chemistry announced in the Aug/Sep 1981 Newsletter remain open: a permanent one in organic or bio-organic and a one- or two-year temporary one in inorganic/analytical. In addition a tenure-track assistant or associate professor of physics is now sought for fall 1983, preferably someone in solid state physics or materials science. "We are particularly interested in someone at the beginning of an academic career who has post-doctoral teaching, research, or industrial experience." Teach general physics and advanced courses and supervise undergraduate research. A new engineering/ physics major has been approved, and opportunities exist in local industry and U.C. Santa Barbara for collaborative research. Active experimentalists are sought for all three positions. Applicants must be committed to Christian liberal arts education. Send resumes to: Prof. Stanley E. Anderson, Dept. of Chemistry and Physics, Westmont College, 955 LaPaz Rd., Santa Barbara, CA 93108. (Received 18 April.)

LOCAL SECTION ACTIVITIES

TORONTO

The section scheduled a "Film Night" for April 22 in a lecture room of the Institute for Christian Studies, featuring three short films with both technical and moral aspects. "Challenge of Change" and "Anger After Death" from the National Film Board dealt with how life is affected by today's rate of change in both urban and rural settings, and what the constant threat of war does to our mentality. The CBC film "All Our Tomorrows" dealt with imaginative care of the elderly, allowing them to remain in their own communities happily and productively.

GUELPH

06 heard Yet what transpired at the March 8 annual business meeting. After the meeting in the Physical Science Building at the U. of Guelph the section sponsored a public lecture on "Abortion and Euthanasia-How Can We Decide?" Speaker was psychiatrist Merville 0. Vincent, director of Homewood Sanitarium in Guelph and author of God, Sex, and You (1976). Announcement of the lecture was done on colored paper with attractive artwork, good for posting on bulletin boards.

The Guelph section is still sponsoring noon-hour meetings of a science/faith book club every other Thursday on campus. As a prelude to the public lecture, EdDen Haan, chapter secretary, was leading a study of Richard Bube's article on "Abortion" (JASA, Sept 1981).

METROPOLITAN NEW YORK

The spring meeting scheduled for March 13 at Nyack College featured ASA Executive Director Robert L . Herrmann as speaker. In the afternoon Bob spoke on ethical issues in recombinant DNA technology under the title "It's Not Melt's My Genes." After a business meeting and dinner Bob examined cultural and political forces shaping the science/ faith interface, asking "Can the Church and State Live with Pure Science?"

Executive council members for 1982 were listed on the dues notice sent out with the spring meeting announcement. President is Ralph G. Ellenberger of the Dept. of Anthropol. & Sociology. at Nyack College; vice-president, physicist W. Jim Neidhardt of New Jersey Inst. of Technology; treasurer, biologist Michael Sonnenberg of Nyack College; and secretary, linguist Mary Lynn Morse of Montclair State College, NJ. Also on the council are Robert Y . Hsu, software engineer at C. E. Lummus Co., Bloomfield, NJ; Ernst Monse, Chemistry Dept., Rutgers U.; Roy K. Sofield, Dept . of Entomol. & Zool., Cook College, New Brunswick, NJ; and Richard J . Rommer, Dept. of Earth & Planetary Sciences, City College of New York.

The Metropolitan New York section has not only a large executive council but also its own executive secretary, Robert T. Voss, environmental engineer at C. E. Lummus Co. in Bloomfield, NJ. Here's part of Bob's statement on the dues notice:

"It is my hope and desire to see ASA grow and thrive through our local efforts, voicing a clear and positive witness to both the Christian and secular communities that the God who created and upholds the universe seeks out our minds and lives to be dedicated to Him through our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. The issues that face us in our modern age are complex and often subtle. Holding fast to sound biblical positions in the practice and conduct of our professional lives is a great challenge in any field but especially in science. The role of ASA at both the national and local levels is vital during a time when confusion and distrust of science is on the increase."

SAN FRANCISCO BAY

"Science and Technology: Servant or Master?" was the theme of a one-day symposium on February 20cosponsored by the section and New College for Advanced Christian Studies of Berkeley. Held in Berkeley at the American Baptist Seminary of the West, the meeting drew over 60 registrants. About half seemed to be ASA members or friends, the other half students or friends of New College.

Robert L . Miller of San Jose, section president, presided at the morning session. After an introduction of ASA by national president Chi-Hang Lee of Walnut Creek and of New College Berkeley by its president (W. Ward Gasque), Bob introduced the keynote speaker, Walter R. Thorson. Thor son, working at Stanford Research Institute while on sabbatical leave from the U. of Alberta, gave an excellent talk on "Thinking About Thinking." He discussed science as an intellectual tradition and responded to Owen Barfield's critique of modern thought. "A/pha-thinking" (about things) is valid and necessary but inadequate for a full grasp of the truth. We must also engage in "beta-thinking" (about thinking), a more participatory "experiencing of reality," according to Thorson. Science is important to the church because "the epistemology of science is congruent with the epistemology of Christian theology: nature is empirically real to the scientist and God is objectively real in the Bible."

Walter R. Hearn, who teaches a New College course on science and Christian Faith, chaired the afternoon session devoted to technology and how to cope with it. First item on the program was a powerful film on the medical consequences of nuclear war, "The Last Epidemic," in which speakers at a 1980 Physicians for Social Responsibility conference described in detail what will happen when a one megaton bomb hits San Francisco. Not quite such a downer was Jack C. Swearingen's "Christian Perspective on Energy Production and Mineral Resources," an expansion of a paper Jack gave at the Stanford Annual Meeting in 1979. Jack, who supervises the Materials Science Division of Sandia National Laboratory in Livermore, makes a convincing case for conserving scarce resources but his scenarios aren't particularly optimistic.

A more upbeat look at modern technology was Kenneth C . Olson's paper on "Recombinant DNA Technology: Peril or Promise." Ken, a biochemist at Genentech Corporation in South San Francisco, recognizes potential hazards of the technology but basically had some good news to report. He and his coworkers have coaxed a suitably altered E. coli to produce enough human growth hormone to treat children who would otherwise suffer from pituitary dwarfism. The chemistry is interesting, but a general audience wasn't the place to discuss that. (The E. coli HGH is identical to the human product except for an extra N-terminal methionine attached to it; see Kenneth C. Olson, et at.. "Purified Human Growth Hormone from E. coli is Biologically Active," Nature 293, 408-11, Oct 1, 1981.) Finally, David W. Gill, dean and assistant professor of Christian ethics at New College Berkely, discussed "Technological Ethics and Christian Ethics," bringing the insights of Jacques Ellul to the kinds of problems presented during the day.

The jointly-sponsored symposium was an experiment to see if there's any life in the northeast corner of the ASA section and to see how many people on the New College mailing list are interested in science, technology, and their ethical implications. About 5,000 program brochures were printed; 500 were mailed to ASA members and JASA subscribers, the rest to the whole northern California mailing list of New College friends and supporters. The cost of all that printing and postage wasn't covered by the $10 registration fee ($5 for students), so New College is asking for special contributions to pay the "cost overruns." Everybody seems willing to try the same sort of thing another year. David Gill says that "hundreds of people interested in the aims of New College should have been at that symposium. We'll try harder to get 'em there next time."

Meanwhile, back in the South Bay, Walter Thorson spoke at a regular section meeting on April 24 at Peninsula Covenant Church in Redwood City. This time his topic was "Under-lying Issues in the Science and Religion Controversy." We haven't had a report from that one yet.

PERSONALS 

Miriam Adeney, anthropologist at Seattle Pacific University, is one of workshop leaders we spotted on the program of the fifth plenary conference of the Evangelical Women's Caucus to be held July 21-24 in Seattle. Mathematician Virginia Johnson and psychologist Mary Stewart Van Leeuwon are also on the list. Conference theme is "Women and the Promise of Restoration." For registration information, write or call EWC, P.O. Box 31613, Seattle, WA 98103; tel. (206) 932-0548 or 783-4953.

Dick Desautel, an aerospace engineer for the past 16 years, left industry this spring to become associate professor of mechanical engineering at San Jose State University in San Jose, California. Dick is also an elder at Menlo Park Presbyterian Church and enjoys both jobs. The most joyful thing to happen to the Desautels this year, though, was the arrival of baby daughter Daryn Lynn on January 24. The Desautels have a 4-year-old son but many of you will remember that just before the 1979 ASA Stanford Meeting, which Dick was busy helping to organize, they lost a 7-year-old daughter in a tragic accident. We rejoice with the Deseutelle and the whole church family who have been praying for this baby.