Book Reviews

JASA Book Reviews for December 1981

Index
THE SCIENTIFIC IMAGINATION: CASE STUDIES, by Gerald Holton, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978, xvi + 382pp. $27.50; paper $8.95.
GROWTH WITH EQUITY, edited by Mary Evelyn Jegen and Charles K. Wilber, 1979, vii & 241 pages, $4.95 (paperback)}
THE MASTER OF LIGHT: A Biography of Albert A. Michelson by Dorothy Michelson Livingston, The University of Chicago Press (1979). 376 pages.,$6.95.
THE EIGHTH DAY OF CREATION: THE MAKERS OF THE REVOLUTION IN BIOLOGY, by Horace Freeland Judson, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1979,686 p. $15.95.
THE BIRTH OF CHRIST RECALCULATED by Ernest L. Martin, Foundation for Biblical Research, Pasadena, California (1978). Paperback, 126 pp.
THE MOON: ITS CREATION, FORM AND SIGNIFICANCE, by J. C. Whitcomb and D.B. De Young, BMH Books, Winona Lake, 1978.
MEDICINE, SCIENCE AND LIFE by V. S. Yanovsky, Paulist Press, New York, 1978. 151 pages. $10.00.
LIVING MORE SIMPLY: BIBLICAL PRINCIPLES AND PRACHCAL MODELS edited by Ronald J. Sider, Downer's Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1980. 206 pp., $4.95.
CREATION/EVOLUTION, Issue II, Fall 1980,45 pp., $2.50 quarterly, $8.00 annual, Frederick Edwords, Editor, 953 Eighth Ave., Suite 209, San Diego, CA 92101.
BELIEF IN SCIENCE AND CHRISTIAN LIFE: The Relevance of Michael Polanyi's Thought for Christian Faith and Life by Thomas F. Torrance, ed. Edinburgh, Great Britain: The Handsel Press, Ltd., 1980. xvii + 150 pp., $12.00.

This is a collection of eleven previously published essays by a well-known professor of Physics and of the History of Science at Harvard University. While the book is intended to be a continuation of the author's Thematic Origins of Scientific Thought: Kepler to Einstein (Harvard University Press, 1973), it does not display any unifying purpose beyond that of bringing together a number of papers published since the appearance of the earlier volume. Two long essays, one on the Millikan-Ehrenhaft dispute over the electron,' the other on the impact of Enrico Fermi's discoveries on the growth of Italian physics, account for a third of the text and are the only real "case histories" in the traditional historical sense. The other pieces include book reviews, a discussion of the (Harvard) Project Physics Course, and a few essays on topics in the sociology of science. Of these the best is "Dionysians, Appollonians, and the Scientific Imagination" (expanded from an article in Daedalus, Summer, 1974) which discusses the role of the rational and irrational in scientific method.

In the opening chapter and at various points throughout the text, Holton advocates his theory of "thematic analysis"-the treatment of an additional component in the examination of scientific work beyond the standard historical, social, psychological, cultural, logical, empirical, and theoretical components (p.3-8). Themata are quasi-structuralist conceptions, in many ways akin to A.0. Lovejoy's "unit ideas" which are to explain or establish in some way the continuity of the scientific endeavor as well as the often irrational convictions of individual scientists. They include a limited number of conceptions such as continuum, hierarchy, isotropy, synthesis, discreteness, and family-Holton holds that there are probably less than 100 in all-which are present in a variety of combinations and sequences. Apparently deeply imbedded in the psyche and mainly acquired in childhood (p. 23), they are almost all of ancient origin and all will continue to find proponents in the future (p. 10). Scientists may embrace any thema at any time, as well as its opposite (p. 23), each in a different area of thoughts, and they may change themata, apparently even by rationally considering alternative themata. (p. 22).

Thematic analysis is apparently more a descriptive than an analytical tool, however: in Holton's principal example he picks a dozen or so themata from one page of a Scientific American article without giving any indication as to how such a list is supposed to help in understanding or explaining what is going on (p. I I ff). While Holton insists that his notion of themata is to be distinguished from theories of archetypes, paradigms, or metaphysical presuppositions, there are many similarities and it is hard to find any advantages in Holton's view. His general theory is too vague-there is no explanation of the genesis or dynamics of themata, nor any standards for thematic evaluation. At the same time the themata themselves are too rigid and unchanging. The claim that Democritus embraced the thema of "discreteness" along with such later scientists as Planck and Bohr surely obscures more than clarifies; such concepts develop and evolve over time. The conflicts between Einstein and Heisenberg over quantum mechanics, Cartesians and Newtonians over vortices, and Aristotle and the atomists over the plenum are distantly related if at all, but Holton finds in them all the antithetical themata "discreteness" and "continuum."

Whatever problems beset the theory of thematic analysis do not, however, seriously detract from the rest of Holton's work, nor for that matter does thematic analysis noticably contribute anything. The author admits that his study of Fermi, one of the two long historical essays in this book, makes no use of thernata, while elsewhere the occasional interjection of "thema-talk" can be dropped with no apparent loss. This raises the question implicit in my opening comments above, "What is the purpose of this volume?" If it is to establish the theory of thematic analysis, it is unsuccessful; if it is in a broad sense to investigate the scientific imagination, it does include some illustrative case studies, as well as material only tangentially related. As a volume of collected essays, the paperback edition is a comparatively inexpensive way of acquiring some of the papers which are otherwise found only in expensive editions and symposia, and so it is a useful source-book for those interested in its contents.

'Appearing in Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences. 9(1978), pp. 161-224, after the publication of the volume under review.

Reviewed by Charles D. Kay, Department of History and Philosophy of Science, University Of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

GROWTH WITH EQUITY, edited by Mary Evelyn Jegen and Charles K. Wilber, 1979, vii & 241 pages, $4.95 (paperback)

The obligation to feed the hungry is a moral imperative most human beings recognize. The evangelist Matthew makes it one of the criteria by which all will be judged (Mt. 24:35). The contributors to this book are attempting to uncover how the hungry may be fed without prejudice to human development on an international scale. The traditional answers of religion (charitable assistance) and business and government (more resources) are not only inadequate but even harmful.

It would have been better to participate in February, 1978 in the give and take of the seminar put together by the Bread for the World Educational Fund and the Economics Department at the University of Notre Dame, This book is an opportunity to listen in on the discussions after the fact. That the issues are still lively is evident from World Bank

President Robert McNamara's plea for increased financial assistance from the United States, Russia, Greal Britain and Japan for Third World Countries. OxfarWs Tony Jackson believes the money now being spent is too often only helping the rich get richer. David Kinley of the Institute for Food and Development Policy of San Francisco would rather see United States foreign aid moneys spent to alleviate the debts of poor countries. This book will help thoughtful readers understand these disagreements and begin to formulate their own conclusions.

One of the contributors, Paul Schervish argues that more money going from richer countries to poorer ones only exacerbates the latter countries' problems of poverty, unemployment, and hunger. The powerful in our own country appreciate how difficult it is to ensure that moneys intended to aid the most impoverished reach the target population. It is naive to imagine the task is easier across national boundaries.

Denis Goulet contends that "the many can only have enough if societies so organize themselves that the few cannot have too much." When Goulet writes that "deep mutation" will be necessary, this reviewer suspects the more precise term would be revolution.

Richard Barnet focuses on the significance of changing values if one would alter the social and economic conditions of the poor and oppressed. The values which "undergird the global shopping center" are not now adequate. One may well suspect they never were.

Paul Streeten writes that Transnational Corporations could make contributions to meeting the "basic human needs of the absolute poor." Further he is able to specify what those needs are, namely, adequate personal incomes, basic public services and participation. James Weaver also makes a list of basic human needs but his list differs from Streeten's. Weaver includes food, potable water, clothing, shelter, medical care and education. Goulet disagrees with both of them. He believes only the poor themselves can define their needs and then only in reference to what is of value to them. His examples indicate that the poor are more likely to list a meaningful existence and a sense of selfesteem as basic human needs. This sort of difference indicates that the difficulty of satisfying human needs is more basic than delivering goods and services.

This book is technical to the point of being difficult for the interested non-professional. But the easy solutions have been and are being tried again. When charity becomes big business, often under government control, something needs doing. These authors suggest a variety of ways to perceive the problems and seek solutions.

THE MASTER OF LIGHT: A Biography of Albert A. Michelson by Dorothy Michelson Livingston, The University of Chicago Press (1979). 376 pages.,$6.95.

The decades spanning the turn of the century were times of great turmoil for physics. In what Thomas Kuhn calls "a shifting of paradigms," classical Newtonian physics was grudgingly giving way to Quantum, or Modern physics. More was involved than a simple change of equations: one world view was discarded and another, full of unsettling implications, was instituted in its place. Determinability and continuity were replaced by uncertainty, probability, and quantized energy levels. Though one of the movers of this revolution, Albert Abraham Michelson nevertheless struggled to accept that which he had helped bring about.

Born in 1852 in Strze1no, Poland, Michelson emigrated with his family three years later to the United States. They settled in the Sierra Gold Rush town of Murphy's Camp, and his father eventually sent him to high school in San Francisco. His potential attracted the notice of a local congressman, and after some difficulties he won in 1869 an appointment to the U.S. Naval Academy. The direction his career would take was already apparent by the time of his graduation four years later. A superior student overall, he led the class in optics, and the study of light was fast becoming a passion with him.

More an experimenter than a theorist, Michelson had ample work to occupy his interests and challenge his abilities. He eagerly embraced Maxwell's newly formulated wave theory of light, and his skill with mirrors and lenses served him well. Though Foucault and several others had previously attempted to measure the velocity of light, Michelson while still in his twenties obtained more accurate results in a long-running series of tests with simple but ingenious changes in technique. His reputation on both sides of the Atlantic was solidly established when he, with the chemist Edward Morley, performed an experiment that was to be pivotal in the rise of modern physics: the attempt to measure the ether-drift.

The notion of a physical ether permeating the universe strikes many today as absurd and somehow pathetic, akin to the epicycles devised in astronomy to explain the motions of the planets in a geocentric universe. But the wave theory of light at the time seemed to demand such a substance. After all, light waves must have some medium through which to propagate, and the concept of an enormously tenuous yet rigid ether was no more superstitious than modern physicists' first inklings of antimatter or virtual photons. A contemporary scientific journal wrote concerning the ether, that "Of its reality most [scientific men] are as convinced as they are of the existence of the sun and moon."

Called the ether-drift, this effect was expected to be analogous to the behavior of ripples on moving water. The speed of the wave relative to the medium would remain constant, but the speed relative to an observer should vary. The Michelson-Morley experiment in 1887 failed to show an ether-drift.

As most revolutionaries discover, once the dismantling of the old order is irreversibly under way, events tend to get out of hand. Michelson did not set out to disprove the existence of the ether. On the contrary, he wanted to study it. The negative result was devastating. It threw the theories of the time into confusion. Though a few scientists seized upon his results and began restructuring physics, Michelson and the majority of physicists long held to ideas such as ether drag by the earth, or the Lorentz contraction of matter in the direction of motion, in order to keep the necessary ether and still explain the observations.

Michelson's human nature showed itself in other ways, too. A vigorous proponent of the wave theory of light, he found it difficult to accept the mounting evidence of the wave-particle duality of electromagnetic radiation. Once during a visit to a German university, he realized as he walked into the dining area that the physics students had divided into two groups: classicists and relativists. With the attention of both groups upon him, he walked over and sat with the classicists.

Still, Michelson was not alone in being unwilling to accept all the conclusions of the new theories. Like Einstein after him, a few rough theoretical and philosophical edges did not impair his work or standing. For years he was the premier maker of ruled glass diffaction gratings in the world. He also made great advances in interferometry and furthered its use in many fields. Much in demand as a lecturer and researcher, at his death in 1931 the scientific community mourned the loss of "the Master."

Dorothy Michelson Livingston is by her own admission " not a writer." Yet, in an age when biography is too often neglected, she has written an informative, readable, and above all enjoyable book. As the youngest of Michelson's three daughters by his second marriage, she is in a privileged position to comment on her father. She draws upon her own memories as well as those of Michelson's associates to produce a rounded picture of both his personal life as a husband and father, and his academic fife of colleagues, students, and occasional quarrels. Through the book runs Michelson's love affair with light, a pursuit he justified to a friend by explaining "Because it's of much fun."

Perhaps a more fundamental characteristic of Albert Michelson was revealed in a conversation with his young daughter, Dorothy. She had innocently asked him why the sky was blue, and had soon become bored during Michelson's long and detailed answer. As she sat in his lap, he gently told her "It doesn't matter if you don't understand it now, as long as your realize the wonder of it."

Reviewed by Robert Schier, Office of Student Affairs, University of California at Irvine Medical Center, Anaheim, California

THE EIGHTH DAY OF CREATION: THE MAKERS OF THE REVOLUTION IN BIOLOGY, by Horace Freeland Judson, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1979,686 p. $15.95.

In The Silver Chair, Asian, C.S. Lewis' representation of Christ, said "There are no accidents." By design, then, I finished S.L. Jaki's The Road of Science and the Ways to God just before tackling the book under review. Jaki's book is explicitly about how the great advances in physics were made by believers, because of their belief; Judson's can implicitly be read as being about how the great advances made in molecular biology were made by atheists, because of their atheism. For that reason, and the title, I suppose a review of it merits inclusion in these pages.

Explicitly, Eighth Day is about the history of the development of molecular biology. Unlike other treatments of that subject, which deal mostly with DNA, Judson is also interested in protein structure and crystallography for their own sakes, so they, too, are covered.

The book is well written, and attempts to set who did what, when, in "why and how" context. It is based on a staggering number of interviews with prominent and nonprominent participants over several years. I found the treatment compelling. The closest comparison I can make is not Gamow's A Biography of Physics or Watson's The Double Helix, but reading about, listening to, and watching the history of Watergate unfold. This, of course, is consistent with Judson's career as a professional journalist, with the partial publication of the book in The New Yorker, and with its length. Eighth Day, because of its perspectives on the scientists who developed it, belongs in every academic library, and, for the matter, in public libraries.

Jaki, if I understand him correctly, warns that science, to be productive, must have a view of nature squarely consistent with Judaeo-Christian tradition. That is, it must navigate between the Scylla of rationalism and the Charybdis of empiricism, or it develops either elaborate structures with no relationship to reality, or masses of meaningless data. The material world exists, but it has a planner back of it.

Judson's atheists are apparently not as well informed as were Jaki's empiricists or rationalists. Francis Crick, codiscoverer of the Double Helix, who continues active in the field, is described as changing from physics to biology because as an atheist he felt compelled to challenge vitalism. Jacques Monod, author of Chance and Necessity, an existentialist tract, figures prominently in Eighth Day, but Max Perutz, who is more than any other person the source of Eighth Day's material, says of him that he was a better scientist than philosopher. (See "Tributes to Jacques Monod" Quarterly Review of Biology 55:167-168, 1980) (Although Judson mentions the anti-religious views of several prominent scientists of recent times, he does not mention those of Perutz. This leads me, though lacking other evidence, to guess that Perutz is a Christian!)

Somebody said that, rather than DNA being the secret of life, life is the secret of DNA. Even if DNA is the secret of life, Crick's attempt at disposing of vitalism poses no threat to the believer. Regardless of the late Monod, or anyone else, we are the products of design, not chance.

It seems appropriate, in closing, to refer to the remarkable April 26, 1974, issue of Nature, which celebrates the twenty-first anniversary of the publication of Watson and Crick's "A Structure for Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid." The issue contains nine articles, several of which are of lasting value. I quote from two, those by Sydney Brenner and Gunther Stent, both participants in Eighth Day.

Belief in God is alive, says Stent, who is clearly not defending Judaeo-Christian traditions:

Whether the achievements detailed in The Eighth Day of Creation have delivered a convincing proof of God's existence is a question more controversial than Stent puts it, I'm sure. Regardless, God is not worried over them, and we surely have no reason to be. That these achievements, like many before them, have raised philosophical and theological questions, is, ultimately, to our good. The Road of Science remains one of the Ways of God.

Reviewed by Martin LaBar, Central Wesleyan College Central, South Carolina 29630.

THE BIRTH OF CHRIST RECALCULATED by Ernest L. Martin, Foundation for Biblical Research, Pasadena, California (1978). Paperback, 126 pp.

This treatise is an extension of an article published in Christianity Today in December of 1976. Its purposee iss t substantiate further the thesis that the birth of Chri occurred in the year 2/3 B. C. rather than an earlier date, 5/6 even 7 B.C.

As to the evidence from heavenly phenomena which t place at the birth of Christ, it is recorded that there triangulation of the planets, Jupiter, Saturn and Mars the year 7/6 B.C. However, Jupiter and Saturn in three conjunctions were at least two diameters of the m away from each other. They could not be imagined as single "star". There were, however, unusual positionings placed at 3/2 B.C.

The real star of Bethlehem was probably a morning star which rose in the East. Christ said of himself, "I am the root and offspring of David, and the bright and morning star." (Rev. 22:16) Peter also mentioned that Christ was symbolically associated with "the day star." (II Pet. 1:19) Jupiter was known to rise as a morning star in conjunction with Venus. Later, Mercury left its position with the sun and came close to Venus. These, and other outstanding happenings in the heavens would signify to those searching the stars, an extraordinary event on earth-the birth of a king.

In relating visible astronomical events with historical documents, other conclusions can be assumed. The life and records concerning Herod can be drawn upon. The slaughter of the innocents and death of Herod, who according to his own wishes was to have the greatest funeral in history, seem again to point toward the year 2 B.C.

There is also evidence from the Evangelists. Luke (1:26,36) leads us to believe that John the Baptist was born March 25, 2 B.C. Then Christ's birth would work out somewhere near the month of September, 2 B.C. (The time of census was between August and October).

When the Wise Men came, the child was already living in a house. Considering corollary events, close calculations place their visit at December 25, 2 B.C.

The reading of the book itself is intriguing. It explores the peripheral historical as well as pertinent astronomical events. It is a well documented and substantiated treatise, so that at the end, the reader is inclined to bow his head and say, "I believe."

Reviewed by Dr. Loretta Koechel O.P., Chemistry Department, Molloy College, Rockville Centre, New York.

THE MOON: ITS CREATION, FORM AND SIGNIFICANCE, by J. C. Whitcomb and D.B. De Young, BMH Books, Winona Lake, 1978.

I would heartily agree with the authors of this book in their assertion that there is no ultimate contradiction between Scripture and natural science. Yet, I must question the manner in which they apply this concept in The Moon: Its Creation, Form, and Significance.

The Moon is written from a strict, recent-creationist viewpoint, and all relevant issues in the book are seen from this perspective. It basically expands and extends the works of other creationists such as The Genesis Flood, by Whitcomb and Morris. As a result, many of this book's arguments and discussions will be familiar to those who have studied the question of origins and creation. I personally do not ascribe to Whitcomb and De Young's interpretation of Genesis (particularly Genesis 1), and I feel that this book has many problems both in its approach and analysis. For example, many issues that are debatable at best are treated as if they are totally supportive of the recent-creation position; the question of moon dust layering and the reversal of the polarity of the Earth's magnetic fields are two such topics. (These questions, and others discussed in this book, have been addressed far more successfully in the Journal ASA and other places.)

Occasionally, Whitcomb and De Young's analysis of a question is incomplete, such as their discussion of transient lunar phenomena (TLP). They do not mention the fact that extensive, close-up lunar surveys have not unambiguously detected or photographed any TLP. Possibly, TLP are observing anomalies, not true lunar features. The results of Apollo, Surveyor, etc., are discussed in detail when they seem to support recent-creation, but results are ignored which might refute this position. More important, though, is the manner in which the authors handle problems in present lunar theory. It is true that all of the present explanations of lunar origin have major flaws. However, this does not mean that we must accept the authors' interpretation of the Genesis account. We are looking at a "God of the gaps" philosophy, in which anything that we can't at present explain with scientific accuracy must therefore have been accomplished by God in some magical or mysterious way. The problem with this approach is that when a satisfactory theory of lunar origin (or other "God of the gaps" problems) arises, God is somehow relegated to the background once again. The primary weakness here is that stating that God indeed caused something, such as in Genesis, is very different from giving information about the details of the event, which is the purpose of science.

Further, I feel that another weakness in this book is the inconsistent manner of scriptural interpretation employed. The authors state, as a principle, that Scripture uses the language of appearance. Yet, they say it is "obvious" that Psalm 93:1 is alluding to the immutability of God-ordained functions. It was not "obvious" at all to Jews and Christians for thousands of years! It was the observations of science that changed the traditional understanding of this verse. Here is a clear case where science contributed to a proper understanding of Scripture. There is no reason why a similar situation might not exist with conflicts between the traditional interpretation of Genesis and present scientific discoveries as, to the age of the solar system, origin of the moon, etc. Throughout the book Whitcomb and De Young criticize Christian scholars who believe that science aids us in understanding Scripture. They refer to the "double-revelationists" and include in their ranks such scholars as Robert Newman, Bernard Ramm, Richard Bube, and D. Gareth Jones, who the authors claim to be in grave error. These men all hold Scripture in the highest esteem and hold to the historicity and authority of Scripture. They simply contend that valid science is consistent with accurate interpretation of Scripture. The author's listing of "double-revelation" vs. "recent-creation" authors only serves to increase the "us vs. them" attitude that is so detrimental to the Body of Christ and the search for understanding.

Finally, the authors contend that a sudden creation of the universe, man, etc., demonstrates God's power and wisdom. They imply that there would be no such awe due a Creator who used natural orders taking long periods of time. This is a question of perspective, not biblical theology. To me, a long or natural process of origins in no way weakens my respect for my Creator any more that my understanding of the natural process of precipitation does.

Generally, I would not recommend this book alone for a person seeking to understand lunar origins and functions. It is, however, a good work for one who is trying to learn the position of the recent-creationists on this subject. It would also be a handy reference work for those involved on either side of the controversy, keeping in mind the extreme one-sidedness of their presentation and analysis.

Reviewed by Joseph P. Bassi, Captain, US Air Force, Learmonth Solar Observatory, Box 100 NA VCOMSTA Holt, FPO San Francisco, California 96690.

MEDICINE, SCIENCE AND LIFE by V. S. Yanovsky, Paulist Press, New York, 1978. 151 pages. $10.00.

Yanovsky's title and stated purpose carve out a huge territory for discussion: to understand and harmonize medicine, science, religion and art. Just as religion speaks of eternal life and resurrection, and art the prevention of the decay of beauty, science attempts reversibility. In physics, the goal is overcoming entropy; in medicine: well being, rejuvenation and growth. The first three chapters discuss anesthesia, "reversibility par excellence;" surgery, "being irreversible . . . the antagonist of anesthesia;" and general medicine, "the basis of our profession."

He reflects on the practice of anesthesia, the foibles of patients and their surgeons, the degeneration of society to pleasure seeking and pain avoidance, and the pitfalls of statistics and research. He reminds us of the origin of the surgeon as a barber, only recently having been accorded the title doctor or being allowed to "steal the show." He deplores the trend toward more radical surgeries, noting that surgery is palliation and should not endanger or shorten the patient's life. "Playing it safe" by performing the more radical procedure assumes a degree of knowledge of risks and consequences which is not even possible.

He relates the philosophy of medicine to his view of the basic conflict: causality vs. indeterminism. The notion of cause and effect heralded the beginning of the scientific era and the demise of metaphysics and the church. But modern physics renders the deterministic philosophies of classical astronomy, Darwinism and Marxism naive. The answer may be on the nuclear level where indeterminism reigns and freedom of choice is reality. The forces of nature seem to be imbued with a sense of direction: toward perfection, which overrides even the more rudimentary forces toward survival and reproduction. The arts, religion, amnesty, and even gambling all strive toward a reversal to previous perfection. "Culture is defined by the body of reversible processes known to a given society." An ideal society would have privileges of social and biological Teversibility and restoration available to all.

The last chapters explore the implications of the physics of complementarity and indeterminism. The "old science" is obsolete. Gravitation is observer and velocity related. Cause and effect is based on an outmoded view of time. In thermodynamics, conservation of energy assumes a closed system and therefore cannot be applied to the universe as a whole. The notion of entropy contrasts with a universe characterized by the creation of highly ordered material structures. Both consciously and unconsciously humanity challenges irreversibility and disorder.

If our organic and cultural life is only a lately added small appendix to the dying-out universe, it is possible to accept such a point of view (heat death). But if the organic world and our western civilization, marked miraculously by a concept of love and light, is not a small added after thought, not a simple episode but an immense, infinite phenomenon, then the entire elaboration of the second law of thermodynamics appears as a contradiction: A greater part cannot feed on a smaller!

The classical interpretations of evolution relied primarily on chance changes in association with the principle of survival of the fittest. Mutual aid and cooperation are also fundamental and widespread in nature, but the social sciences reflect on the value of competition rather than cooperation. The simplest explanation for this constant direction of life toward complexity, the ultimately human, and perfection is a universal force.

The most striking but ignored trait of probability is that it has no reference to the particular case. "Statistics is the negation of the medical ideal," If biology proceeds at the molecular level, and if atoms have preference, we must not 41naively" apply probabilities, especially when our information and theories are both incomplete. "To tell a couple with an abnormal gene that their child has n percent chances of being a cripple is a crime and/or madness."

The new physics provides a new understanding of the justification of God, the theodicy, The need to reconcile the cruelties of the natural order, ornnibenevolence and omnipotence is a prenuclear problem. Love and omnipotence can be considered complementarily, not simultaneously. Finally the possibility of breaking the causal chain, giving good for bad, establishing a new, free, undeterministic order is apparent. The freedom of the photon and the electron make personal freedom possible.

I found Yanovsky's style exasperating. The cover leaf states that as a novelist he "has published ten works of fiction to wide critical acclaim." He has organized this book much like a novel, subdividing each of the chapters into as many as fourteen divisions. There is little continuity between these small sections, or at times, even within themWhile this may serve the many subplots of a novel, it guarantees a frustrating lack of continuity and clarity in the development of Yanovsky's complex arguments. In addition, Yanovsky allows himself great latitude in overstatement and exaggeration. While he occasionally justifies this, it serves only to emphasize the looseness of his deductive organization.

This is especially apparent in his discussion of probability and statistics. While probability statements do not admittedly predict the outcome of the individual case, it is not practical or fair to assume that the individual case is unrelated to the series of which it is a part. His example of genetic counselling is indeed a case in point. We are shackled by a lack of predictive tests, especially in the preconception period. But to deny relevant statistical information to prospective parents is unfair and presumptive in itself.

These criticisms may be minimized if one accepts this wide ranging, contemplative and theoretical work as a quite personal, rather than strictly scholarly enterprise. Again according to the cover-leaf, Yanovsky was born in Russia in 1906, obtained his medical degree from the Sorbonne in 1937, and trained in anesthesiology in New York, where he practiced and wrote. Yanovsky's frustrations as a theist in the secular medical and scientific world are very familiar. While stopping short of calling for a transcendent reality, he argues strongly that the most important and fundamental human characteristics cannot be ignored on the presumption of an arrogant, narrow and now dismembered determinism. The notion that consciousness and free will may be rooted in the fundamental properties of the material of the universe is not new, and contrasts with metaphysical dualism as most recently argued by Popper and Eccles. But Yanovsky's restatement of the case and of its implications in terms of medical practice and science is stimulating and welcomed. His reflections on medical philosophy and practice, and his unique parallel interpretations of culture, the arts and theology provide many interesting personal insights.

Reviewed by Jonathan H. Woodcock, Neurology Resident, Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts 02114.

LIVING MORE SIMPLY: BIBLICAL PRINCIPLES AND PRACHCAL MODELS edited by Ronald J. Sider, Downer's Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1980. 206 pp., $4.95.

At the Lausanne Congress for World Evangelism in 1974, a covenant signed by thousands of Christians from all parts of the world stated, in part:

All of us are shocked by the poverty of millions and disturbed by the injustices which cause it. Those of us who five in affluent circumstances accept our duty to develop a simple lifestyle in order to contribute generously to both relief and evangelism.

John Stott later proposed an international Consultation on Simple Lifestyle to be held in London in March 1980. Ronald Sider convened the U.S. Consultation on Simple Lifestyle in April 1979, in order to collect, study, and publish personal examples and practical models for individuals, families, professional persons, and churches to live more simply. This book is a collection of the 27 papers presented at the U.S. Consultation.

Frank Gaebelein, in discussing the Old Testament foundations for living more simply, concludes that while the Old Testament does not specify what our lifestyle should be, it does give us principles by which we can measure it. He also emphasizes the difference between God's ownership of everything we have and our stewardship of it, citing Deut. 8:17-18 as a precaution. New Testament foundations for living more simply were discussed by Peter Davids, who pointed out that the Holy Spirit produced evangelism, miracles, and sharing of goods by a change from within, and not from a legalism, guilt trip, or ideology imposed from without. Jesus was an example of how to trust God, instead of earthly treasures, for our daily needs. Paul is cited as an example of one who neither glorified poverty nor abstained from "abounding." Yet, he had no attachments to such comforts and was suspicious of wealth unless it was used for good works.

Ron Sider makes a common mistake of comparing only the annual incomes of the average person in India with U. S. middle-class people without also considering the great differences in living costs necessary to live at the same level. This omission is unnecessary because significant differences in economic states can still be established when making a proper comparison.

Most of the examples do not demonstrate the "proper motivation" of the consultation, i.e., of living simply in order to contribute generously to relief and evangelism. The family examples are concerned mainly with living more simply as a way to avoid "the idolatry of materialism," participate in small-group communal living, avoid tax payment to support war, or retreat from an increasingly hectic, consumption-oriented technological society. However, most of these examples are valuable because of their good, ecologically sound consumer economics, which many of us had to practice while growing up during the depression and drought of the 1930's. Many of us still drive smaller cars, drive less, recycle materials, and lower our thermostats in winter, but are now motivated to be living examples of good Christian stewardship with an ecologically sound lifestyle. This, too, needs to be more widespread in our Christian witness.

Most of the families seem to identify with the poor by joining them rather than maintaining existing income levels and using the "surplus" created by the simpler lifestyle to help the poor as called for by the Lausanne Covenant. Walter and Virginia Hearn present 10 arguments for voluntary poverty as a radical Christian way of life. Their account of why Walter left biomedical research for a new career in full-time writing and evangelism is also a good model for others who may be considering a change from their present career. They also caution against reverse snobbery.

One of the best examples of church response to the Lausanne Covenant was a church in Wichita, Kans., which reduced its $525,000 construction program to $180,000 and built 26 churches and 28 pastors' homes in Guatemala with the difference. With the exception of the National Presbyterian Church (Washington, D.C.) which sent half of its Hunger Covenant money to a village in India, the other churches were mainly examples of closer fellowship and greater mutual support within their own congregations and communities. They were of little help to the needy in other nations.

The section on professionals exemplifying the Lausanne Covenant is probably the best. Howard Dahl used his professional expertise to develop a small, low-cost tractor for poor nations. David Pullen, a lawyer, maintains just enough paying practice to live simply and donates the rest of his time to a legal clinic for the poor. Dennis Wood, with degrees in law and international development, uses his talents to help the poor by consulting on U.S.-aid programs to poor nations.

Gladys Hunt's careful, balanced analysis of evangelism and simple lifestyle was very good. She cautions against legalism (that leads to pride), faddism, and "group-think subcultures" that miss the Christian purpose of simple lifestyles. She believes in a primary commitment to the Lord, not to a simple lifestyle, even though our walk as Christians involves a new lifestyle. She also states that churches should be looking for missionaries to support rather than have missionaries spend so much time and energy raising their own funds.

In summary, this book has something for everybody. Although few of the accounts exemplify the Lausanne Covenant, the many examples of ecologically sound, common-sense consumer practices will be welcomed by many Christians. By adopting these practices and maintaining our current incomes, much more money is made available to others who desperately need our help. This book should be read and seriously considered by every Christian.

Reviewed by L. Duane Thurman, Department of Natural Sciences, Oral Roberts University, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74171.

CREATION/EVOLUTION, Issue II, Fall 1980,45 pp., $2.50 quarterly, $8.00 annual, Frederick Edwords, Editor, 953 Eighth Ave., Suite 209, San Diego, CA 92101.

In this second issue interesting first-hand reports are given on "Reactions to Creationism in Iowa" by Stanley L. Weinberg and on "The New York Creation' Battle" by David Kraus. Even though intense legislative initiatives by creationists have failed in various states, community pressure has suppressed the teaching of evolution in about half the high schools in this country. After analyzing the Iowa Creation Bills (various two-model approaches) and the National Impact, Dr. Weinberg, a college science teacher, recommends what scientists can do most effectively to defend evolution by educating the public and becoming involved in political activity. Local scientists need to be persistent in writing letters and articles to their newspapers, appearing on talk shows, addressing local groups, and submitting to interviews. Weinberg encourages evolutionists to carry out locally the same kind of political activities that creationists; use, but he emphasizes activity by concerned individuals and ad hoc groups. If other scientists correspond with him in care of this new journal, he offers to send names of concerned scientists in their states and to help autonomous groups to organize. He recommends communication among the states through existing newsletters and journals.

Kraus, a "re-treaded" high school science teacher, reports on the efforts of a federation of the nine science teachers' organizations in New York City to educate the public and members of the state legislature of the need to keep non-science out of science and to separate religion from government (by omitting the proposed two-model approach from the new state biology syllabus). In spite of these successes, this Journal reports a possible future threat in the form of President Reagan's statement when he was a candidate: "Reagan Favors Creationism in the Public Schools." Candidate Reagan questioned the scientific validity of evolution and favored "the teaching of the biblical version of the origin of human life in public schools if the theory of evolution is to be taught" (the two-model approach).

Consulting Editor Chris Weber answers "Common Creationist Attacks on Geology" in a lively question/answer format. He meets head on the arguments relating to fossilization, sedimentary facies, and overthrusts, arguing that creationists have misunderstood, misinterpreted, or quoted the literature out of context.

Robert Price shows how Philip Gosse's hypothesis of apparent age underlies much of the polemic of creationists in "The Return of the Navel, the 'Omphalos' Argument in Contemporary Creationism." He has an M.T.S. in New Testament studies, teaches college ethics and philosophy, and is working on a Ph.D. in systematic theology. He examines creationist polemical literature to indicate the unacknowledged debt of "scientific" creationists to Gosse's hypothesis. Examples given are creationist views on (1) astronomy and its implications for the age of the universe, (2) the geographical distribution of animals, such as marsupials isolated in Australia, (3) comparative anatomy and physiology, and (4) human evolution. Price shows how Henry Morris admits the evolutionist's criterion of environmental "fitness" i.e., "recognizes the validity of the processes of evolution," but then appeals to the prescientific notion of teleology. Morris grants that creatures are fitted to survive in certain environments, because God arbitrarily wanted it that way (fiat). Transitional forms are discounted by creationists, because these life forms were independent and just happen to look like they fall somewhere between monkey and man, between bird and reptile. Price hastens to point out that creationists do not explain the rationale of the omphalos argument as Gosse did, since thcy may not be aware of it themselves. But their "implicit logic is the same-the evidence points in the direction of evolution, but that is because (for whatever reason) God simply wanted it that way. This is a throwback, not only to Gosse's esoteric argument, but also to the pre-scientific shrugging off of such questions by the catch-all appeal to teleology," which is inimical to scientific inquiry. Price then shows how the "scientific" creation model falls short of being scientific in three ways and concludes that it is religious propaganda, not scientific theory.

Stanley Freske, an industrial R & D physicist, presents four lines of "Evidence Supporting a Great Age for the Universe:" the size and outward radial velocity of the expanding gas clouds of supernovae; the uneven distribution of main-sequence star types in star clusters is a function of age measured in billions of years; the speed of light independent of the motion of the source, enabling us to see stars many light years away as they appeared millions of years ago; the uneven distribution of nuclides, 40 with halflives between 1,000 and 50 million years are missing (10,000 years is not enough time for them to decay totally). All 17 nuclides with half-lives longer than 50 million years are found in nature. The probability of the earth being only 10,000 years old is calculated to be 7 x 10-11, the probability of the 40 short-lived nuclides being absent and the 17 longlived ones being present, as opposed to some random distribution between absence and presence which would then be possible. The first three arguments do not in any way depend on evolutionary theory for their validity, but are based upon direct observations. At least the first two arguments give strong support to the theory of stellar evolution.

Frank Awbrey, biology professor, presents "Evidence of the Quality of Creation Science Research" in four radio transcripts by the Institute for Creation Research on the weekly radio program, "Science, Scripture, and Salvation." Point-by-point he shows how statements made are inconsistent with the published data on immunological distances between humans and other primates. "Other statements demonstrated a gross misunderstanding" of genetic terms . . . unscholarly superficiality and errors. "It certainly does not lend any credibility to the creationist claim that the scientific literature is 'chock full of evidence for creation."'

"Another Favorite Creationist Argument: 'The Genes For Homologous Structures Are Not Homologous" is discussed by genetics professor William Thwaites. A nonparadoxical explanation based upon suppressor genes is given to counter this argument.

Reviewed by Jerry D. Albert, Research Biochemist, Mercy Hospital Medical Research Facility, San Diego, CA 92103.

BELIEF IN SCIENCE AND CHRISTIAN LIFE: The Relevance of Michael Polanyi's Thought for Christian Faith and Life by Thomas F. Torrance, ed. Edinburgh, Great Britain: The Handsel Press, Ltd., 1980. xvii + 150 pp., $12.00.

Michael Polanyi (1891-1976) was a Hungarian-born, German-educated chemist and X-ray crystallographer who, after moving to England, studied the philosophy of science. A confessing Christian, Polanyi noted various parallels between his philosophy and orthodox Christian theology. In this volume, a collection of essays presented at a 1978 conference on Polanyi's thought, various of these parallels are noted and developed.

There are six contributors: one Reformed and five Anglican theologians. Three of the contributors are also practicing scientists.

Included are discussions and theological applications of such Polanyian concepts as indwelling, conversion, intuition, focal and subsidiary awareness, and hierarchical analysis of reality. These concepts are then applied to analyze the rationality of Christian faith, the Church's understanding of scriptural revelation, conversion and penitence, the nature of the "person", Christology, and providence and prayer.

The book's dust jacket describes it as "designed for a wider public untrained in theology or science who seek a deeper understanding of the Christian faith." However, both the book's price and use of technical philosophical vocabulary move it beyond the reach of both student budgets and a "wider public" untrained in critical philosophical analysis. Also, in discussing the rationality of Christian faith the authors use closely detailed philosophical and theological discussion in contrast to a rational but intuitive and experiential apologetic which might appeal to the "wider public", e.g. C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity.

In a positive light this book serves as a good introduction to Michael Polanyi's thought and its application. I recommend it especially to those scientists, theologians, philosophers, and laymen interested in the relationships of science and theology and the rational basis for Christian belief. Certainly, most of the readership of Journal ASA will find this book of interest.

Also, there is a glossary of Polanyi's philosophical terminology which partially clarifies the densities of the book's more complex or prolix passages -for the lay reader.

Reviewed by Lynn Allan Kauppi, 5526 W. Monte Cristo, Glendale, Arizona 85306.