Wells. All fell before his happy dialectic.nChesterton also had a great impactnon the subject of evolution. He opposednDarwinism as a philosophy. This distinctionnbetween the philosophy ofnevolution and the mechanics of evolutionnmust be kept clear. As Chestertonnwrote: “If evolution simply means thatna positive thing called an ape turnednvery slowly into a positive thing callednman, it is stingless for the most orthodox;nfor a personal God might just asnwell do things slowly as quickly, especiallynif, like the Christian God, henwere outside time.”nWhat Christians cannot hold to, andnwhat is presentiy the required creed ofnthe religion of science, is the notion ofnchance evolution: the mindless, irrational,nrandom, spontaneous generationnof life and spontaneous generationnof intellect. This is the unholy philosophynof evolutionary scientism whichndenies even the possibility of divineninteraction with creation. Ironically,nmodernists are agnostic concerning thenexistence of God, but insist that if anGod exists, he cannot make waves.n”Men in earlier times,” Chestertonnpoints out, “said unscientific thingsnwith the vagueness of gossip and legend,nthey now say unscientific thingsnwith the plainness and certainty ofnscience.” Chesterton again: “It is absurdnfor the Evolutionist to complainnthat it is unthinkable for an admittedlynunthinkable God to make everythingnout of nothing, and then pretend itselfninto anything.” As Christ said of anotherngeneration of wise fools, theynstrain at a gnat and swallow a camel.nChesterton rightly understood thatnthe battle is not about evolution, butnabout the worship of randomness. Thenwar is not about science, but scientificnpretense and illogic.nIn the end, Jaki suggests thatnChesterton’s chief contribution to scientificnthought lay in his understandingnthat reality is real — a tautological celebrationnof the quiddity of things.n”Herein lies the principal and lastingnrelevance of Chesterton for sciencenwhich dominates modern thought evennmore than was the case in his day.nSince then no one has argued morenpersuasively on behalf of objective realitynas a safeguard of sanity, includingnthe sanity of science.” What lies at thencore of all Chesterton’s writings, andnwhat causes us to pause in admiration,nis this incredible sanity. He saw clearlynthat everything is a miracle.nFor this reason, Chesterton was notnafraid to celebrate a blade of grass fornbeing a blade of grass; nor did he denynthat under the proper circumstances anjug of water might become a jug ofnwine. But he was firm in suggesting thenantediluvian truth that “one must notnget the water in the wine,” which, afternall, is the essence of scientific methodology.nChesterton understood the necessitynof boundaries. Modern sciencenhas yet to understand that there isnsomething beyond its bounds, and thatnthe ineffable Thing beyond its boundsnhas no fear of science, or of the punyncreatures that send their towers skyward.n]ames Sauer is director of library atnEastern College in Pennsylvania.nWings of the Navynby Wayne Michael SarfnFlight of the Intruder by StephennCoonts, Annapolis, MD: NavalnInstitute Press; $15.95.nTechnology can exalt as well as dwarfnthe individual. The Great War’s machinenguns staged a chattering pageantnof impersonal slaughter; yet its warplanesnbrought forth paladins such asnFrank Luke, Billy Bishop, and Baronnvon Richtofen, their decidedly individualisticnexploits providing civilian newspapernreaders with a pleasant contrast tonthe muddy anonymity of trench warfare.nWhile the technology of flight hasnchanged — awesomely so—the LonenWarrior mystique endures. Gallant, AnglophilicnArgentine jet pilots pummelednBritish ships while rejoicing in nicknamesnand mannerisms lifted from oldnRAF movies, and in the film of TomnWolfe’s The Right Stuff, Sam Shepardnplayed test pilot Chuck Yeager as anretrofitted, laconic Westerner (the realnhero’s subsequent commercial endorsementsnwere a letdown best reservednfor mere “celebrities”). Computersnand jet-age refinements, farnfrom reducing combat pilots to thendreaded passivity of “Spam in ancan” — a fate anticipated by the testnpilots chosen to follow a chimpanzee asnMercury astronauts — simply underlinentheir elite status in dealing withnnnever more complicated machinery andnsplit-second decisions.nIn the world of fiction, it’s the readernwho often finds himself swamped bynhi-tech. In the first Naval InstitutenPress megabit, Tom Clancy’s ThenHunt for Red October, many charactersnwere purest plastic — mere hooksnon which their creator carefully pinnednexpensive military hardware on the waynto his denouement. And the hardwarenalso threatens to overwhelm StephennCoonts’ Vietnam War novel ThenFlight of the Intruder—at least at first.nBombing and refueling runs feature sonmuch glancing at gauges and screensnthat we miss the sensations of flight orncombat, sea or sky, especially sincenCoonts sometimes describes instrumentnactivities without forcing us tonfeel his airmen reacting to them. Thisnis, of course, part of the novel’s bestsellingnappeal, but it soon ceases tonintimidate, while Coonts can view suchntechnology with irony. “There must bensome mistake,” jokes the hero’s lady,nsitting in his Intruder’s cockpit. “Thisnplane is too complicated for anyone tonfly.” And the book’s first death comesnwhen a North Vietnamese peasantnhopefully fires his “ancient bolt-actionnrifle” into the sky—and through a jet’snPlexiglas canopy.nOther early shortcomings of this firstnnovel include awkward dialogue andnprose and an initially clumsy love interest;nbut as we progress, Coonts’ dialoguenand characters become morenconvincing, his prose smoother, hisnhero’s love genuinely touching. Andnthis hero proves no adolescent TopnGun icon: Vietnam War veterannCoonts worries about the man insidenthe machine.nIt is 1972. Lieutenant Jake Graftonnflies a carrier-based A-6A Intrudernbomber. He likes flying and acceptsncombat. But now his hands shake —npartiy because he knows Americans arendying in raids on unimportant, evennworthless targets. Voicing a nowfamiliarncomplaint (“We could win thenwar, you know, if they’d let us”),nGrafton evolves a plan to launch anvigilante raid on an unauthorized targetnworth destroying. It is a premisenthat might easily serve a stale Rambonfantasy, but Grafton’s exploit provesnalmost an antihighlight, of far less concernnthan its contemplative aftermath:nWhen, asks the author, does a fightingnNOVEMBER 19881 39n