essential role in permitting andnfostering scientific progress isnthe ancient Judeo-Christian conceptionnof man’s dual nature, determinednboth by his physicalnbody and by his unique mind.nHolding doctorates in physicsnand theology, Stanley Jaki compellinglynargues in Angels, Apes,nand Men that the edifice of modernnscience could be built onlynupon such a foundation. Withnlucid rigor, he demonstrates thatncompeting views of man, such asnthe pure idealism of “fallennangels” like Kant and Hegel ornthe simple materialism of “glorifiednapes” like Rousseau and Darwin,nare not only unscientific butnclearly antiscientific. Only anIN FocusnFootnoting FalwellnJames Davison Hunter:nAmerican Evangelicalism!nConservative Religion andntbe Quandary of Modernity;nRutgers University Press; New Brunswick,nNf.nIt is an anomaly only to benexplained by cultural bias thatnwiiile academicians have assiduouslyndocumented, analyzed,nand studied the liberal “mainline”nProtestant churches whichnhave experienced a dramatic statisticalndecline in the past decade,nthey have all but ignored thenmore conservative EvangelicalnProtestant churches which havensimultaneously experienced anremarkable resurgence. As JamesnHunter observes, “theologicaUynconservative Protestantism innAmerica is … usually dismissednas an anachronism, as a marginalnremnant of an outdated form ofnreligious consciousness and lifestyle.”nConsequendy, there is an”regrettable lack of social-scien­ntranscendent mind can “conquer”nthe universe with abstract mathematicalnformulae, but only corporealnmatter can touch thenqueer-shaped universe to verifynsuch equations. And what suchntheorizing and experimentationnleads to eventually is not thenmetaphysical vacuum of modemnthought, but rather back to thenmetaphysical absolutes of Westemntradition. (Surprisingly, Jakinreveals, Einstein actually camento regret that his paradigm wasnknown as the theory of relativitynand not the theory of invariance.)nThough the Psalmist probablyndid not realize it, a position “a littlenlower than the angels” is idealnfor doing science. (BC ) Dntific literature” about it;AmericannEvangelicalism is ProfessornHunter’s helpful attempt to fillnthe gap.nBy interpreting contemporaryndemc^raphic and opinion-surveyndata within a context of historicalnand sociological analysis, Dr.nHunter locates American Evangelicalismn”in the mainstreamn(not the sectarian margin) of thennineteenth century AmericannProtestant experience” andnshows that it is neither so simplennor so intellectually negligible asnpopular stereotypes make itnappear. Indeed, in analyzing thenEvangelical accommodation tonand protest against the modemnworld. Dr. Hunter shows that itnis actually more complex thannthe position of the much-laudednliberal theologians, whose worknevinces simply “a decided capitulationnto the cognitive constraintsnof modernity” in its radicaln”devaluation of the spiritual.”nWhile it has made “certain concessionsnat the level of social demeanornand social discourse,”nDr. Hunter finds that Evangelicalismnhas resisted compromisen”at the doctrinal level,” thus retainingna core of Christian beliefnwhich provides “a higher degreenof consolation” than does thennaturalized “social gospel” adoptednas a substitute by skepticalnliberals. Still, though he leavesnopen the possibility that Evangelicalsnmay yet have a cosmicnlast laugh. Dr. Hunter is rathernpessimistic about their prospectsnfor victory in the terrestrial battienagainst the more wealthy,nbetter educated, better positioned,nand more “modern”namoral secularists who mockntheir feith. To non-Evangelicalnreligionists who are understandablynembarrassed by the simplismnand Pharisaism evident in somenEvangelists’ public actions andnstatements (including the muchpublicizedndeclaration that Godndoes not hear Jewish prayers),nperhaps this prognosis may notnseem especially threatening.nHowever, in the apparent absencenof a more sophisticated andnnnpotent phalanx of believers,neveryone hoping for the survivalnof some vestige of decency andnreverence in American public lifenwould do well to pray that theyncan at least hold the field untilnsuch a force can be marshaled.n(BC) nnAged Wine andnRebotded RipplenThe Otis Ferguson Reader;nEdited by Dorothy Chamberlainnand Robert ^llson; DecembernPress; Highland Park, IL.nStanley KauflGmann: BeforenMy Eyes: Film Criticism andnComment; VaCapo Press; New York.nThe two names most associatednwith The New Republic innthe 30’s and 40’s are, undoubtedly,nEdmund Wilson and MalcolmnCowley. These days, Wilsonnis always the proper “Edmund,”nnever the diminutive “Bunny.”nHe has all but been turned into angranite monument; those criticizingnWilson tend to be likenGore Vidal, who concentratednmore on Wilson’s real or imaginednhomosexual tendenciesnthan on his critical observations.nCowley—^as of this writing—isnstill vital—^in a sense. He has lostnthe spark of the exiles he oncenchronicled and has become anninstitution that produces reminiscencesnand forewords tonbooks. One of his forewords is tona collection of essays written bynOtis Ferguson, a man to whomnCowley gave a start at The NewnRepublic in 1933. In his day, Fergusonnwas well known—^and withngood reason. His writings on variousnsubjects—^jazz, in particularn—show an erudite, unpretentiousnmind that has the rare ability tonexpress itself in an idiosyncraticnprose style that is often engagingnand never cloying. Wilson’s andnCowley’s books can be readilynfound (with few exceptions).nSiiiS3nJuly 1983n