about what it means to be human.nWith bigoted arrogance, some ofnthese essayists implausibly positnthat the muteness of science onnmetaphysical issues constitutesnan objective proof for materialisticnnaturalism. Fortunately, anfew of the contributors, morenhonest and humble in victory,nconcede that as an explanationnof the hows of life, science cannsay nothing about the whys, notnnecessarily because there arennone, but rather because suchnquestions “transcend the limitationsnof [science’s] epistemologicalnfield.” Indeed, a philosophernof science who testified againstnthe creationists expresses his reliefnthat no one pressed him onnhow he intuits “moral values asnobjective realities,” since he hasnno idea “what that means.”nThe writers of Scripture knewnwhat objective moral valuesnmeant, but through the HolynGhost, not through science: theynleft lesser mortals to cultivatenthat narrow epistemological fieldnThe question then is. Why arenthe fundamentalists, who quotenthese writers so Irequentiy, nownshamelessly yoking Moses andnPeter to the scientific plow? Why,nfor instance, is Peter’s insightnthat “a day with God is as a thousandnyears with man” not openlynproclaimed as a religious revelationnof the relationship betweennthe eternal God and temporalnman instead of surreptitiouslynadvanced through distorted geologicalndata as a scientific formulanfor calculating the age ofnthe earth? A partial explanationnis suggested by a perceptive contributornwho notes that the fiindamentalistnhermenuetic principlen”literal where possible” isn”not derived from the Bible itself,nbut fi-om some alien philosophicalnsources,” specificallynfi-om Enligjhtenment Baconianism.nThe troubling implicationnof this critique is that in theirnliteralist preservation of thenwords of Scripture, fiindamentalistsnhave no access to or donnot trust the Spirit who inspirednthose words. Fundamentalismnthus apparentiy abandons thenmost important of fundamentals.nHence, the devious attempt tontransform Scripture into an alternativenscience is actually annawkward capitulation to the scientisticnspirit of the age and anmute confession that those soninvolved lack something animatingnthose who openly testify ofntheir religion as religion, revelationnfrom God, not discovery ofnman. With justice, fundamentalistsnapply to our time Hosea’snlament, “My people are destroyednfor lack of knowledge.” But ifnthey suppose that the spiritualnknowledge necessary to forestallndestruction can or should be enclosednin a science textbook,nthen, to quote Isaiah: “The visionnof aU is become unto you as thenwords of a book that is sealed.”n(BC) DnPerceptiblesnMichael No^rak: Moral Claritynin the Nuclear Age; ThomasnNelson; Nashville, TN.nDemands for a nuclear freezenare frequent these days, in thenhalls of Congress, in universitynclassrooms, in the streets, and innchurches. Lti particular, the AmericannCatholic Bishops’ pastoralnLetter on War and Peace, with itsncall for a “halt” to the productionnand deployment of nuclearnweaponry, has received wide attention.nIn this collection of intelligentnessays, Michael Novak,nhimself a Catholic, examines thatndocument in its historical, ecclesiastical,nand political context.nHe reveals that from 1968 ton1982, the United States rfzrffi-eezenits nuclear-weapons manufacture,nproducing not a single new de­nlivery system for missiles and nonnew strategic bombers during thatn14-year period. During this samentime, the Soviets built up theirnnuclear forces relentlessly, surpassingnthe U.S. in virmally everyncategory, especially in the Eurof)eanntheater. The call for a freezennow^, at a time when America isnbelatedly trying to rectify this imbalance,ncan only mean that thengrey matter of many Westerners,nincluding that beneath manynmiters, is in permafrost. DnMichael D. AeschUinan: ThenRestitution of Man: C. S. Lewisnand the Case Against Scientism;nWilliam B. Eerdmans; Grand Rapids,nMI.nWhile remarkable efforts havenhelped bring such creatures asnthe sandhill crane and the Americannalligator back from the edgenof extinction, far too little hasnbeen done to save a more importantnendangered species: man.nConsidered simply as a biologicalnorganism, Homo sapiens appearnto be flourishing, with more thann4 billion specimens to be foundnon earth. But precisely becausenmankind is now often considerednmerely scientifically and notnphilosophically, morally, or re­nPsycho-BabblenJudith Ressner: August; HoughtonnMifflin; Boston.nby Keith Bowern’A woman who writes wellnnever writes much.’n—Max Beerbohm, OuidanChapter 10 in Judith Rossner’snlatest novel begins: “In her firstnMr Bower is senior editor o/ThenHillsdale Review.nnnWASTE OF MONEYnligiously, man is ceasing to benman. Forty years ^o, in The Abolitionnof Man, Christian apologistnand literary critic C. S. Lewisnwarned that the triumph of scientismnover traditional metaphysicsncould only give us “men withoutnchests,” arbitrary, inhuman, andnpartial men. Because lewis’s lxx)knhas found tens of thousands ofnreaders, including perceptivenanalysts like Michael Aeschliman,nthere is some reason to hope thatnhis warning was heeded. If so, wenmay anticipate future evidence ofnman’s survival to take forms morenmeaningfitl than wUdlife photosnin National Geographic. Dnmonths with Dr. Shinefeld thatnSeptember, Dawn was cheerful.n…” This coirious handling of timenisn’t on a par with Rossner’s confusionnof the Immaculate Conceptionnwith the “Virgin Birth innLooking for Mr. Goodhar, but itndoes show that Rossner is as perceptivenas ever. The book isnmostly the transcript of youngnDawn Henley’s psychiatric sessionsnwith Dr. Lulu Shinefeld.nAnd it reads, or rather sprawls,nlike a transcript, anacoluthonsnabounding, with dodges andn^ ^ M H 2 5nMarch 1984n