The Scientific Worldview and Christian Consciousness

Vladimir Voeikov

I am sure that I would not be far wrong in stating that the concept of a Christian psychology would puzzle many people. Admirers of the real or imagined achievements of 20th century science probably would insist that in order to be considered scientific, psychology must be guided by the principles of objectivity and impartiality, especially concerning the functions of the human mind, one of natures most complex phenomena. From this point of view, many readers would hold that applying the adjective Christian to psychology would automatically annul psychologys legitimacy as a scientific domain. Science, according to Steven Jay Gould, Harvard professor of Biology and History, simply cannot (by its legitimate methods) adjudicate the issue of God and His possible superintendence in nature. We neither affirm nor deny it; we simply cannot comment on it as scientists. [16 p.119] In Goulds opinion, shared by many contemporary scientists, science cannot be linked to religion, because science is concerned only with objective reality and is based only on material explanations deduced from the Laws of Nature. Science can be based only on these natural laws (and not on God for example) and cannot address moral questions. Not only atheists and agnostics but also scientists who are deists undoubtedly would object to the legitimacy of a Christian psychology. Although deists assign the role of First Mover to an abstract Higher Power, which initiated the movement of the universe and maintains it according to certain immutable natural laws, deists would similarly be disinclined to label scientific anything associated with doctrinal religion, especially the doctrines of a particular religion. Even theists, who believe that God continues to manifest Himself in the world (and theoretically could choose to violate His own laws), insist on the idea that God does not interfere with the Laws of Nature. In other words, most contemporary scientists believe that science should mind its own business and ignore the Creator whose activities take place in an entirely different plane! Therefore, everyone who thinks that science and religion (especially Christianity) are separate and function independently of each other would find it extremely difficult to admit the possibility that any science whether it be psychology, or biology, or physics could be Christian. However, we hold a different view, which we will attempt to defend despite the seemingly convincing historical evidence of the dangers of combining religion and science. As proof of the disastrous consequences of mixing religion and science, many proponents of the separation of religion and science cite the Medieval conflict between the geocentric and heliocentric views of the universe or the more modern, early 20th century controversy over teaching Darwinism in the American schools, which led to the famous Scopes monkey trial in the U.S. Nevertheless, a closer look at these two historical episodes shows that they: 1) are not equally significant; and 2) do not conclusively prove that the scientific and religious worldviews are mutually exclusive or incompatible. One should keep in mind that when the Catholic Church disputed the theory of Copernicus and Galileo, the Church was choosing to support one of two opposing scientific theories. At that time the Church had chosen to support the Ptolomeic theory on the basis of scientific facts; and it had the support of the most authoritative astronomers both those contemporary with and those preceding Galileo and Copernicus. In addition, the Catholic Church subsequently understood and acknowledged its error. Concerning Darwins theory, one can say that beyond the monkey trials dramatic, superficial clash between reactionary religious fanatics and progressive scientists, there lay a much deeper disagreement on the origin of man. This conflict involves two

fundamentally opposing views. Today, one can state with some assurance that many contemporary biologists would no longer defend the scientific truth of Darwins hypothesis on the origin of man especially, its mechanics of operation as confidently as their early 20th century colleagues did. The essence of the dispute between the Christians and the Darwinists runs a lot deeper than the superficial aspects that public opinion judged to have been won by the Darwinists. The dispute illustrates the extent to which 20th century science had seriously encroached upon providing answers to questions that were formerly the preserve of religion. Scientists began to assert that only pure science could give definitive answers to questions concerning the Beginning of the world and its End; the origin of life and of man; and the purpose of mans existence. Some scientists had ready answers to these questions answers that not only ignored Holy Scripture but starkly contradicted it. Russian readers of this article might assume that Soviet sciences sharply anti-religious bias was an inevitable result of the Soviet state-supported materialist approach to education, which for decades was dangerous to oppose. Unfortunately, this is not the whole story. Not only Soviet scientific atheists but also many leading Western scientists completely discounted the religious viewpoint. As the well-known biologist Douglas Futuyama wrote in his textbook Evolutionary Biology: By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous. Together with Marxs materialistic theory of history and society and Freuds attribution of human behavior to processes over which we have little control, Darwins theory of evolution was a crucial plank in the platform of mechanism and materialism of much of science, in short, that has since been the stage of most Western thought. The mass media incessantly repeated similar views to a wide audience. Against this media barrage, it was difficult to hear the voices of those scientists as well as philosophers of science who were convinced that science, religion, and philosophy offered three different approaches to ascertaining the same thing mans purpose in the world and the meaning of his existence. Our consciousness demands an over-arching, ultimate purpose, wrote famous Russian philosopher V.S. Solovyev (1853-1900), because it is obvious that the worthiness of specific, short-term human goals can be determined only in relation to general, ultimate goals for which the specific, short-term goals are the stepping stones. Thus, if we deny a general, ultimate purpose, specific, short-term goals lose value and meaning, leaving man at the mercy of his lower, animal nature. [12. p. 140] As if in counterpoint to this passionate appeal of the great Russian philosopher, we have the matterof-fact, scientifically argued statement of George Gaylord Simpson, the founder of one of the most popular scientific beliefs Synthetic Theory of Evolution: Although many details remain to be worked out, it is already evident that all the objective phenomena of the history of life can be explained by purely naturalistic, or, in the proper sense of the sometimes abused word, materialist factors. They are readily explicable on the basis of differential reproduction in populations (the main factor in the modern conception of natural selection) and of the mainly random interplay of the known processes of heredity. Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind. [21. p. 344-345] Of course, such ruthless but logical deductions drawn from the prevailing scientific theories are not often so plainly stated. Instead, the religiously tolerant scientists and the scientifically tolerant believers have preferred to divide their spheres of interest. In essence, they have divided the world in two. Unfortunately, although this division occurs between individuals and in individual minds,

the unhealthy psychological effects of this division also are felt by society as a whole. The conceptual poverty resulting from this division was remarked by one of the most brilliant scientists of this century, Edward Schroedinger, the founder of wave mechanics. He wrote: I am amazed that the scientific picture of the real world is so conceptually poor. The picture includes masses of factual information; it puts all our experience in astonishing order, but it is completely silent about what is really closest to our hearts, to what is really important. It does not say a word about red and blue, about bitter and sweet, about pain and ecstasy; it knows nothing about beauty and ugliness, good and bad, or about God and eternity. Sometimes science pretends it has answers to these questions, but the answers are frequently so ridiculous that they cannot be taken seriously. Cited in [20. Chap. 2]. So, we are left with the following three choices. We can: 1) accept the fruits of the tree of science and ignore the questions of how the tree originated, why it bears fruit, or whether these fruits are beneficial for todays or tomorrows generations; or 2) ask ourselves whether it would be better to refuse these fruits and retreat from the current reality (which is, to put it kindly, so barren) into ones own private world and isolate oneself completely; or 3) explore yet another choice, that is, attempt to understand whether contemporary science, that is, the scientific worldview as promulgated by the 20th century, is the Truth? Let us follow this third path and hope that it allows us or some of us to be convinced that science and religion are not incompatible and that a Christian psychology is not an unnatural linkage but has as much right to exist as, say, secular psychology. 1. Scientists and Religious Belief We cited a passage above from D. Futuyamas textbook on Darwinist evolution in which he stated that materialism and mechanical forces in fact, atheism have been the basis of Western science ever since science became part of Western thought. This assertion, however, is far from accurate. Science began expanding in Western thought in the 17th century, although it appeared in its specific form even earlier. But it should be noted that until the second half of the 19th century, scientific literature regularly included references to God and a Divine Design. These citations were not merely pro-forma, hypocritical bows to public opinion or Church authority, as atheists (scientific) philosophers and historians of science would have us believe. These citations represented the scientists genuine, consciously held, convictions. In fact, the greater the scientist was, the firmer was his belief in an Omnipotent Creator. For example, Russian scientists consider M.V. Lomonosov, the founder of Russian science, to be an undisputed authority. His opinion about the relationship between science and religion is more than of passing interest; it is vitally important, because Lomonosov consciously held strong Orthodox Christian beliefs. Science and religion, he wrote, are sisters or daughters of the same Heavenly Creator. They can never be at cross-purposes. Who out of petty vanity or the need to parade his cleverness would dare to sow discord between them? On the contrary, Science and Faith complement and reinforce each other. Rational, good people must look for ways to illuminate and dispel any superficial family disputes. In a similar vein, he commented: The Creator gave the human race two books: He revealed His majesty in one and His will in the other. The first book is this visible world, which He created so that man could gaze upon the grandeur, beauty, and harmony of its construction and, in accordance with the depth of his gifts, perceive Gods omnipotence. The second book is Scripture. It contains the Creators blessing for our salvation. The great teachers of the Church are the interpreters of the prophets and the apostles divinely inspired books. Physics, mathematics, and astronomy and other similar evidence of Gods

activity in the world may be equated to the apostles, prophets and church teachers of the second book. Both books give testimony not only to the existence of God but also to His unspoken blessings. It is a sin to sow weeds and discord between them. [11, p 496-497]. If someone objects that over the past 250 years science has progressed beyond such outmoded and nave opinions as Lomonosovs, I would refer him to the words of the great 20th century scientific thinker, V.I. Vernadsky, who has been rightly called the Lomonosov of the 20th century. Vernadsky held Lomonosovs opinions in high regard, noting: The range of Lomonosovs ideas is clearer and more comprehensible now at the beginning of the 20th century than his ideas were in the middle of the 19th century. [6: p 257]. Vernadsky also noted: He [Lomonosov] was ahead of his time and seems close to being our contemporary in terms of the tasks and objectives that he set for his scientific research. [ 5: p 3]. Lomonosov was not the only renowned scientist whose deep faith in God inspired his creative genius. Isaac Newton wrote: This amazing system of sun, planets, and comets could only arise as a result of the design and will of a rational and benevolent Higher Power. [20: p 14]. Similarly, Karl von Behr, one of the most authoritative biologists of the 19th century and the founder of embryology as a science, defined the goal of science as follows: We cannot fathom the basis of Creation by means of our mental faculties alone. We can only intuitively feel that such a basis exists. The task of the naturalist is to use observation to discover the means by which this Creation came into being and is still coming into being, because it continues, of course, to the present day. The true object of study of the natural sciences is the history of Creation in all its detail whether large or small. [1: p 102]. William Thompson (Lord Kelvin) believed that if a scientist were to think with a truly open mind, his occupation with true science would inevitably lead him to a belief in God. Anyone who objectively examines the work of Copernicus, Kepler, Farraday, Pasteur, Humboldt or Mendel can see that the source of their inspiration was their faith in a wise and benevolent God. So Futuyama is not telling the whole story when he alleges that the contemporary Western version of science has prevailed from the start. However, it is true that for the last hundred years or so, official science as taught in the universities has been based on a mechanistic and materialist view of nature. But the question is: Do these more modern philosophic doctrines form the natural foundation of science or are they deviations from sciences true purpose as envisioned by Lomonosov and Behr? 2. The Definition and Origin of Science Regardless of their orientation, most science historians agree that science got its start in West Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries. However, let us examine briefly what is meant by the word science. Why shouldnt Ancient Egyptian astronomy and geometry, Chinese medicine, or the works of the ancient Greek philosophers Aristotle, Pythagoras and Archimedes be regarded as science? If we use an even broader definition of science, we could include pure applied sciences, in particular medicine and technology, as well as philosophical constructs of the world. The science that arose in Europe in the Middle Ages has a special characteristic that distinguishes it from previous approaches to knowledge. According to the definition of the Canadian philosopher and logician William Hatcher, European science (or simply science since it is the same worldwide) is a method of learning about the real world, which includes the tangible reality perceived by mans senses as well as the invisible reality that can be understood by constructing verifiable models of that reality. [17: p 19-59] Based on this definition, the primary difference between what we call science today and former, similar expressions of the human spirit, including intellectual constructs (philosophical, analytical) of the

world as well as spiritual (religious) insights into the essence of matter and phenomena, is the scientific method. Hatchers definitions closely resemble those of V.I. Vernadsky, Alfred Whitehead, and other leading scientists who have reflected on the nature of their profession. This definition explains why science emerged at a particular place and time. It helps us define what ought to be considered to be scientific; in particular, it allows us to separate scientific truths from pseudo-truths; and it allows us to conjecture as to the future form that science may take. First lets look at the origins of science. V. I. Vernadsky wrote: Science originated in religion, as have all spiritual manifestations of human personality. [3: p 204]. But science did not originate from religion in general but specifically from Christianity. The Bible and the writings of the Holy Fathers laid a firm basis for believing in a purposeful, interconnected, rational world that was not infinite but had been created (and was therefore finite). It was not part of a senseless, chaotic cycle but was moving in a stream of created time towards a foreordained goal. Many people whether 1000 or 2000 years following the birth of Christ have believed that Christianity provides them enough knowledge to agree with Tertullian: After Christ we have no need to speculate; after the New Testament, we have no need to search. [cited in 12: p 764]. Nevertheless, there have always been numerous curious doubters who have continued to search for the Truth by using reason. Towards the end of the first millenium, this led to the emergence of scholasticism the practice of using reason to perceive Divine Truth. One of the early scholastics, John Scott Eriugena (circa 810-877) stated that, since authority is based on reason, then reason must be higher than authority (and not the reverse). Therefore, authority should always seek to be in accord with reason, but reason should not submit to authority. His successor Pierre Abelard (1079-1142) found many contradictions in the Bible and writings of the early Church Fathers. He concluded that the internal contradictions of the authoritative sources stimulate doubts; doubts stimulate study; study reveals the truth. Scholasticism was based on what seemed to be reliable postulates. From the start it was a strong, bold, chivalric science, fearing nothing, attacking questions that may have vastly exceeded its strength but not its daring. [8: p 271]. But Abelards postulates, like all other constructs of the human mind, turned out to be only part of the Truth. The abstract philosophizing of the scholastic researchers often led them to draw spurious conclusions like the following: The muscles of mans backside were created larger to allow him to sit in a chair and contemplate the greatness of God. The branches of the apple tree hang low to the ground to allow man to reach the fruit, etc. Logic based on incorrect or poorly chosen first premises can be used to prove anything a priori. Although scholasticism got its start by challenging the authority of the interpreters of the Bible, it ended up by being used as a tool to justify any action, even criminal actions, of the Catholic Church. When scholastics converted the partially true postulates of Abelard (who himself was later persecuted by the Church) into absolute formulas, human thought seems to have fallen to an even lower level than before the emergence of scholasticism. It was just at this point, at the beginning of the 17th century, that an intellectual revolution took place. The method of analyzing life by engaging in pure speculation and applying the rules of logic was overturned in favor of studying the cause and effect links between empirical facts. In this way science was born over 400 years ago and began to develop rapidly. The psychological basis of science (just as of the scholasticism that preceded it by 100 years) originated in the eternal, irrepressible striving of mans reason to explain the design of the Universe, which is Gods domain(Galileo). The emergence of the new scientific approach was stimulated by the obvious failure of purely speculative (rational) methods of explaining this design. Science came to be recognized as the basic means of learning about the structure of the world.

People began to base their knowledge on empirical observation and experiment rather than on books alone. Because science had emerged in reaction to the excesses of scholasticism, sciences basic orientation was skeptical of metaphysics, that is, of purely theoretical speculation on invisible causes and forces acting on Nature. Likewise, it was skeptical of the idea of final causes (causa finalis), which the scholastics had borrowed from Aristotle. This is particularly evident upon examining the basic empirical (more exactly, inductive) methods first formalized by the English philosopher Francis Bacon (1561 1626). This method stipulated: 1) an exhaustive collection of facts; 2) exclusion of elements that did not invariably recur in the phenomenon under observation; and 3) explanation of the phenomenon based on a full investigation of all the accompanying facts and on the phenomenons direct causes. Thus, final causes were rejected. It was only permitted to use methods acting upon our sense organs (causa materialis of Aristotle) and direct observation of the causes of that action (causa efficiens). Bacon and his followers were extremely hostile to a search for final causes. All of this necessarily left its mark on the development of science. The natural alliance between experimental science and technology also influenced the course of the development of scientific ideas. Increasingly sophisticated devices and instruments barometers, thermometers, microscopes, telescopes, chronometers, etc. were required to refine and extend the capabilities of mans sense organs. Talented human minds and hands invented such marvelous instruments that peoples awe of this technology began to replace their awe of Nature. Fascinated by technology, people soon transposed their perceptions of mechanical order to Nature and began to view the Universe as a huge machine constructed and set in motion by a Creator. One more step and man began to compare his creative potential with Gods. Subsequently, the transition to viewing Man as God was made comparatively easily. The path of this scientific philosophy took about 300 years to complete. Rene Descartes (15961650) ideas were the starting point. He regarded the universe as a perfect machine, existing apart from non-corporal, non-material spirit. These ideas formed the basis for dualism a concept that led researchers to regard themselves as objective observers of phenomena and of objects that existed independently of the observer: Based on a purely objective relationship to individual, specific questions of scientific research and working from within a scientific framework, the researcher applies the same point of view to all knowledge to the whole world. The result is the fantasy that the scientist is able to critically observe as a whole all the natural processes that occur outside him. [3. p. 198] These ideas formed the basis of religious deism. The culmination of this scientific philosophy was the canonization of Darwins theory of evolution, or more exactly of the idea that chance governs the world. (Chance is the only source of everything that is new and creative in the biosphere, wrote Nobel Prize winner J. Monod, pure chance, only chance, absolute but blind freedom this is what forms the cornerstone of the fantastic building of evolution. Chance is the only concept that fits the facts of observation and experience. Man finally knows for sure that he is alone in the indifferent expanse of the universe.) [18. p 99] In speaking about this scientific philosophy, it must be noted that many scientists like J. Monod, who have reached the height of their profession, have contributed substantially to creating this philosophy. Most likely, their view can be explained by the characteristics of the scientific method as well as by the human minds tendency towards abstraction. When the human mind looks at everything in existence, it is able to concentrate only on certain aspects, certain elements while ignoring the whole. This mental proclivity is necessary, but it is necessary only due to the limited nature of the human mind, which cannot comprehend all of reality at once and is forced to

concentrate on one thing at a time at any given moment. It is obvious that, given the conditional need for abstraction, one cannot obtain unconditionally genuine results. [12. p 328] Father Pavel Florinsky called special attention to the dangers of this human limitation. In his words: It is extraordinarily difficult to impress upon our semi-educated intelligentsia (including many professors) the illegitimacy of the extrapolations upon which their so-called knowledge is based. [14. p 197] But in the late 19th century, these illegitimate extrapolations proliferated. Due to the growing differentiation and specialization of science, this type of speculation became the rule. Because the urge to grasp all at once the fullness of reality could not disappear, this gave rise to scientists attempts to pass off as the whole truth that portion of the truth that fell within the scope of their research. How true is the truth of scientific knowledge? To what degree can we trust what comes out of the scientists mouths concerning the structure of the world or the problems of mankind? 3. Special Characteristics of the Scientific Worldview In the early 20th century an article by adademician V.I. Vernadsky titled The Scientific Worldview, appeared in the journal Problems of Philosophy and Psychology. Some of Vernadskys ideas bear repeating, because they are not heard in todays scientific community. He said: The scientific worldview refers to the concept that phenomena may be subjected to scientific study. It refers to a defined relationship to these phenomena in which each event is placed within the framework of scientific inquiry and must conform to the principles of scientific research. Component parts of an event may be combined into a harmonious whole to reveal a complete picture of the Universe governing everything from the movements of the heavenly bodies to the functioning of the tiniest organisms, including the transformations of human societies, past phenomena, logical rules of thought, and mathematical laws of form and number. The scientific worldview also encompasses theories or phenomena evoked by its struggle with or influence on other societal worldviews. Finally, undoubtedly, it is permeated by mans conscious, purposeful striving to broaden the boundaries of his knowledge and to gain a clearer understanding of his surroundings. [3. p. 202] In the same article he noted: It is common to hear that anything scientific is true that science expresses pure and unchanging truths. But that is not so. Only minute portions of the scientific worldview have been irrefutably proved and can be labeled as scientific truths. Only certain portions certain collections of facts that have been strictly and carefully observed can be said to correspond fully to reality; nevertheless, their significance and their relationships to other natural phenomena have been explained differently in different epochs. What is perceived as being true and accurate is closely connected to the structure of our reasoning. The scientific worldview does not provide us with a picture of the world as it really is. [3. p 197] He added: The foundation of the scientific worldview is the scientific method. Just as art is inconceivable without its own forms of expression; just as religion does not exist without a set of commonly held beliefs and means of expressing spiritual experience; just as philosophy has it rational methods of

probing the human mind and human nature; there cannot be science without a scientific method. This scientific method may not always be the instrument which is used to construct the scientific worldview; but it is always the instrument that is used to verify that worldview. [3. p 202] So science differs from other ways of understanding the world mainly due to its scientific method; although, as Vernadsky emphasized, this method alone is not sufficient to construct a scientific worldview or identify a scientific truth. This may sound contradictory. As has been noted, empirical facts form the foundation of scientific work whether those facts are gathered by experiment or by observation of natural phenomena or based on literary or historical sources. But before we gather these facts, we must define our purpose in collecting the data. We often hear it said that scientists gather facts to prove or disprove a theory. But that is a half-truth. As Vernadsky pointed out: The sources of the more important aspects of the scientific worldview arose outside the sphere of scientific thinking they were ideas that were external to science from religion, philosophy, social life, or art. Only after these spheres generated the question could scientists begin to collect and analyze the data needed to answer the question. In addition, to be scientific, independent observers must find the facts to be more or less repeatable or consistent. Each scientific discipline developed its own method of collecting, analyzing, and evaluating the reliability of its data. The answer to the question posed at the beginning of research is whatever explains the phenomenon, that is, the answer is an hypothesis or a theory (differing from each other only quantitatively, not qualitatively), that can unite facts into a general, comprehensible picture. This approach would seem to be the same as the inductive method that was suggested by F. Bacon, but the actual course of scientific developments has shown that this resemblance is only superficial. As V. Hatcher notes, rules for formulating a successful, productive hypothesis or theory do not exist. Any given collection of data is always limited, and can, in principle, be explained in an infinite number of ways, because theories link the facts into a whole concept by combining any number of arbitrary suppositions and conclusions. True, the fewer the suppositions, the easier it is to verify them and the more productive the hypothesis. The most productive theory is the one that has generative power the one that can not only link previously unexplained facts and predict outcomes but also can direct the scientist towards studying new phenomena and facts. A scientist usually cannot explain how he comes up with these generative theories. The legendary stories about Newtons apple or Mendeleevs dream are examples. It is also impossible to explain scientifically why the same generative, theoretical explanations of the same aspects of reality (even when the data vary significantly in quantity and kind) are often put forward simultaneously and independently by scientists of different nationalities, cultures, or religions. The history of science provides many such examples. When we discover something new and unknown, we always discover to our amazement many precursors to these discoveries. [6. p. 259] One way or another, facts alone are never enough to establish a theory. It is at this point that the scientific method steps in to organize the methods of evaluating and verifying the various theories and hypotheses. These methods are constantly being improved and naturally are different in the various scientific disciplines. One method is to collect additional data. Another is to verify the natural consequences of the theory, including whether or not the theory is logical (this is where the experience gained by scholastics is useful). Nevertheless, scientists can never be sure that over time additional facts will not be found that do not fit the theory or that someone will not invent a logical or mathematical proof that will overturn the theory. Therefore, as paradoxical as it may seem, within the framework of science, science can only prove the inadequacy or fallacy of scientific theories, but science can never prove the infallibility (truth) of any given theory. This paradox, however, is only apparent, because a theory, as noted above, is only a provisional explanation that points beyond the facts that were used to construct it.

What is the role of scientific hypotheses and theories? Vernadsky wrote: The basic meaning of hypotheses and theories (as end products of science) is ephemeral. Despite their enormous influence on scientific thought and work at any given moment, they are always more transitory than irrefutable elements of science; they are not scientific truths that endure centuries or millennia. However, Vernadsky developed a concept that is not sufficiently appreciated even today to describe scientific truths that do endure. He described the empirical generalization. 4. Empirical Generalizations as Scientific Truths The empirical generalization, according to Vernadsky, is a category that fundamentally distinguishes the sciences from other expressions of the human spirit. The empirical generalization is an undisputed scientific conclusion regarding reality or a component of that reality. An empirical generalization is always specific and refers only to particular phenomena or events that were intuitively or logically isolated from a total world construct. These deductions, statements, concepts, conclusions, can be challenged only by criticizing the reliability of the data used to support them. They cannot be refuted for logical or philosophical reasons. Therefore, in the form of empirical generalizations, science offers knowledge that must be generally accepted. Since its existence, science has given us a limited number of empirical generalizations of the highest reliability. For example, it has given us the statements that the Earth is round and that planets go round the sun. The empirical generalization can confirm philosophic or religious concepts, or it can contradict them. However, in contrast to philosophic and religious systems, whose descriptions of the world are often mutually contradictory, science presents a unified whole. Even though new scientific branches are constantly emerging like shoots from a powerful trunk, the old sciences continue to exist and develop, and they all continue to form parts of one scientific organism. Despite the new hypotheses and theories that constantly arise to challenge the existing constructs in their own or other scientific fields, the fundamental conclusions of science the empirical generalizations cannot contradict each other. Empirical generalizations are, in essence, unchangeable facts and not hypotheses or theories. Hypotheses and theories, along with logic, math, and scientifically gathered data, are important milestones on the path towards establishing an empirical generalization. Empirical generalizations are not axioms or postulates that are, as a rule, used to construct theories that are self-evident truths. Empirical generalizations are not self-evident and must always be verified against reality. One can say that the purpose of science is to broaden the circle of empirical generalizations. Unfortunately, the concept that unchanging scientific truth can be ascribed only to empirical generalizations has not entered the consciousness of the scientific community, let alone society as a whole. Instead, the scientific community frequently presents hypotheses and theories that have varying degrees of reliability as if they were scientific truths. This confusion not only does not contribute to the authority of science, it often leads both society and science into confusion. An example of such confusion is the question of biological or global evolution. 5. The Dramatic History of the Idea of a Goal-Directed Development Does the world both as a whole and in its components form part of a gradual, progressive, goaldirected process or does it reflect only cyclical or chaotic change? Our knowledge of the religious doctrine about a Creation that marks the beginning of time (that is, a finite Universe) is what gives us the framework even to pose this question. Two answers to this question have gradually developed. The first answer is based on a literal reading of the Bible. It asserts that God created the world in six

days and that the Earth and its creatures are only a few thousand years old. Until the end of the Middle Ages, no one seriously doubted this answer. However, by the early 18th century, natural science had collected enough facts to challenge the conviction that nature and man had been created according to Gods plan or that Creation had occurred in such a short span of time and to assert that it had, in fact, taken much longer. More and more facts supported the idea that the course of natural history was not limited to individual acts of creation in which matter was formed out of nothing and then evolved into a harmonious and expedient whole. The creation of this Universe would not make any sense unless its products were able to go on perfecting themselves and were given the necessary freedom of choice and action to do so. This leap in the development of human thought was expressed in the work of K. Linnaeus and especially J. Buffon. The former classified living organisms in order to better understand natural systems, which would in turn allow scholars to identify the basic principles describing the structure of the visible world. Linnaeus was unable to create this classification system (nor has it been created since his time but for reasons extending beyond the scientific difficulties involved); however, based on his research, the conclusions he drew about the organization of the visible world confirmed the Christian belief in the orderly workings (design) of divine Providence. In contrast to Linnaeus, Buffon tried to investigate Nature from a dynamic, not a static, perspective. He was the first to point out the role that time plays in the formation of the universe. The order of the universe remained constant over an enormous expanse of time. Although the appearance of past phenomena completely changed over time and has little in common with todays external world, the modern world is nevertheless genetically linked with the past. Only this approach could be used to explain many significant characteristics of Nature. After Buffon, it was impossible to limit ones study of Natures multiple and varied phenomena only to the present. One had to find evidence of the past in the present and explain the relatively tiny span of present phenomena in relation to centuries-old events lost in the infinite mists of time. [pp 205-206] Although European scientists had to overcome the opposition of the clerics, the arguments of the scholastics, and the proponents of a mechanistic worldview, to establish the idea of Natures wholeness its order in space and the regularity of its development over time Lomonosov incorporated these ideas into Russian science right from the start. He noted: Look at the marvelous vastness of the whole visible world as well as at its parts. Dont we see the connective bonds that permit individual elements to work for the benefit of all? The mountain heights and valley depths work together to allow water to be channeled into streams and river systems. The air flows over the earth and absorbs moisture that is gathered into clouds. Why? The moisture is carried to distant lands where it descends as rain and snow to replenish the depleted rivers and vegetation. There is not any element in the world that exists only for itself in isolation. [9. Vol. 5. pp. 320-321] In the following passage, we can see Lomonosovs view of the Creation in regards to time: People are wrong if they think that the world we see has remained the same since it was created. This kind of thinking is harmful to all sciences, including our understanding of the natural world. Some people find it easy to regard themselves as philosophers by memorizing and repeating one sentence: This is the way God created it instead of delving deeper into the reason for things. [9. Vol. 7 p. 574] Thus, in the mid-eighteenth century the scientific worldview began to include the concept of time as a factor in natural processes a period of time that extended not only beyond mans lifetime but also beyond mankinds whole history. Later, the label evolutionary idea came to be used as a

means of linking a vast number of changes over time occurring in various unrelated spheres. It was this foggy version of evolution that entered the social consciousness of the latter half of the nineteenth century. However, the proponents of all these evolutionary theories were basing their ideas on a goal-directed Creation. At the end of the 18th and beginning of the 19th centuries, long before the appearance of Darwin and his followers, the idea that directional changes in Nature were occurring over vast stretches of time was discussed by many leading scientists and philosophers, such as J.B. Lamarque, J. Cuve, E.J. St Hilaire, L. Oken, F.V. Schilling, et al. Among these the Russian academician K.E. von Behr occupies a pre-eminent place. His name commands the greatest respect in world science. V.I. Vernadsky called him a great sage. F. Engels put him on a par with Lamarque and Darwin. German scientists regarded him as the Nestor of Zoology. Darwin observed that all zoologists have the greatest respect for Behr. This respect is based on Behrs undisputed authority as the founder of the science of embryology and on general admiration for his encyclopedic knowledge in practically all spheres of biology, as well as on his irreproachable reputation as a scientist and as a person. Therefore, it is interesting to acquaint oneself with Behrs view of evolutionary processes, since his opinions were based on the same data that Charles Darwin used half a century later to form his theory of evolution. It is important to ask this question because, despite the vaunted respect for Behr, many of his works have been deliberately ignored or misrepresented. There have even been attempts to portray him as holding atheistic views. In 1834 at the Physics and Economics Society of Koenigsberg, Behr gave a lecture titled, General Laws of Nature as Manifested in All Natural Processes, which he republished thirty years later in St Petersburg with hardly any revision. The re-publication was stimulated by the public outcry over Darwins theory of evolution. In the introduction to his new edition, Behr wrote: I am far from complaining about the attention being given to Darwins so-called theory. But the fact of the matter is that any natural scientist who, like me, has been around for a few years, knows that the question of whether species stay the same or change over time has been raised numerous times, and several bold hypotheses have been proposed. Why Darwins hypothesis (and that is what it must be called because, as even he admits, he does not have precise proof) should be raising such an uproar is a mystery to me. It is as if people were feeling themselves to be liberated from a pressure suspended over the knowledge of organisms. [ 1. p. 93] A note of pique is clearly detectable in the great scientists words. His sense of offense is understandable. Contrary to Darwin, who advanced a theory (more exactly a hypothesis) of evolution that still needed to be proved, Behr had formulated an empirical generalization concerning these same evolutionary processes over thirty years earlier. His generalization was never refuted but was continuously reconfirmed by subsequent researchers, including Vernadsky over 100 years later. What was Behrs empirical generalization? Based on his own considerable experience, Behr examined a mass of data in the fields of geology, paleontology, botany, zoology to discover whether he could find any general laws in the history of the earths life processes. In the scope of his research Behr included: the history of individual organisms, the history of the development of species as a direct consequence of the reproduction of individual organisms, the history of genus, the history of plant and animal kingdoms from the earliest geologic epochs. He concluded that all these transient stages of development, as well as the development of organic life as a whole, showed common tendencies: early life forms were larger, clumsier, denser with matter; in general, they were more material than later forms. Later forms were more highly organized and more active. This process clearly accelerated as the animal forms approached our era. Slowermoving organisms were always superceded by livelier ones; vegetative life forms were superceded by forms that had more spiritual qualities. [1 p 115]. Finally, Behr came to the era when man

appeared on earth. Over thirty years before Darwin, Behr examined the possibility that man was descended from apes by natural means that is, in modern terminology, by random mutations. He rejected this possibility, because he thought it lacked enough basis in scientific fact. Furthermore, Behr came to the conclusion that when man appeared, the natural history of the Earth, in terms of the appearance of ever increasingly organized life forms, had ended, and that human history was beginning. He concluded that over the course of this human history, man had begun to demonstrate the power of his spiritual life to overcome matter, to tame natural forces, and to turn all of life to his purposes. More recently, with the advent of book printing, mans spiritual life had begun to collect its spiritual resources into a unified whole. [1 p 120] Thus, based on the facts Behr concluded that: The whole history of Nature is the history of the victory of spirit over matter. [ 1. p. 120] Behr considered this idea to be the basic idea of Creation and the general law of Nature, which has appeared throughout all processes of development. Behr commented on this law as follows: In every case, as soon as the Natural Sciences rise above the examination of individual details, the sciences are led to the same basic idea. How can anyone conclude (as often happens) that scientific study inevitably leads to a belief in materialism? Of course, matter is the clay that moves the understanding of the natural world forward, but matter is only the foundation of this knowledge. How else would our understanding find material over which to assert its ascendance? For example, we can demonstrate even in regards to the development of a chick in the egg that the exchange of elements in it is dependent on the more highly organized contribution from its mother . . . . And man himself never ceases to change. But no one would state that he is different from the person who perceived and thought and hoped and inhabited his body twenty years ago. His consciousness tells him that he is the same person (the same I) despite the fact that none of the atoms of his body remains the same. Only his form stays the same. What we are seeing is a constant transformation of matter in service of the spirit, which remains as spirit but is always moving forward. In other words, we are seeing in human beings the history the same movement forward that we can trace in the history of Creation. How did matter fall under the domination of spirit? This is a general mystery that we encounter everywhere we look. This mystery cannot be explained by our reason as long as we ourselves are engaged in this ongoing struggle with matter. I dont know why this striving has been placed in us, but I hope that the mystery will be explained when the struggle finally ends. He added: Doesnt this mystery, which jumps out at us everywhere we look, protect us from another imaginary danger? Natural Science, people often say, destroys Faith. How cowardly and smallminded! Human error is temporary only truth is eternal. Mans ability to think as well as his faith are as intrinsic to him as his arms and legs. Birth is just a re-enactment of the Creation. Mans Faith is his special advantage over the animals, which clearly show signs of cognitive ability. Why should man give up his advantage over the animals? Only his Faith enables him to direct his spiritual strength to its pre-determined sphere. Thinking cannot stop the spirit from going where it is headed. If thinking takes a wrong turn, it wont be long before the error is detected. [1. pp. 120121] We are not used to hearing such conclusions from todays scientists, but Behrs opinion, based on his objective, strict scientific analysis of the facts, offers strong support for the idea that science does not contradict the fundamental principles of Christianity but, on the contrary, may offer us a much deeper understanding of them.

Of course, the opponents of this point of view would say that 150 years have passed since Behr formulated his law, and science has advanced since then. In their view, Darwins theory of evolution completely negated any talk of purpose in Nature, let alone any possibility of purpose in evolutionary processes. Many prominent scientists agree with the words of the well-known botanist A.L. Taxtadjian: The Origin of Species is the decisive phase of one of the greatest conceptual revolutions in the natural sciences. The most important aspect of this revolution is the replacement of the teleological idea of evolution as a goal-directed process by the idea of natural selection, based on the stochastic (random) interactions of organisms among themselves and with their environment. [13. p. 489] Here again we must return to the structure of the scientific worldview. Behrs law differs from contemporary evolutionary theories, which stem, in one way or another, from Darwins theory of natural selection, in that Behrs law is an empirical generalization. Therefore, his generalization can be overturned only by finding facts that contradict it in the area of time and space to which the generalization applies. Contemporary evolutionary theories are constructs of human reason invented to explain a particular phenomenon, and these theories ignore many facts as well as other scientists conclusions. If this is true, one must ask whether todays scientific arsenal includes any facts that can overturn Behrs generalization? It is difficult to find anyone who brings a broader command of the sciences and humanities to the study of natural history than V.I. Vernadsky. Although Behrs frequent citation of religious dogmas may cause some to accuse him of being insufficiently objective, this same criticism cannot be leveled at Vernadsky. In the last article he wrote before his death in 1943 (titled Some Words on the Noosphere) he described his working principles as follows: I adhered to empirical grounds. As much as I could, I avoided seeking to prove theoretic constructs and tried to base my theorizing only on scrupulously proven scientific and empirical facts and generalizations. I made use of a minimal number of working scientific hypotheses. [4. p. 114] He was one of the first scientists to define the scientific worldview and the role that empirical facts, hypotheses, theories, the scientific method, and empirical generalizations (the summit of scientific knowledge) have in the formation of this worldview. Vernadsky bequeathed to us a number of highly significant empirical generalizations, each of which cannot help but have a powerful influence on future research as well as on many other aspects of the human spirit. The first of these generalizations was his concept of the biosphere as a special envelope around the Earth. This envelopes characteristics differed sharply from the Earths other envelopes by the highly organized nature of the biospheres living matter the sum total of the living organizations populating the biosphere. In other words, innumerable scientific facts attest to the fact that the biosphere is a unified whole that the biosphere consists of myriad living and dead (inert, in Vernadskys words), organisms that mutually interact to create their forms, to maintain their existence, and to facilitate change. The organization of the biosphere is sustained by living matter. However, wrote Vernadsky, the organization of the biosphere is not that of a mechanism. It differs from the organization of a mechanism in that it is constantly coming into being and exhibits direction in time. [3. p. 19] In effect, Vernadskys second empirical generalization is almost identical to Behrs General Law of Nature manifesting itself in all processes of development. True, Vernadskys formulation of this generalization sounds a little drier and dispassionate: The appearance [of a rational thinking being] is connected to the process of evolution of life.

Although this process halts now and then, it never backtracks but continues forward in one direction to ever greater refinement and perfection of the nervous system, in particular, the brain. Lasting over 2 million years this evolutionary process (whose trajectory can be plotted; in other words, its course exhibits direction) inevitably led to the creation of the brain of man. [3. p. 238] However, in referring to the evolutionary process, Vernadsky was far from sharing Darwins hypothesis concerning the smooth, incremental course of evolution. He noted: Over the course of geologic time we see leaps in the development (growth) of the central nervous system (brain) . . . After the brain (central nervous system) is developed, we do not observe evolution to go backwards, only forwards. [3. p. 239] Vernadsky especially took note of the most recent huge leap that we are all witnessing: The 20th centurys explosion of scientific thought was prepared by the whole preceding biosphere and has its roots in its huge edifice. The process cannot halt or go backwards; only its pace may slow. The noosphere is the biosphere, infused with scientific thought and prepared by a process extending over the preceding billions of years and culminating in Homo sapiens faber. The noosphere is not a temporary, transient geological phenomenon. The biosphere inevitably, one way or another, sooner or later, will evolve into the noosphere. In other words, the events needed to make this process happen (as opposed to events that impede this process) will occur in the history of mankind. [3. p. 40] If this were Vernadskys only statement on this topic, we could conclude that he too narrowly extols the role of scientific knowledge in establishing the noosphere at the expense of other expressions of the human spirit. But, of course, that is not so. He also believed that the elimination or curtailment of any aspect of human consciousness had deleterious effects on its remaining aspects. Any shackles on mans activities, whether in the arts, religion, philosophy, or social domain, inevitably has negative, even catastrophic, effects on science. Neither science nor the scientific worldview exists independently of all other fields of human endeavor; . . . all these aspects of the human spirit are necessary for the development of science. They are the nourishing environment from which science draws its life force the atmosphere for conducting scientific inquiry. [2. pp. 50-51] Finally, here is another of Vernadskys most significant empirical generalizations. Contrary to the above-mentioned generalizations that official science merely ignores, official science a priori denies the following empirical generalization. It is as follows: A sharp divide exists between the biospheres living, natural bodies and their constituents (living matter) and associated parts (biocensoses, biologically inert bodies) and the biospheres inert, natural bodies (such as, minerals, crystals, rocks, etc in their infinite variety). [3. p. 168] By this Vernadsky means that although a living body can turn into inert matter, there has never been a scientifically proven case in which inert matter spontaneously turned into living matter. From the 1920s until his death Vernadsky wrote a number of little known works in which he constantly introduced new facts supporting this generalization. These facts clearly testify that organic life is a special form of the appearance of matter and energy and that physical and chemical laws deduced from the study of inert (dead) bodies may be extrapolated to organic life to only a limited degree. Vernadsky observed that the statement that life begets life (omne vivum e vivo) made in 1668 by the Italian scientist and physician F. Redi has never been disproved despite an enormous number of experiments and observations directed at proving the possibility of the spontaneous appearance of life. The number of these experiments has accelerated since the mid-1950s. The fact of the matter is

that without incontrovertible proof of a spontaneous birth of a living organism, all assertions that further evolutionary progress may be attributed to natural causes, that is, to random mutations and natural selection during a struggle for survival, hang in mid-air. Despite never-ending promises by prominent scientists to present this proof, none has done so. In 1953 Stanley Miller, the founder of the empirical school in chemical evolution, conducted an experiment that seemed to support the well-known hypothesis of academician Oparin concerning the natural origin of life. However, after 40 years of research, he admitted rather dryly: The problem of the origin of life is a lot more complicated than I and most other people thought. [19. p. 117] This statement was made despite the tremendous progress over these past decades in those very sciences physics, chemistry, and molecular biology focused on solving the problem. Why does the question of the origin of life seem to be so critical? Vernadsky, who accepted the scientific truth of the principle that life begets life, understood that one of the possible deductions from this principle is that life had to be created by a living God. Nevertheless, Vernadsky always strove to keep the idea of Divine Design out of his scientific approach. An alternative to the concept of Divine Design has been the concept of the eternal existence of living matter, and, therefore, of Nature. In the 1930s the hypothesis of an eternally existing universe was generally accepted; however, today science accepts the empirical generalization that the universe had a beginning a Big Bang. The hypothesis that organic life has always existed is becoming less accepted. It remains only an alternative hypothesis, which is now methodically being rejected by pure science. Why do advocates of pure science insist on excluding the possibility that a rational Will or Force is directing the course of natural and human historical processes in which, as Vernadskys generalization would have it man plays a central role in our contemporary geologic era? No doubt a Christian psychology could explore this urge to exclude God as a possible explanation for life. As opposed to secular psychology, Christian psychologys natural duty and obligation is to apply the concept of man created in the image and likeness of God as well as the concepts of sin and human passions as a means of understanding Nature and the manifestations of human consciousness. What are the reasons given by secular scientists to justify their limitations on the permissible sources of scientific knowledge? Usually they cite as fact that the evolutionary process, including mans origin on Earth, has been proven and that natural selection of the fittest, as discovered by Darwin, forms the basis of this whole process. A detailed examination of all the questions raised by the debates surrounding the moving forces, factors, and forms of biologic evolution is not within the scope of this article. However, concerning Darwins theories, it is worth making the following point: Although Darwin really did discover a law governing the evolution of any complete structure, the vector of his evolutionary process is pointed in the opposite direction from the vector of development of the biosphere, and its living matter, and nature as a whole. Darwins evolution does not lead to higher organization but to greater separation of mutually linked and interdependent individual beings out of general formlessness in other words, it leads to the opposite direction of what is occurring. [7. p. 29] Often the advocates of pure science insist that unique, rare phenomena, as well as indications of supra-sensory imaginary realities must be excluded from research. This problem has existed from the moment science was born and has undergone continuous debate. Despite the objections of these scientific fundamentalists, instances of seemingly isolated occurrences can be studied. For example, at one time the French Academy refused to consider the possibility that there were stones falling from the sky meteorites. The Academy refused to allow that there was any basis for the existence of such stones, because they were reported only occasionally. Today, as we know, meteorites are accepted as well-known phenomena. A more striking example is the Big Bang

theory itself. What could be more rare than a unique Big Bang giving rise to the universe? Ignoring the question of possible causes of the Big Bang, scientists painstakingly study its aftereffects the evidence provided by its matter and energy. How truly all these theories actually describe reality is yet another question that is connected to refinements in scientific instruments. Sciences insistence on excluding from research invisible (supra-sensory) realities is based on a misconception. Until recently, when humans flew into space, our sense organs could not offer any proof that the earth was round. Nevertheless, scientific analyses made us accept that it was true. Even though our sense organs tell us that the sun rises and sets, no one doubts the theory that the earth is round. Newtons Law of Gravity is based on the metaphysical assumption that one mass acts directly on another body at a distance. This theory has been proven in actuality (through practical application the basic sphere of mans activity). In the 17th century Huygens and Descartes thought that Newtons theory was absurd; and Huygens completely rejected any of Newtons theories that were dependent on it. Newton proved to be correct in the end. Recently when quantum physicists hypothesized and then proved experimentally the possibility of instantaneous (faster than the speed of light) interaction of particles at a distance (theory of nonlocality), they no longer had to contend with the vehement opposition of their scientific colleagues. Finally, Darwins theory is based on the concept that all organisms are striving towards everincreasing propagation of their numbers. Although Darwin was correct in noting that organisms strive to propagate, he failed to take into account that organisms also show the ability to limit their urge to reproduce, when necessary. Furthermore, the more highly developed the level of organization of the organism, the greater its ability to exercise self-control not only in regards to reproduction but also in regards to other basic urges. Secular science prefers to ignore this fact, because recognizing it would contradict the principle of pure science. But whose science? Only the science of those who are convinced that the basis of science is materialism and mechanism; that the world is governed by impersonal laws of nature or random interactions, in other words, chance; that man appeared as the result of a blind and natural (in essence, meaningless) process and stands alone in the face of a vast, indifferent Universe. Are these conclusions of secular science truly empirical generalizations or do they reflect the philosophic bias of their authors? We leave the reader to reflect and judge. Conclusions Let us return to the question raised in the beginning of this article: Is there a scientific basis for allowing a discipline like Christian psychology to exist? Let us briefly summarize our main points. Science as a specific sphere for mans striving for knowledge of himself and his environment is rooted primarily in a Christian consciousness (without denying, of course, other contributory influences). Furthermore, the Christian faith provided many of the most gifted scientists support and inspiration for their creative work. The development of science shows that there are not any strict limitations to the field of possible study scientists can direct their attention to any portion of visible or invisible reality. Their research is limited only by the sophistication of their methodology and their skill in applying it The basic, lasting achievements of science empirical generalizations not only do not contradict the basic dogmas of Christianity, but they are in complete accord with them. Religious neutrality in science is often necessary in conducting actual scientific research, but today this neutrality has devolved into its opposite an anti-religious, God-phobic ideological doctrine of its own, which limits the possibility of using the scientific method to answer questions of vital importance to man.

The reader is no doubt already familiar with the arguments in favor of secular science. Now that he has been made aware of some arguments for a Christian science, he is in a better position to decide for himself what he believes. Before he does so, however, I would like to cite one more point made by Vernadsky: In addition to the constant stream of religious and philosophic ideas and currents that contribute to nourishing science (nourishment that simultaneously demands work in these various spheres of awareness), it is essential to be aware of the reverse process that occurs in the spiritual history of mankind: The growth of science inevitably stimulates a reciprocal expansion of the human spirits philosophic and religious awareness. Upon absorbing the data revealed by the scientific worldview, both religion and philosophy are able to penetrate deeper into the recesses of human consciousness. [3. pp 213-214] Literature 1. Behr, K.E. Selected Works. Trans. Yu. A. Filipchenko, Leningrad, 1926. 2. Vernadsky, V.I. Selected Works on the History of Science, Moscow, 1981. 3. Vernadsky, V.I. Scientific Thought as a Planetary Phenomenon, Moscow, 1991. 4. Vernadsky, V.I. A Few Words on the Nousphere in Achievements of Contemporary Biology, 1944, Series 2, No 18. 5. Vernadsky, V.I. The Significance of Lomonosovs Work in Mineralogy and Geology, Moscow, 1906. 6. Vernadsky, V.I. In Memory of M.V. Lomonosov in Life Questions, No 5, 1911. 7. Voeikov, V.L. Darwins Theories of Evolution: Truth or Error in Chemistry and Life, No 3, pp 29-33, 1994. 8. Granovsky, T.N. Lectures on the History of the Middle Ages, Moscow, 1986. 9. Darwin, Charles. Origin of the Species Through Natural Selection, St Petersburg, 1991. 10. Lomonosov, M.V. Complete Works, Vol 5, 1952; Vol 7, 1954, Moscow-Leningrad. 11. Lomonosov, M.V. Works, Moscow, 1961. 12. Solovyev, Vl. Works (in two volumes), second volume. Moscow, 1990. 13. Taxmajian, A. L. Darwin and the Modern Theory of Evolution, in Charles Darwin: The Origin of the Species through Natural Selection, St Petersburg, 1991. 14. Florensky, P.A. Letters to V.I. Vernadsky, Novyy Mir, No 2, p 197, 1989. 15. Futuyama, D.J. Evolutionary Biology. Sunderland (M.A.), 1986. 16. Gould, S.J. Impeaching a Self-Appointed Judge, Scientific American, July, 1992. 17. Hatcher, W. Logic and Logos, Cambridge, 1990. 18. Monod, J. Newsweek, 1971, April 26. 19. Scientific American, February, 1991. 20. Shaefer, H.F. Science and the Christian Faith, Berkeley, CA, 1984. 21. Simpson, G.G. The Meaning of Evolution, New Haven, Conn, 1967.

About the author Vladimir Voeikov received his Diploma in Biology (Biophysics) and his Ph.D. in Biophysics at M.V. Lomonosov Moscow State University. He worked as a Research Fellow of the Institute of Bioorganic Chemistry of USSR Academy of Sciences (Moscow) and then as Asst. Prof. of the Department of Bioorganic Chemistry, Faculty of Biology, M.V. Lomonosov Moscow State U.. In

1978 to 1979 he performed research work at Department of Biochemistry and Medicine, Duke U., USA; followed as Vice-Dean of the Faculty of Biology (Research and Development). Since 1979 he is an Associate Professor and Vice-Chairman of the Chair of Bioorganic Chemistry, Faculty of Biology, M.V. Lomonosov Moscow State University, and a Senior Researcher at M.M. Shemyakin and Yu.A. Ovchinnikov Institute of Bioorganic Chemistry of the Russian Academy of Sciences. He has authored/co-authored over 200 publications.