GLOBAL WARMING

Are Whites More Intelligent than Blacks?

2008-10-07T03:53:00.000-07:00

YES, say many people. Whites, as a race, have inherited more intelligence than blacks.

William Shockley, a Nobel laureate in physics, strongly asserts that this is so. He says: “My research leads me inescapably to the opinion that the major cause of American Negroes’ intellectual and social deficits . . . racially genetic in origin.”

Professor Arthur R. Jensen of the University of California in Berkeley is a leading exponent of the view that in intelligence whites are biologically superior to blacks. He declares: “The number of intelligence genes seems to be lower, overall, in the black population than in the white.”

What is the basis for such claims?

Basis tor Claims

Inheritance, many will point out, has a lot to do with racial differences. Blacks have inherited dark skin, thick lips and kinky hair, and whites have inherited strikingly different features. So, if whole groups of people have inherited such different physical characteristics, it is only reasonable, some will argue, that the races would inherit different degrees of intelligence. But do they? Why is it claimed that blacks, as a race, have inherited less intelligence than whites?

The reason is principally due to results from Intelligence Quotient (IQ) tests. In these tests blacks score, on the average, about 15 points lower than whites. Even when whites and blacks of a similar social and economic status are tested, the scores of whites average significantly higher than do the scores of blacks. So Jensen concludes from such evidence “that something between one-half and three-fourths of the average IQ difference between American Negroes and whites is attributable to genetic factors.”

The results from IQ tests, coupled with conclusions based on the evolution theory, have reinforced the opinion of many that blacks are mentally inferior. Some scientists have argued that the races evolved, to a large extent, independently over hundreds of thousands of years. Blacks, it is claimed, crossed the evolutionary threshold into the category of Homo sapiens later than whites.

Since IQ tests today are the principal basis for the claim that blacks are inherently less intelligent than whites, let us look at those tests.

Intelligence and IQ Tests

First of all, what is meant by intelligence?

That is a surprisingly difficult question to answer. A great many different qualities might be called intelligence. People may be “intelligent” in one context, perhaps being able to memorize names and dates easily, but be “stupid” in another, such as in doing arithmetic problems. So there is no universally accepted definition of what intelligence is.

What about IQ tests, then? Do they measure intelligence? Commenting on this, Patrick Meredith, professor of psychophysics at Leeds University, England, said: “It might be held that Frenchmen are brighter than pygmies, but if you see pygmies in their natural environment making bridges out of fibre and living life successfully you might ask what you mean by intelligence. The IQ rating is no indication of how a person will behave in a defined situation. The IQ test is a totally unscientific concept.”

It is generally agreed that IQ tests fail to give a complete picture of the many factors involved in intelligence. Circumstances and backgrounds of peoples are too varied for them to be able to do this. What, then, do IQ tests measure?

Arthur Whimbey, professor of psychology at a university in the southern United States, observes: “Studies lead to the conclusion that IQ tests do not measure innate intellectual capacity, but rather a group of learned skills that can be taught in the classroom or in the home.”

To confirm this, it has been demonstrated that persons can be taught how to take IQ tests, with startling results. One investigator reports that a young Mississippi black student was given instruction about taking such tests, and in six weeks he raised his IQ score dramatically.

You can easily imagine the wrong conclusion s a person might draw from IQ scores, and the effects this can have. An American black, who is now a university professor, writes:

“At 15 I earned an IQ test score of 82 . . . Based on this scare, my counselor suggested that I take up bricklaying because I was ‘good with my hands.’ . . . I went to Philander Smith College anyway, graduating with honors, earned my master’s degree at Wayne State University and my Ph.D. at Washington University in St. Louis. Other blacks, equally as qualified, have been wiped out.”

Yet, the fact remains that whites score, on the average, 15 points higher than do blacks on IQ tests. Why? If one is going to argue that blacks are innately just as intelligent as whites, then why don’t they score better than they do?

Examining the Question in Context

There are many factors that can account for their lower average IQ scores. In particular, American blacks have been greatly disadvantaged by their treatment by whites as inferiors, and as undesirables. Former Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren illustrated modern racial attitudes in an April 1977 Atlantic article.

When the Supreme Court’s school segregation decision was pending in the mid-1950’s, President Dwight Eisenhower of the United States invited Warren to a White House dinner for the purpose of influencing him to decide in favor of upholding the segregation law. “The President,” Warren writes, “took me by the arm, and, as we walked along, speaking of the southern states in the segregation cases, he said, ‘These [Southerners] are not bad people. All they are concerned about is to see that their sweet little girls are not required to sit in school alongside some big overgrown Negroes.’”

As vocalized by this president, whites have commonly attempted to “keep blacks in their place”—in a segregated, subordinate position cut off from the benefits enjoyed by whites. During slavery, and later during legalized segregation, this was easy to do. Blacks who stepped out of line were whipped, lynched or otherwise punished. The effect was to produce the childlike, subservient, mentally slow “Sambo” personality. Whites have commonly believed that this personality was inherent in blacks. However, Harvard professor Thomas F. Pettigrew explains:

“No African anthropological data have ever shown any personality type resembling Sambo; and the concentration camps [in Nazi Germany] molded the equivalent personality pattern in a wide variety of Caucasian prisoners. Nor was Sambo merely a product of ‘slavery’ in the abstract, for the less devastating Latin American system [of slavery] never developed such a type.”

Thus, IQ test results must be considered in this context of over 300 years of oppression during which many blacks, for their own defense and survival, adopted a subservient personality. And remember, until the latter part of the last century it was against the law in many places of the United States for blacks to learn to read or write. Even since then, blacks, taken as a whole, simply have not had the same educational opportunities as whites.

Effect of Environment

The quality of preschool home education also bears directly on intellectual achievements. It is of interest that the full 15-point IQ gap is manifest in the United States between black and white children by age five, even before they go to school. Some may claim that this is proof that blacks are born with less intelligence than whites, but there is evidence that other factors can be responsible.

Early childhood is a principal period of intellectual growth. Dr. Benjamin Bloom of the University of Chicago, as well as other educators, maintains that by the time a child reaches age five he has undergone as much intellectual growth as will occur over the next thirteen years. In keeping with such conclusion, Science News Letter observes: “During the early years, a child’s intelligence can be greatly influenced by a responsive environment conducive to learning and exploring.”

But consider the home situation of many American blacks. Their families are more frequently disrupted than are white families. The father is often not at home, perhaps being forced to look in another area for employment. Often, in black families, the mother alone must rear the children. Under such circumstances, can it be expected that the young will be provided the early educational training that will equip them to match the intellectual achievements of whites?

Further, recent studies show that in larger families, black or white, where parents usually give less individual attention to their children, the children have lower IQ scores. Since black families are, on the average, larger than white ones, this may also be a contributing factor to blacks’ lower intellectual achievements.

Another factor to consider is that home environments are not the same—white and black cultures are significantly different. And traditional IQ tests have clear cultural biases that favor whites. As an example, a Stanford-Binet picture test showed a prim-looking white woman and a woman with Negroid features and slightly unkempt hair. The child was marked “right” for picking the white woman as “pretty,” and “wrong” if he picked the black.

Another thing to keep in mind is that a large number of blacks have achieved IQ scores well above the average score of all whites. In fact, during World War I blacks from certain parts of the northern U.S. scored higher on IQ tests than whites from certain parts of the South, which would indicate that blacks are not born with lesser intelligence. Theodosius Dobzhansky, an American biologist, made this telling observation: “The race differences in the averages are much smaller than the variations within any race. In other words, large brains and high I.Q.’s of persons of every race are much larger and higher than the averages for their own or any other race.”

The book Intelligence—Genetic and Environmental Influences, edited by medical doctor and university professor Robert Cancro, examines at length environmental factors that contribute to the lower intellectual achievements of blacks. In view of all the disadvantages blacks have had, the writers conclude: “It is really surprising to find the mean IQ of black Americans only 15 points below that of white Americans. No reason whatever exists to consider this discrepancy as biologically inevitable.”

The well-known anthropologist Ashley Montagu reached a similar conclusion. He writes: “If nutrition is poor, health care deficient, housing debasing, family income low, family disorganization prevalent, discipline anarchic, ghettoization more or less complete, personal worth consistently diminished, expectations low, and aspirations frustrated, as well as numerous other environmental handicaps, then one may expect the kind of failures in intellectual development that are so often gratuitously attributed to genetic factors.”

Montagu concludes: “There is no evidence that any people is either biologically or mentally superior or inferior to any other people in any way whatever.”

Yet is there proof that the difference in average IQ scores of the races is not due to whites inheriting more intelligence than blacks?

Conclusions from the Evidence

There is no proof that whites either have, or have not, inherited more intelligence than blacks. What is clear, however, is that environment has a big effect on intellectual development. In Israel, for example, deprived Oriental Jewish children, who were placed in communes called kibbutzim and brought up collectively, showed higher IQ’s than children of the same background reared by their parents. Also, American Indian children reared in white foster homes obtain significantly higher IQ’s than their brothers and sisters on the Reservation. But does the same hold true for blacks?

A recent study of black children reared in white homes revealed that it does. The study, which included over a hundred white families who adopted black children at an early age and reared them in their homes, showed that the IQ’s of these blacks compared favorably with those of whites. “Overall,” write the investigators, “our study impressed us with the strength of environmental factors. . . . If a different environment can cause the IQ scores of black children to shift from a norm of 90 or 95 to 110, then the views advanced by the genetic determinists cannot account for the current IQ gap between blacks and whites.”

The weight of scientific opinion, therefore, seems to be that the lower average IQ scores of blacks can be explained largely, if not entirely, by environmental factors. In the book The Biological and Social Meaning of Race, Frederick Osborn of the Population Council of New York sums up: “Only one conclusion is possible from the studies which have been made to date. Differences in test intelligence between the major races are no greater than can be accounted for by the known differences in their environments. On this there is general scientific agreement.”

It is of interest that, as opportunities have opened to them, more and more blacks are succeeding in fields of business, education, medicine, and so forth.

Yet, it must be acknowledged, the question of the relative intelligence of the races cannot be positively determined. The evidence is now inconclusive, open to various interpretations, as one writer noted: “A hundred different conclusions can, and have been, drawn from the same body of evidence. The conclusion one arrives at depends as much on emotion as reason.”

So, then, why bring up the matter of IQ scores in an attempt to prove that blacks are less intelligent than whites? Steven Rose, professor of biology at the Open University, England, explains why some people do: “The question of the genetic basis of racial or class differences in IQ . . . achieves meaning only in a racist or classist society attempting to justify its discriminatory practices ideologically.”

As a result of the storm of controversy over the alleged lower inherent intelligence of blacks, the National Academy of Sciences declared: “There is no scientific basis for a statement that there are or that there are not substantial hereditary differences in intelligence between Negro and white populations. In the absence of some now-unforeseen way of equalizing all aspects of the environment, answers to this question can hardly be more than reasonable guesses.”

One thing is certain, however, and that is that there is no sound basis for viewing people of another race as inferior. Without making any distinctions as to race, the Bible wholesomely advises us to have “lowliness of mind considering that the others are superior to you.”—Phil. 2:3.

But still there are persistent views that hinder persons from applying this fine Scriptural counsel. A prominent one is that persons of other races than one’s own have an objectionable body odor.

“If you see pygmies in their natural environment making bridges out of fibre and living life successfully you might ask what you mean by intelligence.”

[The environment in which children grow up affects their intellectual development

Races Are Strikingly Different

2008-10-07T03:52:00.002-07:00

IT WAS 1955, at an international gathering in Nuremberg, Germany. A group of Europeans had surrounded a couple of American blacks, visibly happy to have them. They rubbed their skin and felt their hair. Apparently they had never seen a black person before and were intrigued by the striking differences. The blacks enjoyed being warmly accepted. Back home, however, racial attitudes had developed over the centuries to create a much different situation.

Consider the Spencers, a black family who moved into a nice section of New York city. It was the eve of 1975. A pipe bomb came flying into their house, with the note attached: NIGGER, BE WARNED. “It was intended to wipe out the family,” the police captain who investigated said.

A reporter, who later spoke with white residents, explains: “I kept pressing: why don’t you want blacks here? ‘If you really want to know,’ answered the fellow with the flag, ‘they’re basically uncivilized. Wherever they go, the crime rate goes up, neighborhoods fall apart, whites have to leave.’”

Many whites feel differently about association with blacks, developing friendly relations with them. In the southern United States fine strides have been made in improving race relations. Many schools and other public places have been racially integrated. Yet, there are still many persons who feel that differences in the races are so great that they warrant racial segregation.

Basis for Segregation?

In 1954 the United States Supreme Court ruled against racial segregation in the public schools. But many Americans do not agree with that decision. Nor do they agree with the Court’s 1969 order for public-school districts to desegregate “at once.” This is evidenced by the fact that in the late 1960’s a larger percentage of black children attended predominately black schools than in 1954!

Also, there are many persons in the United States who don’t agree with the 1967 Supreme Court’s ruling that it is unconstitutional “to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classifications.” This decree invalidated all laws in the United States against interracial marriages. Yet people are still commonly heard to say that they don’t believe blacks and whites should marry.

The situation in the churches is further evidence that many persons believe racial differences warrant segregation. Kyle Haselden, as editor of The Christian Century, wrote in 1964: “Everyone knows that 11 o’clock on Sunday morning is the most segregated hour in American life.” And segregation persists. This year the minister of the Plains, Georgia, Baptist Church “said his resignation stemmed from ‘backlash’ over his efforts to integrate the church.” New York Post, February 22, 1977

Although much progress has been made in improving race relations, some persons have recently seen causes for discouragement. A black, writing in The Christian Century of April 28, 1976, said: “I am worried, really worried, about the serious deterioration in relations between blacks and whites. Black friends share their sense of frustration and powerlessness with me.”

There is often a polarizing, with races harboring hostility and sticking to themselves. As the above writer noted: “I went for a walk on the Yale campus. Two white students joined me. They complained of being forced into segregation by their black classmates who chose to live and take their meals alone, and to maintain little or no social intercourse with their white male peers.”

How Great the Differences?

Really, how great are racial differences? Are they of such a degree that people of different races cannot live together as equals, and take real pleasure in one another’s company? For example, is there a big gap between the intelligence of people of various races? Or, do the races have a distinct body odor, making it objectionable for blacks and whites to live in close quarters with one another?

Obviously differences do exist. Skin color and texture of hair are among the most observable. There are also differences in the shape of the nose, eyelids and lips. Thick lips are common among blacks, while persons of other races tend to have thinner lips.

Yet some whites are quick to point to what they call “more important differences.” As noted earlier, it is claimed that blacks are “basically uncivilized.” It is said that “they have looser morals.” Higher illegitimacy rates among them are given as evidence for this claim. But there are more assertions that are commonly made.

Some are: “Blacks care less for family.” And, as evidence of this, the higher rate of separations in black families is pointed to. “Crime rates go up when blacks move in; neighborhoods fall apart.” To support this statement, persons will point to black neighborhoods that are generally more run down, and to statistics that show that, proportionately, blacks commit more crimes. “Blacks are less intelligent than whites.” And it is a fact that, on the average, blacks score lower on IQ tests than whites of comparable socio-economic status and generally do poorer in schoolwork.

But why do blacks show up unfavorably in such comparisons? A publication of the United States Commission on Civil Rights put the matter in focus. It said that the obvious inferior “status of nonwhites can result from only two factors. Either nonwhites are inferior as persons, or white racism has prevented their natural equality with whites from asserting itself in actual attainments during their more than 300 years in America.”—Racism in America—How to Combat It.

What do you believe is the answer?

The Once Prevalent View

At one time the prevailing view was that blacks are inferior as persons. The Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, 1884, said: “No full-blood Negro has ever been distinguished as a man of science, a poet, or artist, and the fundamental equality claimed for him by ignorant philanthropists is belied by the whole history of the race throughout the historic period.” It also spoke of “the inherent mental inferiority of the blacks, an inferiority which is even more marked than their physical differences.”

This encyclopedia said that, as children, blacks and whites seem to have equal intelligence. “Nearly all observers admit,” it notes, “that the Negro child is on the whole quite as intelligent as those of other human varieties.” However, it was said that in blacks there is a “premature ossification of the skull, preventing all further development of the brain.” Thus, the Britannica asserted: “On arriving at puberty all further progress [of blacks] seems to be arrested.” Chambers’ Encyclopædia, 1882, although not agreeing with the Britannica, spoke of the view “that the Negro forms a connecting link between the higher order of apes and the rest of mankind.”

The view that blacks are inferior as persons is still held by some; it is by no means dead. One person wrote of the common views held where he lived: “I grew up in a southern rural community where it was said that black people are black because of a curse God placed on them. . . . In fact, it was said that black people were not really people after all but a part of the animal kingdom.”

Even certain men of science today hold that blacks are biologically inferior to whites. In 1974 a long work of authoritative appearance, endorsed by leading educators, argued in favor of this view. Of the writer, John R. Baker, The Guardian of April 6, 1974, said: “He is skilled at piling up, ostensibly as data, quotations and references which, taken with the powerfully repulsive atmosphere generated by the style, would convey to any reader quite unacquainted with any ‘Negrids’ an impression of them as subhuman (for example, ‘Long says that the Negroes are distinguished by their “bestial or fetid smell”’).”

So what about racial differences? Really, how great are they?

Stay Clean, Stay Healthy!

2008-10-07T03:52:00.001-07:00

MAN’S struggle to stay waged healthy has been almost since the dawn of history. But it has been a ‘losing battle’ against disease, plague and epidemic. Despite advances in science and medicine, people continue to get sick and die.

At one time, it was thought that diseases were caused by evil spirits, and physicians fought this influence with charms or incantations, even with bloodletting. Sometimes herbs were ‘used, doubtless with greater benefit. It was the discovery of germs, however, that resulted in more successful treatments of sick people. And this led to an understanding of the relationship between good health and cleanliness.

Today it is understood that many maladies—the communicable diseases—are the result of three factors: the agent, the environment, and the host. The agent is the original cause of the sickness. Disease agents include bacteria (causing such maladies as typhoid fever and cholera), protozoa (resulting in diseases like amoebic dysentery), viruses (causing polio, infectious hepatitis, and so forth), parasites (causing malaria, and so forth), and fungi (responsible for problems like athlete’s foot). There are also nonmicrobic agents like lead and mercury, which can cause poisoning.

The disease agent exists in what are called reservoirs. These may be an already sick person, a carrier (someone who carries the agent, but who has no symptoms of the disease), an animal, or even a part of the inanimate environment. When the agent is expelled from the reservoir—by coughing, sneezing or in some other way—it may be picked up and transported to a potential host, that is, someone who is susceptible to catching the disease. If the agent finds the right way into the host, illness will result. The importance of the way that the agent enters is seen in the case of tetanus. If the germ enters through the mouth, it is harmless. However, if it gets in through a deep cut in the skin, the host probably will become sick with the disease.

Today men try to break this chain of disease transmission by sanitation. By this means they endeavor to control the environment so as to prevent the disease agent from getting to a new host. The relative success of this approach has been seen in many countries where garbage has been disposed of properly, sewage has been treated and the government has been able to provide for a clean water supply. In these lands diseases like typhoid fever, cholera and plague have almost been eliminated. Even in the more developed nations, however, people still fall victim to communicable diseases like influenza. Especially is this true during times of crisis, when public services break down and diseases can surface once again. These facts emphasize that sanitation is not just a government responsibility. All of us should be aware of how disease travels and what we individually can do to prevent it.

Spreading by Touch

The world today is in the grip of a pandemic of venereal disease, spread almost entirely by the direct contact of sexual intercourse. These sexually transmitted infections are among the principal diseases spread by contact transmission.

Controlling venereal diseases is largely a matter of moral cleanness, while physical cleanliness will help to prevent the spread of many other maladies. (1 Cor. 6:9, 10) Regarding the latter, one doctor said: “Washing your hands after using the toilet and before eating should be as automatic as breathing.” As a matter of fact, diseases spread by contact transmission should be the easiest for an individual to avoid.

Food and Water

Humans use automobiles or buses as vehicles for travel. Similarly, disease agents can travel in vehicles—water, milk or even food. This is called vehicle transmission. Milk, so good for growing children, may be a disease carrier if it comes from a dirty or infected animal, which is why, in Western lands, milk must be pasteurized. Many people prefer to boil milk if there is any doubt about it. Food can carry sickness if prepared by unwashed hands or if it has been in contact with rodents or insects. But maybe the most commonly contaminated material is water. We cannot live more than four or five days without it, but if our drinking water is contaminated, it will be a vehicle of entry into our body for countless millions of disease agents. And what disease agents can travel in water? Bacteria, protozoa, worms, viruses and nonmicrobic poisons.

Nowadays, many modern cities are supplied with chemically treated water; but drinking water should never be taken for granted, especially in times of flood, earthquake or similar crisis. In case of doubt, it is wise to treat water perhaps with chloride of lime, or, if that is not available, tincture of iodine. In the absence of these substances, it can be sterilized by boiling for at least ten minutes. Remember, though, that water can be contaminated after boiling as well as before. So the sterilized water should be kept in a clean and protected place until it is used.

In the countryside, particularly in developing lands, households rely on different water sources that must be protected from contamination. Those using rainwater, for example, should be sure that no dirt gets washed into the storage tank along with the rainwater. Also, the tank should be protected from insects, rodents and other animals. Persons relying on surface water, such as streams or brooks, are almost certainly drinking polluted water. It is nearly impossible to protect these from contamination by animals or runoff (rainwater running in from the surface of the ground). The only exception might be a fairly fast-running spring-fed stream where the water looks clean and sparkling and where there are no residents on the watershed spilling pollution into it.

Naturally occurring springs are better, although most householders build a concrete cover around these to protect them from animals and surface runoff. Possibly the best sources, however, are wells, particularly deep wells. Shallow ones need to be examined to make sure that they are not being contaminated by someone’s latrine. Even deep wells can be polluted by surface water runoff. Therefore, many well owners build a small platform around the well, to prevent the surface water from getting in.

Remember, too, that clean water is easily polluted. Even if it comes from a clean well, the water is not fit to drink if it is carried in a dirty container or comes in contact with dirty hands.

Another class of vehicles that germs can ride on are called fomites. These are objects (such as towels or cups) that come in contact with a sick person, and then with someone else. The new handler or user inherits the payload of disease agents left by the previous individual. Fomites should be washed in boiling water to make them harmless.

Insects and Vermin

Between the years 1347 and 1350 C.E., from a quarter to a half of the whole population of Europe died of the Black Death. This disease, also called bubonic plague, is one of the many maladies spread by what is called vector transmission. “Vector” means “carrier,” and in the field of sanitation it denotes an animal or an insect that carries the disease agent to the new host. Mostly, vectors are insects. Some, like the rat fleas that spread bubonic plague and the mosquitoes that carry malaria, actually inject the disease into the new host by biting or piercing the skin. Others, such as flies and cockroaches, walk on contaminated areas, particularly human excrement, and then walk on food, or on areas where food is being prepared. Diseases like cholera and typhoid fever can be spread in this way.

To protect themselves from malaria-carrying mosquitoes, many people in the tropics sleep under a mosquito net. Governments have tried to limit the breeding of such mosquitoes by eliminating their breeding places. Householders can cooperate with these efforts by removing potential ‘breeding grounds’ in or near their homes—things such as bottles with water in the bottom, stagnant puddles or even drains not properly covered.

Certain insects are a bigger problem. In some places, such creatures as cockroaches and flies are not regarded as enemies, just as nuisances. But they truly are health hazards, and their movement in a home should be prevented as much as possible. Dirty kitchens, however, with cracks or holes where insects can hide, are like a playground for them. Garbage not properly covered is an open invitation to flies, cockroaches and vermin. Also, hogs raised near the house encourage flies to congregate. By all means, insects and rodents should be kept away from family members and from food. You can never tell where they have been!

Clean habits, then, will help to break this link in the chain of infection. Another way to reduce the potential for harm from vectors is by seeing to the proper disposal of human waste or excrement. To persons living in cities having proper sewage disposal facilities, this may not seem like a problem. But in many parts of the world, diseases like cholera, typhoid and dysentery are spread because of improper waste disposal. In this regard, when the Israelites were wandering in the wilderness, they were commanded to go to a private place outside the camp, dig a hole with a peg, and bury their excrement there. (Deut. 23:12-14) It may be noted that when one digs into the soil, the first few feet are teeming with tiny organisms that will quickly work on the waste and render it harmless. If the waste is left on the surface, however, insects can crawl over it and carry diseases back to the household. Also, if it is left untreated and is used as fertilizer, such disease agents as amoebas and worms are likely to be transferred onto the food crop being fertilized.

So, burying is the best way of handling this problem if there are no sewage facilities. Of course, if there is a family living in one place and not moving around like the Israelites, something a little more sophisticated will be needed than just a peg or stick to dig a hole! It is surprising, however, how simple it is to make a sanitary toilet. A pit dug about six feet (2 meters) deep, and three feet (1 meter) square, raised around the top to keep surface water from draining in, with a floor cover and a seat that can be covered to prevent insects and rodents from entering, will satisfactorily serve a family for some years. Of course, more sophisticated units can be used if money is available. But there is one thing to watch. These facilities should be built well away (and, if possible, downhill) from any water source.

Carried in the Air

After the trauma of the first global war, in 1918 the world faced another grim experience. In one year, ten million more persons died during the Spanish flu than the number killed during the entire war. Most of those who suffered from the sickness probably caught it from the very air they breathed. Influenza is one of those diseases communicated by means of what is called aerial transmission. When an infected person sneezes or coughs, he sprays the air with little droplets of water that are teeming with germs just waiting to get into a new host. Fortunately, sunlight and dryness tend to kill most germs. While they are still alive, however, they can be breathed in from the air. Aside from influenza, some diseases that can be spread in this way are tuberculosis, measles, pneumonia, scarlet fever and whooping cough. Yet, the spread of these illnesses can be lessened greatly by clean personal habits, such as using a tissue or handkerchief when sneezing (and disposing of the tissue in a sanitary way) and not spitting indiscriminately.

Yes, indeed, sanitary, or clean, habits have a part to play in the matter of staying healthy. In many cases, of course, the good habits we have may prevent our disease from being spread to someone else, whereas others may not be so considerate. However, the principle of ‘loving your neighbor as yourself’ surely will guide a Christian in this regard. (Matt. 22:39) True, some people become fanatical in the matter of cleanliness and sanitation; so the spirit of a sound mind is needed too. We can be sanitary, but we cannot live in an antiseptic environment. Besides, Jehovah God has provided wonderful power right within our own bodies to overcome the attacks of most diseases. Yet, it is wise and loving to be reasonably clean and sanitary, and thus not spread germs unnecessarily.

Attention to sanitation and cleanliness will help us, though this will not remove sickness from the earth. For that, Christians patiently await God’s new order wherein Jehovah will remove sickness and other distresses afflicting mankind. At that time, there will be a full realization of the Bible’s promise that “no resident will say: ‘I am sick.’” (Isa. 33:24) Then, finally, man’s struggle to stay healthy will have been won.

A Search for an Identity

2008-10-07T03:51:00.000-07:00

MAN has always been interested in his genealogy. The Bible itself provides a complete record of Jesus Christ’s ancestry going all the way back to the first man, Adam.The Jews, as a nation, meticulously preserved genealogical records, and it was one of their major tragedies that these records were destroyed when Jerusalem was laid waste by the Roman armies in the year 70 of our Common Era.

The Jews’ return to Palestine and the establishing of modern-day Israel was an expression of a need for an identity—in this case, a national identity. Whereas the Jews’ quest for an established identity may have had strong political overtones, families in other nations often become caught up in such a quest so as to establish claim to the inheritance of property, to royal lineage, to descent from a famous character of history or just to find out who they are.

People all over the world now are focusing attention on what has been described as the “Black man’s search for identity.” The recent Black and African Festival of Arts and Culture (FESTAC) held in Nigeria was a noted expression of this quest.

The African Identity

FESTAC ’77 was held in Lagos, Nigeria, and ran from January 15 to February 12. It was the second gathering of its kind to be convened in Africa. The first was held in Dakar, Senegal, in 1966. FESTAC ’77 drew delegates from all the nations of Africa, black communities in the Americas, Europe and Australia, and black states outside Africa. Some 17,000 artists, dancers and intellectuals came from fifty-six countries. Interestingly, representatives from the Arab states of North Africa and from among the Aborigines and Maoris of Australasia were present—all subscribing to the “attempts of Black [and African] people to revive their culture in order to integrate themselves in a world of co-operation and conflict diplomacy.”

The rich variety of presentations at the festival included cultural and traditional dances, music and singing, dramas, films and literary presentations by black and African writers. There were exhibitions of art, literature and artifacts, as well as fashion shows and a colloquium, that is, a seminar, on the theme “Black Civilisation and Education.” The principal site of these presentations was the ultramodern National Theatre in Lagos. The colorful boat regatta drew large crowds to the waterways in Lagos to watch competitive canoe races and mock battles. And the Grand Durbar, displaying the spectacular traditional horsemanship of the tribes of northern Nigeria, took the festival to Kaduna, 500 miles (800 kilometers) from Lagos.

In summing up the aims of the festival, Dr. Emiko Atimomo said: “These aims suggest that Africa and the Black World must begin to reconstruct their societies so as to revive the lost heritage of their ancestors, because it is in so doing that co-operation can better be achieved between the Black peoples of the world and other societies of the universe.” The announced objective was to promote better international and interracial understanding, which eventually would facilitate, among black communities in foreign lands, a “return to origin.” The black communities in foreign lands are called the Diaspora.

The desire to “return to origin” was expressed throughout the festival in dramas, dances, songs and the colloquium by a rejection and condemnation of colonialism and an extolling of African culture and political emancipation. A typical example of this was seen in the musical play called “The Drum,” presented by the Somali troupe. This play traced the black man’s experience from his seemingly primitive tranquillity, through the slave trade and colonial subjugation, to his regaining of independence. This “revolt against European civilization” was considered necessary because the conviction has been expressed that “time and colonialism have cut Black Africa from its authentic culture of the past” and that the “traditional culture has been undermined by foreign religion, foreign technology, foreign culture and foreign rule.”

For this reason the scholars who took part in the colloquium appealed for “unity and the solidarity of black people in spite of their ideological differences and the diversity of their geographical and historical conditions.” They held the view that the common factor shared in the destiny of the world’s black peoples is their aspiration toward liberation, toward regaining their cultural identity and their legitimate place in the world. Therefore, recommendations were presented for cooperation in various fields, such as education, government, language and religion, with an African orientation. Black peoples in the Diaspora expressed the view that Africa is the foundation of their ethnic and cultural identity, and so it is around Africa that they intend to rebuild their unity.

Acknowledged Obstacles

While recommendations were made that Swahili be adopted as Africa’s lingua franca, that there be a revival of African traditional religion and culture, and that an ideology of African Socialism be adopted, some saw the need for caution. In his analysis of FESTAC, Dr. Opeyemi Ola said that “certain aspects of the traditional culture do not deserve to be retained or revived . . . because they are either negative or outdated.” He advocated an African technology in order for “Black Africa to move rapidly into the modern present and ultra-modern future.” Therefore, Dr. Ola recommended the establishing of a Pan-African University of Science and Technology.

Dr. Ola further cautioned that “whatever FESTAC may record today in the scoreboard of triumphs, politics may offset and neutralize it tomorrow.” This is perhaps why he later wrote that some of the leaders in “their mini-nations have been more cruel and more unfaithful to the black men under their rule than the white colonial masters!” Such leaders are seen as standing between Black Africa and transformation.

Nevertheless, the nations and communities at FESTAC felt that they had established a basis for confirming African culture as a world culture for achieving progress toward a civilization that would equal that of the already developed nations.

Unsolved Problems

Yet, modern civilization as a whole has not removed the areas of social, cultural and political stress that exist among mankind. Rather, it has enlarged and accentuated them. Indeed, civilization’s technology has been directed largely in a negative way, in the production and distribution of sophisticated weapons of aggression and defense. Moreover, the breakdown of human relations has become critical, with an increase of crime, immorality and drug addiction, and a weakening of the family structure. In fact, some aspects of the increasing crime in developing countries are viewed as a legacy of modern civilization.

Nigerian journalists now are speaking of their country as a “nation threatened from within.” They lament the increasing of violent crimes among citizens to whom “the sanctity of property and of person is a meaningless concept.” In spite of the large sums of money spent in modernizing the cities and building highways, the citizens live in fear of being victims of violent crime. Even the public execution of armed robbers has not been a completely effective deterrent to such violence.

Looking back to the social situation that existed in Nigeria prior to the colonial era and the introduction of modern civilization, writers refer to the time when “daily living was more leisurely . . . Parents, children and indeed the extended family . . . were well aware of their civic and family responsibilities. There were fewer police and fewer prisoners.”

The alarming change toward a moral breakdown has been viewed as largely an economic problem. Growing corruption and dishonesty among those who make a showy display of wealth arouse envy and greed among others, who begin feeling that they, too, must be dishonest to acquire wealth and the many possessions that modern civilization offers. The materialistic outlook further expresses itself in the ‘new morality’ and the resulting promiscuity that threatens the family structure in most countries and has made venereal disease a major epidemic. In Nigeria some have termed gonorrhea a “gentleman’s disease” because to them it appears that promiscuity is more evident among the wealthy or the scholars, who are most influenced by the social ways and materialistic philosophy of modern civilization. Not surprisingly, gonorrhea and syphilis are on the increase in this country.

A “Return to Origin” the Answer?

Of course, the world in general faces formidable social, political, racial, health and other problems. So, what should nations and individuals do? Is it desirable to dispense with modern scientific aids and laborsaving devices and ‘return to their origins’ of several centuries ago, when these things were lacking, life had greater hardships, and health hazards may have been more common?

Would it not be better to ‘return to the origin’ that Jehovah God gave the human race? God gave man a perfect start and the prospect of eternal life in an earthly paradise. Most important of all, the first man, Adam, was a “son of God.” (Luke 3:38; Gen. 1:26-28; 2:7-15) Choosing to sin, however, Adam lost his position as a son of God, and he bequeathed sin and death to his offspring. (Rom. 5:12) Only by availing oneself of the ransom sacrifice of Jesus Christ can a person again entertain the prospect of everlasting life in a restored paradise on this earth. (John 3:16; 17:3; Luke 23:43) What a “return to origin” that will be!

Soon, under the rule of God’s heavenly kingdom, a new civilization will be achieved on this earth. Man then will have full opportunity to use his intellectual capacities in various fields of endeavor. But this will be more than a new civilization. It will be a true “return to origin,” because obedient mankind will become real children of God. “For,” wrote the Christian apostle Paul, “the creation was subjected to futility . . . on the basis of hope that the creation itself also will be set free from enslavement to corruption and have the glorious freedom of the children of God.”

The Continents Beneath Your Feet—Are They Drifting?

2008-10-07T03:50:00.003-07:00

HAVE you ever noticed, when looking at a map of the Atlantic Ocean, how the east coast of South America seems to match the west coast of Africa? If you fit the hump of Brazil into Africa’s Gulf of Guinea, the shoreline all the way from Guyana to Argentina matches amazingly well with the line from Ghana to Capetown. The two continents seem like pieces of a gigantic jigsaw puzzle.

Perhaps when you noticed this, the thought crossed your mind that at one time South America and Africa may have actually been joined, and that somehow they split and drifted apart. If so, you probably dismissed the idea as preposterous, just a curious coincidence.

But do you know that this idea is now considered seriously by most geologists? A theory that proposes that the continents actually move here and there over the fluid mantle inside the earth’s crust has, since 1960, won general acceptance.

Theory of Continental Drift

The theory was first proposed, not by a geologist, but by a meteorologist in Germany, named Alfred Wegener. He suggested that, not only had South America and Africa once been joined, but all the continents had formed part of a single huge landmass. He called this hypothetical ancient continent Pangaea (meaning “all land”). He found that the fit of the continents was better when the outlines of the continental shelves were used, rather than the now-existing shorelines.

Today geologists use computers to slide and turn the continental outlines over a globe to obtain the best fit. In a typical reconstruction of the supposed ancient supercontinent, the southeastern coast of North America lies against the northwest coast of Africa. Eurasia is pivoted about Spain so that the west coast of Europe nuzzles in against Newfoundland and Greenland. Antarctica lies against southeast Africa, with Australia attached to its opposite side.

When Wegener first proposed this revolutionary concept in 1912, it aroused mixed feelings among geologists. Any theory that goes counter to prevailing notions in science is usually received cautiously. Continental drift met with a reception even cooler than usual, perhaps because its author was not a member of the geologists’ circles. Although there were solid bits of evidence to support the theory, it was “proved” mathematically that the earth’s crust is too strong to allow any lateral movement of the continents. And, it was asked, Where would any force originate to push the continents one way or another? No one could suggest anything that stood up under analysis. The idea gradually came to be ignored by reputable scientists.

Evidence for the Theory: Conformity

Why, then, have geologists changed their minds about continental drift? In the first place, there have gradually accumulated several kinds of evidence that they find hard to explain any other way. Among these are the similarity of geological formations and of fossil deposits on continents now widely separated, as well as the wandering of the magnetic poles of the earth.

As an example of geological conformity, we are told of a succession of sedimentary deposits, laid down during what is called the Paleozoic geologic era, and later exposed when they were lifted up into mountain ranges. Deposits of red sandstone, gray shales, and coal beds are found in the Appalachian mountain system in eastern North America, extending to eastern Greenland. They are also found in the highlands of the British Isles. Similar sediments are found in the Kjölen range in Scandinavia, and along the Atlas range in northwest Africa. In the theoretical parent continent of Pangaea, all these rock formations are believed to have been part of a continuous mountain system whose remnants are now widely separated on three continents.

The similarity in fossils found in these strata on both sides of the Atlantic is used as a further argument for the theory. Fish fossils are abundant, also land plants, even forests of tall tree ferns and great scale trees. Another oft-cited example of conformity of the fossil record is that of the mesosaurus, a small dinosaur that lived during the so-called Paleozoic era. Its fossils are found in southwest Africa and in Brazil, but they have not been found in other parts of the earth. If South America and Africa were joined at that time, then the range of the mesosaurus would have been one continuous area.

Wandering Magnetic Poles

More convincing proof has come from study of the mysterious phenomenon of polar wandering. The belief that the magnetic poles of the earth have moved about is based on measurements of the magnetization of igneous rocks. When a hot rock is cooled in a magnetic field, it is left weakly magnetized, because particles of magnetic minerals in the rock line up in the direction of the magnetic field. This shows the direction of the earth’s magnetic field at the time the rock was formed, like a “frozen compass.”

Now you might expect that all such fossil compasses would point north, but, surprisingly, rocks of different geologic ages show magnetization in many different directions. It is as if the magnetic pole were wandering widely and aimlessly all over the earth—hence the expression “polar wandering.”

However, when the directions are arranged in order according to the apparent successive ages of the rocks, it is found that the pole does follow a definite path from age to age. Furthermore, when the magnetism of rocks in other places on the same continent is measured, it is found that they consistently trace out the same path.

This discovery put the geophysicist in a quandary. Although no one knows what causes the earth’s magnetic field, it seems that it must be in some way related to the earth’s rotation, and it is hard to believe that the magnetic pole can stray very far from the geographic pole, surely not clear across the equator as the rock compasses indicated. Now, of course, the wandering magnetic paths would be explained equally well if the pole stayed fixed while the continents slid around over the globe, but that seemed even harder to believe.

What tipped the balance between two incredible explanations was the discovery that magnetic measurements on different continents usually indicate entirely different paths for the pole. This could not be explained by movements of the pole, because the earth has only one north pole, and it can’t go in several different directions at the same time. This appeared to geologists as a strong indication that the continents had actually moved independently of each other, over many thousands of miles.

Evidence from the Ocean Floors

New evidence that finally converted geologists to belief in continental drift came from the bottom of the sea. Exploration of the ocean floors really got under way in the International Geophysical Year of 1955. Oceanographers used elaborate sounding devices to chart the ocean floors. By timing echoes, they probed, not only the floor of sediment on the bottom, but also the depth of the basement of basalt rock underneath. They came to an astonishing conclusion about the ocean floors: They concluded that these are not fixed, but appear to be forming continuously at definite boundaries and spreading on a global scale.

Let us examine the discoveries that led to this startling hypothesis. The first clue to come to light was a long mountain ridge in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. Starting there, geologists have mapped a system of mid-ocean ridges that literally encircles the earth. A typical ridge rises from the ocean floor, some three miles (5 kilometers) deep, to a peak about two miles (3 kilometers) above the floor. It is flanked on both sides by a strip of hilly terrain hundreds of miles wide. A striking feature is a valley that runs like a crack right along the crest of the ridge, thus dividing it into a pair of parallel ridges.

The acoustic soundings from the surface have been supplemented by using vessels equipped to drill holes in the bottom of the sea. These have brought up cores of rock for close inspection and analysis, some as long as 1,500 feet (460 meters), from many parts of the ocean. These surveys disclose that the ridges themselves are bare igneous rock, and that there is little or no sediment up to 60 miles (97 kilometers) on either side. Farther away, they show increasingly thicker layers of sediment, up to a mile thick.

Magnetic surveys over the oceans in the vicinity of the ridges resulted in another striking discovery. There are strips of rock lying parallel to the ridges in which the magnetism is reversed. It is as if the north and south poles had been reversed when the rocks formed. This reverse magnetization had been noted earlier in certain volcanic lava flows, but near the oceanic ridges there appears to be a continuous record of normal and reverse magnetic polarities frozen into the ocean bed. There is no explanation for this mysterious change; after all, no one knows why the earth has a magnetic field, much less why it reverses itself. It is just an observed fact of creation.

Sea-Floor Spreading

Geologists explain all three of these observations by a single hypothesis, called sea-floor spreading. They suppose that the mid-ocean ridge is being formed continuously by the upwelling of magma from the earth’s plastic mantle through a crack in the earth’s crust, and that the ocean floor is moving away from both sides of the crack as it is formed. The newly formed rock is clean, and sediment accumulates slowly and becomes noticeable only after the new rock has been exposed for some time and has moved away from the ridge. The parallel bands of normal and reverse magnetic polarity result when the magma oozes out and solidifies for a time while the earth’s poles are normal, and then for a time while they are reversed.

The findings indicate that at the present time the floor of the Atlantic Ocean is spreading a little more than an inch (2.5 centimeters) a year, and the Pacific Ocean about six inches (15 centimeters) a year. But if the earth is forming new crust on the ocean floor on this prodigious scale, it must be getting rid of its old crust somewhere else. After all, the total surface of the earth is not increasing. Geophysicists speculate that this takes place along certain boundaries where one part of the crust slides under another part and descends into the hot interior, where it melts and is consumed into the fluid mantle again. They believe that this is not a smooth process, but is accompanied by earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. It forms deep ocean trenches and high mountain ranges along the consumption boundary lines.

The Theory of Tectonic Plates

From a world map of the mid-ocean ridges and the consumption boundaries, geologists have divided up the whole earth’s surface into six large (and several smaller) plates of rigid rock. These plates, they postulate, are being formed at the ridges and move like a conveyor belt toward boundaries with other plates, where one of them is thrust underneath into the mantle and is dissolved. The continents are carried on these plates, like an Eskimo’s igloo on an ice floe.

This is called the tectonic-plate theory, from the Greek word for “builder.” Both the continental drift and the sea-floor spreading are included as parts of the broader theory.

Let us look at a few examples of how this theory is used to explain observed features of the earth’s crust. The American plate, which carries both North and South America, as well as the western half of the Atlantic Ocean, theoretically is being formed at the mid-Atlantic ridge and moving west. Along the western coast of South America, a smaller plate arising in the eastern Pacific collides with and plunges under the American plate. This supposedly causes a deep trench in the ocean off the coast of South America, and lifts the Andes mountains to the highest peaks in the Americas. The crumpling of the oceanic plate causes frequent earthquakes all along the Pacific coast. When, according to the theory, the lighter rock carried down into the mantle melts, it rises through cracks in the continental crust above it to form the volcanoes in the Andean Cordillera.

A detailed map of the mid-oceanic ridge shows that it is not really continuous, but it is offset by numerous faults at right angles. Along these transform faults, as they are called, the two theoretical plates slide horizontally. Geologists suggest that the friction from this movement is another cause of earthquakes. One of the longest of these transform faults lies between the American plate and the Pacific plate along the west coast of North America. Along this line, well known to Californians as the San Andreas fault, the Pacific plate is moving northwest against the American plate at about two inches (5 centimeters) per year. The resulting strains cause frequent earthquakes.

The city of San Francisco lies athwart this fault, and the coast of California to the south lies west of it, on the Pacific plate. So if the present movement is not interrupted, it is predicted that at some far-distant time the site of Los Angeles will lie close to where San Francisco is today.

Evidences that some places once had a climate very different from the present one also are viewed by geologists as fitting the theory of continental drift. In the postulated Pangaea, the present-day continents were all much farther south than now, excepting Antarctica. North America and the Spanish peninsula were on the equator. South America, Africa, India, and Australia were all clustered around Antarctica in the south polar regions.

Will the Theory Stand?

Scientists take satisfaction in finding a theory that apparently brings many disparate kinds of information together into a unified picture. That is what they believe the tectonic-plate theory has done for the science of geology. But does that mean that it is therefore the final and correct answer? Not necessarily.

In spite of seeming wide-ranging successes of the theory, there are still many bits of information that do not fit into it. Geologists argue over the interpretation of details. As research continues, some of these questions may be answered in a way that harmonizes with the theory. On the other hand, there may remain stubborn facts that cannot be reconciled with it.

One major shortcoming is acknowledged in the present state of the theory. The forces that cause the upwelling magma along the ridges are not explained. Some geologists have been content with the general statement that convection currents inside the earth’s mantle are responsible. But what generates the convection, and why does its pattern change? When this idea is examined in detail, it breaks down. A convection current in air or water rises around a central axis, not in a long slender sheet that would form a ridge. It is even more difficult to imagine how the displacements along the transform faults can result from convection currents.

Professors Flint and Skinner of Yale University offer this word of caution in their book Physical Geology:

“The theory of plate tectonics seems to provide answers for so many questions that we are tempted to believe it is the long-sought unifying theory that explains the lithosphere [the land areas of the earth, from its surface to the center of the earth]. But we must be careful. Other theories, too, have seemed overwhelming in their promise, yet in the long run have proved incorrect. The theory of plate tectonics is still only a theory.”

Whether the tectonic-plate theory survives the test of time and proves correct or not, we have abundant evidence of the great power and wisdom of earth’s Creator. Of him the psalmist wrote: “Long ago you laid the foundations of the earth itself, and the heavens are the work of your hands.” (Ps. 102:25) The questions Jehovah put to Job thousands of years ago still remain unanswerable by modern geologists: “Where did you happen to be when I founded the earth? Tell me, if you do know understanding. Who set its measurements, in case you know, or who stretched out upon it the measuring line? Into what have its socket pedestals been sunk down, or who laid its cornerstone?

Mother’s Milk—a Wasted Resource

2008-10-07T03:50:00.001-07:00

WHAT is the economic loss involved in the bottle-feeding of babies instead of letting them breast-feed? Science magazine answers that in some countries, ‘a laborer may need to spend a third of his daily wage to buy milk for his baby.’ It is estimated that in one South American country “the annual loss of human milk is equivalent to that produced by 32,000 cows.” The magazine then observes: “For the developing world as a whole, the cost of wasted human milk can be put at more than three-quarters of a billion dollars at the very least, and losses are ‘more likely in the billions,’ according to Alan Berg, World Bank deputy director for nutrition.”

And in buying cow’s milk instead of breast-feeding the infant, is the baby benefited by the money spent? It is now recognized that human milk possesses “unidentified factors” that protect against bacterial infections, and perhaps even influenza virus. Cow’s milk lacks these qualities.

Is It Progress?

2008-10-07T03:49:00.001-07:00

MANY persons today are greatly impressed by the achievements of science and technology. But what has been the effect of these advancements upon people as a whole? Does the standard of living that science and technology have made possible really make life richer and more meaningful?

In the book Environment, William W. Murdoch, associate professor of biology at the University of California, comments:

“I have said that in an affluent society we can conceive of an optimum standard of living which is below the maximum we could achieve, and that we should therefore consider putting an end to economic growth as we know it. This implies that increasing affluence is not necessarily correlated with an increasing quality of life, and that in the United States we may already be experiencing a decline in the average quality of life as our COLLECTIVE wealth increases. . . . The weight of evidence as exemplified in this book favors the hypothesis that as we grow richer in the United States the quality of our shared environment declines.”

Clearly, what modern science and technology can offer does not necessarily mean progress in every aspect of life. The World Book Encyclopedia acknowledges: “In spite of his scientific and technological progress, man has not been so successful in dealing with human problems.” Why is this? One reason is that all too often the guidelines of the source of wisdom, Jehovah God, are ignored.

A scientist and university professor in Chile came to appreciate this fact after some months of study with Jehovah’s Witnesses. When resigning from a political position in the university, he wrote:

“There are powerful reasons leading me to this decision. Everywhere we see fraud, lying, envy, hatred, violence and an unmerciful fight for fame and power. Universities are not free from these stigmas.

“We impart superior teaching. But what real benefits has it given to the society in which we live? We observe pollution that increases day after day, drug addiction within a large part of youth, increase of delinquency and collective neurosis.

“We have encouraged exaltation through diplomas and degrees—perhaps to dazzle the people. We have stimulated others to fight for fame and power and at the same time we have undoubtedly helped to create selfishness and disunity. As a Christian, I have become convinced of how mistaken all of this is.”

How Long Would You Like To Live?

2008-10-07T03:48:00.001-07:00

WHEN things go well, life is enjoyable. The thought of living on and on, even forever, may well appeal to you. But then hardships, perhaps great obstacles and tragedies, may enter your life. Yet, even then, you are not eager to die.

The fact is that people generally cling to life, cost what it may. In 1974, in the United States alone, cancer patients paid out seven billion dollars in an effort to stop that killer and continue living.

The New York Times of July 22, 1974, reported concerning a cancer patient, a doctor, who used every conceivable means to fight his illness and yet died at the age of thirty-nine, as follows:

“There are many other dying patients who, like Dr. Leinbach, put up a fight to the very last. . . . Their will to live is a basic human instinct . . . his widow insisted that every day he managed to stay alive was of great value to him. ‘Of all the things Gary wanted,’ she said, ‘it was life.’ . . . Just before his death, she had asked him if he considered the vigor of his efforts to stay alive worthwhile. She said he had answered clearly: ‘Yes.’”

When we have health there is a tendency to take life for granted. A magazine writer, after a brush with death during a serious illness, writes: “I don’t know when I have been so happy in terms of enjoying the simplest things—things which I had taken completely for granted before. I sometimes laugh at myself. It’s like going through a second childhood. I enjoy a drink of water. I enjoy a piece of fruit. I enjoy the sunlight. I go into my garden and look at the trees. I discover that I had never really seen what a tree looked like in all those years that I had good health. And I enjoy the birds’ singing—just everything!”

A teacher of philosophy expressed the sentiment of many others when he said: “It is outrageous that such a beautiful phenomenon as intelligent, sentient life should be encased in such fleeting vulnerable bodies.”

Potential to Live How Long?

One may grant that it is reasonable that man should live much longer, even forever, but is it scientifically possible? In its discussion of “Death,” under the subheading “Potential Immortality,” the Encyclopædia Britannica (1959 ed., Vol. 7, p. 112A) states:

“It may fairly be said that the potential immortality of all essential cellular elements of the body either has been fully demonstrated, or has been carried far enough to make the probability very great, that properly conducted experiments would demonstrate the continuance of the life of these cells in culture to any indefinite extent.”

Of course, this is the result of an experiment with cells in the laboratory. The Encyclopædia goes on to say that the cause of death is not surely known (that is, death by degeneration, old age). It may be from cell deterioration in the body. Or it may be from a gradual breaking down of organized functions of the cells and their inability to “cooperate” within a total organism, rather than the dying off of individual cells, which, when destroyed, are, in the natural process, replaced by new cells. An exception to this restorative ability’ is found in the nerve cells, which, when destroyed, are not replaceable. However, a damaged nerve cell can heal itself. Even a severed nerve, if properly sutured, can regenerate itself, though healing of the nerves is a relatively slow process.

Says Gary K. Frykman, assistant professor of orthopedic surgery at the Loma Linda, California, School of Medicine, where one or two attachments of severed fingers are performed every month: “If more than one finger has been lost, or a thumb, the patient may feel that he needs to have them reattached to carry out his job, or even for cosmetic reasons.”

Frykman continues: “Under those circumstances, we tell the patient there is a 50-50 chance that we can reattach the fingers or thumb successfully, but we warn him that it may be several months before he will be able to get anything like full use out of them.” Thus, nerves do possess regenerative or healing power.

What Hope from the Scientific Field?

Medical researchers have labored hard and long on ways to delay aging and to prolong life. Can we look to them with hope? They can help a little. But there is no solid evidence of any progress toward a dramatic increase in the human life-span. The increase of the average life expectancy during the past fifty years is due primarily to a decrease in infant and child mortality. Writing in Bestways magazine, Graduate Pharmacist Louis Stambovsky decries the fact that mankind, maturing at twenty-one years of age, lives only about forty or fifty years of mature life. He calls attention to this interesting fact:

“It seems that every mammal [among animals] who lives in the manner and intent normal for his species, lives six to seven times its maturity age. The horse matures in about three years and dies between 18 and 21. The dog reaches a total growth in about three years and should attain the same span as the horse. This formula is applicable to the monkey, cat, bear, etc. Man’s maturity age is 21. By parallel deduction, he should live between 120 and 140 years.”

What prospect do science and medicine hold out? The Scientific American, summing up the matter, said:

“Even if the major causes of death in old age—heart disease, stroke and cancer—were eliminated, the average life expectancy would not be lengthened by much more than 10 years. It would then be about 80 years instead of the expectancy of about 70 years that now prevails in advanced countries.”

These statements are in agreement with the Bible writer Moses, who described the experience of most persons who reach old age: “In themselves the days of our years are seventy years; and if because of special mightiness they are eighty years, yet their insistence is on trouble and hurtful things; for it must quickly pass by, and away we fly.”—Ps. 90:10.

No Reason to Give Up

Do these sobering facts mean that a young person should not care for life, to make it as long as possible, or that an aged person should give up the idea of doing any worthwhile work or of making any contribution to the welfare of his fellowman? Not at all. We can take courage from a statement by Pharmacist Stambovsky.’

“Longevity . . . can be of inestimable value to the community, to the nation and to the world. Such persons are rich in valuable experience, gained through years of trial and error, successes and failures. Witness Edison whose fertile brain was active in the eighties; Gladstone was selected prime minister of England at 60, many years ago when 60 was really ancient, a position he held until 82. Walter Damrosch embarked upon a career as a concert pianist at 78.”

There are reasons, then, for doing the best we can with this life. How can it be made more enjoyable and profitable? Furthermore, is there an even better hope—that of everlasting life? Let us survey the matter further.

“This Is a Bulletin!”

2008-10-07T03:47:00.001-07:00

NO MATTER what we are doing, the words “This is a bulletin” grip our attention. Everyone’s routine suddenly halts at those urgent words. Motorists turn up their car radios. Housewives stop their work. Conversations abruptly cease. The announcer’s next words could be anything—a disaster in your own community, the assassination of a world leader.

Such scenes are repeated somewhere in the world almost every day. But what we do not see is what happens behind the scenes in the few moments before “This is a bulletin” shatters the normal routine of broadcasting. We can find out by stepping inside the nerve center of a national news agency, the newsroom.

One of our first impressions is the quiet. Newsrooms have an almost traditional reputation for noisy, but organized, “confusion”—dozens of teletypes loudly banging out news and sports stories from all over the world, the clickety-clack of many typewriters as reporters and editors work on stories, and the copyboys rushing completed stories to and from the editors. And, indeed, for many decades this description was accurate.

But in this computer age the news agency has also kept up with the advance of science. Noisy teletypes are gone. In their place are modern machines with special electronic heads that slide noiselessly back and forth across the teletype paper. Some high-speed machines produce material at the rate of twelve hundred words per minute—entire paragraphs of six lines in only three seconds!

Gone, too, are the typewriters. Instead, newsmen sit at computer terminals resembling television sets with a keyboard. As a writer strikes the keys, letters appear on the screen and the story takes shape. With such equipment, the newsman can make changes on the spot. He can rephrase statements, take out sentences or entire paragraphs and reinsert them somewhere else in the story, or simply delete them entirely.

The only noise now is conversation, an occasional telephone ringing, and, of course—the bells. Bells signal the editor that an urgent story is coming in. They are not heard often, and a visitor may not even notice the quick series of quiet rings. But the machine that sounds the alarm gets prompt attention from at least one of the newsmen on duty.

How It All Began

In Paris, in 1835, a man named Charles Havas decided to go into a new business for himself. He subscribed to a number of foreign newspapers, and as they arrived, he had the financial information translated and printed. He sold this to businessmen in the city. Newspapers also became interested. So Havas expanded his operation, translating and selling news stories, as well as financial information.

Soon Havas was collecting news from across France—by messenger, carrier pigeon, and later by the telegraph. Thus Agence France-Presse, the news agency of France, was born. Meanwhile, in New York city, six publishers formed a news-gathering agency that later became known as the Associated Press (AP). Soon others were springing up all over the world—Reuters in London, the Canadian Press in Toronto.

Hundreds of newspapers were finding that their readers wanted to be informed of events happening throughout the world, not just in their own communities. It was out of the question for newspapers to provide such broad coverage on their own. But by pooling resources to operate a news agency, this kind of coverage became possible.

Yet, how do these agencies get all their news?

Agencies in Operation

There are two kinds of news agencies—national and international. A national agency disseminates information within a particular country. It sets up a series of bureaus, usually one in each state or province. The agency may sell its service to hundreds, even thousands of newspapers, radio and television stations across the nation. The cost generally depends on the size of a particular station or paper.

Each newspaper and radio or television station has its own news staff to handle local news in that area. But when a story breaks that may be of interest to people outside their own community, they send it to the national news-agency bureau for that region. The bureau, in turn, transmits news of regional interest to all clients in the area it covers.

Meanwhile, the agency’s head office monitors all the regional news items from its bureaus nation wide. When items of broad interest appear, they are picked up and sent out nationally. In addition, the national news agency has its own staff of reporters and editors who gather news and cover major stories.

To get information on world events, national news agencies subscribe to one or more international news agencies. These cover several countries, selling their service to national agencies and sometimes larger newspapers and radio and television stations. In turn, international agencies monitor each of the national services. When a story with an international flavor appears, the international service picks it up and the incident becomes an international story.

Agencies monitoring one another have their computers interconnected. That is, once a story moves on the wire of one agency, it automatically goes also into the computer of each agency that has bought that service. Consider what happens when a major story breaks:

Assume it happens in San Francisco. The Associated Press could be the first to have the story and a reporter there may prepare a bulletin of four or five lines in just a few seconds on his computer terminal. His editor checks it for accuracy and moves it immediately. Seconds later the item has been picked up and relayed nationally by editors at the head office in New York, to appear on teletypes in newspaper, radio and television newsrooms across the United States.

Meanwhile, an editor at the Canadian Press in Toronto, alerted by the bulletin bells, calls the story up on his computer terminal, checks it and moves it across Canada. By now AP has also moved the story on its international wire, and its affiliated national news services are transmitting the story within their own countries. Within four or five minutes of the time that the San Francisco reporter completed his bulletin, the story—never retyped or rewritten by anyone—could be appearing on the teletype of a radio station in Newfoundland, or of a newspaper in Rome.

While all of this is going on, different news agencies Reuters, United Press International and others—also are picking up the story.

Television and Satellites

Television news has similar information sources. Local stations get much of their programming from a television network that provides both news and entertainment. Though usually joining the network at least once a day for a national newscast, local stations often subscribe to one or more news agencies and provide news programs of their own.

Networks and some larger television stations are equipped with mobile studios that can drive to the scene of a breaking story and broadcast developments live. The story can either be carried on the one station or broadcast over an entire network of stations. Thus, in 1970, several million Canadians watched as kidnappers of British diplomat James Cross drove their bomb-laden car through Montreal streets after negotiating an agreement that allowed them to fly out of the country.

Affiliated networks in other countries may also pick up major stories and carry them live or broadcast them later. This is often done by means of a complicated system of space satellites and microwave relay stations.

For example, if a Canadian television network wanted film of a serious air crash in Australia, the local television station would transmit it through a series of microwave systems to the nearest earth station of a satellite system. From there it would be broadcast to an Intelsat satellite somewhere over the Pacific. This satellite would rebroadcast it to an earth station in British Columbia. From there it would be sent to a Telesat (Canadian communications satellite system) earth station and relayed to another satellite over western Canada. The signal then would be broadcast to an earth station at Rivière-Rouge, Quebec, and sent by microwave to Montreal or Toronto.

All of this takes place in just a fraction of a second. Of course, it is quite expensive—costing several thousand dollars for just a few minutes. Since satellite time is sold for a minimum of ten minutes, networks often bring in material “piggyback.” Two or three together may rent a certain period of time to transmit films that they want for later use on a newscast.

News Affects You

With all this technology, do we get all the news? No. News agencies receive far, far more information than they can possibly use. Many use only about 5 to 7 percent of their total material. In turn, the subscribers to the wire services use only a part of the information they receive. So no matter where we live or what we read, likely there is far more going on in the world than we realize.

What people living in smaller cities and communities learn about world events may depend on the decisions of just half a dozen men and women a thousand miles away. But even in major cities where the media have access to several agencies, the number of people who ultimately decide what to use is relatively small. And since any newsman is going to use the most important stories of the hour, much of the news appearing on wire services is the same, shaping your view of the world according to those particular stories.

When a government changes hands, whether by election, revolution or war, it is front-page news. But, ironically, news agencies are completely unaware of impending greatest news story of all time. For today we are at the threshold of a worldwide change in government, the end of this entire global system.

An it is only unknowingly that, by means of their fast and often thorough coverage of certain world events, news agencies make Christians ever more aware of the evidence that we are deep into the “last days” of this world’s system

How Much Confidence Should You Have in Science?

2008-10-07T03:46:00.001-07:00

ADVANCES in various fields of science have certainly made contributions to the welfare of the human family. Various medical procedures have helped to prolong life and ease suffering. Advances in technology have improved the quality of our lives in some ways, and have made jobs easier.

Because of such advances, many people view science with an almost worshipful awe. The successful moon landings by astronauts reinforce this feeling. As a result, the ideas expressed by scientists in other matters are also highly respected by many people. And it is a widely held belief that whatever problems the human family faces will eventually be solved, with science and technology leading the way.

This prevailing view was summed up a few years ago in a report published in connection with the 200th anniversary of the founding of the well-known J. R. Geigy pharmaceutical corporation in Basel, Switzerland. One of the commentators, German physicist Professor C. F. von Weizsäcker, is reported as having stated:

“Science today is the only thing in which men as a whole believe: it is the only universal religion of our time . . . The scientist has thus got himself into an ambiguous position: he is a priest of this new religion, possessing its secrets and marvels; for what to others is puzzling, strange or secret is plain to him.”

But is such confidence in science justified? Not according to von Weizsäcker. He notes that any scientist worthy of the name should realize “that what he knows is only a fraction of what he needs to know if he is really to be fit to carry responsibility for the lives of men.” He should appreciate that even in his speciality there is so much he does not know. And honest scientists understand that while science has produced things improving life, it has also done the opposite. It has been responsible for producing things that have made life miserable for millions of people.

The bloodshed and destruction of this century’s world wars are an example. World War II alone is reported to have taken over 50 million lives. Many of these victims died in horrible ways due to the inventions of science and technology: explosives dropped on many peace-loving civilians by speeding aircraft, rockets, tanks, flamethrowers, automatic weapons, torpedoes, atomic bombs and other engines of death. These, too, were the products of scientific and industrial “advancement.”

In more recent times science and technology have shared responsibility for making and using things that have resulted in pollution, noise, congestion and tension. All these facts should make scientists more modest in their claims, and other people more careful as to where they put their confidence.

Problems with Chemicals

Even men of science generally devoted to improving man’s life have awesome problems to face as we can see, for instance, in the drug industry. New drugs are constantly appearing on the market, but the supervision and testing of such drugs have not always been thorough enough.

What happened in West Germany (as well as on a minor scale in Sweden, Canada and Brazil) a few years ago demonstrates the tragic results that can come from the misuse of drugs. The drug Thalidomide was widely used as a tranquilizer. Expectant mothers also used it. But some of them found, to their horror, that upon their giving birth their babies were malformed because of the drug. Thousands of these children were physically or mentally retarded, and remain so to this day. Of these children, the West German news magazine Der Spiegel said:

“They are the victims of a catastrophic mishap, brewed together in the test tubes of a scientifically persuaded generation; the ones forced to suffer because of a mysteriously effective mechanism built into one tenth of a gram of white substance; into the sleeping pills Thalidomide.”

Der Spiegel noted that 310,000,000 dosages of the sedative had been sold between 1957 and 1961. It had been advertised as “nontoxic,” “harmless,” and “completely nonpoisonous.’’ The magazine added: “Nine men were indicted. Not indicted is the willingness of a scientifically persuaded generation to consume medicines by the ton, although scientists in most cases do not know even today just how these affect the human organism.”

Since that time drug procedures have been tightened. Yet the quantity of drugs pouring out of factories is staggering. People all over the world are consuming billions of various drug pills each year. And newer ones are continually being put on the market. The damage to health may appear only after a long period of usage, as proved in the case of cigarette smoking. That is why H. Weicker, professor of human genetics at Bonn University and one of the leading medical experts called to testify at the Thalidomide trial in West Germany, said: “A disaster such as the Thalidomide catastrophe can again overtake us at any time.”

Naturwissenschaftliche Rundschau (Natural Science Review) of West Germany, in its September 1975 issue, stated: “Not only the feared Thalidomide, but apparently many other medicines could also cause deformities in newborn babies if taken by their mothers during the first six weeks of pregnancy, when the embryo is especially sensitive.”

At the School of Public Health in Berkeley, California, L. Milkovich and B. J. vanden Berg studied the effects of drugs in 19,044 newborn babies. Those whose mothers took no tranquilizers during the first 42 days of pregnancy had an average of 2.7 percent deformities. Where the mothers had taken a popular tranquilizer (Equanil), the deformity rate of the newborn babies was 12.1 percent. In the case of another popular drug (Librium), the deformity rate was 11.4 percent. Mothers who took other tranquilizers had about twice as many deformed babies as the mothers who took no drugs at all.

In the book Thalidomide and the Power of the Drug Companies (1972, p. 279), authors H. Sjöström and R. Nilsson declared: “In spite of all warnings, we shall evidently have to wait for a ‘genetic’ disaster to occur before the authorities and the chemical industry wake up. When this occurs owing to the failure to control the properties of some widely used chemical to induce hereditary change, we shall certainly hear from the authorities and from industry that ‘nobody ever thought of such a possibility,’ that ‘this catastrophe was unavoidable.’”

Yet, away back at the beginning of this century scientists were able to induce malformations in lower animals by the use of chemicals. And in spite of all the knowledge and experience gained since then, the load of chemicals (the effects of which on the human body when consumed over years are not yet fully understood, and which are introduced into pills, as well as food, drink and air) continues to mount. Although further factors are also involved, it is no wonder that so many ailments, such as cancer and heart disease, are on the increase.

These few examples from the history of medicine and pharmacy suffice in showing that blind and absolute faith in scientific “progress” is not justified.

This is certainly the case, too, in another field of science, where gullibility is even more pronounced and unjustified.

Tracing Man’s Origin

In the past century, the theory of evolution has been widely accepted and promoted by most scientists. This is the belief that humans have evolved from apelike beasts over a period of millions of years. Although some scientists reject the evolution theory and believe the Bible account that man was created directly by God, the majority of scientists speak as if evolution were a fact proved beyond dispute.

But that is not the case at all. If it were so, many scientists would not still be spending much of their time trying to prove it. They would not be devoting years to crawling around on their hands and knees in the heat of Africa and other places trying to find fossils to prove their theory.

But many evolutionary scientists are guilty of very unscientific procedures in being dogmatic on little or nonexistent evidence. Worse, they have at times been guilty of gross deceptions to try to convince the public that they are proving their theory.

For example, there was the infamous “Piltdown man.” This was asserted to be a vital “missing link” between man and beast. It was “discovered” by Charles Dawson at Piltdown, England, early in this century. But decades later it was exposed as a hoax, a fake. It turned out to be the skull of a modern man combined with the jawbone of an ape that had been “doctored” with chemicals to try to make it look ancient.

One of the broadcasts last year of a West German radio program dealing with science and education was entitled “Forgers in Science”; it told of more recent frauds. An interesting example was of a corpse that came to the attention of the Belgian Royal Academy of Science in 1969. The corpse was preserved in ice and appeared to be a first-rate scientific sensation. Dr. Bernard Heuvelmans, a zoologist and member of the Brussels Academy, said that it was a proof of the evolution theory. He submitted to the Academy the opinion that the apelike creature was a “missing link” between man and ape.

The creature was located in a freezer in the United States, in Minnesota. The zoologist spent days observing and appraising this supposed ancestor of man lying in icy armor. But after examinations, it was discovered that this apelike creature had been on ice, not for millions of years, but for only a few years!

What did Dr. Heuvelmans and other scientists conclude? Not that it was a fake. Instead, they concluded that in our modern era there must have been a remnant of pre-historic man living upon the earth! In a bulletin from the Belgian Academy of Natural Science, Dr. Heuvelmans tried to document his presumptuous theory with extensive illustrations. He even gave the creature the “scientific” name of homo pongoides, that is, “apelike man.”

However, the Academy was perplexed and suspicious. Further extensive and difficult investigations were made. With what conclusion? Was this the biological discovery of the century? The German radio program related: “By no means. Once again forgers had made fools of the scientists. The public was presented with a comedy which was difficult to see through, but it was very evident that it was well staged. The main characters, although unwillingly, were zoologists, anthropologists, paleontologists and other scientists.”

W. R. Lützenkirchen, who wrote the script for this radio program, said: “The ‘missing link’ between man and anthropoid ape is a swindle, a clear forgery. The primitive man . . . came out of the bag of tricks used in the film industry in Hollywood.” He noted that “trick specialists . . . brewed up the ‘missing link.’”

Other Frauds

While this forged “prehistoric man” was one of the more spectacular fakes in recent years, it was not the only one. The program commented on the discovery of supposed works of art of ‘prehistoric Neanderthal man’ in Dithmarschen, a rural section bordering on the North Sea in the northernmost German state of Schleswig-Holstein. North German historians felt that they had a sensational find. In the Dithmarsch State Museum in the city of Meldorf a display of these artifacts was quickly organized.

What happened next? Says Mr. Lützenkirchen “The well-known professor, Herbert Kühn, who specializes in pre-history and is an expert in pre-historic cave paintings, spoke at the opening of the display in Meldorf of a ‘climactic moment of archaeology.’ In exuberance and with euphoria the scientist announced ‘discoveries’ which could ‘compete with that of Galileo Galilei.’ In reality he was caught in a forgery comedy.”

The discoveries had been dated as being from 100,000 to 180,000 years old. But it was found that these works of art, supposedly Neanderthal, had been produced just recently! Responsible for the whole affair was a sales clerk from a village named “Albersdorf.” That was an appropriate coincidence, since in the German language “albern” means “silly.” The clerk had taken old wood and bones from animals and cleverly worked them over.

Some of such forgeries were discovered after only a few months. But others, such as the Piltdown fraud, took decades to uncover. And another example, which took years to expose, had to do with the ‘tools’ that the allegedly primitive ‘Steinheimer man’ was supposed to have used. Until recently these have been in museums and display cases.

In the publication Stuttgarter Beiträge zur Naturkunde (Stuttgart’s Contributions to Natural History), May 1974, evolutionist Professor K. D. Adam, chief curator of the State Museum of Natural Sciences in Stuttgart, stated that the supposed 250,000-year-old artifacts of ‘homo steinheimensis’ were a proof, not of evolution, but of scientific error. He added: “It is stated as a result of the discussed research that none of the countless, ostensible stone- and bone-tools can be proved to be an implement produced and used by man: they are pebbles of limestone, and also subordinated of sandstone and dolomite, as well as bone fragments, mostly indeterminable.”

Where Confidence Can Be Placed

Of course, there are finds relative to man’s origin that are much better documented than the forgeries. These clearly show that the ‘historical period’ of man began some five to six thousand years ago. And there has been solid scientific progress in gathering information about this earth and its life systems. Also in other fields, scientists have made genuine contributions to the welfare of mankind, all of which is commendable and very much appreciated.

But what is also clearly shown in the history of science is that scientists are only imperfect humans. They make mistakes just like everybody else. And often, because of the desire for fame, or because of pride and stubbornness, they will cling to ideas that are not the truth and that can even result in harm to people.

More and more people, including scientists, are acknowledging this. Especially is this the case in our time when the negative fruits of science and technology have become more obvious, and many times these backfire, to the torment of the human family. So it should be apparent that we cannot put total confidence and unshakable faith in humans, be they scientists or others.

There is only one source that merits total confidence and unshakable faith. That source is our Creator, Jehovah God. The Bible writer of Proverbs says: “The eyes of Jehovah are in every place.” (Prov. 15:3) Nothing is hidden from the Creator. Since he originated the universe and all life in it, he certainly knows where man came from and where he is going. He also makes available to those who trust him accurate information about such matters.

It is comforting to men and women of faith to know that their future does not depend upon what mere humans do. They appreciate that the record of human failures in past centuries gives no basis for confidence. Rather, faith in the dependable Creator does inspire confidence in the future. And the future He promises is one without sickness and sorrow. “‘For I myself well know the thoughts that I am thinking toward you,’ is the utterance of Jehovah, ‘thoughts of peace, and not of calamity, to give you a future and a hope.’”

Are the Problems Being Solved?

2008-10-07T03:45:00.001-07:00

A LIFE free from all of today’s agonizing problems? How can this be? When we look out at the world, we see problems growing.

For instance, in nearly every country on earth there are very serious and persistent economic problems. Millions have trouble finding suitable work. Debts are at an all-time high. Fathers worry about supporting their families. Mothers see prices going up all the time and are frustrated when trying to make ends meet. Half of the old folks in many so-called prosperous nations live in poverty. Hunger and illiteracy increase in poorer lands.

Yet, the world’s wisest economists cannot invent an economic system that assures lasting prosperity for all. They can only try to patch up this tottering system for a while, but then it breaks down again.

Family Life Breaking Down

Family life, too, is breaking down all over the world, not improving. Country after country sees a new peak in divorces.

In a marital situation that has become quite common, one woman wrote: “I’m very unhappy. My husband gets upset over practically nothing. We have one married son, but he comes home only for short visits and hardly tolerates me. We have few friends. Now, with the years passing, I find myself more and more isolated. I feel all alone in the world. What can I do to make life worth living?” Ever so many people feel just that way.

Parents today have added worries. Their children face problems no other generation of young people ever had. These young people see the ‘jungle’ that the world has become, and many are disgusted with it and afraid. As one student leader said in his graduation speech: “Today as we leave school a sense of frustration and despair overwhelms us.”

Where can parents turn for dependable help? Listen to this editorial in the New York Times. It said: ‘For a century or more parents have been bombarded with advice about family life. Doctors, nurses, teachers and theologians have given their advice, and in recent decades they have been joined by psychologists and psychoanalysts. But were we to collect all this good advice and inspect it, what would we find? Little more, I’m afraid, than a jumbled, noisy mass of contradiction. Pity, therefore, the poor parent. The more conscientious he or she is in seeking advice, the more confused he is likely to become.’

Problems with Science

At one time it was thought that science would help to lead the way to that better world and solve many of mankind’s distressing problems. But now scientists themselves admit that science often causes as many problems as it solves, if not more.

An example of the disappointment in science can be noted when we read the July 1899 issue of Scientific American. Away back then, this scientific publication predicted that the automobile ‘would have a fine influence on city life.’ It spoke of ‘light rubber-tired vehicles moving swiftly and noiselessly over clean, dustless and odorless streets, eliminating much of the nervousness, distraction and strain of modern city life.’

In the light of actual experience, that prediction is laughable today, is it not? Just the exact opposite has come to pass. In addition, around the world tens of thousands of people are killed and millions are injured every year by automobiles.

Even the inventors of machines have expressed dismay at the dashing of their dreams for a better world. In 1942, during World War II, Orville Wright, who with his brother Wilbur developed the airplane, wrote this to Henry Ford, Senior, developer of the mass-produced automobile: ‘Wilbur and I thought the airplane would hasten world peace. It seems to have done the opposite. I suspect that when you introduced mass-production—one of the great inventions of the ages—you little thought it would be used in building tanks for world destruction. It seems that no beneficial thing can be introduced without someone finding a vicious use for it.’

This same frustration is being felt in the medical field. At one time there were high hopes that modern medicine would conquer sickness and help to lead to a better world. But sickness has not been conquered. In fact, some of the worst ailments such as cancer and heart disease are making the biggest increases. Even some of the efforts at cures are backfiring. In the United States, about 30,000 people a year are said to die as the direct result of drugs prescribed by their doctors, with ten times as many suffering bad reactions.

No Peace

What about a world of total peace, with no locks, jails, police forces, armies or weapons of destruction? Why, the world is farther away from that than ever. Crime skyrockets; the nations now spend about 300 billion dollars a year on weapons; there is one war after another. Human leaders certainly are not bringing permanent world peace.

In the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, most leaders were predicting a grand new era of peace and prosperity. An encyclopedia comments: “Before 1914, even the theologians believed, as did all the cultivated and educated people, that the world was on its way toward a better future. To the best ones of the old generation, 1914 meant a shock they never got over.” In 1914 the world was engulfed in the most horrible war to that time, contrary to all the ‘rosy’ predictions. And World War II was even worse, taking an estimated 55 million lives!

Also, in recent years especially, people have seen corruption both in government and in business. As a result, polls show that confidence in human institutions is at an all-time low.

What is frustrating is that so many of these problems that affect people are beyond their control. Because of this, emotional instability grows. Why, in the United States alone last year about 57 million prescriptions—involving billions of pills—were filled for just one type of drug—a tranquilizer.

So, after all this time, we can be sure of one thing: humans, on their own, can never bring about the kind of life we want, the kind of life we described at the outset. It is little wonder, therefore, that we read this in the Bible, at Psalm 146, verse 3: “Do not put your trust in nobles, nor in the son of earthling man, to whom no salvation belongs.”

Meet the Bat—The Only Flying Mammal

2008-10-07T03:44:00.001-07:00

‘BATS are ugly creatures that live in dark, eerie caves. Their favorite haunts are cemeteries, where they fly among the tombstones on foggy nights. They carry bedbugs. What’s more, they’re blind, filthy and a menace to man.’

In a nutshell, that’s what many people think of us. But as an old bat, let me say something in our defense. Incidentally, calling me “old” can mean that I am getting on to being thirteen years of age, though I know of bats that have lived to be more than twenty.

Oh, yes.! That’s me—that big brown bat over there on the next page. I’m resting on a glass with a bright light underneath so that you can see everything. Take a good look while I tell you about myself and my relatives.

Getting Better Acquainted

We are mammals of the order Chiroptera. There are several hundred species of us throughout the temperate and tropical regions of the earth; so you won’t be able to meet all the relatives.

Basically, we are small, winged, furry creatures whose body resembles that of a mouse. In fact, the Germans call the bat Fledermaus, meaning “flying mouse.”

Among mammals, we alone can fly. “Oh, is that right?” you ask. “What about flying squirrels?” Well, all they can do is glide. We’re different. As Volume I of Mammals of the World puts it: “Bats are the only mammals that fly, although several gliding mammals are referred to as ‘flying.’”

Depending on the species, my relative’s head and face may resemble a bear, a dog, or maybe a fox. One is called the horse-headed bat, for obvious reasons. In some cases, the nose has a growth on it—perhaps one looking like a leaf. Sensory nerve endings are found in those growths.

Bats vary greatly, and I can just imagine someone asking, ‘Who’s the fairest of them all?’ Well, we’re not all ugly, that’s certain. But the wrinkle-faced bat will never win a beauty contest. About the best word for its facial features is grotesque.

What about color? Many of us are brown, gray or black. But there are variations. For instance, the ghost bat is white, maybe with some gray mixed in. There is a fruit-eating bat with a blackish head and dark-brown wings with yellow spots. Of course, these are just examples.

We’ve been known to fool people. At least I don’t think they always know what we are. Consider one small bat of tropical America and Trinidad. It was found roosting at night on the underside of a bridge, in company with cockroaches 51 millimeters (2 inches) long. Of these bats, Walter W. Dalquest wrote: “The resemblance to a cockroach was amazing. The apparent ‘legs’ were the tips of the wings, turned out and back from the body at a 30° angle. . . . It was completely impossible, at a range of 20 feet [6 meters], to tell cockroaches from bats, except that I did not see red-gleaming eyes of the cockroaches.”

Now, if you’ll take another look at my picture, I’ll tell you something about . . .

How We Fly

Actually, our wings consist of thin skin. It stretches from our front limbs along each side of our bodies to our hind legs. The skin or membrane runs between our five digits, that is, the four fingers and thumb.

We usually roost by hanging upside-down by our feet. Generally, we ‘take off’ merely by dropping from a roosting place. We just spread our wings and we’re airborne. But we have no trouble ‘taking off’ from a level place. All we do is jump into the air, using both our legs and arms in the launching operation.

When it comes to wingspan, there certainly are big differences among us. For instance, the little brown bat, with a body under four inches (10 centimeters) long, can spread its wings to fourteen inches (35.5 centimeters). However, the prizewinner among us is the “flying fox,” so named for its looks. These dark-brown bats that inhabit most of the tropics, other than South America, have a wingspread that may exceed five feet (1.5 meters)!

To turn in flight, or to stop, the little brown bat moves its tail downward, making it act like a brake. The lump-nosed bat flies slowly, but it can also hover over something of interest.

Where We Live

Now, a word about living in dark, eerie caves. I must admit that millions of us roost in deep, pitch-black caverns. But did you know that some of us roost in trees, various buildings, ancient temples—yes, and in tombs, too? Why, a number reside in certain Egyptian pyramids! Others take over vacant bird nests and animal burrows. We also live in bell towers and church steeples. Eden Phillpotts once wrote: “His father’s sister had bats in the belfry and was put away.” (Peacock House) You know, of course, that is a writer’s humorous way of saying she was crazy. Well, we’re responsible for that saying because bats sometimes do roost up there with the bells in those towers.

What We Eat

Now let me tell you how we bats can be grouped, not by scientific names, but by our eating habits and physiology. Insect eaters are the most numerous. Generally, they catch their prey in flight. Fruit eaters are tropical bats mostly dependent upon wild fruit, though they are known to cause great damage to orchards.

Some of our number are small flower feeders with long tongues. Pollen and nectar are their fare. Lizards, frogs, small mammals and birds are on the menu of moderate-sized carnivorous bats, although they also eat other things. Then there are the fish eaters. Their powerful feet have hooked claws capable of snatching prey near the surface of the water.

But I’ve left out someone who has given us a bad name, that is,

The Villainous Vampire

For quite some time now fictitious tales have been circulating about dead people who supposedly rise from their sepulchers at night, transform themselves into bats, and suck the blood of hapless humans. You know the old vampire story. Well, mainly in the tropical and subtropical regions of America there are members of my “family” known as vampire bats. They do feed on blood, sometimes that of sleeping humans.

The vampire bat has razor-sharp teeth. In fact, they’re so sharp that the bite is just about painless and the sleeping animal or human rarely is awakened by it. Maybe for some twenty minutes or so this bat gorges itself, taking in so much blood that its little body becomes spherical before the meal is over.

Actually, the amount of blood lapped up (not sucked) is not so great as to endanger humans. But there is another peril. Vampire bats may have rabies. So, left unchecked, their bites can result in hydrophobia and death. Vampire bats also transmit other diseases, such as murrina, which affects livestock. These little bats are dangerous, too, because their bites can cause secondary infection.

Always Harmful?

Does this mean that we’re all harmful villains? No. Some of us serve a useful purpose in helping to control the insect population. Others unwittingly carry pollen from flower to flower. Then, too, bat manure, or guano—plentiful on the floors of bat caves—can be used as fertilizer. Did you know that for two decades guano for fertilizer was acquired in commercial amounts from the noted Carlsbad Caverns in New Mexico? That’s right.

Why, people have considered us so useful that you might say we’ve been “drafted.” During the American Civil War, from guano the Confederate Army got niter (sodium nitrate) for gunpowder. For that matter, while World War II was raging, there was some effort made to use certain bats to carry little incendiary bombs. I’m certainly happy that idea was abandoned!

Oh! Another thing. In some places, like northern India, those bats called “flying foxes” are eaten. People say their meat resembles that of chicken. But I surely hope this idea of humans eating us doesn’t spread. We have enough trouble trying to get away from snakes, birds of prey and other creatures (even some bats) that think we taste good. Incidentally, people under the Mosaic law were not supposed to eat us.—Lev. 11:13-19.

Now, what about the idea that bats are filthy? Well, just listen to what was said by Ernest P. Walker, onetime assistant director of the United States National Zoological Park, Washington, D.C. He remarked: “Bats are by no means unclean. They’re clean as cats—they groom themselves every morning and after each meal.” In grooming, we use our tongue and toes. We just reach up with one of our hind limbs and scratch the back, face and top of the head.

Some people go around saying we carry bedbugs. Occasionally, parasites, yes. But not bedbugs, if that’s any comfort to you!

We’re Really Unique!

Let me tell you a few things that are sort of special about us. Some of us hibernate. Listen to what James Poling said: “The bat is warm-blooded while active but cold-blooded while slumbering. It is able to go into hibernation more quickly and easily than other mammals—which is why it can so readily be put in the refrigerator. [Some of us are kept there in research laboratories.] It just drops its body temperature and falls asleep; the heart slows from 180 beats a minute to three, respiration drops from eight breaths a second to eight per minute. While the bat has some accumulated fat—as it ordinarily has in early fall before winter hibernation—it can live for months in cold storage, unfed and unattended, the ‘motor idling,’ while waiting its turn to come under laboratory scrutiny.”—Marvels & Mysteries of Our Animal World.

Those of us who do not hibernate in caves or elsewhere during the wintertime migrate to places where we can find food. Besides, some of us think that it’s a good idea to spend the winter months in a warmer climate.

Say, did you know that some of our pregnant females get together in maternity colonies? Noctule bats are a good example of this. Sometimes as many as four hundred of their pregnant females get together and set up “maternity wards” in buildings or trees. Furthermore, some female bats evidently store male sperm. In many cases, we mate in the fall and hibernate during the winter, but our females don’t ovulate until the next spring, permitting fertilization to take place at that time. Isn’t that something?

Our Echolocating System

There are people who use the expression “as blind as a bat.” But we’re not blind and some of us see very well. Anyhow, we have a very special way of getting around, one that baffles men of science. It’s called “echolocation,” and this is how it works:

As we fly about, we emit squeaks, chirps, clicks, buzzes and the like through our mouths or noses. Since these sounds range from 25,000 to 70,000 vibrations a second, you humans—with an auditory range up to only about 30,000 vibrations—can’t hear most of the sounds. But, you know, we don’t hear our own sounds either, because when they are sent out our ear muscles contract, momentarily ‘turning off the sound.’ What we do hear is the echo that bounces off any object that happens to be in our path. In that way, even in total darkness, we can maneuver so as to avoid obstacles.

With all this squeaking, buzzing, and so forth, how do we avoid collisions with one another when many of us flock together? “It is possible,” wrote Thomas R. Henry, “that each animal has its individual sound pattern and is guided only by its own echoes. Otherwise, it would seem, there would be complete confusion from the echoes of several hundred bats moving in a flock.”

Why not take matters a little farther? How do insect-eating bats tell the difference between echoes bouncing off obstacles and those glancing off potential meals? As yet, you folks don’t know, and I’m not saying.

Now, what’s the purpose of all this talking? Well, I just wanted to correct some misconceptions about myself and my fellow fliers. Another thing: I really wanted to impress you with our unique abilities. Of course, we came by them naturally. So, the credit really has to go to the Creator of the only flying mammal.

Let’s Make a Forest!

2008-10-07T03:43:00.001-07:00

WHEN one author called Germans the “forest people,” he may have had in mind that the life of the old Germanic tribes was deeply influenced by the huge forests that once covered their land.

The ancient Roman historian Tacitus wrote about one Teutonic or Germanic tribe: “At a stated time of the year, all the several people descended from the same stock, assemble by their deputies in a wood; consecrated by the idolatries of their forefathers, and by superstitious awe in times of old. . . . And of all their superstition, this is the drift and tendency; that from this place the nation drew their original, that here God, the supreme Governor of the world, resides, and that all things else whatsoever are subject to him.”—Germania.

The virgin forests provided the Germanic peoples with wildlife on which to feed, skins with which to clothe themselves and wood for making utensils and for building their homes. At the same time the “gloomy forests,” as Tacitus called them, instilled within the people dread and respect. This misled them into considering some trees, such as certain oak trees, as especially holy. According to Germanic mythology: “The universe is supported by a great ash tree, Yggdrasill . . . The roots of the tree Yggdrasill grow through every world of living and dead. It is watered from a sacred well at its foot, where . . . ‘Destiny,’ decides the fates of men. Lifegiving, meadlike dew falls on the earth from its branches, and a goat that pastures on its leaves gives mead for the gods to drink.”—Encyclopædia Britannica.

But in the course of centuries the Germans’ attitude toward their forests has changed considerably. Whereas formerly the forests were sometimes considered frightening or mysterious, now they are recognized as being valuable. They are assets upon which modern civilization’s very existence is based. For this reason they are to be cherished, cultivated and protected. The book The Forest says: “Today we know the forest as an important source of building materials and a vast reservoir from which modern technology can derive a virtually unlimited number of valuable products such as paper, plastics, turpentine and alcohol.”

But the forest is more than that. This book continues: “The forest is much more than a warehouse for man’s material needs. Its protective covering is renowned as a conservator of soil and water and as a moderator of local climate.” An article in a German newspaper illustrates the point: “Eighty-seven deaths have been caused by a flood catastrophe in four southern provinces of Thailand. Six persons are missing. More than a thousand homes and twenty-four schools are either under water or have been swept away. As a result of the Interior Department’s announcement, the government has attributed the extent of the flooding, which was preceded by torrential rainfall, not least of all to the extensive land-clearing projects that have been carried out in the south of the country during the past years.”—Wiesbadener Kurier, Thursday, January 9, 1975.

Learning How to Do It

The foregoing report is but one of many proofs. They show that man’s unrestricted exploitation of natural resources has resulted in his having, figuratively speaking, cut off the limb on which he is sitting. It was not until the eighteenth century, however, that this was fully realized in Germany. For example, during the early days of industrial development large sections of woodland were cut to provide firewood for glassmaking. Yet even at that time some farsighted men warned of the danger of turning the land into a treeless prairie. Forestry schools were founded and scientific reforestation was started.

The approximately 2,500 square kilometers (some 965 square miles) of lignite on the west side of the Rhine River between Cologne and Bonn illustrates what can be done to keep the earth fit for human habitation. Lignite (or, brown coal) is mined above ground, and such open-pit or strip mining leaves behind a moonlike landscape of huge craters. Thus here was an unusual opportunity for creating an entirely new landscape, doing so not only for economic reasons but also for practical ones, such as its becoming a recreation area. But just how do you ‘make a forest’?

Healing the wounds incurred by surface mining meant first of all the preparing of a soil conducive to the needs of a forest, providing: (1) variety in mineral content, (2) looseness in texture, and (3) sufficient oxygen content by means of aeration. A so-called forest gravel, a mixture of sand, gravel, rocks and loess, met all three requirements. Along with the tree seedlings, lupines, plants of the pea family, were planted to enrich the raw soil. They prove valuable in three ways: Adding nitrogen to the soil; protecting the ground from the sun’s heat, thus preventing it from drying out; and, lastly, preventing the blowing away of fallen leaves that contribute to the formation of humus.

At first, those attempting to make a forest had to learn by experience, for the ecological interbalance between the plants of the forest was not as well understood as today. They did recognize, however, that fast-growing poplar trees would be well suited to serve as pioneer types for reforestation. However, a mono-culture of nothing but poplars could be dangerous. It could encourage the multiplication of certain kinds of insects that could then destroy the entire culture. Planting more than one type of tree was therefore best.

The soil that was prepared proved to be so good that it allowed for planting a variety of trees. A combination of beech and larch trees, interspersed with poplars, was used. Since poplars grow the fastest, they served as a protective covering for more delicate types of trees. Poplar, alder, locust, and willow trees all have good root systems, for they require a great deal of water. How is that useful in making a forest? Well, their roots help to hold the soil firm and prevent soil erosion and landslides caused by water saturation. Using a variety of trees would later avoid barren spots when the mature trees were felled. A healthy mixture of various species is also the best for recreational purposes.

Today in this district of Germany thirty-six different kinds of trees are used in reforestation. A careful study of the conditions under which they grow and their relationship to one another has been made. Even the rare giant redwood and Sequoia trees, which apparently contributed a great deal to the formation of the extensive lignite deposits, are included in a special park. The picture is rounded out by eighteen types of underbrush, including the hazelnut and various kinds of wild roses.

Lakes artistically nestled into the landscape are part of every recreational area. But to take old mining pits and make them into lakes that can be used for swimming and water sports is no easy task. Before more complex forms of plant and animal life appear, the lakes are taken over by those small pioneers of microscopic plant life, the hardy, unpretentious algae. Then the shores are soon framed in reeds, cattails, bulrush, pondweed and water lilies. These are followed by animal life, water fleas, mussels and other living creatures that, in turn, serve as food when the lakes are stocked with fish.

The presence of the lakes even helped the bird population to become more varied than formerly. Marsh and water birds not found here before the lignite was mined took up residence. Before long this restored forest area was populated by species of feathered singers, all adding their contribution to the music that is so relaxing to listen to on an early spring morning. They also do their share in forest preservation by preventing too rapid multiplication of insects. When kept in balance, though, the insects also serve their purpose in building and maintaining a forest.

If you were to dig up a spadeful of forest earth, you likely would be surprised at the number of different creatures and life forms you would find. The Forest spoke of it as “the hidden world of the soil.” It told of an examination by scientists of the top one inch of forest soil. What did they find? “There was an average of 1,356 living creatures present in each square foot, including 865 mites, 265 springtails, 22 millepedes, 19 adult beetles and various numbers of 12 other forms. Had an estimate also been made of the microscopic population, it might have ranged up to two billion bacteria and many millions of fungi, protozoa and algae—in a mere teaspoonful of soil.”—Pages 131, 132.

How useful are these creatures in building a forest? Very. Without them the soil would not be nearly so productive. Moles, hedgehogs and the useful shrew also contribute to the ecological interbalance by controlling insects. And although you would have looked for them in vain on the slag heaps left by strip mining, they seem to feel right at home here in the forest.

In a forest we dare not forget our friends, the rabbit, the squirrel and the deer. It was not long before they, too, found their way back, contributing their part to ecological interbalance. Other arrivals were the fox, the marten, the badger and the polecat. These helped to keep the rabbit and other animals from overpopulating the area and severely damaging the young shoots of the trees.

Outlook for the Future

If you were to ask the many persons strolling down the paths of the well-kept forests of Germany why they enjoy the woods so much, you would no doubt get a variety of answers. Industrial society seeks relaxation in “nature” where the sounds are softer, the movements less hectic. Many persons especially enjoy the cleaner air, for it has been proved that the bark and leaves of trees clean the air by catching dust particles that are then washed down to the ground by the rain. The stillness of a forest, its predominant colors of green and blue, the soft whispering of the leaves, the babbling of a brook—how they calm the nerves, refresh the body and stimulate the spirit!

Many citizens therefore appreciate the fact that some officials are now more conscientious than formerly about seeing to it that trees are not needlessly cut down or woods felled. In accordance with officials’ wishes, the branch office of Jehovah’s Witnesses in West Germany planned their new residence building in such a way that quite a number of young spruce trees on the property could be left standing. Thus the trees are a fine extension of the adjoining forest.

According to newspaper reports, vast numbers of persons are turning their back on religion and leaving the churches emptier than ever. Here in Germany many persons seem to consider taking a walk through the woods as their kind of “Sunday service.” They claim to feel closer to God in the forest than elsewhere. But they need to take care not to make the mistake of going as far as did their ancient ancestors, making nature into a kind of god.

A realistic reader of the “book of nature,” however, is continually amazed when he turns “page after page” and notices the complicated interbalance involved in the ecology of the forest. You can see relationships so hardy and stable that, if given only half a chance by man, they can work wonders. They can turn one-time slag heaps left over from strip mining into recreation spots. But there is also sufficient room for man’s creative and cultivating contributions.—Gen. 1:28.

No less than thirty different branches of science had a part in the reforestation of the Rhine River lignite area. All these scientists learned from the “book of nature” by observation and experience. The enslaving fear that the old Teutonic tribes had of forest spirits and demons is a thing of the past. Instead, increasing knowledge about forests fills us with deep respect for the great Creator, Jehovah God. He is the one who arranged for the marvelous interbalance found in the forest. He also has revealed in his written Word that the entire earth will soon be made into a real global paradise. Would you like to live to see God’s new system of things and perhaps help to make a forest?

That Amazing Fluid Within You!

2008-10-07T03:42:00.003-07:00

MANY individuals are uncomfortable or squeamish about blood. Are you? You may want your blood ‘under your skin,’ that is, in your blood vessels where it should be. How right you are! That is where it belongs, for there it serves you every second. You are alive because of your blood. But just what is your blood? Do you know its parts? How does it serve you? Why is your blood uniquely your blood?

What It Is

You have seen your blood, perhaps more often than you would prefer. It may appear to be simply a red fluid. But note what the Encyclopædia Britannica (1974) says about it:

“The blood has an almost unbelievably complex structure, and many components participate in its functional activities, often in an intricate and poorly understood way.”

In some senses your blood might be illustrated by a glass of iced lemonade. Basically, lemonade is water in which lemon juice and sugar are mixed or dissolved. Also, some pieces of ice and lemon pulp float in the liquid. Your blood is similar. It is a complex mixture with two basic parts. The largest part is the fluid or plasma. It is 91.5 percent water, but it contains hundreds of chemicals and soluble constituents, such as hormones, sugar, salts, cholesterol, proteins, minerals, and so forth. The other basic part of your blood is the “solids” or formed elements that are carried in the plasma.

Your blood system as a whole and also its individual components perform a vast array of important functions. Are you aware of some of them? Well, as we discuss the blood components watch for the six main functions of this complex fluid.

Your Red Blood Cells

Have you ever wondered why your blood is red? That is because of the red cells (erythrocytes) in your blood. In one cubic millimeter, about as big as the dot on an “i,” a man has some five million red cells. You have about half a million less if you are a woman. Each red cell is a tiny rounded disk that is slightly indented on the two sides. You cannot see them with the unaided eye, for it would take 3,200 of them placed side by side to measure an inch (2.5 centimeters).

Without any conscious effort you are constantly forming these important red cells in the bone marrow of your ribs, skull and vertebrae. Why? Well, each second some 1.2 million of them wear out and are removed by your spleen and liver. Yet, the iron and other important materials of your worn-out red cells are used in various ways, including the making of new cells.

What, however, are your red cells doing during their “life-span” of about four months? Respiration is their key function. You may associate respiration with your lungs. Yet how does the oxygen in the air you breathe get from your lungs to the 60 trillion cells of your body? Your red cells rise to the occasion. In your lungs each red blood cell picks up oxygen, just as a truck might load up at a warehouse. A red cell contains an iron-rich protein called hemoglobin that oxidizes or “rusts,” as it were, in your lungs, that is, it unites with oxygen, becoming bright red. Then comes a quick trip to deliver this to the customers, your body cells. From your lungs the blood speeds to your heart, where it gets a strong push, carrying it through progressively smaller arteries until it reaches the minute capillaries throughout your body. As each red cell passes single-file through a capillary, it quickly delivers up its cargo of oxygen and makes a pickup for the return trip. Your body cells then “burn” oxygen and nutrients to produce energy for you so you can move, think and keep warm. So in the brief passage through your capillaries the blood delivers oxygen and collects the by-product carbon dioxide, which is brought back to your lungs for discharging.

During a blood test your doctor checks as to whether you have a normal amount of healthy red cells. A shortage spells anemia. If that exists, it might mean that you need more iron-containing food in your diet. But a low red-cell count also alerts your doctor to check to see if you might be losing blood internally, as from a bleeding ulcer. Or a serious deficiency could be caused by some problem in your bone marrow. In any event, the condition should be investigated carefully, for there is no known substitute for red cells in bringing oxygen to your body cells.

White Blood Cells

Overshadowed in number, if not in importance, by their red companions are your white blood cells (leukocytes), some 5,000 to 10,000 in each cubic millimeter of blood. These, unlike the red cells, are independently mobile. They can move to where they are needed, either in the bloodstream or outside it. Simply stated, their crucial job is defense. Yes, they are constantly saving your life.

You have various types of white blood cells. Two of them, your granulocytes and monocytes, serve as ever-vigilant “policemen” within you. By accident you might scratch your arm, letting dangerous bacteria into your body. Immediately these “policemen” are alerted. They are able to pass through the walls of your capillaries and engulf invading bacteria, digesting them with potent enzymes. The pus that forms at the site of an infection tells you that they are on the job, for it consists mainly of white cells and defeated bacteria. White cells also respond if you have an infection inside your body, such as appendicitis. In fact, one way your doctor can confirm the seriousness of such diseases is by checking your white-blood-cell count. If it is elevated, it indicates that your white cells are rallying to fight an acute infection.

Another type of white cells, your lymphocytes, is involved with your developing immunity and with acquired resistance to infections. Somehow they recognize what is part of your body and what is foreign. For instance, if skin from one part of your body is grafted on another part, it will likely adhere and survive. But if the skin is from someone else, lymphocytes migrate to the area, recognize “That’s not mine” and begin rejecting it. They also have a “memory” that aids you to be immune to various diseases.

Your Platelets

Imagine trying to carry water in a sieve. Were it not for your platelets, it would be just as hard to keep the blood within the circulatory system. A platelet is a small, colorless and flexible blob of cellular material. Does that sound unimpressive? Well, what your platelets do certainly is not. If you cut yourself, within seconds platelets attach themselves to the injured area and to one another. Thus they plug the wound and stop bleeding. What “glue” causes them to do this at a wound but not inside your bloodstream? There you have another deep mystery. Also, they release factors that stimulate the formation of a more durable sealing clot.

If our simplified consideration of your blood’s “solids” or formed elements has impressed you with its importance, what about your plasma, the liquid part that is 55 percent of your blood by volume?

The Other 55 Percent

A tasty meal is a delight! But once you digest the food it must get to the cells in order to be useful to the body. Silently but efficiently your blood plasma does the job, thus providing nutrition for every cell in your body. It delivers carbohydrates, fats, proteins, minerals, salts and vitamins to where they are needed.

Your plasma does not come back from that delivery job “empty” either. Besides carbon dioxide, other wastes must be removed from the cells. Your plasma does this, thus playing an important role in excretion. For example, it transports urea and uric acid from your cells to your kidneys, where they are eliminated.

If you are too warm, capillaries near your skin open, allowing the blood to carry excess heat to the surface. Conversely, when it is cold the blood stays deeper inside the body and so conserves body heat. Yes, your blood contributes to temperature regulation; it helps to maintain a uniform body temperature of about 98.6° F. (37° C.).

Recall the role of the platelets in keeping your pressurized blood from escaping from your blood vessels. This important role is called hemostasis. The plasma contains a number of important substances or factors that also contribute to this, for they are vital in blood clotting. Hemophilia is a dangerous condition where one or more of these factors are missing. But this is rare. With most of us, when we cut ourselves or are injured, a very complicated process begins that results in a blood clot. Fibrinogen is an important protein in your blood plasma that plays a role in the wound’s being sealed by a tough layer of fibers and cells. Then no more blood escapes and the body can repair the damage.

Your plasma also contains albumin. It works to retain water in your bloodstream, thus keeping the plasma in a liquid state and flowing in your system. If you experienced edema or swelling of your body, a blood test might show that your albumin level had dropped, and so let water from your blood escape through capillary walls and accumulate in your body tissue.

When it comes to amazing aspects of your blood, we cannot overlook the globulins in the plasma. When harmful bacteria or viruses invade your body, your defense system reacts by producing special molecules called antibodies. These are contained in the globulins. The antibodies kill or neutralize the invaders, which are then eaten by your white blood cells.

What a memory these antibodies have! Scientists earth wide marvel over it. Perhaps as a child you had chicken pox. Even if you have forgotten the disease, your antibodies have not. As long as the antibodies are present and active, you are immune to having the disease again. If a chicken-pox virus invades your body, your antibodies immediately pounce on it. During your life you develop naturally an enormous number of different specific antibodies that protect you from many diseases.

Globulins and antibodies are sometimes used as a treatment when a person has already contracted a disease, such as diphtheria. Instead of taking the risk of allowing the disease to run its course, doctors might recommend accepting a serum prepared from the blood of an animal or human that already contains the right antibodies.

One of the most widely known things about human blood is that there are various blood types. You may have heard of ‘type A blood’ or some of the other common types, B, AB, and O. If a person with one blood type is transfused with another blood type likely he will become severely ill and perhaps die. So hospitals try to “match” his blood type with that of blood from a blood bank. So far fifteen different blood types have been identified.

But since your blood is so very complex, with unnumbered unique combinations of antibodies, hormones, proteins and other factors, can you expect that doctors truly can “match” your blood with someone else’s? In 1966, Science Digest observed: “It is estimated that only one transfusion in 10,000 is completely compatible, considering the number of known factors that make blood different.”

Since that was written, even more has been learned that shows how distinctive your blood is, different from that of any other person. Thus, in 1974, Readers Digest said:

“There is a growing probability that [a man’s] blood may be quite as distinctive as his fingerprints, different from all other bloods on earth. In fact, it might be possible to take a blood sample from each person in a large stadium right now, and then a year from now take another sample and assign each fan his proper seat—on the basis of individual blood characteristics.”

There is increasing realization in the medical community of the potentially dangerous reactions from transfused blood, to say nothing of the possibility of transmission of diseases such as hepatitis and syphilis by means of transfusions. These problems merely underscore the wisdom of the Bible’s prohibition against sustaining one’s life by taking in animal or human blood.—Gen. 9:3, 4; Acts 15:19, 20

There is no question that your blood is amazing in its composition and functions. Yet with just a basic knowledge of some of its components and how it daily sustains and preserves your life, you can well appreciate the Creator’s choosing blood as a symbol of life. He said: “For the soul [or life] of the flesh is in the blood. . . . That is why I have said to [you]: ‘No soul of you must eat blood.’”—Lev. 17:11, 12.

Antibiotics—Double-edged Swords

2008-10-07T03:42:00.001-07:00

PENICILLIN, the first and most widely used antibiotic, was discovered back in 1928 by the British bacteriologist Alexander Fleming. But he and his colaborers had many obstacles to overcome, and so it was not until World War II that it finally came to be recognized for its value in combating infections.

The results with penicillin were so remarkable that it was termed a “miracle” or “wonder” drug, and since then many, many other antibiotics have been developed, both organic and synthetic. There is no question about these antibiotics, such as penicillin, having accomplished much good, saving many a life, shortening the recovery time of many a victim of accident or illness.

But the use of antibiotics has not been an unmixed blessing. Why not? Because of the very nature of antibiotics. The name itself should prove a warning, for it comes from two roots: anti, meaning “opposed,” and bio, meaning “life.” So an antibiotic is an agent opposed to life, that is, it is a killer. A killer of what? Of germs, bacteria, microbes, for which reason “antimicrobials” seems to be preferred in medical literature. “Antimicrobiais” are said to have “toxicity,” that is, poisonous characteristics as well as other harmful potentials in addition to therapeutic qualities.

Thus Dr. Robert C. Zurek, writing in Diseases of Medical Progress, states: “Whenever we employ an antimicrobial agent, we are wielding a truly double-edge sword. We take a calculated risk.” That is, the physician hopes to kill certain microbes without harming the cells of the body.

But is this fact fully appreciated by the medical profession, not to mention the public at large? Apparently it is not, for as Dr. F. D. Adams states in the foreword to the above-mentioned textbook “drugs are frequently administered . . . apparently without due regard for their disquieting and sometimes dangerous potentialities. One need but mention, for example, the widespread use of antibiotics for trivial upper respiratory infections and comparable minor ailments—a practice that seems to continue in spite of the exhortations of many qualified authorities that these agents are, as a rule, ineffective in such cases.”

A committee for the United States Health, Education and Welfare Department brought out that in one study of 1,045 patients, 340 were receiving antibiotics but only 13 percent of these (or some 45) actually should have received such medication. In another report a physician tells that from “90 to 99 percent of those who were receiving chloramphenicol were getting it for a non-indicated purpose.” And Drs. Silverman and Lee, in their book Pills, Profits, and Politics, state that at times antibiotics “have caused illnesses more severe than the diseases they were intended to combat.”

Indicative of the overuse of antibiotics is the fact that in the United States, in the 1971-1972 fiscal year, roughly 26,400 tons of antibiotics were produced and certified for distribution. This is enough for fifty doses for every man, woman and child in the country. According to Dr. H. F. Dowling, a highly respected authority on this subject, “it is doubtful that the average person has an illness that requires treatment with an antibiotic more often than once every five or ten years.”

Helping to account for this great consumption of antibiotics is their use in hospitals. On an average day some 40 percent of the patients are given at least one antibiotic. According to a leading authority on this subject, “it is inconceivable to me . . . to believe that 40 percent of the patients in the hospital require an antimicrobial drug. . . . I think that there is no question but that these drugs are . . . used excessively.”

Obviously, all such overuse of drugs results in much needless expense for the patients or their families or whoever else pays the bills. One hospital, recognizing this problem, organized an antimicrobial committee to monitor the use of such drugs. As a result, it was able to cut down the use of them by 20 percent. If all hospitals in the United States followed suit, it would mean an annual saving of $117,000,000. Another study showed that 93 percent of the patients receiving an antibiotic costing $12 a prescription were receiving it needlessly.

Cutting the Wrong Way

Just how serious is the double-edged aspect of antibiotics? According to Dr. Zurek, “the list of untoward effects is enormously long,” and “it would seem there is a true ever-increasing incidence of adverse drug reactions.”

While some may hold them to be exceptions, take note of these examples: There was a man of twenty-five years with a sore throat. His doctor gave him an antibiotic, chloramphenicol, for nine days. In less than two months he had very severe symptoms caused by this drug and in six months he was dead.

Then there was a woman forty-seven years old who was treated for a sore throat with penicillin. In three days she had all manner of complications, such as red lumps on her body, itching and difficulty in urinating. In spite of the use of an artificial kidney machine, she died.

In another instance a twelve-year-old girl was treated with chloramphenicol. It resulted in her being afflicted with a dangerous blood disease, from which she died. According to another report, hundreds of persons have died from chloramphenicol (trade name “Chloromycetin”), and in spite of the fact that for more than twenty-five years doctors have been warned about this drug, it is still being prescribed unnecessarily.

Why this overuse of antibiotics? With the advent of antibiotic therapy, the treatment of most infectious diseases took on a new specificity. At least something was available that could attack the germs causing the disease. Where a cause could not be isolated, the antibiotic was given empirically, that is, without sound basis, by enthusiastic doctors. And what is more, the patient many times demanded it. As a consequence, there has been much unjustified use of antibiotics.

No doubt another reason for the overuse of antibiotics is the desire of doctors just to do something, tending to consider only the potential benefits of these drugs. Still another reason, suggested by S. M. Wolfe, director of Ralph Nader’s Health Resource Group, is the possibility that for information about drugs doctors depend too much on the biased sales pitches of drug company representatives.

Why Two-edged?

Why do antibiotics help many people but not help all? Why are they so often two-edged swords? One factor is the physical condition of the patient. Powerful antibiotics are likely to have powerful toxic side effects. It is the function of the liver and the kidneys to get rid of toxic agents. But if the liver is diseased or the kidneys function inadequately, they may not get rid of the toxic residues of the antibiotic and, as a result, the cells of the body succumb to the poisons and the patient sickens and may even die.

An even more frequent cause of complications resulting from the use of antibiotics is allergy or some type of intolerance. Any patient may be allergic to one or more antibiotics, as a result of which harm and even death may come to the patient. For example, of more than a thousand reported life-threatening reactions caused by antibiotics, the vast majority involved penicillin, and, of these, 10 percent were fatal.

There is also the problem of microbes developing drug immunity, resisting the bacteriocidal effect of the antibiotic. This has been seen recently in the treatment of gonorrhea. For years the gonococcus germ causing this disease was extremely sensitive to penicillin so that recovery from this disease was almost certain if the antibiotic was administered. Lately, however, penicillin-resistant strains of gonococcus have developed, so that now other, less effective drugs have to be used.

Still another reason why an antibiotic may turn out to be a double-edged sword is that it may wipe out all except certain strains, which then increase and cause completely new or complicating diseases. Such “superinfections” are caused by the microbes not susceptible to the antibiotic but which have been kept in check by the other microbes in a sort of “natural” balance.

Regarding this aspect of matters, The Sunday News, Detroit, Michigan, July 28, 1974, told of doctors warning that overuse of the most widely administered antibiotic has fostered development of a new resistant kind of infant brain inflammation. The antibiotic is ampicillin, a synthetic form of penicillin. According to Dr. S. Ross of the Children’s Hospital in Washington, D.C., “ampicillin has been beaten to death by being used indiscriminately by physicians both inside and outside the hospital.” It “used to be the drug of choice for . . . a serious intestinal disease. In 1967, 5 percent of [such] cases were resistant to it. Now 95 percent are resistant. . . . The growing resistance scares . . . us.”

An example of this is the potential effect of some antibiotics on the intestinal flora, the useful bacterial population of the intestines so essential to the proper and maximum assimilation of food. According to many practitioners, continued use of antibiotics may kill not only harmful bacteria but also much of the intestinal flora. For this reason certain practitioners urge the use of yogurt or like milk products whenever a person is taking antibiotics.

What Can You Do About It?

Some might conclude from the foregoing that all this information is the concern of physicians, not of their patients. But is that so?If so many doctors are not sufficiently cautious, even as their own spokesmen confess, perhaps the “layman” should show concern. That is the position taken by Science Digest, January 1975. It states: “All antimicrobials—as a group—are overused and abused by physicians in general to the point where the public must learn to protect itself by learning the dangers, for clearly doctors as a group are blowing it.”

From the foregoing it is apparent that you should be very careful about using antibiotics. Never urge your doctor to prescribe antibiotics. Never use those prescribed to others; never experiment yourself. Let your doctor know of your past use of antibiotics, whether unfavorable or not; also let him know what other drugs you may be taking. If he prescribes antibiotics, inquire as to an alternate treatment. If they seem imperative, then follow his instructions closely.

To sum up, we cannot do better than to quote from the “Concluding Remarks” in Dr. Zurek’s chapter, “Antibiotic-induced Diseases”: “It is hoped this review of untoward reactions to antimicrobial agents will foster appropriate respect for these drugs. Their use has produced tragedies as well as miracles. None are completely without hazard. . . . Successful antibiotic therapy can be achieved only by knowledge of the capabilities of these agents and a constant awareness of their hazards.”

Is It Safe to Take Medicine?

2008-10-07T03:41:00.001-07:00

IF YOU looked in the medicine cabinet of a typical affluent home, what would you see? Often it is so stuffed with remedies that there is hardly room for a toothbrush. It seems to be a human weakness to want to take medicine. In fact, the late noted Canadian physician, Sir William Osler, once mused that “the desire to take medicine is perhaps the greatest feature which distinguishes man from animals.”

In the United States, some $10 billion a year is spent for drugs to relieve various ailments. Doctors write some 2.4 billion prescriptions annually for medicines. And the use of prescription drugs is predicted to keep on increasing at the rate of 9.5 percent a year. Why?

One reason is that ever more effective medicines are being developed to combat many diseases. But largely responsible are the advertising efforts of pharmaceutical manufacturers. Annually they spend some $800,000,000 to push their products. Thus there are more than 100,000 medications on the market, according to an estimate of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The nonprescription drug most widely used is aspirin, with Americans consuming upward of 15,000 tons of it a year!

But does it make good sense to use medicines so freely? Is there danger involved in their use?

Sobering Considerations

That the lives of many persons with serious infectious diseases have been saved by such modern-day drugs as penicillin is well known. But for some persons these medicines are a two-edged sword, since they may also cause harmful side effects, even death. Medical literature has often acknowledged the dangers involved, sometimes in a very impressive way.

This is done in the Life Science Library book Drugs, coauthored by Walter Modell, professor of pharmacology at the Cornell University Medical College in New York city. No doubt in a desire to emphasize the paradoxical nature of medicines, the first chapter of this volume is entitled “Poisons That Save Lives.” There we read in its early paragraphs:

“All drugs are poisons, and all poisons are drugs. It is no accident that the words ‘poison’ and ‘potion’ come from the same root, or that the Greek word pharmakon, which we find rooted in our own words ‘pharmacy’ and ‘pharmacology,’ originally meant both a healing draught and a deadly one.

“In the broadest sense, a drug—or a poison—is any chemical that can effect an alteration in the function or structure of living tissue. . . . As commonly used, of course, the word ‘drugs’ implies medicinal chemicals—those substances that, in carefully regulated doses, produce desirable changes in the human body, counteracting disease or relieving distress.”

It has often been termed “miraculous” how carefully regulated doses of modern drugs have saved patients. There is little question that there are untold thousands of persons alive today who would otherwise die if denied their so-called “wonder drugs.” Yet Professor Modell put matters in balance, explaining:

“Even the most beneficial drugs notoriously possess adverse effects. Some experts estimate that perhaps one American hospital patient in 20 lands in the hospital as a result of reactions to drugs. The best one can say of any drug is that its beneficial effects outweigh its harmful ones—for most patients, most of the time.”

Do the Benefits Outweigh the Harm?

Doctors, by and large, will probably say that the benefits of medicinal drugs do outweigh their harm. They may point to their own individual medical experience—their own observation—where hundreds have been benefited by drugs and only a few adversely affected. But certain medical authorities are beginning to question such a conclusion.

For example, consider the use of antibiotics. In 1943 the first antibiotic, penicillin G, was marketed in the United States. Since then, antibiotics have become the most commonly prescribed class of drugs, with at least 8,000,000,000 doses being certified for use in 1972 by the Food and Drug Administration! In view of such massive use, some doctors are evidently overprescribing and misprescribing antibiotics. Regarding this, the lead article in The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) of March 4, 1974, entitled “This Is Medical Progress?”, concluded:

“We believe it is appropriate to pose two questions, even though it may be impossible to develop the data sufficient to answer them: (1) Have we reached the point where the enormous use of antibiotics is producing as much harm as good? (2) Are the risks beginning to outweigh the benefits?”

These are considered valid questions by certain medical men who have been alarmed by the increasing evidence of harm being done to many patients by antibiotics.

Illustrating the Need for Caution

Doctors have observed, for example, that the overuse of antibiotics has been a factor in the development of resistant strains of bacteria. According to figures cited in the above-mentioned JAMA article, these bacteria have multiplied to the point where it is possible that they may be causing up to 100,000 deaths a year in American hospitals!

The two doctors who presented this evidence in JAMA singled out chloramphenicol as a particularly dangerous antibiotic that may produce aplastic anemia as a serious side effect. They explained: “The problem of aplastic anemia has been well documented; this fatal reaction occurs about once in approximately 60,000 to 80,000 doses.” With nearly four million patients a year reportedly being given chloramphenicol, it is apparently responsible for scores of deaths annually.

Regarding these deaths, the JAMA article laments: “A large majority of these usually fatal reactions occurred in patients who received chloramphenicol for either trivial infections, undocumented infections, or infections for which a safer and as effective alternate antibiotic could have been selected.”

Surely there is need for caution in the use of such drugs as chloramphenicol. Most physicians are well aware of the dangers of these drugs, reserving them for certain life-threatening conditions. Yet evidently some doctors are either uninformed about the dangers, or they use very poor judgment in prescribing them.

But there is probably a more important reason why chloramphenicol is still used so frequently. The former head of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration claimed that its manufacturers “have successfully promoted Chloromycetin [trade name for chloramphenicol] contrary to the best advice of the medical profession.”

Yet unwarranted claims for drugs are common. Thus one government agency found that, of 16,000 over-the-counter drugs it tested, 60 percent violated the law by claiming more for the preparation than it was able to do. The National Academy of Science reviewed 4,349 prescription and nonprescription drugs that were promoted for the treatment of 1,600 different conditions. It found that, of 1,610 claims made for the products, only 19 percent could be substantiated. Another survey showed that, of 1,859 drugs tested, only 301, or less than 17 percent, were effective for all the conditions for which they were promoted.

It is a big job to try to prevent the marketing of medicines that can harm people more than they help them. Thus about fifteen years ago a so-called “perfect sleeping pill” containing the drug thalidomide was widely used in many lands. However, a pharmacologist in the employ of the United States government held up its approval pending clarification of various suspicions she had regarding it. It was a good thing, since shortly thereafter it was discovered that thousands of babies born to women who had taken thalidomide during pregnancy were horribly deformed.

This further illustrates the need for caution in taking medicines. For even though no bad side effects may be experienced immediately—or even for days or weeks—they can be realized months or even years later. “In medicine today, we are using many stronger drugs and all kinds of esoteric chemicals and machines,” observes Dr. Eugene Saenger, professor of radiology at the University of Cincinnati. His conclusion: “There are certain to be some long-term consequences.”

The fact is, some of these long-term consequences have only lately begun to be experienced.

A Calculated Risk

For example, between 1945 and 1971 the drug called diethylstilbestrol (DES) was commonly prescribed for pregnant women to prevent miscarriages. Although some miscarriages were probably prevented, what have been the delayed results? A high incidence of vaginal cancers in the teen-age daughters of the mothers who took this drug has resulted! Thus, a Los Angeles, California, specialist in gynecologic tumors advises: “Daughters of women who were given DES should be examined regularly from their 13th birthday on.”

Similarly, the London Daily Mail of March 7, 1974, reported: “Sales over the counter of one of the most widely used pain-killers are to be banned following evidence that the drug can cause kidney damage. . . . In Britain it is estimated that up to 500 people have died each year from kidney failure directly attributable to excessive dependence on phenacetin compounds.”

Also, a study of drugs that are commonly taken orally to control diabetes indicates that they may cause 10,000 to 15,000 deaths a year due to heart disease. This study, which was reported in the JAMA of February 10, 1975, indicates that the death rate from heart and related diseases was twice as high among diabetics taking these drugs as it was among diabetics treated either by insulin injection or by diet control.

Does this mean that drugs should be avoided altogether? No. They have relieved the suffering of tens of millions, and have saved perhaps millions of lives. How thankful such persons can be for them! The risk involved in taking them is often warranted. There are, no doubt, many thousands of patients with heart disease who would die within weeks if they failed to take digitalis. In fact, even to alter a carefully regulated dose could be hazardous. Yes, digitalis is a “poison,” but when used wisely and under expert supervision, it has proved to be a real lifesaver.

A diabetic, too, is probably more likely to die from his disease if he does not take medicine than he is to die from the heart disease his medicine allegedly may cause. Similarly, one may accept the “risk” of taking even aspirin in preference to the discomfort and inconvenience of a headache. But the point to remember is that taking medicine is a calculated risk—it is a two-edged sword.

How are you to know, then, whether to take a medicine or not? For this you are largely dependent on the advice of a physician. As a protection to you, powerful drugs can be obtained only on a doctor’s advice and prescription. Since his judgment can affect your health, and perhaps whether you live or die, you will do well to respect his judgment. But, for the same reasons, it is wise to ascertain carefully his qualifications. Is he conscientious as well as knowledgeable? Does he really have your welfare at heart? In certain cases you may want also to consult another physician as to whether the use of a certain drug is warranted.

Patients Often to Blame

The fact is, however, that patients themselves are often to blame for the overuse and misuse of drugs. Many of them feel cheated if the doctor does not prescribe some medicine or give them an injection. Dr. Calvin M. Kunin writes in the JAMA: “Patient pressure is one of the most important factors that leads physicians to overprescribe in office practice. This is by no means subtle and often comes from the most articulate and best educated people including health professionals. Visualize the telephone calls to a busy physician requesting and sometimes even demanding that an antibiotic be prescribed.”

Describing the problems, one surgeon and practitioner wrote: “When a man comes in to see me with a low backache that he acquired while cleaning out his basement, I feel like saying, ‘Look, take your money and run.’” What the person needs is some heat and rest, and perhaps aspirin to kill the pain. But since this advice would displease the man, the doctor gives him what he wants. He makes a “big deal” out of it—the patient pays $10 for an office call, $20 for an X ray, $5 for some medicine and $3 for a diathermy treatment. “The man goes home [satisfied but] thirty-eight dollars poorer and physically no better.”

Need to Exercise Common Sense

The foregoing indicates the need of common sense in the use of all types of medicines. It only makes sense, for example, not to use powerful drugs when weaker ones will serve, for the more powerful the drug, the more likely the danger of side effects. Thus, after making a big ado about “wonder drugs” in the treatment of arthritis, it was found that the old standby, aspirin, much of the time served as well, if not even better, than these “wonder drugs.” So do not be disappointed if your physician advises aspirin instead of some expensive prescription drug, which is potentially more dangerous than aspirin.

Common sense when going to the medicine cabinet would also indicate not resorting to drugs for every little discomfort. A case in point is aspirin. As already indicated, it has its uses. But excessive use can cause a variety of disorders, such as bleeding, especially of the stomach. If there is any bleeding situation, such as menstruation, hemorrhoids, or an ulcer, aspirin may only make it worse. Aspirin especially should be avoided by pregnant women, since it is believed that it may damage the developing fetus.

It is noteworthy that habitual users of over-the-counter drugs for killing pain have been found to be more likely to have anemia, ulcers, high blood pressure, depression or anxiety states. Especially singled out for severe criticism by stomach specialists is Alka-Seltzer. Would it be alright to use it occasionally? Yes. Regularly? No.

And since all drugs have potential side effects, common sense would indicate not using or resorting to medicines if other remedies will serve. An instance where this applies is in constipation. For many, a laxative is an occasional necessary evil. But continual use can be harmful so that one is wise to give thought to practical nonmedical measures—the development of good bowel habits, proper diet and regular exercise. According to one well-known physician, these practical measures will serve for 95 percent of the people troubled with constipation and who therefore can treat it “with a minimum of medicine and a maximum of common sense.”

It is clearly evident, then, that there is a real need to exercise caution and to use common sense when it comes to taking medicines. They can be beneficial, even lifesaving; but remember, too, they can possibly cause harm. The certain, lasting remedy for human ills will be realized only when, in God’s righteous new order, Jesus Christ exercises his power to heal all human infirmities.

Why Big Cities Are Breaking Down

2008-10-07T03:40:00.000-07:00

BACK in 1913, the English sociologist Patrick Geddes theorized that big cities go through five stages:

1. Polis—early city

2. Metropolis—large but healthy city

3. Megalopolis—unhealthy, oversized city with grand illusions

4. Parasitopolis—parasitic city that drains its nation

5. Pathopolis—diseased, shrinking, dying city

Many see cities like New York as having symptoms of the fourth stage, as having already begun to leech strength from the nation. Others fear that aspects of the final stage are also evident. A cancerlike municipal disease—creeping urban decay—is even now shrinking the hearts out of many American cities, as middle- and upper-income families flee to the suburbs.

The populations within the taxable bounds of some American big cities are actually shrinking to “their lowest size in this century,” according to recent census information. “The populations of Boston, Pittsburgh and Jersey City haven’t been so low since 1900. . . . New York’s population is down almost to the level of 1940.”—U.S. News & World Report, September 1, 1975, p. 64.

Driven by a growing distaste for big-city existence, taxpaying citizens, business and industry are fleeing out of the big “central city” areas to noncontributing suburbs and beyond. A sore point in San Francisco’s police strike, for example, was that more than half of those demanding higher pay lived outside the bounds of its taxpaying community. And even though New York’s taxable population has fallen to well under eight million, some estimate that as many as another ten million people living outside the city in some way derive economic benefit from it.

A Vicious Cycle

Hence, a self-perpetuating “vicious cycle” of lost taxpayers, higher taxes, more lost taxpayers, and so on, has developed. When the more prosperous families and industries move out, taking taxes and jobs with them, the poor, unemployed, aged and minorities least able to pay taxes remain. Said Milwaukee’s Mayor Maier: “We, along with other cities, are part of a deepening trend . . . toward an ever-growing concentration of the poor and the relatively poor in the central cities of America.”

Meanwhile, regular city services, as well as programs for the mounting numbers of poor and unemployed, continue to skyrocket in cost. As New York city’s spending for all purposes tripled during the past ten years, welfare costs grew at almost twice that pace!

To compensate, cities raise taxes on remaining property owners, business and industry—an encouragement for them, too, to leave. San Francisco has been forced to more than quadruple average property taxes since 1950—a pace double that of the rise in the cost of living.

But such high taxation makes owning housing a losing proposition for some, and this, in turn, hastens urban decay. New York apartment owners will reportedly abandon an estimated 50,000 dwelling units in 1976, after having abandoned about 35,000 units annually in recent years! Not only are taxes on these properties lost to the city, but gone also are the former residents of block after block of rubble-covered land and condemned buildings—thus feeding the “vicious cycle.”

When highly taxed business and industry choose to leave as well, tax revenue is not the only thing taken. Since 1969, for example, it is reported that New York city steadily lost half a million manufacturing jobs—and taxpaying workers—due to business moves. But the alternative to higher taxes, say city officials, is cutbacks in city services. Such cutbacks make the big cities even less desirable—driving more “middle class” and industrial taxpayers away.

Thus urban problems tend to concentrate in big cities and get driven out of proportion to what higher populations alone account for. But there are other pressures that also enter this “vicious cycle’’ of big-city economic problems. Among them are . . .

. . . Minorities

Big cities tend to stack up minorities and economically deprived persons all together in older, decaying housing and “low-rent projects,” or, in some countries, shantytowns of their own making. The effects of concentrating minorities in this fashion are well known. A report from Sweden, for example, notes that the area surrounding her big-city “urban renewal” projects are “traditionally a decaying slum-zone, where the socially and economically handicapped and newly arrived immigrants are allotted to live. These areas become haunts of alcoholic and narcotics addicts”—as well as a drain on city resources.

The growth of black and other ethnic communities in American cities has created intractable housing problems. Deep-rooted prejudices and fears sped the exodus of whites to the suburbs, creating another big-city problem: de facto segregation. Well-intentioned efforts to give blacks equal educational opportunities by “busing” pupils between the two communities have met with only limited success, while driving many whites even farther into the suburbs and beyond.

. . . Crime

Bad housing and cramped populations tend to breed far more crime, on the average, in big cities than normally affects outlying areas. West Germany, for example, reports an average of nearly twice as many persons affected by crime in densely populated areas as in the country as a whole. Yet almost three times as many police, on the average, are assigned to protect those same city people! Can you see why many prefer to “escape” from the big cities?

Overburdened big-city courts have actually spurred the “vicious cycle” of metropolitan crime problems. The concentration of crime produces so many cases that the process of “plea bargaining” has come to be viewed as an absolute necessity in many U.S. cities. Criminals are allowed to plead guilty to lesser offenses than first charged so that massive numbers of time-consuming trials can be avoided. As a result, criminals—even murderers—are often back on city streets in short order.

. . . Militant Public Employees

As crime mounts and cities decay, more police and firemen are needed, as are more employees to take care of swelling welfare and other programs. Before recent cuts, for example, the number of New York city employees had grown from about 200,000 to over 300,000 in fifteen years—yet the city’s population had hardly changed!

Public-safety employees such as police and firemen, and even garbage men, in order to compensate for the increased dangers they face, as well as to offset the rise in the cost of living, have used the absolute necessity of their services as a powerful bargaining tool to gain higher wages and benefits. The mere threat of chaos without their services has usually driven their wages up far faster than those of most other workers. For example, while living costs rose to about two and a quarter times their 1950 level in twenty-five years, wages and benefits of San Francisco police and firemen multiplied to about seven times their 1950 level! Many other cities have been just as liberal—but someone has to pay the bill.

. . . Pollution

Those who flee to the suburbs to escape pollution and other city problems have actually added to the problem. Traffic moving into the big cities for work is becoming “heavier and heavier, moving slower and slower,” notes a recent report from Sweden that is typical of many cities. Mass-transportation schemes have accomplished little to check pollution. “The persistent traffic tie-ups shatter a dream of urban planners—that rapid transit would ‘get people out of their cars and off the freeway.’”—New York Times Magazine, October 19, 1975, p. 84.

A National Academy of Sciences report notes that even though U.S. federal standards have brought some improvement, country air still remains ‘far superior to most city air.’ The concentration of industry adds much to big-city pollution. But cities need industries for jobs and revenue. To survive, many recession-plagued businesses are seeking a slowdown of costly-to-meet air-quality standards, thus keeping pollution in the “vicious cycle’’ of city decay.

. . . Dehumanizing People

Squeezing humanity together in great masses seems to accentuate the worst in many people. Rather than close quarters bringing them together in warm personal relationships, just the opposite is too often the case. A report from London tells of “sick and elderly people dying alone in their apartments and not being found for weeks afterward, because no one ever visited them.” The report adds: “This would have been absolutely impossible twenty years ago.” Other big-city dwellers know that London is not unique in this matter.

Cooped up in cramped apartments and narrow city streets, children, too, suffer. They lose much of the joy of openness, discovery and interacting with nature found in more rural environments. Destroying, crushing and breaking things are often the way they satisfy the need for excitement and experience. The consequent vandalism and graffiti bring further deterioration to the cities, and more seeds of crime are planted.

Thus many of the world’s big cities are caught up in a vicious cycle of degenerating forces that seem to feed upon themselves, ever worsening. But are not the big-city governments working to improve matters?

City Government

“No American big city is well-governed today,” asserts Milton Rakove, professor of political science at the University of Illinois, “and it is unlikely that any big city could be, given the kinds of problems confronting our cities, the demands being made on their political and governmental systems, and the inability of those systems to cope with those demands.”—New York Times, October 23, 1975, p. 39.

Lack of permanent, stable leadership hampers many big-city governments. Says Business Week of one floundering city: “It is directed by elected officials who, because of the nature of politics, often have a ‘here today, gone tomorrow’ philosophy of management.”

Such transient leadership may even have a corrosive effect on the habits of municipal employees, whose productivity is said to be below that of other workers. Extra workers have to be paid to get the same job done, further draining city finances. Why? An official of one of the largest municipal-employee unions in the U.S. put it this way: “When the municipal worker discovers the city isn’t interested in how he does his job, he loses interest too. . . . We want to feel we’re disciplined. Discipline means somebody cares. What we need is leadership.”

Rather than truly caring, the tendency of many politically motivated officials is to “throw money” at city problems in the hope that they will go away. Failing to get to the heart of the problems, their superficial, money-oriented programs often swell to huge proportions and suck the lifeblood from cities. The disastrous consequences of such policies are now being felt in a number of the world’s big cities.

Even so, most national governments stand ready to “bail out” cities in trouble, thus transferring the strain to the entire nation. So it would be an exaggeration to say that all big cities are facing imminent economic collapse. Some may even appear to be coping with matters. But time is not on their side.

The plight of many big cities today might well be described by this report on the condition of those in Britain:

“Their fabric is tattered and torn. Their services generally are diminishing in scope and effectiveness at a time when more is being demanded of them. It is unlikely that the national government will refuse to ‘bail out’ cities which become as bankrupt as New York. So it seems likely that the cities will struggle on, with ever less effective services at an ever greater cost. Standards of living will continue to fall as will life values in the cities. Life in the cities, like the traffic, will likely grind on slower and slower.”

Does that mean that the pathopolis of Patrick Geddes’ theory—the diseased, shrinking, dying city—is the only course that lies down the road for today’s metropolises? Is there no solution for the big cities?

Does Man Have the Answers?

2008-10-07T03:39:00.002-07:00

HAVE the world’s experts provided the guidance needed for creating strong, unified families? Do science and technology point the way to a secure and happy future?

Consider what the experts themselves are saying about the guidance they have given to parents:

Do not these admissions show that the experts cannot be depended upon for supplying the right kind of guidance for successful family living?

Is Science the Answer?

What about science and technology? At the close of the nineteenth century people were enthused about the marvels they thought science and technology would bring about in the future.

“Scientific American,” in its issue of July 1899, looked ahead optimistically to the impact the automobile would have on city life. This publication envisioned “light rubber-tired vehicles moving swiftly and noiselessly” over “clean, dustless and odorless” streets, eliminating much of the “nervousness, distraction, and strain of modern metropolitan life.” What a far cry this is from the actual situation today—noisy streets clogged with cars, buses and trucks, spewing deadly gases into the air.

True, science and technology have produced more laborsaving devices, made possible more leisure time for many and given people greater mobility. But, sadly, all this has been accompanied by additional pressures that fragment families, lead to frustrations, ruin the health of many and, in fact, threaten human existence.

Writing in the New York “Times” of January 7, 1975, René Dubos, scientist and author, observed:

“In the United States, the average consumption of energy per person is today approximately double what it was thirty years ago and double also what it is now in Europe. Does anyone really believe that this difference is reflected in more happiness, less suffering, greater longevity among present-day Americans, or in a more rapid progress of American civilization toward more desirable goals? A recent study based on measurements of various social indicators in 55 countries failed to reveal any beneficial effect of increased energy use on the quality of life; if there was a correlation, it was that the greater the energy consumption, the larger the percentages of divorces and suicides!

“An abundant supply of energy is, of course, essential for the production of more and more industrial goods, but this is not all that there is to happiness and civilization. . . .

“I shall go even further and claim that in the highly industrialized parts of the world a decrease in energy use could have a multiplicity of beneficial effects in the long run. These would include improvements in physical and mental health, sounder agricultural practices based on ecological principles, architectural styles more interesting because they are better adapted to local conditions, policies of rural and urban planning that would favor a revival of community spirit—and of course a less disturbed global ecology.”

Regarding the dangerous situation in which man finds himself, Barry Commoner, in his book “Science and Survival” (p. 126), writes:

“Despite the dazzling successes of modern technology and the unprecedented power of modern military systems, they suffer from a common and catastrophic fault. While providing us with a bountiful supply of food, with great industrial plants, with high-speed transportation, and with military weapons of unprecedented power, they threaten our very survival.”

Obviously, the problems facing mankind, in many cases, stem from things that were viewed as promising a better world. There can be no question about the fact that shifting and conflicting opinions of men cannot be depended upon to lead the way out of the present bad situation. Does this not suggest the need for a guide from a source higher than man? Moreover, since many people do things that they know to be wrong and harmful to themselves and others, such a guide must also provide incentive for them to change their ways. It must give them a real purpose in life. Does such a guide exist?

Is the Industrial Way of Life a Failure?

2008-10-07T03:39:00.001-07:00

HAS the industrial way of life failed? Some find it easy to answer Yes to that question. The evidence of recent years is plain that the industrial nations have come into deep trouble.

Yet, ask older persons who used to get drinking water from a well or spring in all kinds of weather if they prefer that, or do they prefer modern indoor plumbing with its “instant” water supply? Do you know many people who would continue to use an outhouse if they had an indoor toilet available?

Would many people prefer kerosene lamps if they had electric lights? Would they want to wash clothes by beating them on rocks or by scrubbing them against a washboard by hand if they could use a washing machine instead? Would they choose to walk miles to talk briefly to someone rather than pick up a telephone and communicate instantly?

To get hot water for a bath, many people used to haul buckets of water from outside, heat it over a wood fire and fill a tub. (Many still do.) Ask an old-timer if this is his preference, if he would rather do this than turn on a hot-water faucet in a modern bathroom.

In today’s world few people would choose to go back to the old ways in such matters. Without a doubt, then, the industrial way of life has brought changes that many people prefer. That is why hopes were so high that a wonderful way of life would result from the “Industrial Revolution” that began about the year 1600.

It was thought that the labor-saving devices, the comforts, the quicker transportation and communication would constantly improve life. Hence, technology was greeted with enthusiasm by many. And when such things as automobiles, airplanes, telephones, electric lights and radios were invented, more and more people were convinced that a bright new era had indeed dawned.

In the past few decades the process picked up speed. Television came into existence, as did computers, automation, space satellites, jet planes and sophisticated machines of many types.

While the benefits of machines became apparent, the deeper problems did not, at first. The problems seemed relatively minor. But then they began to grow.

Problems Grow

Until the coming of the Industrial Revolution, farming was the usual way of life for people. There were small towns, but very few large cities. Even the few cities that existed had a rural flavor, without large, multistoried buildings.

However, the coming of the industrial age changed that. For machines to be produced, there had to be factories. For factories to be manned, workers had to move close to their place of work, as no means of rapid traveling to work existed then. Thus more and more people left the farms and moved into cities. Eventually, hundreds of millions of people crowded into cities all over the world.

For instance, in Japan there were about 15 million workers in agriculture before World War II; now that number has dropped to about 6-1⁄2 million. Where once about 400,000 new school graduates each year remained on the farm to carry on the family work, now only about 20,000 a year do. Yet the population of Japan has passed 100,000,000.

Another unsettling relocation took place. Before the Industrial Revolution, many craftsmen could get some satisfaction out of their work, since, to a degree, it involved their own initiative and creativity. But in factories the machines ruled and set the pace. Many workers came to view this as a kind of slavery to machines.

Too, machines often replaced workers whose skills were no longer needed. These dislocated workers were not always able to acquire new trades.

A Disastrous Turn

While such problems grew, it was thought that science and technology would find solutions. So, around the turn of the twentieth century, mankind was still viewed as entering a “golden age.”

Then came a crushing blow. The very machines that were supposed to help man were turned against him during World War I, from 1914-1918. Nearly ten million men were killed. New devices such as the machine gun, the submarine, tank, airplane and others took a fearful toll.

Weapons of mass slaughter had thus become available for the first time in history—a direct result of the Industrial Revolution. In another way the industrial age also contributed to the war: one of the reasons for the conflict was that European powers were challenging each other to carve up the world for raw materials and markets for their growing industries.

In the book Promise of Greatness, The War of 1914-1918, in a chapter by British author Richard Rees, it is noted: “The 1914-1918 war brought two facts to light: first, that technological development had reached a point where it could continue without disaster only in a unified world and, second, that the existing political and social organizations in the world made its unification impossible.”

This was so, for, shortly after World War I, the industrial nations engaged in another armaments race, culminating in World War II, from 1939 to 1945. Even more hideous weapons of mass destruction were developed, including atomic bombs. As a result, the slaughter was far greater. An estimated 55,000,000 people were killed! And to this day, industry pours out more highly destructive weapons than ever before. The nations now spend about $240 billion a year on armaments.

The industrial age had created a ‘Frankenstein monster’ that has turned on its inventors. This was acknowledged, during World War II, in an interesting letter written by Orville Wright, who, with his brother Wilbur, had pioneered the development of the airplane. This letter was written to Henry Ford, Sr., pioneer of the mass-produced automobile. Wright observed:

“Wilbur and I thought the plane would hasten world peace. So far it seems to have done the reverse.

“I suspect when you introduced mass production—one of the great inventions of the ages—you little thought it would be used thirty-five years later in building tanks world destruction.

“It seems that no beneficial thing can be introduced without some one finding a vicious use for it.”

More Problems

Little did these men realize that such inventions and others would provide even more trouble in the years that followed. For example, in the heavily industrialized nations of Europe and the Americas transportation systems are becoming more and more unwieldy and undependable.

During rush hours in large metropolitan areas, traffic is extremely congested. Millions of people who drive to and from work experience slowed traffic, pollution, aggravation and wasted time. Even the air space around the larger cities becomes more congested with heavy plane traffic.

In the United States, as elsewhere, the automobile has turned out to be one of the most lethal weapons ever devised. Since the invention of the automobile, more Americans have been killed by it than have perished in the nation’s wars!

In the book Ark II, authors Dennis Pirages and Paul Ehrlich state:

“The historical movement in long-distance transport from train to bus and from auto to airplane is similarly defined as progress. From an ecological point of view, however, each step has represented regression in that each is less efficient in using energy. . . .

“Indeed, it is doubtful that the transportation revolution has substantially increased the quality of life as measured by personal happiness. When all the social, resource, and environmental costs of autos and airplanes are accounted for, the world may realize that progress should have stopped with bicycles, trains, trams, and sailing ships.”

A Vain Hope

It was hoped that with increasing industrialization, bad living conditions would be eliminated. But that hope has proved to be a vain one. There have always been millions of poor, and very poor, people in the industrial lands.

Professor of government Herbert Muller of Indiana University observes: “An increasing abundance of material goods made more glaring an elementary failure of industrialism: all along it failed to provide a great many workers with the minimum necessities of a decent life—an adequate diet, adequate medical care, decent homes, pleasant surroundings. Living conditions were most appalling in the new industrial towns. . . . the slums would remain, above all in wealthy America, and with them other root evils that would grow worse.”

Other “root evils” such as crime, pollution, congestion, drug addiction, poverty and hunger have indeed grown worse. So have sicknesses associated with the pressures of industrial living, such as heart disease, mental disorders, and cancer.

Professor Muller cites a reason for these woes: “Why all such neglect or even contempt of elementary human values? The immediate answer seems to me as obvious: it was due to the vaunted free private enterprise that created industrialism, for the sake of private profit.” He states that the “heroes” of the Industrial Revolution “distinguished themselves by exploitation, plunder, and fraud, on a colossal scale.”

The selfish grasping for profits and power has plagued the industrial way of life. It is often the reason why new inventions are pushed regardless of the consequences. So, while a new machine or process seems to help in one area, it can create problems in another. As a contributing editor of Harper’s magazine, John Fischer, states:

“I am persuaded that technology is a servant of only limited usefulness, and highly unreliable. When it does solve a problem, it often creates two new ones—and their side effects are usually hard to foresee. . . .

“Every time you look at one of the marvels of modern technology, you find a by-product—unintended, unpredictable, and often lethal. . . .

“Moreover, technology works best on things nobody really needs, such as collecting moon rocks or building supersonic transport planes. Whenever we try to apply it to something serious, it usually falls on its face.”

Even worse, the problems created by technology now endanger the very existence of the human family. The New York Times reported this conclusion by a group of scientists: “The stresses and strains produced by its own speed of technological advance are not only overtaking man’s powers of adaptability—both physical and mental—but are endangering his very survival.”

Drastic Change Required

What needs to be done to solve all staggering problems that grow with every passing year? In the book An Inquiry into the Human Prospect, Robert Heilbroner says: “I believe the long-term solution requires nothing less than the gradual abandonment of the lethal techniques, the uncongenial lifeways, and the dangerous mentality of industrial civilization itself.”

What would this entail? Heilbroner adds: “This implies a sweeping reorganization of the mode of production in ways that cannot be foretold, but that would seem to imply the end of the giant factory, the huge office, perhaps of the urban complex.”

Psychoanalyst Erich Fromm declares that the current sicknesses of industrial society can be dealt with “only if the whole system as it has existed during the last 6000 years of history can be replaced by a fundamentally different one.” [Italics ours]

Do you think that humans themselves are likely to accomplish such a change, replacing “the whole system”? Surely no one can say they have not had the time to do so before now. Instead, their concentration on selfish interest at the expense of others tells us that such drastic changes as are desperately needed will not come by the will of man.

Does this mean they will not come at all? On the contrary. The drastic changes needed, the entirely new way of life required to provide peace, security and happiness for humankind is inevitable!

Who will accomplish such a drastic change? Mankind’s Creator, Jehovah God. He has given his guarantee that he will “bring to ruin those ruining the earth,” and that he will “crush and put an end” to the existing system of things.—Rev. 11:18; Dan. 2:44.

The present unsatisfactory system of things will be replaced by one government for all the earth, the kingdom of God ruling from heaven. (Matt. 6:10) On earth, in a completely new order, machines will not be permitted to determine the quality of life. Whatever use they will be put to will be for the good of man. Too, since man was originally placed in a gardenlike park, a paradise, he finds greater happiness in being surrounded by the natural creation, not concrete, steel, pollution noise. And Jesus Christ promised The restoring of paradise.—Luke 23:43.

Hence, those who really accept God’s Word look to the early end of man’s greedy industrial civilization and its replacement by a godly system that will work for man’s eternal happiness.

Our Awesome Universe

2008-10-07T03:38:00.001-07:00

FOR thousands of years people have marveled at the starry heavens. On a clear night a person cannot help being impressed by the beauty and majesty of the stars that can be seen.

Those who think about what they see often wonder: Just what is “out there”? How is it organized? Is there any end to it? Where did it come from?

Probing the Universe

Today more is known about the universe than ever before. In the last few decades all sorts of instruments have been invented to aid scientists in probing for answers to their questions.

Now there are more powerful optical telescopes to look at the stars and to photograph them. Newer, larger radio telescopes capture the radio signals coming from space. And advanced instruments that can analyze the light and heat from stars are now widely used.

In addition, scientists have radar and man-made satellites. These are useful for probing our nearby solar system, that is, our sun and its planets and moons.

From all these sources a flood of information, as well as resulting theories, has been flowing. And a number of things have become evident. One is that the universe has proved to be far, far more awesome than anyone had ever imagined, making the mind stagger when one considers the immensity and complexity of it all. National Geographic magazine observed that what man is now learning has “left him stunned.”

It has also made a shambles of many previous theories about the universe. As the Geographic said: “Exciting new information now pouring forth in ceaseless torrents is shattering our ideas about the universe.”

However, at times fresh bits of information are used as the basis of a new theory that may not really be any closer to the truth than the one it replaced. Dr. James Van Allen of the University of Iowa called to mind what someone once said: “There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.”

Another thing that is being revealed is how little scientists really know about the universe. No matter how extensive their observations, photographs and recordings, they still admit that humans have only scratched the surface of knowledge about space. That should humble us all, and should increase our respect for the Creator of such an awesome arrangement.

Awesome Size

Only about fifty years ago, astronomers who were taking pictures of the heavens noticed some fuzzy, cloudlike formations on their photographic plates. It was assumed that these were nearby clouds of gases. But as larger, more accurate telescopes were constructed, the “gases” turned out to be something far more immense and significant—galaxies.

A galaxy is a vast, rotating group of stars, gas and dust. Galaxies have been called “island universes,” for each one of them is indeed like a universe. The earth, sun and other planets of the solar system are a tiny part of our galaxy, which is called the “Milky Way.” This name is derived from the Greek word galaxias, which means “milky way.”

Our Milky Way galaxy is only an average-size one. Yet it is immense, containing about one hundred billion stars, as well as the planets of our solar system and other material such as gases and dust. Its diameter is so vast that if you could travel as fast as the speed of light, 186,282 miles a second, it would take you 100,000 years to cross it! How many miles is that? Well, since light travels about six trillion miles in a year, multiply that by 100,000 and you have the answer: our galaxy is about 600 quadrillion miles in diameter! That is the number six followed by seventeen zeros.

It is almost impossible for the human mind to comprehend such size and distance. And yet, that is just the beginning of what is “out there.” Even more staggering is this fact: so many galaxies have now been detected that it is said they ‘are as common as blades of grass in a meadow.’ A current estimate of their number is one hundred billion. No, not one hundred billion stars, but one hundred billion galaxies! And each one of them contains billions of heavenly bodies.

An idea of how numerous galaxies are can be gained from a report issued by scientists using the huge 200-inch Hale telescope on Mount Palomar, California. They examined the space as far as the telescope could see beyond the small area enclosed by just the bowl of the star pattern called the Big Dipper. How many galaxies do you think they found there? The next time you are out on a clear night, look at the bowl of the Big Dipper. As you do, call to mind that about one million galaxies have been found in the space beyond that small area!

In all their research, have scientists been able to detect the “end,” or “outer limit” of the universe yet? No, they have not. Although with ever more powerful instruments they have penetrated farther and farther into space, they can see no end to the fantastic expanse of the heavens. But they have learned something very unique about galaxies.

Clusters of Galaxies

The billions of galaxies are not scattered at random, as though thrown about haphazardly in space. Instead, they are arranged in definite groups, called “clusters.” Thousands of these groups already have been observed and photographed.

Some clusters contain only a few galaxies. Our Milky Way galaxy, for example, is in a cluster of about twenty galaxies. Within this local group, the closest to us are two galaxies less than 200,000 light-years away, both named after the explorer Ferdinand Magellan. Another “near” neighbor can be seen on a clear night without a telescope, in the constellation of Andromeda. It is a spiral-shaped galaxy like ours, and it is about three million light-years distant.

Other clusters are made up of thousands of galaxies. One such cluster, about 100,000,000 light-years distant from the earth, is located in the direction of the constellation Coma Berenices. That one cluster is made up of about 10,000 galaxies!

The distance between galaxies within a cluster can be from a few hundred thousand light-years to a few million light-years. But the distance from one cluster to another may be a hundred times that.

Problem for Many Scientists

The size of the universe is truly awesome. But so is its very unique arrangement of galaxies, and clusters of galaxies. Such superb organization suggests an Organizer. Also, all those heavenly bodies are governed by definite physical laws. That suggests a Lawgiver. And on earth, ever so many special conditions exist for life, suggesting a purposeful Life-Giver. Commenting on this, Science News says:

“The universe we see around us looks to us unique, and when we study it a little we begin to see that it has certain very special properties without which we could not exist. . . . they seem to require very special initial conditions.

“The laws of physics that operate in our universe seem very special too.”

These things bother scientists who are evolutionists and atheists. These feel that the universe “evolved” by itself, without a Supreme Organizer, Lawmaker, and Life-Giver.

But that is contrary to reason and to our experience. Everything organized has an organizer. Every law has a lawmaker. Every living thing on earth has a parent. Should not the far more complex organization and laws in the universe, as well as life on earth, have an Organizer, Lawmaker and Life-Giver too? An article in Scientific American notes:

“As we look out into the universe and identify the many accidents of physics and astronomy that have worked together to our benefit, it almost seems as if the universe must in some sense have known that we were coming.”

The more that is learned about the universe, the more evident it becomes that there is design behind it, which requires a Designer. Regarding this, Science News states:

“Contemplation of these things disturbs cosmologists because it seems as if such particular and precise conditions could hardly have arisen at random. One way to deal with the question is to say the whole thing was contrived and lay it on Divine Providence.”

Are most scientists willing to do that? No, but humble persons are willing. They acknowledge that such immensity, precision, law, and unique conditions for life could never happen by accident, but are the products of a superior mind.

The Bible book of Isaiah says: “Raise your eyes high up and see. Who has created these things? It is the One who is bringing forth the army of them even by number, all of whom he calls even by name.” Yes, it is the Almighty God Jehovah.—Isa. 40:26.

Expanding Universe?

Since many astronomers do not believe in a God that controls the universe, this has led to conflicting theories about the nature and future of it.

In 1929 astronomer Edwin Hubble concluded that the universe was steadily expanding. Later observations of other astronomers seemed to confirm that the clusters of galaxies were moving apart from one another. This theory apparently supported the idea that the universe began with a “big bang,” from a central mass, and then spread out from there.

Some astronomers now suggest that the rate of expansion is slowing down slightly. They think that eventually this expansion will come to a halt, and that then gravity will pull the galaxies inward, back to where they began, merging in a mass of matter. Then, they theorize, that will “blow up” again in another “big bang.” This process, some believe, will be repeated over and over again, so that the universe would be “oscillating.” How much time is given for such a process? About eighty billion years for each cycle—forty billion to expand, and forty billion to contract.

How sound are such calculations? Admittedly it is all speculation. Scientists do not know what will happen in the future. True, today their instruments seem to indicate an expanding universe—but one that is slightly slowing down. Yet, in view of the repeated abandoning of past theories, it would be foolhardy to think that such present theories are ultimate truths.

For instance, scientists admit that the amount of matter in the universe does not appear to be nearly enough to supply the powerful gravity needed to slow down, stop, and then reverse the expansion believed to be taking place. If that is so, then the clusters of galaxies would continue to fly apart forever, as many astronomers contend.

Yet, Dr. James Gunn of the California Institute of Technology notes that it has long been known that there is also not enough material to provide the gravity needed even to hold the galaxies together in clusters. So every cluster of galaxies should long ago have broken up. Each galaxy should long ago have drifted away from the others in its group. But, admittedly, that has not been the case, for they are bound together in clusters.

It is obvious that, while much has been learned about the awesome universe we live in, far more is unknown. Theories come and go. What was “certain” yesterday is uncertain today. Thus, after a recent astronomers’ conference, the New York Times stated: “As has become evident in the talks here, there is still no consensus as to the nature of the cosmos.” And Science News concluded: “To sum it all up, cosmology is far from settled (if we can hope that it ever will be). Observation, theory and argument bubble on.”

What is wrong with nearly all the present theories is that they ignore the Creator and his purpose. Are we to think that the loving God would create such an awesome universe, meticulously prepare the earth for human habitation, then allow the universe to come together in a mass and thus destroy it all? That is not in any way consistent with His stated purpose. God’s Word declares that the “One who firmly established” the earth “did not create it simply for nothing,” but “formed it even to be inhabited.”—Isa. 45:18.

The Amazing Ability of Hearing

2008-10-07T03:37:00.002-07:00

IF YOU possess good hearing, you have something truly precious. Just think! You can listen to the melodious song of a bird, the ripple of a brook, the voice of a loved one. Through your ears you can receive lifesaving messages, too—perhaps from an automobile horn, a siren or a fire alarm.

Yet, have you really given much thought to your amazing sense of hearing? And what about that possessed by other creatures? Even a brief investigation can be intriguing.

How Are You Able to Hear?

A glance at the accompanying illustration shows that your ear is much more than that trumpetlike organ on the side of your head. That part is merely the auricle. It catches sound waves and sends them inward, along the external auditory canal. In it are tiny hairs and wax-producing glands. Their purpose? To prevent dust, insects, and so forth, from going deeper and causing damage.

When sound waves reach the end of the canal, they strike your eardrum, composed of thin, taut tissue. Its resulting vibrations are amplified and transmitted in your middle ear by three minute bones, the auditory ossicles. They are commonly called the hammer, anvil and stirrup because of their shapes. The stirrup “taps” the membrane of the “oval window,” transmitting the vibrations to your fluid-filled inner ear. Sound waves also enter the inner ear through the “round window,” below the “oval window.” Some waves even travel through your skull bones into the inner ear.

Above the inner ear’s central vestibule are the semicircular canals. Movements of fluid within them enable you to maintain physical balance. However, hearing is associated with the cochlea. Sound waves passing through fluid set in motion the cochlea’s basilar membrane. In turn, its movement causes vibration of the hair cells making up the organ of Corti. This motion stimulates the nerves attached to the hair cells. Finally these nerves, through the auditory nerve, send messages as electrical impulses to your brain’s hearing center. All of this is well known, but just how a person can understand such signals continues to baffle men of science.

A Word About What You Hear

You cannot hear every sound that surrounds you, and that is a good thing. As a babe in arms, your auditory range may have run from 15 to 30,000 cycles, or vibrations, a second. But say that it was very far below 15 cycles. Why, then you would hear your own heartbeats, even your bone and muscle movements!

Though it has certain limitations, your hearing range is astounding. While individuals differ, in general the loudest sound that one can tolerate is 2,000,000,000,000 times as great as the least perceptible sound! Indeed, the human ear has the maximum sensitivity practical for its needs.

As the years pass, of course, imperfect humans experience progressive loss of hearing ability. Among other things, this is because tissues of the inner ear lose their elasticity. The upper level of the auditory range reportedly drops from 30,000 cycles when one is a baby to around 4,000 cycles by the time one is eighty. Nevertheless, even that is enough for normal conversation.

Truly a Masterwork!

Your ears have built-in protection against extremely loud noises. Of course, a sudden nearby explosion can result in excessive vibrations that could cause irreparable damage to your intricate hearing apparatus. But if a very loud sound develops gradually, quick-acting muscles can ‘turn down the volume.’ The eardrum’s membrane is tightened to reduce its vibrations, and middle-ear muscles twist the auditory ossicles. Thus the stirrup does not transmit such great vibrations through the “oval window” into the inner ear.

Protection also is afforded by the Eustachian tube, running from the nasal cavity to the middle ear. This passageway carries air and equalizes the pressure inside your eardrum with that outside. Here, then, is a safeguard against the breaking of your eardrum due to a great change in external air pressure.

Think, too, about the sounds you hear. In an amazing way, you distinguish between the rumble of thunder and the clatter of wagon wheels, the footsteps of a person and the hoofbeats of a horse, even if you cannot see their source. Moreover, usually both ears can be ‘tuned in’ on sounds. Perhaps you dropped a coin and did not see where it rolled. Yet, you heard it hit the floor, possibly bouncing a time or two. Then you listened as it rolled and struck a chair. Finally, you heard the coin flop over and reverberate before coming to rest. Both ears help you to locate the spot.

Not without good reason, it has been said of the human ear: “If an engineer were to duplicate its function, he would have to compress into approximately one cubic inch a sound system that included an impedance matcher, a wide-range mechanical analyzer, a mobile relay-and-amplification unit, a multichannel transducer to convert mechanical energy to electrical energy, a system to maintain a delicate hydraulic balance, and an internal two-way communications system. Even if he could perform this miracle of miniaturization, he probably could not hope to match the ear’s performance.”—Sound and Hearing, by S. S. Stevens, Fred Warshofsky and the editors of Life, page 38.

Yes, the human ear truly is a masterwork. How well it demonstrates the wisdom of Jehovah God, the incomparable Maker of the hearing ear!—Prov. 20:12.

Hearing in the Animal World

You have a right to be impressed with the wonder of human hearing. But what about that of other creatures? Well, people can see the external ears of dogs, cats, horses and monkeys, and they know that such animals respond to sounds. Also, though birds lack external ears, most persons are well aware that these creatures can hear. As a matter of fact, a bird’s auditory range is about the same as man’s. What about snakes? Can they hear?

Some naturalists contend that snakes cannot hear. Actually, however, recent findings show that these animals have an auditory mechanism and can hear fairly well. For instance, researchers Peter H. Hartline and Howard W. Campbell found that not only substrate vibrations but also airborne sounds evoked electrical responses in species of three snake families. Concerning a boa constrictor, they wrote: “If a brain response is accepted as indicative of hearing, these snakes can hear airborne sound.”—Science, March 14, 1969, Vol. 163, No. 3872, page 1222.

The Bible implies that the cobra can “listen to the voice of charmers.” (Ps. 58:4, 5) In this regard, the New York Times of January 10, 1954, stated: “Dr. David I. Macht, research pharmacologist of the Mount Sinai Hospital in Baltimore, is one of the world’s leading authorities on cobra snake venom. . . . Dr. Macht reported that in working with cobras and cobra venom he became acquainted with a number of Hindu physicians, well educated, and from different parts of India. All agreed that cobras respond to some musical tones, from musical pipes or fifes. Some forms of music excite the animals more than other forms, the physicians reported. Indian children, playing in the dark in the countryside, are even warned not to sing lest their sounds attract cobras, he said. Dr. Macht commented that Shakespeare, who repeatedly referred to serpents as deaf . . . merely repeated a common misunderstanding. On the other hand, Dr. Macht said, the psalmist was right who implied conversely, in Psalm 58, Verse 5, that serpents can hear: . . . Contrary to the claims of some naturalists, Dr. Macht said, snakes are ‘charmed’ by sounds, not by movements of the charmer. Revise the textbooks, the physicians recommended.”

What About Insects?

Some researchers have concluded that not all insects can hear. Yet, many of these little creatures have remarkable hearing ability. Some respond to sounds below man’s auditory range. Others can detect those over two octaves higher than any that humans can perceive.

Insect auditory equipment varies and often turns up in unusual places. Eardrums of short-horned grasshoppers are on the sides of their abdomens. The male attracts a lady grasshopper by rubbing the edges of his front wings with spines attached to his back legs. This is ‘music to the ears’ of the female that hears it and decides to become his mate.

Katydids and crickets have “ears,” too. Where? Just below what you might term the “knees” on their front legs. Of course, these are only tiny openings. But all the female katydid must do to pick up the male’s mating sound is to move her legs in the direction of the call!

The Marvel of Echolocation

Some creatures employ the sense of hearing in quite an extraordinary way. They are equipped for echolocation. These animals emit high-frequency sounds and are guided, by listening and responding to rapidly returning echoes as the sounds are reflected by objects. For instance, bottle-nosed dolphins use this method to avoid underwater obstacles.

Among echolocators is a well-known flying mammal—the bat. If you were to release a bat in a completely dark room, it could-fly about without hitting the walls or other objects. This is because the animals emit sound pulses of high frequency; as the sounds strike obstacles, they listen for the echoes. Why, they sometimes send out over 200 pulses a second! By interpreting the messages resulting from these echoes, the creature-charts a safe course.

The bat also uses its astounding guidance system to locate the insects on which it dines. But just how it tells the difference between echoes reflected by obstacles and those returning from potential meals remains a mystery to man. For that matter, certain bats catch their prey right on the obstacle, a leaf.

Another remarkable factor is that the bat does not hear the sounds it emits. Every time one is sent out, ear-muscle contractions ‘turn off the sound’ so that only the echo is heard. Furthermore, each bat may possess and follow its own pattern of sound because there is not mass confusion when hundreds of these creatures flock together.

What a system of sound emission and hearing the Creator has given the bat! It has been said: “Scientists estimate that, ounce for ounce and watt for watt, the bat’s sonar is a billion times more sensitive and efficient than any radar or sonar device contrived by man.”—James Poling, in Marvels & Mysteries of Our Animal World.

Protect Your Hearing Ability

Whether you look at the animals or consider yourself, doubtless you will admit that hearing ability truly is amazing. And surely you will want to care for and protect your hearing apparatus.

Your ears are being assailed by many unwanted sounds in this modern world. Noise pollution has become quite a problem in many places. If you must work around excessively loud machinery, for example, the use of earplugs may be advisable. They may protect you against ear injury and hearing loss.

If you now are a tobacco user, another way to protect your hearing is to stop using tobacco. The nicotine in tobacco causes constriction of inner-ear arteries. This, in turn, reduces blood flow and consequently the flow of nourishment that the inner ear needs in order to play its vital role in your life.

Never probe in your ears with objects such as hairpins or matchsticks. If you break the skin in this way, infection may result.

Do you have your ears examined from time to time? Well, having periodic ear examinations would not be amiss. It certainly pays to protect your amazing ability of hearing.

Does the Solution Lie with Psychiatrists?

2008-10-07T03:37:00.001-07:00

PSYCHOTHERAPY is the art of trying to help mentally or emotionally disturbed persons by listening to their problems, and endeavoring to offer them insight to cope with these problems. Psychiatrists—persons who employ this form of treatment—have increased sevenfold in number in the United States during the past twenty-five years.

The most popular psychiatric approach has been that of Sigmund Freud’s psychoanalytical “couch” theory. Its use, however, has been chiefly in the United States. Thus New York city, with nine million inhabitants, has almost a thousand psychoanalysts, whereas Tokyo, with eleven million people, has but three!

The value of psychiatric treatment is by no means universally recognized. In fact, even the director of the United States National Institute for the Psychotherapies recently spoke of the “controversy and frequent disillusionment that currently characterize the field of psychotherapy.” Also, psychiatrist Karl Menninger observed: “Nine tenths of people with so called schizophrenia get well without going near a hospital.”

In an especially strong indictment, Dr. H. J. Eysenck of the Institute of Psychiatry, University of London, wrote in the Medical Tribune of April 4, 1973, that the result “claimed for different methods of psychotherapy and psychoanalysis was almost exactly that found for spontaneous remission.” In other words, according to Eysenck, persons receiving psychiatric help had about the same recovery rate as those receiving no psychiatric treatment at all!

Help Provided

However, it cannot be denied that some persons have received genuine help from psychiatrists. A man in California writes: “The help I received from that kind man was extremely beneficial, and my problem was resolved quickly.” Posing the question, “What did this psychiatrist do for me?” he answered: “He listened. He really listened. . . . he helped me to realize that within myself I had the ability to develop self-control.”

This disturbed man had a behavioral problem, one that evidenced a serious sexual aberration. But through kindness and encouragement the psychiatrist helped him to correct his weakness. Even extreme cases have responded to such psychiatric treatment. Giving pertinent testimony along this line is a case history described in The Vital Balance, authored by a team headed by Karl Menninger.

The case is that of “Mary Smith,” who, at the age of sixty-three, was admitted to a state hospital. Somehow she had gotten the idea that her husband, a kind, gentle, typical farmer, was involved in illegal liquor traffic and that he had repeatedly tried to poison her. So she had attacked him with a hammer while he was sleeping.

She was diagnosed as “disturbed, restless and confused.” Six years after her admission she was judged incurably insane. Seven more years passed, and a new doctor came along who took an interest in her. He patiently listened to her strident complaints, sympathized and agreed with her whenever he could. He took walks with her, tactfully helping her to clear up some of her delusions. He had glasses fitted for her, and had the nurse give her things to read, as well as to chat with her.

Gradually the tone of her voice changed, she became helpful in making beds, and was permitted to go walking on the grounds by herself. Soon she was allowed to be away for a few days. Then, at the age of seventy-six, she obtained a position as a practical nurse, caring for an elderly woman. Years later her daughter reported regarding her: “She is an excellent worker, helpful and cooperative . . . one of the best-organized women I ever knew at any age.”

Such successes in helping the mentally disturbed point to the type of treatment they especially need. Sir Geoffrey Vickers, as chairman of the Mental Health Research Fund, years ago explained: “By far the most significant discovery of mental science is the power of love to protect and restore the mind.”

Yes, love, kindness, patience and understanding are now generally recognized as vital in the successful treatment of mental patients. Yet, as noted earlier, psychiatrists often fail to help patients recover. Is there some fundamental reason why?

Basic Failure in Approach

It has well been observed that people need to know the reason for their existence, what purpose there is to life, so as to have strength to endure in the face of tragedy. But are psychiatrists best able to provide this? Can they help people to answer the basic questions about which they wonder, such as: “Why am I here?” “What is life all about?” “What destiny awaits me?”

The truth is that, not any human, but only the Creator of humankind, Almighty God, can provide sound, satisfying answers to these questions. And he has done so for our hope and comfort in his Word the Bible. But how do psychiatrists generally feel about God?

A 1970 survey indicates how. Of the psychiatrists interviewed, 55 percent said that they considered belief in God to be “infantile,” and “incongruous with reality.”

What an unreasonable, illogical conclusion! For think: How else can we explain the origin of life if we leave out the existence of a supreme God? Or what about love—from where does this marvelous quality come that is so vital to mental health? Only the Bible’s explanation is both reasonable and logical. And its explanation is that a supreme, loving Creator is responsible. (Ps. 36:9; 1 John 4: 8-11) Prominent men of science, who were by no means “infantile,” have expressed belief in such a God.

Science Digest says of one of these: “Most historians of science would declare at once that Isaac Newton was the greatest scientific mind the world has ever seen.” And in his masterpiece, Principia, Newton said: “From his true dominion it follows that the true God is a living, intelligent, and powerful Being; and, from his other perfections, that he is supreme, or most perfect. He is eternal and infinite, omnipotent and omniscient.”

The basic failure of worldly psychiatrists is that generally they do not look to this true God for wisdom and guidance in treating the emotionally and mentally disturbed. And undoubtedly one of the consequences of their attitude is that they themselves have the highest suicide rate among all those in the medical specialities! Regarding this, one of their own number says: ‘Until psychiatrists have the lowest rate, all their teachings are subject to suspicion.’—Journal of the American Medical Association.

Further Effects of Basic Failure

Failing to recognize the sound instruction of God’s Word, psychiatrists seldom apply love in a balanced way. For example, in one case a father who was unable to wean his teen-age son away from drugs sent him to a psychiatrist. With what results? The father wound up $2,000 poorer and the son had not changed in the slightest.

The father wanted to help his son. However, neither he nor the psychiatrist appreciated the teaching of God’s Word, namely, that firm, yet kind, discipline is a vital part of the exercise of love. (Heb. 12:6-9; Prov. 23:13, 14) Finally, listening to sound counsel, the father ordered his son out of the house until he was willing to go to a drug rehabilitation center. Later the son told his father: “You know, when you and Mom threw me out, that’s when I knew you really wanted to help me.” The son is now cured.

The general failure of psychiatrists to appreciate God and his teachings on morality has resulted in great harm’s being done. As an example, the Long Island Press carried the front page heading: “Sodomy Ring Smashed. Group charged with sexually abusing youths.” The article said: “Four men—including an internationally known child psychiatrist . . . were arraigned yesterday on sodomy, sexual abuse and conspiracy charges involving adolescents.”

While this may be an isolated case, the incidents of male psychiatrists having sexual relations with women patients are not. Thus one Christian woman went to a psychiatrist for help because of her frustration in her marital relations with her husband. He told her that she had three choices: Try to get her husband to see a psychiatrist; get a divorce; or have an extramarital affair with a “boyfriend,” and he volunteered to serve as her “boyfriend.”

Then there was the psychiatrist who was sued because, as reported in the New York Daily News: “He prescribed sexual relations with himself as therapy and then charged for the ‘treatments.’” Another psychiatrist was sued for $1,250,000 damages in the Supreme Court of the State of New York because he forced his patient to have sex relations with him under the guise of psychiatric treatment. In fact, one psychiatrist wrote a book recommending that psychiatrists be “sexually available to the patient, but not ‘insistent.’” He called the book The Love Treatment.

Two clinicians who run America’s leading sex clinic said that a large proportion of eight hundred patients they treated admitted to having had sex relations with their psychiatrists or counselors. While some of these reports may be mere fantasies, wishful thinking or bragging, one of the doctors observed: “If only 25% of these specific reports are correct, there is still an overwhelming issue confronting professionals in this field.”

Clearly, there is reason to exercise caution as regards worldly psychiatrists. For, while one may receive help, there is also a real possibility that one may be encouraged to pursue a course of conduct contrary to God’s righteous principles. But even if that were not so, the failure of psychiatrists generally to know how properly to apply the best medicine for mental ills—the divine quality of love—is likely to render their treatment ineffectual.

Does this mean that there is nowhere that people can receive reliable psychotherapy in the sense of receiving help to see their problems through and solve them? Happily such help is available, and by means of it many persons have achieved mental health in this mixed-up world.

Can Shock, Drugs or Psychosurgery Solve the Problem?

2008-10-07T03:36:00.000-07:00

TREATMENT of the mentally ill in most lands has made considerable progress. How were the mentally ill dealt with in times past? One authority says: “Starving, freezing, cramping, and terrifying were routine procedures, and one of the least cruel methods was just plain beating, beating with clubs, whips, wires, chains, and fists.”

Especially notorious was London’s Bethlehem Royal Hospital, which came to be known as Bedlam. There on certain days people paid a penny to watch mental patients being abused. To this day “bedlam” is used to refer to “a place or scene of wild mad uproar.” Not even royalty were spared if mentally ill, King George III of England being one such hapless victim.

The lot of the mentally ill changed from treatment by cruelty to treatment by neglect, unspeakable filth and vermin in prisons. But toward the early part of the nineteenth century certain humanitarians pioneered the treatment of the mentally ill with education, recreation, and human kindness, treating them as sick persons instead of as those possessed by devils. Since the late nineteenth century many new theories and methods of treating the mentally ill have come to the fore.

On the one hand there are the psychotherapies, often named after such men as Freud and Jung. And on the other hand, there are the “somatic” or “organic” methods, most widely used of which are shock and drugs. Psychosurgery, once very popular but then fallen into disrepute, is now again being revived though in a greatly altered form. Generally it is the custom to make use of more than one of these various methods when treating a certain patient.

The Use of Shock

Shock to treat mental patients might be said to have gone through three stages. First, there was shock induced by insulin, pioneered by Manfred Sakel. But it had its disadvantages. To be most effective the insulin-induced shock had to last from 30 to 50 hours, and at times the patient failed to come out of the shock. It was also costly, since it required much attention by nurses or attendants. Thus, after some ten years, it was largely dropped in the 1940’s for other forms of shock treatment.

Secondly, the use of the drug Metrazol was pioneered by psychiatrist Meduna. He found that Metrazol caused epileptic-like convulsions, and these, he theorized, could cure mental illness. However, this method was also found wanting for a number of reasons, not the least of which was that the convulsions at times caused bone fractures.

These shock treatments have been by and large replaced with electroshock treatment, which today is commonly prescribed. It consists of applying electric currents to the brain to cause the body to convulse; usually a drug is given so that the patient does not feel anything. It lasts about 50 seconds and results in a confused state of mind that may last for an hour, or in amnesia that may last for weeks. Many psychiatrists and patients credit it with doing much good.

But electroshock therapy, known as ECT, is not without its critics. Should it be used as frequently as it is? Not according to Dr. Perry C. Talkington (1972), president of the American Psychiatric Association. “Electroshock,” says he, is to be “used to cure deep depressions when other forms of treatment—chemotherapy [drugs], psychotherapy or combinations of those two—are not effective.”

None other than Professor Cerletti, the first one to use electroshock, termed it “unesthetic—ugly . . . gruesome” and said he was trying hard to find a substitute. And Drs. F. G. Alexander and S. T. Selesnick, in their work The History of Psychiatry, state: “Shock treatments effect only a relief of symptoms. They do not reach the basic psychological disturbance underlying the illness, and patients who receive electroshock without psychotherapy—which reaches the source of the illness—frequently relapse.”

A widely read autobiography of a psychiatrist noted that electroshock treatments may be so popular because they are covered by insurance, with the psychiatrists getting $35 (in 1972) every time they ‘press the button.’

The Use of Drugs

Early in the twentieth century, experiments were made with radical drugs the effect of which seemed well-nigh miraculous—but only for a matter of minutes or hours. Then the use of bromides became popular. But here also disillusionment set in. Concerning all such efforts we are told: “Despite the repeated shattering of the drug dream, physicians still hope eventually to alleviate man’s inner strife by chemical means.”

Particularly since the 1950’s are mind-controlling drugs being used in the Western world. Some are said to be of greatest value in treating the schizophrenias, others to combat depression and still others to reduce anxiety.

The use of these drugs has made patients easier to handle and has eased their sufferings. However, it appears that the use of these drugs is being overdone and especially in institutions for the mentally retarded. Thus The National Observer of January 11, 1975, quoted many psychiatrists who had harsh words for custodians who ease their task “by essentially bludgeoning the patient into semiconsciousness.”

“What we’ve done,” said Brandeis professor Dybwad, “is supplant mechanical restraint [straitjackets and solitary confinement] with chemical restraint. And this is even more vicious because you can’t see it.” Another authority is quoted as saying: “We’re going to have to break what has come to be an acceptable pattern of putting people off in institutions and then drugging them to keep them quiet.”

Drugs often are but a crutch. They may actually delay rather than hasten recovery, and may even harm the nervous system. Thus, regarding drugs used to suppress violent patients, one psychiatrist found that 20 to 30 percent of such patients were showing deficient muscular control.

Summarizing the psychiatric drug situation, a 1970 textbook states: “Despite the encouraging progress . . . much more effort is needed. We are woefully ignorant of [what causes] most of the illnesses we treat. We still understand little how drugs ameliorate these conditions, or why they may fail. And although we have many patients who get better, we still have too few who get well.”

Psychosurgery?

Psychosurgery, or efforts to cure the mentally ill by operating on their brains, dates particularly from 1936. It was in that year that a Portuguese researcher, Egas Moniz, observed that by severing part of the frontal lobes of the brain, anxiety could be relieved. But after he had performed twenty such frontal lobotomies the Portuguese government outlawed them. In spite of that, the operation caught on in the United States. Walter Freeman, its chief advocate, performed 4,000 of them.

The operation has been compared to “swishing an ice pick around behind the eyeballs to destroy portions of the brain’s frontal lobe.” Science News reports: “After perhaps 50,000 lobotomies in the United States, and 15,000 in England, the fad died down in the 1950’s, probably because of developments in electroshock and drug therapy.”

Lobotomies often resulted in far more serious personality disorders. In fact, even their American pioneer, Freeman, testified that they robbed a person of his “morale,” his ability to imagine, to foresee and to be altruistic. The patient experienced a “progressive loss of . . . insight, empathy, sensitivity, self-awareness, judgment, emotional responsiveness, and so on,” says a leading Washington, D.C., psychiatrist.

Recently, however, the issue of psychosurgery has again come to the fore, as more refined methods are being used to destroy portions of the brain. Reportedly some four to six hundred of these operations are being performed yearly in the United States, and, we are told, “every psychosurgeon agrees that we are just beginning to witness a massive increase in psychosurgery.” However it is of interest that these operations are banned throughout the Soviet Union, indicating their undesirable aspects.

The plans to perform psychosurgery on the criminally insane, provided they voluntarily consent, raised a furor in the United States in the spring of 1973. What many fear is that these operations will open the door to manipulating humans by means of brain surgery. Among those strongly speaking out against them is brain surgeon Dr. A. K. Ommaya. He feels that, far from being helped, mental patients are being harmed because “every part of the brain requires the other parts to function.”—New York Times, April 2, 1973.

Clearly, electroshock, drugs and psychosurgery all leave much to be desired in treating mental patients. There is, in fact, great controversy as to whether certain of these methods should be used at all. What, then, about alternatives?

Watching the World 10

2008-10-07T03:35:00.002-07:00

Witnesses Recognized in Portugal

? The Association of Jehovah’s Witnesses was legally recognized by the government of Portugal in mid-December. The statutes of the Association, as required by law, were published in the country’s principal newspaper and eventually copied by other papers in Portugal. This information was also printed in the government Gazette. Official recognition in Portugal means that the Witnesses will be able publicly to meet and do their Bible education work and carry on the activities of any legal ‘religious association.’

Three days later, the Watch Tower Society’s president, N.H. Knorr, spoke to a group of 7,586 persons who attended a special Witness meeting in Pôrto. The next day, December 22, he and the Society’s vice-president, F. W. Franz, again lectured, this time in Lisbon, to a crowd of 39,284. Thus 46,870 people were in attendance at the two sessions; that is over three times the number of Witnesses in Portugal.

Navigation in Birds . . .

? How do pigeons find their way home? Experimenters have suggested that the birds are able to identify visible landmarks. But those taken in covered cages to places they have never visited are able to return home; no landmarks guide them. Does the sun direct pigeons? Perhaps it aids in determining compass directions, but that is not enough to locate a precise spot. In a current Scientific American, W. T. Keeton concludes: “The old idea that birds use a single method to determine the home direction has given way to the realization that there are probably multiple components in the system.”

. . . And Bugs

? Meanwhile, a recent Natural History theorizes as to how insects can fly on a beeline across large open areas without apparently relying on visible landmarks. W. G. Wellington argues that insects use polarized light. Under certain conditions, light waves from the sun vibrate in only one direction. In some unknown manner insects (unlike humans) perceive this light and use it to navigate across long stretches. When there is little or no polarization, he says, insects depend on familiar ground markings or other assistance for their guidance.

What Is First to You?

? In recent months the public press has printed a number of accounts about athletes who gave up collegiate and professional careers when they became active as Jehovah’s witnesses. Why did they stop? Do they believe that sports in themselves are wrong? Not necessarily. One top basketball: star recently explained to the Dallas (Texas) Morning News: “To be successful in basketball . . . you’ve got to devote almost nine months to it and just about every hour of the day during that period . . . So by playing basketball, what I was saying in essence was that I would serve Jehovah [God] when I got time.”

Palmistry Exposed

? According to the pseudo-science of palmistry, the lifeline in a person’s palm is supposed to indicate the length of his life. Does it? No. Two University of Washington researchers measured the lifelines of the palms of 51 corpses, correlated this to body size and fed the information into a computer. They say, in The Journal of the American Medical Association, that when palmistry is used to predict life expectancy the results have no “scientific worthiness or usefulness to life insurers” whatever.

Billion-Dollar Question

? “Is there life on Mars?” asks U.S. News & World Report. The answer is of more than academic interest. It is costing the American taxpayer dearly. Says the magazine: “For centuries this question has absorbed scientists, poets and dreamers alike. Now it has become the driving force behind a 1-billion-dollar mission into space.” In the U.S., a billion dollars would also build about 70,000 low-cost homes.

Stealing a City

? Vandalism, rampant in New York city, is simply another word for stealing. Says New Times magazine: “This city—the undisputed world’s capital of larceny—is being stolen. Physically stolen right out from under its residents. . . . Parks, plazas and botanical gardens are being stripped as if they were abandoned autos. Public monuments are being heisted. Statues are being mugged. All with increasing frequency and ever greater audacity.” Why does the problem grow? Joseph Bresnan, Parks Department director of monuments, says: “No one takes vandalism seriously.” Police say that they are busy trying to take care of people.

Auto Slump

? The automobile industry is a major victim in the current inflation/recession period. U.S. domestic sales were down 30 percent in the last quarter of 1974, the worst in 14 years. Imported-car sales are also down. A similar picture appears in Europe, where at least 300,000 auto workers were laid off by year-end. One European job in ten depends on the auto industry. Related industries also suffer: A major U.S. steel producer reports a 25-percent decline in early 1975 orders; a glass supplier says that 1974 sales were off 20 percent. Auto makers are optimistic about an upturn. But A. E. Sindlinger, one of their leading consultants, reminds them: “People went four years without new cars in World War II. They learned they don’t have to buy, and they won’t if they don’t need or can’t afford a car.”

Winking at Gambling

? In the last decade thirteen U.S. states have adopted legal lotteries as ways of raising revenue. But, observes an editorial in The Christian Century, “the sudden rise in public acceptance of state-sponsored gambling appears to have been accomplished with only a minimum of church opposition.”

Plenty of Nothing

? The Department of Consumer Affairs in New York city estimates that residents bought $25 million worth of nothing last year. This is what was paid for “short weights,” when merchants did not fill up packages to the stated quantity. A frequent trick, the department says, is for a customer unknowingly to buy a box. Suppose fancy bakery cookies are $4 per pound. If the clerk places a three-ounce container on the scale and then puts in the cookies, the customer has paid $3.25 for the cookies and 75 cents for the box.

Sunday Magazines

? There are now fifty-six U.S. Sunday newspaper magazines. The Writer claims that these are the best-read part of the paper; over 90 percent of newspaper purchasers read that section.

Soybean Demand

? In 1974 the U.S. produced 1.3 billion bushels of soybeans. Yet demand grows for more soybeans. Why? Protein. One bushel of soybeans makes 48 pounds of meal for animal feed and 11 pounds of oil for products like margarine. Plans call for soybeans to replace meat in processed foods such as chili, hot dogs and bologna. Their importance is emphasized by Richard Rhodes in Atlantic: “With fully efficient agriculture and a vegetable diet, the world could theoretically support a population of forty to fifty billion people. Meat proteins couldn’t even support the population we already contend with.”

‘Can’t-Win Dilemma’

? Growing numbers of experts feel that greater food shortages are inevitable. R. P. Sinha of the University of Glasgow notes: “The immensity of the problem of the poor and the landless farmer is such that nothing the international organizations, with their limited resources, can do will make any significant difference.” Meanwhile, an editorial in Farm Journal entitled “World Famine: A Can’t-win Dilemma” notes: “The world food crisis is another of those terrible ‘can’t-win’ dilemmas now coming at us with such frequency.”

Peat for Power

? Among the fuel alternatives that have been discussed since the petroleum crisis is peat. Peat is partly decayed vegetable matter, said to be in the process of becoming coal. More than half of the world’s peat is found in the Soviet Union. That nation has over 70 peat-fueled generating plants. Both Finland and Ireland plan large increases in peat production. New Scientist says that as peat is removed in Ireland, farmland is being reclaimed. North America, with about 14 percent of the world’s total of peat, has no plans to develop it as a fuel.

Want Your Letter Read?

? Companies are getting more mail than ever and more of their personnels’ time is used in reading it. Does this put the person who cannot type his letter to a large company at a disadvantage? Not if his letter is short and to the point, says Gene M. Brown, of the Austin Company of Cleveland, Ohio, who reads large volumes of mail: “From fellows in small firms we often get letters written in longhand and that suits us fine because the writer usually has neither the time nor the inclination to get into a lot of nonrelevant stuff. He just says what he means and throws it in the mail.”

Duty-Free Shops

? Travelers know that with care they can save money by making purchases at duty-free airport shops. Europe’s Vision magazine says that travelers now put out over $300 million yearly at west European airports. Alcoholic drinks account for 45 percent of the total; tobacco, 35 percent; perfume, 15 percent; other sales, the remaining 5 percent. West Germany has the highest number of duty-free sales, followed by Britain, the Netherlands and France.

Going on TV?

? Industry Week says that more management people than ever are being compelled to appear on television. How can one best prepare for such an appearance? It suggests: “Brief yourself, anticipating questions you may be asked. Don’t opinionate if you are unsure of supporting facts. Don’t let an interviewer intimidate you; occasionally ask questions yourself or volunteer information. Use notes or cue cards only if your story is complex. . . . Don’t lose your temper. Be casual, but assume you are on camera until the show is over. Dress in medium-colored suits and pastel or off-white shirts.”

Nuns Awaken

? Italian nuns are awakening to the world outside their convent, says a Reuters report from Rome. “television aerials are sprouting on convent roofs.” More nuns are working away from their convents. But the Church does not care for all the consequences. Hundreds of nuns now quit every year; many openly disagree with the Hierarchy. For instance, one Rome nun, a doctor, says: “In individual cases I approve of the [birth control] Pill.”

Crimes in Churches

? Washington, D.C., area churches are locking their doors and installing security systems in an effort to combat vandals who no longer consider them ‘sacred ground.’ In the year ending June 30, 1973, there were 209 crimes involving churches; the following year this rose to 306. But in just four recent months there were 209 crimes. “Suburban Maryland and Virginia churches,” says the Washington Post, “also report glue sniffing, dope smoking and beer drinking parties in their churches at night.”

Baptist Blues

? The Baptist Church, according to some of its leaders, is too worried about survival to serve people. Emory Wallace, president of the Louisiana Baptist Convention, says that the “old way” does not work and that his church needs some “bold experiments.” The Shreveport Times adds: “If Baptists don’t change their strategy, he said, it will become an impossible task to gain further converts and halt the increasing percentage of those disinterested in the church.”

What Is Different About Today’s Crises?

2008-10-07T03:35:00.001-07:00

ON AUGUST 25, 1974, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists moved its front-cover “doomsday clock” three minutes closer to midnight. These scientists thus signaled their fear that the threat of nuclear holocaust recently grew by that much, bringing the clock to nine minutes before midnight.

However, those who are aware of the clock’s history know that, since 1947 when the atomic scientists started it ticking, their clock has moved eight times, but in both directions.

Many people believe that the course of history is very similar to that “doomsday clock.” They say that crises come and crises go but somehow mankind always muddles through. Their outlook is just what a discerning prophet 1,900 years ago said it would be: “Why, from the day our forefathers fell asleep in death, all things are continuing exactly as from creation’s beginning.”—2 Pet. 3:4.

It is obvious, these persons agree, that global economic and political systems are currently under severe stress, but are not the world’s best minds focusing on the problems? The United Nations special session on natural resources and recent world conferences on the sea, population and food demonstrate unprecedented unity of effort, do they not? And does not growing détente between East and West brighten the picture even more? “It’s really détente,” says West German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt. “It is a much less dangerous world . . . The menace has gone, at least it has shrunk.”

Optimists are also sure that, given enough time, technology will figure out a way to restore shrinking food supplies, check swelling populations and develop new resources to meet growing energy demands. As one publication promoting technology says: “Science and technology must answer our problems. If they don’t, nothing else will.”

Time, technology and diplomacy have managed to keep mankind out of the ultimate crisis before. Why should today’s crises be any different?

Understanding the Difference

Atomic scientists and world leaders have for years feared a nuclear doomsday, and that threat continues, especially in view of the suddenly escalated arms race. But now something new has been added. What?

Secretary-General Waldheim told the U.N. special session on natural resources:

“What is new is the sudden and dramatic urgency of the present situation and the acute acceleration of the historical process which has brought us face to face with a global emergency.” (Italics added)

What does that mean? We can better understand it if we compare the past six thousand years of recorded history with a span that is easier for our minds to grasp. Think of this period as if it were scaled down to thirty years in the life of your own family, and note the “acceleration” of problems.

Imagine that you start out with just one child, an eight-room house and a steadily growing income. Even on such a reduced time scale, it would be twenty years before your family would have a second child to provide for! And not until the twenty-ninth year would it grow again—this time by two more children—to four.

But suddenly, in the thirtieth and last year, your household and its needs mushroom. During just the next eight months, it quadruples—to sixteen suddenly filling your eight-room house to capacity! Imagine your consternation if you were told that the number in your household would double again—to thirty-two—within just two months! But mere numbers are not the only problem that confronts you.

Suddenly spurting family needs during the past eight months have already used up your savings and driven you into debt. Also, your home has just reached capacity—at the very time that family growth is really gaining momentum. There is not the time or money to expand it. Everything must go into just keeping up. Thus your household is at a turning point. From now on, it is more and more dependent on each member’s sharing what he has.

But suppose five members of the household insist on having over two thirds of the food and other provisions. The remaining eleven, then, just have to divide up what is left the best they can. Thus the demands of a few stretch your home and income to their limits even more quickly than otherwise. Your problems are entirely different from just a few months before.

Is the foregoing illustration just exaggerated fiction? Not according to a swelling number of world leaders and scientific experts.

Little more than 2 percent of recorded history has suddenly witnessed about 75 percent of humanity’s increase in numbers. In fact, Waldheim asserts that about a fourth of the people who have ever lived are alive today! Continued growth at even the present rate would put one person on every square foot of the earth—oceans and all—in less than 700 years.

Thus numbers alone make a turning point quickly inevitable. “Without doubt,” says Scientific American magazine, “this period of growth will be a transitory episode in the history of the population.” (Italics added) But the problem right now is not so much mere numbers as it is the sudden rapidity with which they came upon the world’s already shaky institutions.

Suddenly exploding numbers have brought exploding needs for food, clothing, shelter and education. But for the first time, the ability of science and technology to keep pace with these demands is in question: “Technology, long the hope of believers in miracles,” declares The Wall Street Journal’s chief European correspondent, “is being overtaken so rapidly by population growth that even the world’s top scientists are throwing up their hands in despair.”

But even more restricting to earth’s capacity than technology’s failures are the artificial limits imposed by selfish and divisive economic, political and religious barriers. As a result of these, for example, less than a third of earth’s people are using about two thirds of its food and almost all its energy and resources. The other two thirds of humanity must divide up (usually unequally) what little is left.

These pressures are converging on the world at the very time in history when earth’s capacity, under its present administration, is buffeting the limits. Is it any wonder that formerly stable institutions are staggering under the burden? This “acute acceleration of the historical process” has suddenly brought the world to a turning point. Says Nobel-Prize-winning Harvard professor George Wald:

“Human life is now threatened as never before, not by one but by many perils, each in itself capable of destroying us, but all interrelated, and all coming upon us together.’’

The “interrelated” nature of today’s perils is in itself convincing evidence that they are truly different. Let us see how these newly interrelated crises are affecting the world.

The Mysterious Rainbow

2008-10-07T03:34:00.001-07:00

THE rainbow has long fascinated man, but he has been repeatedly baffled by the mysteries it presents.

Why does the rainbow appear only after certain rains? Why can one see more colors in one rainbow than in another? Why does the bow seem to move away from a person as he walks toward it? Do you know?

Fearing what they could not understand, many ancient peoples viewed the beautiful bow as a hostile force or “bad luck.” To some it was a great snake (or other animal) that swallowed water and held back rain. These views, however, strongly contrast with the first written record of a rainbow.

The First Rainbow

The world’s oldest history book, the Bible, draws attention to the first rainbow and gives the reason for its continued appearance. It reports that God made a covenant, a promise to the survivors of the world flood, namely, Noah and his family, that “no more will the waters become a deluge to bring all flesh to ruin.” And as a sign of this covenant, God said to Noah: “My rainbow I do give in the cloud, and it must serve as a sign of the covenant between me and the earth.” (Gen. 9:8-16) What a splendid way to remind mankind of God’s promise!

Some argue that the Bible was not actually here describing the first appearance of a rainbow, but that from that time forward a new significance was being attached to its existence. However, the Bible presents it as something introduced at that time. Apparently atmospheric conditions prior to the great Flood did not allow for the formation of the rainbow. Even today certain atmospheric conditions must exist for it to appear.

Although the Bible’s comments are brief, they give the why of the rainbow, and to this day those of faith see in it reassurance that God still cares for man.

Attempts to Understand

It was when man began to ponder the how, the mechanics of the rainbow, that he tackled a mystery with many a surprising turn. Truly, those who would “catch the rainbow” have often ended up with sore feet!

One early “detective,” the Greek philosopher Aristotle, held that the rainbow was formed by rays reflecting or bouncing off the uneven surface of cloud droplets. He further reasoned that there were only three colors in the rainbow—a view that dominated scientific thought on the point for centuries. His explanations, however, left many questions unanswered.

One perplexing puzzle arose when two arcs or a “double rainbow” would appear. Why, if the rainbow was simply reflection, would the bands of color in the outer arc appear in exactly the opposite order of those in the inner bow? As various theories on this and other aspects were discarded, scholar Roger Bacon was prompted to say: “It is certain regarding philosophers that no one of them has been able to gain a knowledge of the rainbow.”

‘Not so,’ answered René Descartes, a French scientist of the seventeenth century. Using complex mathematical calculations, he set forth charts showing the angles necessary to the formation of a rainbow. He boasted that those who understood his theories would “easily understand” the cause of rainbows. However, a professor of mathematics at Brooklyn College said that “he had not really answered all the problems connected with the rainbow.” For example, he failed to explain correctly color formation and multiple rainbows.

Then, sixty-seven years later, Isaac Newton published his Opticks, correctly stating that sunlight can be separated into several colors and thus raindrops simply separate the colors. After this, it was generally assumed that “the last word had been written.” But was the mystery of the rainbow really solved? Many thought so. However, the rainbows that occasionally appeared refused to obey the man-made rules.

Eventually scientists began to believe that light consisted of “waves” similar in action to sound waves. Explanation along these lines led the Encyclopædia Britannica for 1858 to conclude: “At last we begin to believe that we understand this matter [the formation of the rainbow] completely.” In fact, so confident were many, that the then-held views on light were commonly called “the complete theory.” However, new experiments eventually reduced the “complete theory” to what was renamed a “first approximation”!

The Present View

Of course, in hundreds of years of studying “clues” scientists have made some fascinating observations about the formation of the mystery bow. Basically, the present view is that you see a rainbow when the sun is behind you and rain is falling in front of you. Remembering that sunlight can actually produce several colors, consider what happens when rays of sunlight hit raindrops at certain angles.

As a ray hits the outer edge of the round raindrop, it is bent (refracted) and dispersed or separated into different colors (different lengths of light waves). Then these separated light waves hit the far side of the raindrop and are turned back (reflected). On their leaving the raindrop, more bending of the waves takes place.

How does this cause all the colors of the rainbow? Well, present theory holds that each color that you see is formed by rays that reach your eye at a certain angle, and the angle for that color never changes. The top band, for example, is red because that portion of the raindrops is at about a 42-degree angle from your eye. It is at that angle that your eye will pick up the red light waves. The other six color bands below the red (orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo and violet) occur at angles slightly less than 42 degrees.

Why, then, when there are two bows, do the colors in the higher one appear in reverse order, with red at the bottom and violet at the top? Because, it is explained, rays of sunlight hitting at an angle of about 51 degrees from your eye are entering the bottom of water droplets and undergoing double internal reflection—in other words, bouncing twice inside the raindrop before coming out of it. This second bounce or reflection causes the colors in the higher bow to be in exactly the opposite order of those in the lower bow.

As for one reason why you can sometimes see more colors than at other times, the February 1972 Science Digest notes: “The number of colors and their relative widths in the rainbow vary with the size of the raindrops.” But there is yet another factor—you. Since the rainbow is only visible when you form a certain angle with the raindrops, it really could be called your rainbow—your personal “seeing experience.” So the same raindrop that is at an angle to reflect red light to you may be reflecting yellow or blue light toward another person standing a few feet to one side of you.

Of course, this means that when you move, the rainbow “moves” also. That is, if you walk toward a rainbow, you may pass the position of the raindrops that formed the first rainbow you saw, but you will not be able to look up and see a rainbow over your head, for you are at the wrong angle. You may still see a rainbow in the distance, but this will be a new one formed at the appropriate angle from your new position. How accurate the old saying that describes the foolish dreamer as “chasing rainbows”!

Thus we can see that man has gradually learned much about the great bow of light. But does this mean that the final chapters to this mystery story have been written?

The Mystery Remains

“After hundreds of years of study, what is left to answer?” was a common attitude early in our century. According to many, the “light and optical theory seemed complete and perfect.” But, again, questions persisted, this time concerning the very basis of the rainbow—light. Experiments indicated that light rays sometimes acted like particles (small pieces of matter) instead of “waves.” This upset the “wave theory,” which had been apparently successful in explaining so many different activities of light.

More research has led to yet another theory in which light is now viewed as composed of particles called photons and yet in action behaving “wavelike and particlelike at the same time.” In the final analysis, we must humbly admit that man still cannot fully answer the question that God asked Job over 3,000 years ago: “Where, now, is the way by which the light distributes itself?”—Job 38:24.

But the very nature of light is not the only remaining puzzle in the rainbow mystery. “Little has been learned about its perception,” says the book The Rainbow. Yes, there is still much to be learned about the human eye and especially concerning color vision.

Truly, the challenge of the rainbow remains. And so whether we view the ‘bow of heaven’ as a sign of peace or choose to study the mystery of its structure, we do well to stand in awe of its Designer. It is true in many ways that no one is about to catch the elusive rainbow!

Should Your Dreams Guide Your Life?

2008-10-07T03:33:00.002-07:00

MOST people desire sound guidance in their lives. They want to know more about themselves, their future and how to make wise decisions. But where can people find such guidance?

Many today look to their dreams as a guide in life. This is nothing new. Interest in dreams has a lengthy history. Ancient writings reveal that dream interpretation played an important part in the lives of the Babylonians, the Egyptians and the Greeks of long ago. People would often sleep overnight at “dream oracles” in the hope of receiving communication from a god in a dream.

But why all this interest in dreams?

It may be because dreams are so puzzling, lacking in organization and coherence. In the topsy-turvy world of dreams a person may see himself in an auditorium viewing a fencing match instead of hearing a lecture. He may dream of animals talking or people and objects floating through the air. Often people envision themselves trying to sprint free from an onrushing locomotive, only to be virtually frozen in their tracks. But none of these bizarre happenings seem abnormal to the dreamer—until he wakes up, that is.

Why do people dream? Do such night visions really contain the key to self-knowledge? Can you gain special insight, including knowledge of the future, from your dreams? Should your dreams guide your life?

Science Investigates a “Mystery”

During the past twenty years scientists have devoted much study to the mysterious world of dreams. With the aid of volunteers in specially equipped “dream labs” some interesting facts have come to light.

Scientists have noted, for instance, that a sleeping person experiences rapid eye movements (REM) about once every ninety to a hundred minutes through the night. These REM periods, which suggest that a person is dreaming, may last from ten minutes to half an hour and recur three or four times a night.

Experiments have shown that dreaming is a necessary part of restful sleep. Calvin Hall, director of the Institute of Dream Research at the University of California, writes:

“If a person is deprived of dreaming for a number of nights, his waking behavior appears to be adversely affected. He manifests various aberrant ‘symptoms’ that border on being pathological . . . These results seem to indicate a ‘need to dream.’”

This “need to dream” is so strong, explains Hall, that “when a person’s dreaming is reduced by awakening him every time his eyes begin to move, there is a significant increase in REM time when he is finally permitted to sleep undisturbed.” Thus people “make up” for lost dreaming time.

But why this need to dream? Is it, as some say, that dreaming aids people to cope with the stresses of life? Does it help people to sort out and process information that they have taken in while awake? Or does dreaming perhaps benefit the nervous system by recharging the brain cells? Dr. Julius Segal and Gay Gaer Luce admit there are no scientific answers to these questions. In their book Sleep they say: “Many conjectures about the purpose of the REM state are plausible. Yet they are not answers and the purpose of the dream state remains a mystery.”

What Prompts Dream Content?

A small percentage of dream content results from stimulation of the senses from the outside or within the body of the sleeping individual. Thus lights, sounds, hunger, thirst or the need to urinate all have some effect on a person’s dreams. Research has shown, however, that recent events especially influence what a person dreams about.

The book Sleep explains: “Perhaps the best established, out of all the factors that influence our dreams, is the role of events in the preceding day.” These become mingled with past experiences, including ones from childhood. A study made at the National Institute of Health revealed that dreams early in the night surround current events. As the night progresses, dreams center around things of the past and become more vivid. Then, as waking time rolls around, dreams once again focus on current events.

Do you find that your dreams often contain unpleasant aspects? You need not become overly concerned about this. Experiments with hundreds of dreams have shown that unpleasant dreams, in which the dreamer is the victim of some type of misfortune, outstrip pleasant dreams by a ratio of 7 to 1.

But what if you are troubled by repetition of the same type of unpleasant dreams, perhaps ones that contain allusions to sexual immorality, egotism, aggression or similar things? Remember the close relationship between recent events and dreams. The cause of your bad dreams may be in the things you practice and dwell on mentally from day to day. The solution to bad dreams may call for an adjustment in your routine of life, especially in what you regularly feed your mind.—Phil. 4:8.

“Royal Road to the Unconscious”?

Sigmund Freud, known as the founder of psychoanalysis, stated that dreams are “the royal road to the unconscious.” Many individuals believe that they can gain deep insight into their own personalities through dream interpretation. Books that encourage self-interpretation of dreams are available in abundance today. But are dreams really a sound guide to a better understanding of yourself?

That depends on whether interpretations of things seen in dreams are reliable. Are they? George Nobbe, in an article entitled “What Your Dreams Mean,” observes: “One of the vagaries of dream analysts . . . is that they seldom agree on the meaning of anything in a dream. Talk to two of them and you’ll get two different notions of the meaning of the plot of the same dream and the objects that appear within its framework.”

Freud, for example, theorized that people dream about wishes, particularly of a sexual nature, that they repress during waking hours. The psychoanalyst’s job, according to Freud, would be to probe through the things actually seen in the dream and to lay bare its hidden meaning. This, he thought, would be related to repressed wishes that arose from events of the preceding day and desires established in the patient’s early childhood.

Others disagree radically with Freud. The well-known columnist, Dr. Joyce Brothers, writes: “Freud’s view of dreams, however suggestive, doesn’t provide a complete explanation, because human adults are not the only dreamers. Dogs, cats, cows and horses dream. So do babies. Fifty percent of the newborn infant’s sleep is spent in dreaming.” Certainly these are not all dreaming to fulfill repressed wishes.

Numerous other theories to explain the meaning of dreams have appeared during the last two decades. Concerning them, Calvin Hall writes: “The ratio of research to speculation is still so small that it is difficult to draw any firm conclusions regarding the validity of these speculations.” Will you allow such guesswork to guide your life?

A Dangerous Fascination

Many, however, have reported dreams that they believe are “supernatural” in origin. One writer states: “In dreams, [I] am informed, sometimes uncomfortably, of facts of which I can have no knowledge by normal means.” Thereafter this author furnishes examples of several dreams in which she saw specific details of coming events.

Such experiences have led many to become fascinated with dreams, feeling that they may come from God and hold the key to important future events in their lives. They note, for instance, that on a number of occasions God imparted vital information, even long-range prophecies, to people by means of dreams.—Gen. 20:3; Dan. 2:3, 28; 7:1; Matt. 1:20; 2:12, 13, 19, 22.

It is important to note, though, that with the completion of the Bible canon by the end of the first century C.E., God made available a complete inspired record in written form for the guidance of mankind. After that there was no need for God to communicate with man in dreams, or in any other miraculous way. As to “spiritual gifts,” including supernatural “prophesying,” the Bible shows that these were not to be permanent, but were to be “done away with.”—1 Cor. 12:1; 13:8-10.

In view of this, fascination with dreams today can be dangerous. The Bible, at Zechariah 10:2, associates certain dreams with “divination,” saying: “The practicers of divination, for their part, have visioned falsehood, and valueless dreams are what they keep speaking.” Divination involves gaining secret knowledge, especially about future events, with the aid of occult powers.

Could God approve of a procedure that leads to “valueless dreams”? The Scriptures, at Deuteronomy 18:10-12, state:

“There should not be found in you anyone who . . . employs divination, a practicer of magic or anyone who looks for omens or a sorcerer, or one who binds others with a spell or anyone who consults a spirit medium or a professional foreteller of events . . . For everybody doing these things is something detestable to Jehovah.”

God’s Word here associates divination (including the looking for omens, as in dreams) with spiritism, which involves the influence of wicked spirit forces. (Eph. 6:12) Because wicked spirits may occasionally cause dreams that correctly predict the future, God warned his people to shun the “dreamer of a dream” who would encourage false worship, even if “the sign or the portent does come true of which he spoke to you.”—Deut. 13:1-3; compare Acts 16:16.

Something Better than Dreams

The Scriptures urge people to seek vital guidance in their lives and knowledge of the future, not through divination, but from God through his appointed “prophet,” Jesus Christ. (Deut. 18:15-19; John 6:14) That calls for a careful study of the Word of God. We read, at 2 Timothy 3:16, 17: “All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.”

The Bible, as a “complete” guide for human conduct, is something better than dreams. It is not vague, uncertain as to meaning. The Scriptures contain specific counsel on marriage, family life and other human relations, as well as sound principles that provide a basis for making wise decisions.

What about gaining insight into one’s own personality? No human can provide that through interpretation of dreams, no matter how skillful the analyst. The Bible, at 1 Samuel 16:7, states: “Mere man sees what appears to the eyes; but as for Jehovah, he sees what the heart is.” If a person really wants accurate analysis of his personality, he must go to God. How?

In the Bible, at Hebrews 4:12, we are told: “The word of God is alive and exerts power and is sharper than any two-edged sword and pierces even to the dividing of soul and spirit, and of joints and their marrow, and is able to discern thoughts and intentions of the heart.” What is the point of that verse? It means that diligent study of the inspired Word of God will help a person to examine himself, to detect the difference between what he appears to be as a living creature (the soul) and what he really is at heart, in attitude (the spirit).

The Bible also provides dependable information about the future. Fulfillments of hundreds of Bible prophecies are now a matter of record. The Scriptures indicate that within the present generation Almighty God will sweep the earth clean of wickedness and usher in a new order in which suffering, oppression, sickness and death will be things of the past. (Dan. 2:44; 2 Pet. 3:13; Rev. 21:1-5) Would you like to live on earth during that glorious time?

Then you must ‘exert yourself vigorously.’ (Luke 13:24) That calls for careful study of the inspired Word of God, firm belief in it, and application of Bible principles in your life.—Jas. 1:22.

But preoccupation with dreams can hinder you from doing this by causing you to look to something other than the true source of guidance that God has provided, and possibly even involving you with harmful spiritistic influences. It is only God, through his inspired Word, who can guide you to a meaningful life now and lasting blessings in the future.

A leading dream researcher says: “The ratio of research to speculation is still so small that it is difficult to draw any firm conclusions” about the meaning of dreams. Analysts seldom agree on the meaning of anything in dreams. According to the Bible, certain dreams may even predict future events, yet not come from God.

Watching the World

2008-10-07T03:33:00.001-07:00

Auto Sales Fraud

? Some used-car dealers have been known dishonestly to change the odometer reading on an automobile they are trying to sell. The odometer records the mileage that a car has been driven. Now, one of the largest automobile dealers in Westchester County, New York, has been indicted for carrying on this deception. If convicted, the dealer could be fined about $150,000 as well as lose his sales license.

A Widow’s Advice

? Few women, when they find themselves widows, are ready for the crushing emotional blows accompanying their new state. To their surprise, “grief” takes many forms: anger, bitterness, paranoia, loss of sleep, irritableness, among others. How can a woman cope with this problem? One, Lynn Caine, relates her experience in Widow, a recently published book. She says: “The best single bit of advice I can give to other widows may be—keep your job if you have one, and find one if you don’t. . . . A part-time job, a volunteer job, anything that will provide you with a routine and stability. . . . You have to understand that your mind is not working properly. Even though you think it is.”

Religion as News

? Currently changes come fast and steady in the world of religion. Now the president of the U.S. Religion Newswriters Association says that even these expert religion-watchers are baffled by the adjustments. He writes in Theology Today: “With Vatican Council II . . . and the social crusades of the 1960s, even the most isolated editors realized that religion was news. Today the nature of religious news is in transition. There are more downbeat pieces on the church establishment, more offbeat developments and new faiths. . . . Religion specialists themselves often admit confusion about where things are heading.”

A “Psychic” Tested

? Scientists at California’s Stanford Research Institute recently conducted controlled experiments with Uri Geller, a claimed magician and psychic. In one case the scientists consulted other magicians so as to make their tests “cheat-proof.” Geller was sealed in a room with metal walls preventing him from seeing out or receiving radio signals. Outside, a dictionary was opened at random and the first word that could be graphically depicted was drawn. Inside the room Geller was to make the same drawing. Most of his pictures are said to have been remarkably similar to the original drawing, according to an item in Britain’s conservative Nature magazine.

Business Debts

? U.S. business is a mind-boggling $1.1 trillion in debt! That is 1000 percent higher than at the close of World War II in 1945. “But,” says a recent special issue of Business Week, “even that does not tell the whole story.” Why not? The article continues: “Off those balance sheets, in footnotes that all too often are set in fly-speck type, is still more debt, representing equipment leased by companies.” By the end of 1974, U.S. companies are expected to hold almost $90 billion worth of leased equipment.

African Drug Addicts

? The drug abuse problem has jolted the schools of Lagos, Nigeria. Why? Some students reportedly turn to narcotics as a result of “overpampering” by parents who give them too much money and freedom. Interestingly, however, others are said to become addicted after failure to measure up to academic goals. All schools, the local Daily Times reports, have the drug problem; it adds that the results of student addiction “in most cases have been very disastrous.”

Marijuana and Driving

? Knowledge of the bad effects of marijuana is accumulating. Now a University of British Columbia professor reports in Science magazine on one area of real life where this drug can particularly cause problems: driving an automobile. He writes: “It is evident that the smoking of marijuana by human subjects does have a detrimental effect on their driving skills and performance in a restricted driving area, and that this effect is even greater under normal conditions of driving on city streets. . . . Driving under the influence of marijuana should be avoided as much as should driving under the influence of alcohol.”

Mormons Divided

? Mormons do not allow blacks to be ordained into their “priesthood.” This causes many problems within the church. Of this situation, Lowry Nelson says in Christian Century: “I am one Mormon who finds that situation unfortunate indeed.” He contends: “Intrachurch critics scoff at the official position as pure myth.” Can church leaders change the teaching? Or, are they powerless? Nelson writes: “Even if they were to find a way to change the policy, a large majority of the members would no doubt suffer a severe shock. They have been told for generations that blacks are not worthy of the priesthood, and, it must be admitted, they have found a comfortable religious sanction for their ‘natural’ prejudices.”

Language Changes

? Languages, as well as people’s attitudes toward them, change. For instance, with the petroleum crisis a year ago, interest in Arabic soared. Language schools report that, in some cases, the number of students of Arabic has quadrupled. Part of the rise is due to businessmen hoping to get mid-East jobs. Over 100 million people, it is estimated, speak Arabic. Meanwhile, when the Vatican’s Roman Catholic Synod of Bishops convened in September, most prelates felt compelled to use Latin. As the sessions ended, most were employing modern tongues—to the relief of speakers and listeners. Says a theologian: “The bishops speak awful Latin.”

Youths on Skid Row

? Skid row, the hangout of alcoholics and other social outcasts, is now seeing an influx of youths. At one Denver, Colorado, soup-kitchen center, about 25 percent of the 9,000 people dealt with annually are said to be under 29 years of age. College campuses, once their havens, were where they turned to drugs. Now they have left campuses, forgotten the political issues of the last decade and have taken to another drug: cheap, legal and readily obtainable—alcohol. Will they change? “Rehabilitation,” says an article in the Denver Post, “implies going back to someplace or some stage a person has experienced before. These men . . . have no place to which to return, and if they did return, it probably wouldn’t help them.”

God and Englishmen

? According to a recent poll, fewer Englishmen now believe in God. The study, made for the British Broadcasting Corporation, reveals that only 29 percent of those interviewed even claimed to believe in a ‘personal God’; that compares with 38 percent in 1963. The pollsters also found that 42 percent admit that they never go to church at all, while another 11 percent go less than once a year.

Trust Missing

? There is a growing worldwide chorus calling for international disarmament control. Although there have been agreements signed, devices to detect banned nuclear tests constructed, and observation teams from opposing nations formed, weapons production continues to swell. What is needed? Swedish disarmament expert Alva Myrdal says “mutual confidence” is lacking, and adds: “Ultimately such confidence depends on the trustworthiness of the nations that are parties to the agreement. . . . It involves the question of what kind of world society one wants to foster for the future: one based on openness or one based on secretiveness.”

Forest Fires

? The Forest Service is now intentionally allowing some natural forest fires in the western U.S. wilderness to burn. Proponents of the new method say that ‘natural fires’ burn away primarily cones, needles, shrubs and grasses. The right kind of trees and other grasses are thinned out; some varieties depend on fire to thrive. Natural fires, if regularly allowed, are small, preventing larger ones. A single kind of vegetation does not widely develop as fuel for a huge fire. Opponents of the idea say that the environmentalists are only guessing. They claim that soil cover in the Rockies is thin and fragile; by allowing fires to burn the soil is sterilized and humus is destroyed.

Pigeon Problem

? Atlantic magazine says that New York city, along with its 8 million people, has 5 million pigeons. Other major cities have similar high pigeon populations. Experts are baffled by what they consider the major problems these birds create. Their droppings coat statues and benches, infect food of vendors and are known to contribute to respiratory diseases. Worst of all, in the opinion of many, the pigeons just will not go away. Nothing—sticky coatings on building ledges, exploding carbide shells, poisoned bread crumbs or sharpshooters—will scare them off. However, it should not be forgotten that other people appreciate city pigeons, believing that they bring signs of natural life to cold concrete skyscrapers.

Biodegradable Plastics

? Plastics have not seemed to be biodegradable; that is, they do not appear to break down or disintegrate as do other substances, as, for instance, paper. However, a recent British report says that nitric acid has been found effective in accomplishing the job. The product that results from the “oxidizing” of the plastic, according to the report, can be used to cultivate 19 species of fungi. It is thought that this fungi, in turn, can be made into a protein supplement to feed animals—and maybe man.

Desert Reefs

? The Soviet newspaper Vechernyaya Moskva reports that borehole drillers have found reefs well over a mile beneath the nation’s largest desert, the 100,000-square-mile Kara-Kum in the Turkmen Soviet Socialist Republic, just east of the Caspian Sea. It is said to have at one time been inhabited by fossil plants and animals. The paper concludes that the find confirms the theory that the Kara-Kum once “was the bottom of a tropical sea.”

Bartenders Give Counsel

? Bartenders have always been known to listen as someone mumbled about problems over his beer. Now, in Racine, Wisconsin, as well as in some other cities across the U.S., bartenders can take a short course to show them how to spot people with emotional, personal, economic, or drinking problems and then how to direct them to professional help. Groups of taxi drivers, barbers, beauticians and others in a listening position are starting similar programs.

Gum Arabic Shortage

? The drought in Africa is bringing unforeseen consequences for the rest of the world. Gum arabic—an essential ingredient in gum drops and other candies—is in short supply. Why? It is given off by acacia trees in Africa; but the drought has resulted in a shortage of gum collection by tribesmen. Thus its price has gone up ninefold in one year, from $364 a ton to $3,172. More than candy is affected. Gum arabic is also used to make the adhesive on postage stamps and envelopes, and is employed in the offset printing process.

Now, What Are You Worth?

? The inorganic components of a person weighing 150 pounds are now worth about $5.60, according to Dr. Donald T. Forman at Northwestern University. In 1969 the value was $3.50. And in 1936, a mere 98 cents. However, the doctor points out, inflation, and not the rarity of any of the body’s elements, is the reason for the increase.

Watching the World 8

2008-10-07T03:32:00.002-07:00

Food Picture Worsens

As 1974 draws to a close, the bleak outlook for feeding the world grows darker. Here is how food authorities see the situation:

● “Nineteen-seventy-four was the year the weatherman pulled all the wrong levers,” declares U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) official Don Paarlberg. “Disappointing” crops have struck at the very time good ones are needed to restore perilously short stocks. “By the end of this crop year they are going to be scraping the bins,” warns Paarlberg.

● What is the outlook for next year? Late USDA projections indicate that the world will produce over 36 million tons less grain during the 1974-75 marketing year than it consumed during the year ending June 30, 1974! That would have been enough to feed about 150 million people. Meanwhile, about 78 million persons will be added to the world population.

● “Father” of the “green revolution,” Norman Borlaug, cautions: “The stage is set for real trouble.” He says that he still stands by his earlier warning that “tens of millions of people could die this year from climatic changes and the shortage of fertilizer.” Early harbingers of what is to come are already beginning.

● “People are dying in dozens,” says the acting chief of the World Health Organization in Dacca, Bangladesh. “Cholera has broken out in epidemic form in many places” because hunger has left poor villagers “with no resistance to infection.” Shipping and communications problems are keeping promised relief food weeks or months away. “The Government appears to be resigned to the inevitability of large-scale starvation deaths,” notes the New York Times.

● Local greed also complicates relief measures. In one starving African country, local truck owners charged the highest ton-per-mile rate in the world to haul relief grain! “We have the monopoly and we fix the tariffs,” boasted their head. They refused to allow cheaper and faster relief trucks from a nearby country to haul the food—while their countrymen starved.

‘No Place to Hide’

? U.S. Attorney-General Saxbe recently declared that the sharp upswing in crime statistics indicates a near future that “is enough to evoke a shudder from even the most optimistic. There could no longer be any place to hide—no safe zones, not for anybody. In fact, we may be near that point already.” Rapidly spreading suburban and small-town drug addiction and crime punctuate his statement.

Population and Religion

? With increasing frequency religion is being blamed directly or indirectly for world population problems. The Catholic Church is known to oppose officially most birth-control measures. Now World Health Organization official Abdel R. Omran, an Arab, admits in the U.N.’s Ceres magazine that Islam is also involved in the problem. He notes that its religious leaders “invoke religious doctrine to oppose family planning.” Further, Omran adds that in most of the countries where Islam predominates, for “sociocultural” reasons “it is still essential for women to be highly fertile . . . and contraception is not yet widely accepted.”—July-August 1974.

Fighting Back the Tide

? Threatening legal action, a Catholic civil-rights group recently forced a giant, well-known U.S. corporation to withdraw its booklet on population control intended for classroom discussion. The New Orleans, Louisiana, Catholic Clarion Herald reports that the booklet asks whether students would support a move “to bring the Church before a world court or another international tribunal to be tried for crimes against humanity.” The section, titled “The Pope’s Views on Birth Control,” follows with an argument suggesting that the Church is responsible for “requiring millions of people to have unwanted children,” who are doomed “to death at an early age” or “a life of misery and suffering.”

Fearful Bankers

? The recent annual meeting of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) revealed world bankers staggering from blows to the international economic system, “We banks are up to our limits for financing Italy, France, Britain and others. We . . . cannot prudently go further,” says Pierre-Paul Schweitzer, former managing director of the IMF. And West German Finance Minister Hans Apel marvels: “Never in the three decades of the Fund and the Bank has inflation posed a more universal threat to the world’s economic and social system.”

Is “Recycling” the Answer?

? Much has been said about how oil-producing countries can use the excess money accumulated by them from recently quadrupled oil prices. Many claim that they can use these “petrodollars” to help oil-importing countries avoid economic breakdown caused by the huge oil costs. They say that oil producers should “recycle” the excess funds into the economies of the importers through investments and loans. Is this realistic? No, says a Business Week editorial. It calls the idea “simply an exercise in self-deceit,” and adds: “Recycling would build an enormous structure of constantly increasing debt” to oil producers “that could not by any stretch of the imagination be paid off.”

Rome’s “Window Dressing”

? Though topics such as abortion and population control were the Catholic bishops’ first choice for their fourth International Synod, reports the Jesuit weekly America, Pope Paul selected evangelization. However, before the meeting delegates were “bombarded with documents” that had little to do with even that subject, writes Rome theology instructor Francis X. Murphy. Many in the Church, he says, view the gathering as “little more than window dressing” and believe it “will have little impact on the people preaching the gospel . . . and even less on those to whom that preaching is addressed.”

“Holy” Synod and Communists

? For the first time, Communist North Vietnam and East Germany have church delegates representing them at the month-long fourth Synod of Bishops in the Vatican. The presence of the archbishops of Hanoi and East Berlin reflects the softening Vatican approach to Communist states, where churches who accommodate to the party line are the only ones that survive legally.

Clergy—Moral?

? U.S. newspaper columnist Ann Landers reports on a polling of her readers who had been approached for immoral relations by professional men. “The results were staggering,” she writes. “It was a dead heat between the doctors and the clergymen,” who were a close second. Prior to the poll, she notes her astonishment at the number of women who had written that “the one to keep an eye on was the clergyman.”

“Most Important Health Measure”

? In its review of the book Smoking Behavior, Science magazine says that “the sum total of human disease, disability, death, and lost productivity directly attributable to cigarette smoking is so staggering that a reduction . . . may be the single most important health measure open to us for the foreseeable future. In the United States, one-third of all the deaths for men aged 35 to 59 would not have occurred if cigarette smokers had the same death rates as non-smokers.”

“Mouse Roulette”

? English Catholic priest Patrick Norton had two mice flown in from Ireland to star in a fund-raising gambling game he calls “mouse roulette.” The enterprising priest had a “roulette table” constructed with holes for the mice to go down. Religious gamblers place bets on their favorite mouse to go into a certain numbered hole. If the mouse prefers a blank hole, the church profits. “I think it will be a real money spinner,” enthused the gambling-promoter priest.

Untapped Oil

? Nearly a billion gallons of used engine crankcase oil are poured down drains or onto vacant lots in the U.S. every year, reports Business Week magazine. Only 20 percent of such oil is re-refined and used again, whereas, in West Germany, about two thirds is recycled.

Evolution “Mystery”

? Evolution, like religious dogma, must often retreat to the shelter of “mystery” when confronted with the facts. Cornell University biologist John L. Cisne again acknowledges in Science magazine that “one of the mysteries in the history of life has been why hard parts of a variety of invertebrate animals . . . should appear rather suddenly in the fossil record.” The popular “predation theory” (the claim that hard shells developed as protection from predators and parasites) creates another “mystery.” Cisne reveals that these creatures themselves apparently “were the first larger predators to appear in the fossil record”!—October 4, 1974.

‘Don’t Confuse Them’

? A religious person recently wrote to the fundamentalist paper The Sword of the Lord asking whether he should carry his Bible when “soul winning.” The writer, who says, “I have belonged to two good Bible-preaching churches,” notes that one of his preachers advised him to put the Bible in his pocket when visiting others. Why? “You don’t want to confuse them into thinking you are a . . . Jehovah’s Witness.”

“Church on Four Wheels”

? That is how many French Catholics jokingly refer to their attachment to the Church, reports the New York Times. The baby carriage, the wedding car and the funeral hearse are the only way most of them come to church. Though only a fifth of French Catholics attend Mass regularly, three out of four want church ceremonies for these events. Why? The fact that people want to get married in the church does not mean they have a Catholic faith,” says a Paris priest who headed an official study of the subject. “It’s something they grew accustomed to, like steak and French fries.”

Priests in Rome

? Pope Paul VI recently complained at length about the “abandoning of religious observances by entire populations” and the “many seminaries” that “are nearly deserted” as well as religious orders that “have trouble finding new followers.” Such problems are literally at the pope’s own doorstep. “Rome ranks among the Catholic cities with the smallest number of native priests,” reports Rome’s Daily American. “Less than half a dozen were ordained this year in this City of three million inhabitants.”

Champion Garbage-Makers?

? The New York Daily News reports that metropolitan “New Yorkers produce a total of 30,000 tons of garbage every day,” or “an average of six pounds per person per day,” too much of which “winds up as street litter.” That is said to be more trash than the combined total produced by three average residents in Tokyo, London and Paris, respectively. Excessive packaging materials may explain the extra trash, and poor facilities for disposal and cleanup may explain some of the street litter. But another reason is “a feeling of not belonging” in the big city, says one psychologist. “It’s not my world, my city, my street, and so why should I take care of it?” is the attitude many take.

Watching the World

2008-10-07T03:32:00.001-07:00

Food Weapon

? Arab use of the “oil weapon” shook the world. However, a recent British analysis of food prospects indicates that there may be another weapon in the world arsenal. The study, titled “Losing Ground,” warns that Britain already faces greater future danger from food shortages than from higher oil prices. “From now onward food will be the major factor in world affairs,” asserts the report. “Food will become a political weapon for lack of which many nations, among them Britain, may find themselves defenceless.”

Use of Fertilizer

? What is the response to recent suggestions that Americans withhold fertilizer from their lawns and golf courses to aid hungry nations? A New York Times survey indicates that, though sympathetic, few people believe that frugality on their part would actually benefit hungry people. Also, “people take pride in their lawns,” says a nursery manager. “The lawn is for the neighbors. You can’t tell people to stop doing that.” A golf grounds superintendent declares: “Golfers are very particular people. They want their greens just right. We would get weeds all over the course.”

Inflation Benefit

? “The upgoing price of sugar is the best thing that’s happened in a long time,” says a nutrition instructor at New York’s Columbia University. She asserts that “there is no biological need for table sugar,” recommending naturally sweet foods instead. “Sugar is only calories,” notes another expert, “no protein, no vitamins.” Americans have been eating about a hundred pounds of sugar each per year for the past 50 years, according to the Sugar Association.

Church Business

? Citing “changing circumstances of modern society,” Pope Paul VI recently issued new rules for saying Masses, based on money. Following the precedent of many businesses, the Church is dropping unprofitable lines in favor of those with a higher return. The Vatican explains that the obligation of saying daily Masses in response to past bequests and donations is being relaxed because “revenue” from such sources “has become insignificant due to the continuous devaluation of money.” On the other hand, paying customers can now expect a Mass to be celebrated punctually, rather than being put off by the priest.

Vatican Dissent

? When the 141-nation U.N. World Population Conference recently adopted its “Plan of Action” in Bucharest, Romania, only the Vatican delegate failed to endorse it. But “several observers and delegates . . . said the Vatican’s rejection of the plan would have little effect,” notes an Associated Press report. “The Vatican is becoming more and more irrelevant,” declared a U.S. population expert who attended. “More and more Catholics are using [birth-control methods] . . . the Vatican church does not speak for many Catholics.”

The ‘Unfaithful Faithful’

? During a recent general audience, Pope Paul VI conceded that “the church is in difficulty.” He said it is suffering from “radical opposition, corrosive dissent” and “nearly empty seminaries.” He also lamented the “faithful who are no longer afraid to be unfaithful.” Is this because their former ‘faithfulness’ was founded merely on being “afraid”?

“Backs to the Wall”

? Former presidential adviser, Columbia University law professor Richard Gardner, recently called for more power to be vested in the United Nations. Citing the need for world cooperation in the crises of food, energy and environment, he said: “Now that we have our backs to the wall, maybe we can read the writing on the wall.”

An “Illness”?

? Psychiatrists often classify alcoholism and antisocial personality as a genetically caused mental “illness” rather than as a preventable addiction such as smoking. A medical doctor who attended a smoke-clouded psychiatric symposium on the subject concludes differently in the Journal of the American Medical Association. He asked the smoking psychiatrists if “nicotinism [is] not also a mental disease, and whether filling a room with tobacco smoke might not be viewed as an antisocial act by those who don’t smoke.” He concludes: “I submit that this inconsistency provides more insight into . . . what psychiatrists really mean by mental illness than the fakery and foolishness they now foist on the public under the guise of discoveries into the genetic causes and chemical cures of this ‘illness.’”—September 2, 1974, p. 1326.

How We Got Here

? “We’re Here Because We’re Here,” writes a Science News senior editor attempting to explain a current, chance-based theory about the origin of life. Though rejecting a Creator as being too obvious an explanation, he admits that even a limited study of the universe reveals “very special properties without which we could not exist.” These properties, he says, “give fits to students of cosmic evolution.” Without the precise relationships that exist, “molecules on which life depends would not form.” Thus, a “prominent physicist” was forced to remark ruefully that ‘God made such precise relationships so that we would arise to worship Him.’—August 24 & 31, 1974.

“Programmed” Brain

? Latest findings about a child’s capacity to learn language are amazing researchers. Dr. John Brierley, writing in The West Australian, says that “clearly the young brain seems to be programmed almost like a computer” for language development. He notes that even “brain anatomy” suggests “that an infant is born with a pre-programmed biological capacity to speak,” and marvels at the “profuse, direct ‘wiring’ patterns which enable children to connect” sight and feel with the sound patterns of words. “‘Even more incredible,” he writes, “is the young brain’s ability to scan the environment and to pick out of the hubbub a pattern in language.”

“Roman Mafia”

? After the recent exposure of underworld crime’s connection with church and synagogue gambling in the northeastern U.S., the experience of a Louisville, Kentucky, Times reporter takes on added meaning. When interviewing priests for a story on illegal church gambling in that southern city, he reports that one belligerent cleric told him: “You guys get on a crusade against bingo (and) you’re going to get your heads knocked off by the Roman mafia.” Another was more open: “I think we should be honest about it. It is illegal, you know. But it is a major source of income.”

Basically Honest?

? When a departmental integrity test of New York City police revealed that 30 percent of those tested pocketed the money in decoy “lost” wallets, many New Yorkers were indignant. But the angered police union recently made a similar test of the public, and found that 86 percent of random New Yorkers kept the money! Again there was a storm of public indignation, but this time asserting either that such tests are not a true measure of honesty or that the police had no right to make the test.

Prison Population

? How does the number of those in prison compare among the nations? U.N. Secretary-General Waldheim recently reported that “the rates of incarceration fluctuate from 20 persons per 100,000 in the Netherlands to 200 per 100,000 in the United States, to over 300 per 100,000 in four African countries.”

Clerical Smuggling

? Greek Catholic Archbishop Capucci, who reportedly confessed to smuggling arms to terrorists in Israel, is not the first cleric to engage in such activity. After noting a history of alleged spying and smuggling activities under the cloak of religion, Time magazine states that some clergymen were motivated not only by their cause, but also “alas, by the enormous sums of money they can make.” Capucci’s patriarch, Maximos V, who charged that the archbishop was framed, was himself said to have been “caught smuggling gold coins and rings across the border” when he served as archbishop in Israel during the 1950’s, reports Newsweek.

“Civilized” Food

? Modern milling techniques are said to have removed as much as nine tenths of the rough cereal fiber from the diets of Western nations since 1870. Medical scientists writing in the Journal of the American Medical Association say that this may account for the fact that Africans living under tribal conditions usually do not have the “civilized” illnesses: heart disease, varicose veins, gallstones, tumors and others. Their research indicates that fiber in the Africans’ coarsely processed cereal assures frequent and regular elimination. This, in their opinion, avoids retention of fecal matter that could upset proper metabolism. They suggest a return to unprocessed foods to put the fiber back in “civilized” diets.

“Bad” Blood

? A London Blood Transfusion Service recently stopped accepting blood from two prisons because of the “high incidence of blood disease carriers.” Ten times as many prisoners were hepatitis, carriers as in the general population. The service’s director noted that his decision was “a politically loaded situation” because donating blood filled a social, need for the prisoners as well as providing a regular supply. But, he said, “you would not thank me if your wife was given infected blood to fulfill a social need.” How safe is nonprison blood? “There’s no test system of any kind that is 100 percent safe,” he stated.

Religion in the Act

? Millions of people across the U.S. paid up to $25 and more to watch motorcyclist Evel Knievel try to jump across Idaho’s 1,600-foot-wide Snake River Canyon. Knievel received $6 million for the unsuccessful effort and promoters expect to get millions more. Even religion got in on the act. “There were laughs and snickers,” reports the New York Post, “when the Catholic priest making the invocation asked God to ‘guide him to a safe and successful landing wherever that might be.’”

Religious Duel

? Two Mexican parish priests recently left their “spiritual” pursuits in favor of a valuable gold religious chalice. Each accused the other of stealing it. A confrontation followed during which “both men drew guns and started firing,” according to the United Press International report. “Although both men emptied their guns at each other, all shots missed, police said.”

Durable Women

? “We’re Becoming a Nation of Old Women,” headlines the London Daily Mail, noting that “five times as many people are reaching the age of 100 in Britain today compared with ten years ago.” However, “they are virtually all women.”

Soviet Science

? “Science Is a Magnet” titles an article in a recent issue of Soviet Life. The magazine claims that a poll of first-year Soviet university students reveals that 80 percent plan on a scientific career. More than two thirds of the girls interviewed at one university prefer scientists as husbands. Nationwide there are said to be three times as many science students as there were twenty years ago; the current total is 4,600,000. Yet the work of scientists in the nation is not easy. They must work at least ten hours every day; three or four of those hours are spent keeping up to date by reading or attending seminars.

Watching the World 7

2008-10-07T03:31:00.003-07:00

Global Problems

? More men are recognizing that world problems are intertwined. Says U.N. Secretary-General Kurt Waldheim: “The majority of the great issues that confront mankind are profound, complex, and, above all, long-term problems. They cannot be resolved swiftly or dramatically; they are closely interrelated; and they bear directly upon the lives of all. For the great problems are the global problems, and they require a concerted global approach . . . Our future on this earth will depend to a large degree on our ability to develop a new economic and social system which recognizes and balances the rights, interests, and aspirations of all peoples. This is a problem of such magnitude and complexity that it can only be dealt with by a degree of global cooperation far greater than anything we have hitherto achieved.”

Deep-Sea Beauty

? Mid-Atlantic explorations by French and American crews recently came to a close. Their findings impress the appreciative person with the fact that creation’s beauty is found in even remote places. To the surprise of the explorers, submarine dives revealed that 9,000 feet below the surface the ocean was teeming with fish. Dr. Robert D. Ballard of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution was puzzled by the appearance of many smaller fish whose coloring is normally invisible. They live in perpetual darkness. Yet when the lights of the submarines shone on them they suddenly appeared brilliantly colored.

The “Ethics” of Famine

? Professor of biology Paul Ehrlich is known for his predictions of impending population and food disasters. He is so certain of imminent worldwide danger that he suggests: “Anybody who has any spare capital at all is a . . . fool if he or she does not put away as large a store of food as he or she can afford at the present time.” But would this keep a person safe? Not really, as even Ehrlich acknowledges: “Don’t think that your problems are all solved as soon as you’ve stashed away a year’s supply of food for yourself and your family. . . . When the crunch gets here . . . are you ethically bound to share your supplies with a neighbor who didn’t take your precaution, or are you justified in shooting that neighbor when he comes around and tries to get some of your food for himself?”

Welcome Jehovah’s Witnesses

? Jehovah’s witnesses recently had two large conventions in New York city. Wrote the local Amsterdam News in an editorial about their visit: “At a time when the morality of our nation is being seriously questioned, and our major religions find themselves faced with revolts against long established moral codes, it is a pleasure to welcome the convention of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. This is a religious group which has, over the years, unswervingly held to its beliefs by precept and example and rigidly practices what it preaches in a world where such things are rare.”

Poor Man’s Viewpoint

? Westerners assume that to conquer the population problem the “poorer nations” of the earth should stop having so many babies. But the poor nations also have a viewpoint in this matter. New Internationalist of London recently explained: “Most poor people want large families . . . Children are necessary for protection . . . In sum, the whole of the ‘population problem’ has been plagued by the almost subconscious assumption that poor people have many children because they don’t know any better . . . The most important lesson of the last ten years has been that poor people are not stupid.”

Herpes-Virus and Pregnancy

? In recent years the dangers of herpes-virus, a form of venereal disease, has become more apparent. According to a current article in Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality, it presents a particular threat to pregnant women. In many cases of the recurrence of the disease, it reveals no obvious symptoms. It can thus be easily passed on to a newborn baby. With what consequences? The article answers: “Herpesvirus infection in the newborn . . . may be expected to result in a 75 to 90% mortality rate . . . Of those newborns who survive, approximately 60 to 80% will be left with some neurologic deficit.”

Evolution and the Evidence

? Recent diggings by such evolutionists as Richard Leakey do not support, but, rather, greatly damage their own argument. As a result, fewer people can swallow the evolution theory. One man expressed the view of many when he wrote to Newsweek: “In my search to understand the truth about man’s origins, I am encountering an increasing amount of evidence that is difficult if not impossible to correlate with the evolution theory. The recent Leakey finds . . . are just one example. That three manlike creatures could coexist in the same location, with the most intelligent of the three preceding the others in the evolutionary process, is hardly credible.”

As Economists See It

? Like the weather, the U.S. economy is hard to predict. But there is at least one current pattern among the economists. Says Industry Week: “An unusual number of economy probers are arriving at a four-letter outlook: doom.” It cites the observations of New York’s Manufacturers Hanover Trust Company: “Now, there is more than the usual number of Chicken Littles warning us that the sky is falling . . . What has brought these Chicken Littles out into the open, perhaps, is that we are facing many problems today—many of them new, and many of them so far beyond what we’re used to that they tend to increase the pessimists’ credibility.”

How Safe Is Marijuana?

? Youngsters used to describe marijuana as “safe.” Can that still be said? Answers Science magazine: “Five years of research have provided strong evidence that, if corroborated, would suggest that marihuana in its various forms may be far more hazardous than was originally suspected.” Current evidence shows that marijuana (and hashish) may cause chromosome damage, upset cellular metabolism and the immunization system, induce effects ranging from impotence and temporary sterility to the appearance of female-like breasts in men, damage the bronchial tract and lungs, bring about severe personality changes and trigger potentially irreversible brain damage.

Pagan “Christians”

? Ted Noffs, a Methodist minister in Sydney, Australia, recently spoke out strongly against some of the pagan practices carried on by the Australian clergy. Says the Daily News: “He accused churchmen of tolerating superstition and black magic in their churches . . . He said the churches presented lies as truths, pagan practices as liturgy and superstition as theology . . . He said clerical collars were a carry-over from the ancient Athenian orators . . . And the black robes that clergymen wore, he said, were a carry-over from ancient witchcraft ceremonials.” Noffs also observed: “They accept the fourth century pagan practices and preach from the pulpit about crosses . . . The Cross itself is an ancient fertility symbol.”

Playwrights’ Dilemma

? The rapid slide in American morality is reportedly making it hard on playwrights. Says a Los Angeles Herald-Examiner review of a play that premiered in 1970, only four years ago: “Moral values are declining so rapidly that the dramatist runs the risk of his play’s viewpoint becoming correspondingly weakened in a comparatively short time . . . What was once [in 1970!] almost surrealistic and absurdist has invaded the realm of reality.”

Super Farms

? There were 26,000 fewer farms in the U.S. last year than in 1972. This continues a declining trend started in the 1930’s. Now almost half the food and fibers produced in the country come from 109,000 super farms, each with sales of $100,000 or over.

Children Are Costly

? What does it cost to raise a child? Esquire magazine gave some figures recently on the costs involved in raising “one good-to-superior-quality child in a major city” of the U.S. It concludes that a boy through the age of seventeen bears a total price tag of about $141,000. Add another $3,000 for a girl. If parents support their offspring for another four years through college, tally up another $47,000 to $56,000. Just conception to the age of one year costs over $5,400. Obviously, some people are forced to get by much cheaper. But, overall, the magazine notes: “It’s safe to believe that in the long run the actual price of raising a child will be more, not less, than the sufficiently astonishing sums shown here.”

Notes or Not?

? Who is likely to learn better, the notetakers or the non-notetakers? An article in Human Behavior magazine relates that two University of New Mexico researchers asked a group of 83 students to listen to a lecture and then, after a ten-minute review period, to take a test on the speech. Some students made and reviewed their own notes. Some used notes prepared by the lecturer. Some had no notes at all. But who did the best? The ones who took and reviewed their own notes.

Woman’s Work

? A woman’s work, it has been said, is never done. Now, The Use of Time (edited by A. Szalai), a carefully documented new book discussing the daily activities of urban and suburban populations in twelve countries, lends some support to this old proverb. Of women who are employed outside the home, the book says: “The working woman is much busier than either her male colleagues or her housewife counterpart. After her day’s obligations are done, she finds herself with an hour or two less time than anyone else, and this pattern again appears ‘universally’ at all of our survey sites.”

“Convenience” Costs You

? Ready-mixed foods may seem “convenient” but they are also expensive. How much do they cost? Cleveland’s Union Commerce Bank claims that a frozen beef dinner costs 23 percent more than one fixed entirely at home, while a frozen turkey dinner is 65 percent higher. And frozen waffles cost almost 200 percent more than those made from home-mixed batter!

Fertilizer Costs

? Fertilizer costs have been extremely high for farmers this year. For the average buyer this, of course, has contributed to higher food costs at the market. What does the future hold? Says Farm Journal: “If you think your fertilizer bill was steep this year, wait until next year! All predictions point to 20% higher price tags for nitrogen sources; 20% more costly phosphates; modest 5% to 10% price hikes for potash.”

Private Aircraft Soar

? When the petroleum crisis hit the U.S. late last year, private aircraft manufacturers anticipated large financial losses. But their fears have not been realized. The reverse has happened. Why? Because of the advantages offered by private aircraft over the regularly scheduled airlines, which suffered because of the crisis. Says Business Week: “Cutbacks in airline schedules, elimination of less-traveled routes, crowding of airplanes, and airport inconveniences such as security checks played into the hands of corporate aviation salesmen, who have always sold business aircraft as business machines . . . The industry, in fact, is looking at its biggest dollar year in history.”

Watching the World 6

2008-10-07T03:31:00.001-07:00

Famine Idea

? During the ongoing debate about whether the U.S. should establish its own federal emergency grain reserve, Senator Hubert Humphrey has drawn on ancient wisdom to support his argument. “Frequently pointing to the biblical story of Joseph convincing the phar[aoh]s of Egypt to store grain for lean years,” reports The Wall Street Journal, “the Senator says his legislation would provide for government acquisitions . . . of stocks in times of excess production.” However, the mid-August U.S. Department of Agriculture estimate indicates very little excess grain in 1974.

Starvation Ethics

? Authorities are now beginning to adjust their “ethics” for world famine conditions. The subject is treated in a forthcoming study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. It discusses at length triage, a French word that once applied only to sorting battle casualties: those who could be saved were given immediate medical attention, while those who would probably die anyway were denied help. Now, says the study, “national triage” must be considered where food is concerned. With such a policy, limited relief supplies would be directed only to nations able to use them effectively. Less fortunate nations? They would be allowed to starve.

U.S. Presidency Firsts

? On August 9, 1974, Vice-President Gerald R. Ford became the 38th president of the United States. Since he had been appointed to his former office, he became the first president in the republic’s 200-year history not to be elected by popular vote to the executive branch of the government. On his taking office, the New York Daily News headlined: “President Ford Pledges: TRUTH, PEACE AND SECURITY.” Another first preceded Ford’s inauguration when Richard M. Nixon became the nation’s only chief executive ever to resign from office.

Ecclesiastical Politics

? Jesuit priest and U.S. presidential speech writer John McLaughlin observed, in a recent interview, that the exercise of politics within the Church ‘makes the civil kind seem like child’s play.’ He says that “the rawest, most vulgar display of power I have experienced has been ecclesiastical.”

“An Act of Creation”

? “We find no vestige of a beginning,” wrote James Hutton, the father of modern geology, about the age of the earth. That was in the eighteenth century. But, as it often does, science has changed. Robert Jastrow, director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, writes in Natural History magazine that modern instruments and study “have produced a description of the history of the world that, like the Book of Genesis, begins suddenly, sharply, with an act of creation.”—August-September 1974, pp. 80, 82.

Dialysis and Transfusions

? Recent medical reports indicate that the practices of priming dialysis machines with blood, as well as transfusing chronic dialysis patients to combat anemia, are dangerous and unnecessary. European kidney specialists, writing in the internationally respected journal Nephron, state that with “efficient hemodialysis,” proper diet and supplements, “a much more successful treatment of anemia in terminal [kidney] failure is now possible. Blood transfusions are unnecessary and because of their known disadvantages should be banned from routine treatment of dialysis anemia.” Dialysis artificially removes certain impurities in the blood when the kidneys are unable to do so.

Taking the Fear Out

? In another effort to stem the decline of the Church, Italian bishops are trying a new approach (for them) in religious instruction. For experimental use, they recently adopted the second in a series of five new catechisms for different age groups. The Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera reports that the new catechism no longer uses the feeling of terror from the “flames of hell and the demons (hell is spoken of only once as ‘an everlasting punishment’)” to encourage obedience.

Sea Greed

? With high aspirations, the U.N. Conference on the Law of the Sea convened in Caracas, hoping to create a way to manage ocean resources for the benefit of all mankind. How are these noble aspirations faring? “Greed Takes Over as Nations Divide the Oceans,” headlines the Los Angeles Times. “The nations of the world, acting like individual property owners, are trying to grab as much as they can of unclaimed property.” They are no longer content with the old three-mile limit that leaves most of the seas open to all.

$10-Billion “Indigestion”

? Though many nations cannot find enough money to pay for oil imports, some oil-exporting countries have an opposite problem. Venezuela’s $10-billion windfall from increased prices this year could give the country “economic indigestion,” says the Minister of Development. Authorities fear rapid inflation from pumping too much money into an unprepared economy. “The $10 billion will crush us,” declared former oil minister Juan Pablo Perez Alfonso. “After five years of this, we’ll be in a worse state than ever. . . . Everyone will be thinking how to put his hand in the bag.”

Is Technology the Answer?

? Over the years, the public has grown to believe that technology can solve all society’s problems. But “we overpromoted what science could accomplish,” says the director of an RCA laboratory. “Now we’re paying for all those high expectations.” The director of General Electric’s research center in Schenectady, New York, agrees: “Fifteen years ago, technology was changing faster than society was . . . Today, social expectations are changing faster than technology. And that creates a problem for us.”

Churches and Prostitutes

? Despite pressure, Methodist bishop R. Marvin Stuart refused to censure or remove the minister of San Francisco’s Glide Memorial Church, where U.S. prostitutes held their first national convention. The minister had welcomed them, saying, “You are helping to change the world and make a new community for mankind.” Meanwhile, a Southampton Church of England vicar and a lay evangelist “captain” are backing a campaign for state-registered brothels. “People have to realise that prostitution is a fact of life and here to stay,” says the vicar. The evangelist captain agrees: “It would help if prostitutes were allowed to install a red light outside, which they could switch off when they were busy.”

A Clergyman’s View

? When the St. Paul, Minnesota, city council heard public testimony on a proposed homosexual rights ordinance, one woman quoted from the Bible. Someone objected: “Don’t give me all this holy-moly stuff about the Bible.” Who said that? Baptist minister William D. Young, chaplain for the St. Paul Area Council of Churches. His view prevailed. The ordinance was passed by a vote of five to one.

“Literature in Evangelizing”

? At a recent Southern Baptist pastor’s conference in Texas, one pastor, H. L. Fickett, Jr., of First Baptist Church, Van Nuys, California, “called for increased use of literature in evangelizing. He used the Jehovah’s Witnesses as an example, reports the Associated Press, as he noted the huge volume of magazines they produce to back up their evangelizing work. During 1973 the Witnesses distributed to the public world wide about 235 million magazines and nearly 22 million books.

“Articulate Group”

? A current public school textbook, American Government in the 20th Century, describes the role of the Supreme Court in protecting religious liberty. It notes that “Jehovah’s Witnesses are a highly organized and very articulate group, whose beliefs and actions have exposed them to criticism and even hostility on the part of some people. . . . Strict followers of the Bible, the Witnesses refuse to salute the flag or render military service in ‘the world’s wars’ . . . The remarkable feature of . . . cases involving Jehovah’s Witnesses is that most of them were decided by the Supreme Court during World War II, when popular feeling ran high against those who did not fully support the war effort.”

“Unpleasant Shock”

? Modern medical technology has more than met its match in the fruits of immorality. Noting that “venereal disease is showing an alarming increase everywhere,” World Health magazine says that this “breakdown in the control of venereal infection . . . came as an unpleasant shock to the health authorities.” Why? “Because not many years ago there was a general assumption that new methods of treatment would lead to the rapid reduction . . . of the two most widespread and damaging sicknesses” resulting from promiscuous sex habits. But man’s moral decay has been far more “rapid” than medicine’s advances.

Economic Necessity?

? Motorcycle sales in the U.S. have grown at a 32-percent annual rate since the energy crisis. Is it all for economy? The publisher of Cycle Sport magazine says: “The real reason these older guys started buying bikes this year . . . is they now had an excuse from the sad state of the economy to do what they wanted to do in the first place. . . . Suddenly, they can ride to work on a cycle and get away with it.” However, traffic deaths of cyclists are running almost a third ahead of last year, though overall highway deaths declined sharply. New riders with six months’ or less experience account for two thirds of the motorcycle deaths.

Charity for Whom?

? What happens to the money that many well-intentioned people donate to religious and other charities? The Baltimore Sunday Sun recently “found striking differences among 20 large charities soliciting in Maryland.” But it noted that the amount spent for “fund raising” reached a “high of over 85 percent for the . . . Pallottine Missionaries.” The Pallottine group conducts a countrywide mailing campaign from its mission office in the Archdiocese of Baltimore.

Highway Robbery

? Using methods reminiscent of the old West in the United States, motor-vehicle thieves are making their mark in Nigeria. The Daily Times of Lagos reports that 3,000 vehicles were stolen in the city in the past three years and a number in other areas. “Apart from kidnapping and murdering occupants of cars, thieves also seize cars at gunpoint. They also dope unsuspecting drivers with ‘doctored’ drinks, so as to steal the vehicles” after the drivers pass out. The report notes that “armed robbery, especially on our highways, is likely to be with us for some time to come.”

Are They in School?

? “Parents think their children are safely in the care of teachers,” says a senior Scotland Yard official. But he says the great upsurge in juvenile crime in London is because “these little blighters get attendance marks at school by booking in, and then buzz off.” He blames teachers “who do not care.”

Appearance Counts

? Writing to the Boerne, Texas, Star, a Mrs. Otto Rahm commented on the poor appearance of most young men who wear long hair. However, she wrote, “two young men came to my door from Kingdom Hall [of Jehovah’s witnesses], and it was a real pleasure to talk to these clean shaven, short hair, neatly dressed young people, and I wish that more young people would follow their example.”

Do I Have to Believe Evolution?

2008-10-07T03:30:00.001-07:00

IN RECENT years some states and school boards in the United States have raised objections to evolution being taught as a fact in public schools. One of these states is California.

The California State Board of Education decides what is to be included in public school textbooks. But it receives recommendations from groups of experts in various fields. One of these groups is the State Advisory Committee of Science Education. It submitted a framework for science instruction in the state’s public schools.

The Advisory Committee recommended that the subject of evolution should be taught as a fact, not as just a theory. However, the Board of Education did not agree. It ordered that evolution be taught as a theory instead of a fact. It also directed that in textbooks creation be mentioned as another explanation of the origin of life that had some scientific backing.

The science committee reacted explosively, saying, in effect: ‘There’s no question that evolution is a fact. We see examples of it every day. No responsible person questions it. It’s as much a fact as gravity and atoms!’ A committee member even likened belief in creation to belief in superstitions such as astrology, or that the moon is made of green cheese, or that storks bring babies.

However, there are many people who do question the validity of the evolution teaching. One such individual who had never considered the “proofs” offered for evolution as final decided to interview people who believe in evolution. Following are his observations, along with actual conversations he had in a survey conducted with evolution believers.

“I believe evolution,” a distinguished gentleman told me, “because science has thoroughly investigated the subject and is unanimous in its acceptance of it as fact.”

“You place great trust in scientists,” I observed.

“Their record testifies to their reliability, don’t you think?” he replied.

His reason for believing evolution was echoed many times during my survey. I discovered that most believers of evolution are believers because they have been told that all intelligent people are believers.

An obviously well-educated woman in her forties challenged me with this question: “What are your qualifications to dispute the findings of professional scientists?”

“First,” I answered, “let me say that they dispute among themselves. They argue over when it happened, why it happened, how it happened, how fast it happened, and even if it happened at all!”

“Now,” I continued, “to answer your question about my qualifications. What are the qualifications of a judge who sits on a case involving medical issues in which he is untrained? If he is intelligent and objective, he listens to the arguments of experts pro and con, and then decides on the basis of their testimony. How else can a person make a decision on various fields of knowledge in this age of specialization?”

“But the subject of evolution is so technical,” she protested.

I answered: “Theodosius Dobzhansky [an evolutionary scientist] says that much of the work of scientists is beyond the comprehension of average laymen, but that evolution is not. He says it’s a matter of elementary biology. And George Gaylord Simpson [another prominent evolutionist] contents that it’s immoral to have blind faith, whether in a religious doctrine or in a scientific theory. He also says that it’s man’s responsibility to test the findings of specialists and then decide, and that a person doesn’t have to be a research biologist to evaluate the evidence on evolution.”

“Too many people,” I concluded, “merely accept the opinions of others and repeat their ideas like parrots rather than taking time to examine the facts.”

When she did not comment, I added: “You’d be amazed at how many people who believe evolution know practically nothing about it.”

Intimidation and “Brainwashing”

Before I conducted my house-to-house survey of people who believe in evolution, I read some twenty books written by evolutionists. Even before that, however, for many years since my university days, I had endeavored to keep abreast of scientific developments in this field. But now I specifically examined recent writings of prominent evolutionists.

In doing so I was struck by the type of “browbeating” or “brainwashing” they used. This is typified by the following brief summary from twelve books by eleven different evolutionists:

‘Evolution is universally accepted by scientists competent to judge. It is recognized by all responsible scientists. All reputable biologists agree that it is an established fact. No informed mind today denies that man descended from the fish. It is no longer a matter of doubt.

‘The evidence is overwhelming. No further proof is required by anyone who is free from old illusions and prejudices.’

That is the consensus of all these evolutionary writers. But when claims are so sweeping, so dogmatic, they become suspect. It seemed to me that evolutionists are trying to scare off opposition and inquiry by using a barrage of intimidating rhetoric.

But why should someone who questions a theory be labeled incompetent, uninformed, a ‘prisoner of old illusions and prejudices’? Would scientists who really have the facts stoop to such unscientific, unreasonable tactics?

True, this “psychological warfare,” this “brainwashing,” does make converts to the evolution belief. But nearly all those converts are usually defenseless when confronted by those who resist the arm twisting and ask for proof.

No Answers

For instance, I asked an intelligent woman in an exclusive neighborhood: “Why do you believe evolution?”

“Because I see it all the time,” she said, and gestured toward her yard. But when I tried to find out some details, her face began to flush, so I tactfully withdrew.

At another door the elderly man who answered my ring said that we adapt to our surroundings, and that these adaptations accumulate over many generations and finally result in new types of living things.

“That isn’t the accepted thought today,” I said. “Your suntan is not passed on to your baby, nor are bulging biceps you’ve developed by weight lifting, nor a knowledge of electronics you’ve acquired through study and experience. Many years ago the evolutionist Lamarck thought this way. So did Darwin. But evolutionists today know that such acquired characteristics are not passed on by means of heredity.”

“Then how else could evolution happen?” he countered.

“That’s for you to say,” I replied. Time and again, I found the same thing to be true. Those who said they believed evolution were totally unable to give reasons, proofs, facts to back up their belief. The main reason for their belief was that scientists believed it and taught it.

On the campus of a large university, a student cited the “fossil record” as proof for evolution. He said that it “traces [for example] the evolution of modern horses from eohippus. Progressive fossils show how it lost toes, lengthened wrists and ankles, evolved new teeth for grazing, and increased in size.”

“You must know,” I replied, “that to give this neat picture, evolutionists have to leave out many of the fossils. They pick only the ones that support their theory, and assume that these are connected to each other.”

“They only simplify it to avoid confusion,” the student said.

I replied: “To avoid confusion they conceal the evidence, and in simplifying they oversimplify to the point of falsification.”

Indeed, that is just what Simpson says, that ‘the oversimplification of the horse fossil record amounts to falsification.’ And naturalist I. Sanderson writes:

“This pleasantly neat evolutionary picture of orderly progression in tooth structures, loss of toes, increase in size, and wrist and ankle elongation has now unfortunately come under grave suspicion.

“So many side-branches have been brought to light, so many intermediary forms are completely lacking that we can now only say that the classic description is no more than a guide to the probable steps by which the modern horse evolved.”

However, the fossil record is still evolution’s “star witness.” As Simpson tells us, “The most direct sort of evidence on the truth of evolution must, after all, be provided by the fossil record.”

Silent on Life’s Origin

However, fossil evidence fails completely to tell us that life evolved the way scientists claim. The facts, the proofs, are missing.

The problem is not new for evolutionists. More than a century ago, the problem existed for Charles Darwin, the “father” of modern evolution. He disposed of the problem in the closing sentence of his Origin of Species by attributing life’s origin to God, saying that life was “originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or one.”

Decades passed. But the evidence refused to be forthcoming. Later, A. C. Seward admitted that the fossil record “tells us nothing of the origin of life.” And to this very day, the situation is the same. True, at times there are sensational announcements by journalists hungry for a headline that the creation of life in the laboratory is imminent. But even if that happened, it would only show that there had to be a Creator, that life does not come into existence by itself.

The fact is that the fossil record remains totally silent about the supposed evolution of microscopic life. A college textbook acknowledges: “We still know little of protozoan [one-celled] evolution.”

A “Burst” of Complex Life Forms

The fossil record’s first testimony that carries any conviction is in what geologists call the Cambrian layers of rock. Before that time the record of the rocks shows unaltered beds for untold ages. But in those older layers, any supposed fossils are rare. Indeed, their validity is hotly disputed among scientists themselves.

But with the Cambrian rocks, fossils burst forth in sudden profusion, in wide variety, highly specialized and very complex. Silent for so long, for most of the record in fact, their star witness, the fossil record, suddenly becomes a chatterbox! I have to ask myself: “Did it have laryngitis all that time previously, or was it that it had nothing to tell?” I think of the words of Simpson, who refers to this sudden “explosion” of myriads of fossils as “this major mystery of the history of life.”

But let us even grant evolutionists the “spontaneous generation” of life that they cannot establish in the fossil record, nor duplicate in laboratories. Grant them that first speck of life that they cannot trace. Grant them also the fantastic advances from that first microscopic life to the sudden bursting forth of thousands upon thousands of highly specialized forms of life in the Cambrian rocks. With all that granted to them, can they look at the fossil record and at least get some answers on how later forms of life supposedly evolved?

When land plants came into being, the fossil record was not silent but was chattering about them. Yet, the fossil record reveals absolutely no “primitive” types as their ancestors. As one authority suggested, evolution believers must simply believe that those supposed ancestors had existed.

Also, there are no fossils of “primitive” insects. Insects appear suddenly in the fossil record, highly developed, and in great numbers, truly a “burst” of insect life in complicated forms. Yet we are told that they must have been evolving for tens of millions of years before then. But what is the basis for saying that?

There is no basis for that assumption—none. No fossils of all those assumed preliminary stages are to be found. As the 1974 Encyclopædia Britannica confirms: “The fossil record does not give any information on the origin of insects.” And the only reason that such a long time is given in the development of insects is that the evolution theory demands it. So evolutionists obligingly supply it.

The Vertebrates

Does the star witness, the fossil record, tell us any more about the arrival of the vertebrates? These are the animals having a backbone or spinal column.

No, the fossil record is again strangely silent—strangely, that is, from evolution’s viewpoint. For instance, the fish just appeared. Evolutionists cannot even agree on which ancestor produced it. According to their own reasoning, from the first supposed fish to the first actual fish fossil there is a gap of about one hundred million years. Why a hundred million? Because it was decided that evolution needs that much time to “evolve” something with a backbone.

But in all that time, what ancestor fossils have been found for the vertebrates? Again, the 1974 Encyclopædia Britannica answers: “Fossil remains, however, give no information on the origin of the vertebrates.” They simply appeared, suddenly, in great variety, and in very complex forms.

However, let us overlook the one-hundred-million-year silence. From fish came amphibians, they say. But, once again, the fossil record is not talking on this crucial point Even the tempting lungfish is dismissed as being no link between fish and amphibians.

Next, according to evolution, came the reptiles, which lay eggs. What does the star witness say about their ancestors? In the book The Reptiles, we read: “One of the frustrating features of the fossil record of vertebrate history is that it shows so little about the evolution of reptiles during their earliest days, when the shelled egg was developing.” And speaking of eggs, after reading such admissions as to the total lack of evidence, I have to conclude that it is evolution that has ‘laid an egg’ here.

The fossil record is still silent when, according to evolutionists, millions of years later some reptiles became mammals and others turned into birds. Simpson admits that for both mammals and birds the fossil record is ‘scanty’ for 75,000,000 years, when the big changes were said to be taking place.

Finally, a quick sampling of the fossil record’s testimony on the evolution of mammals, including man: “Fossils, unfortunately, reveal very little about the creatures which we consider the first true mammals.” (The Mammals, p. 37) “Unfortunately, the fossil record which would enable us to trace the emergence of the apes is still hopelessly incomplete. . . . Unfortunately, the early stages of man’s evolutionary progress along his own individual line remain a total mystery.” (The Primates, pp. 15, 177) “Even this relatively recent history [apelike creatures to man] is shot through with uncertainties; authorities are often at odds, both about fundamentals and about details.”—Mankind Evolving, p. 168.

The Record Is Against Evolution

Without question, the claimed evolution of all these major groups of living things is filled with incredible gaps. Time and again the story is the same: the fossil record is silent on ancestors. In a few cases, this might be understandable. But is it not more than a coincidence when this silence happens in the case of every major category of living things?

Even Darwin long ago lamented the gaps in the fossil record. In fact, he said it was good grounds for rejecting his theory. But he defended his position by impeaching his own star witness. He claimed that the fossil record had been altered, was incomplete, and that many living organisms simply did not leave fossils, particularly those without hard parts. Many evolutionists today rely on the same excuses.

Yet, the truth is that there are many beds of unaltered rock. And there are many fossils of ‘soft parts,’ including skin, worms, jellyfish and feathers. Also, why is the fossil record so full in regard to “completed” life forms, and so empty on the “evolving” stages?

I am compelled to conclude that few sets of facts argue so eloquently against evolution as the fossil record.

Mutations are claimed as evidence for evolution. But are they really? The case for them was energetically argued by an acquaintance of mine.

But before reporting our discussion, I want to mention a practice of his that is similar to the ‘only-the-stupid-don’t believe-evolution’ approach. He is a biology major fresh out of college. His speech is heavily saturated with such foreboding words as homozygous, heterozygous, translocations, inversions, haploid, diploid, polyploid, mitosis, meiosis, deoxyribonucleic acid, and the like.

It was obvious that he reaped satisfaction from the use of such ‘fifty-cent’ words, using them as a sort of mental bullying. However, vocabularies of intimidation do not prove a theory. If anything, they make it more suspect.

Helpful—or Harmful?

“Mutations cause changes in the genetic material governing heredity,” he told me, adding: “Natural selection preserves the advantageous ones, and as they accumulate over many generations new species evolve.”

“But,” I said, “mutations are blind, random, accidental changes in the genetic material. Can such undirected changes improve highly complex structures of amazingly intricate design?”

He answered: “It’s true that most mutations are harmful, but rarely one is beneficial.” Then he used an illustration found in some evolutionary writings, saying: “It’s like pelting your car with rocks. Most of the time you’ll do damage, but the millionth rock might hit the carburetor just right and improve the adjustment. That’s how mutations work.”

I wondered if I would like to be hit by a million rocks just to get one questionable improvement in my body. So I told him: “Of course, by the time the millionth stone ‘improved’ the carburetor, the 999,999 preceding ones would have smashed the radiator, cracked the battery, knocked loose the wiring, broken the spark plugs, shattered the windshield, broken the instruments on the dashboard and crumpled the body and gas tank.” The next million stones would likely smash the carburetor too!

“No,” he countered, “that’s where natural selection comes in. It would eliminate the damaging mutations.”

“Evolutionists would like to think so,” I said, “but they know better. Most mutations are recessive and accumulate in a genetic pool. They repeatedly crop up in future generations to maim or kill the organisms. It is this accumulating genetic load that many geneticists think causes degeneration, old age and death. Indeed, they fear it is pushing man toward a biological ‘twilight.’”

“The fact is,” I continued, “several pages are used in some books to list the inheritable diseases and deformities caused by the mutations that natural selection fails to eliminate. Some of them are diabetes, anemias, color blindness, hemophilia, deaf-mutism, albinism, clubfoot, harelip, dwarfism, glaucoma, mental retardation . . . ”

“But . . . ”

I stopped him. “Before you speak, one more point on your stoning-the-car analogy.”

Nothing New, but Only Variations

I continued: “Even if we allow that a rock might accidentally adjust the carburetor, it would never make a new one. It would never turn a two-barreled carburetor into a four-barreled one, or change it over to fuel injection. Mutations can vary the old, but they can’t create the new. Now, what were you going to say?”

“That there are examples of good mutations. You can actually observe evolution taking place.”

He gave three cases. One was the peppered moth. He said there is a dark variety of this moth that is increasing in industrial cities. The darker form rests on smoke-blackened tree trunks and so is not as visible to birds. Another case was that some mutated flies are resistant to DDT and survive when all other flies are killed. And, finally, he mentioned some bacteria that have mutants that are resistant to antibiotics, and from these few survivors resistant populations spring up.

But the peppered moth in its darker form is increasing not only in cities but also in the rurals, where tree trunks are not blackened by industrial smoke. The dark variety is simply hardier, better able to survive under present conditions. And it is still a moth.

The mutated flies and bacteria survived, true. But they are not as fertile and do not live as long as those without the mutations. The mutants are genetic “cripples,” “freaks,” as it were. While some peculiarity in their systems enabled them to survive, were they improved? Did a new type of life emerge?

A deaf person can survive the noise of a big city airport while his normal-hearing neighbors move out. A man with amputated feet has no fear of athlete’s foot, while normal persons take precautions. But the deaf and the amputee are not improved organisms. Neither are the mutant flies and bacteria.

My friend is not observing evolution when he sees such mutations. He is only observing variation within a family of living things. That is all the woman sees who said she believes evolution because ‘it happens out in her yard.’ That is all the head of the State Advisory Committee of Science Education in California sees when he claims evolution is a fact because ‘you see examples of it every day.’

Variation Limited

It is irresponsible to assume that the variation of a moth’s color proves that men evolved from fish. This is simply more evolutionary loose talk. There is constant variation among living things, but the variations do not change what the organisms are.

Will the bush rose ever change into an oak tree simply because there are so many varieties of roses? No, it stays a rose.

Human high jumpers once jumped six feet, but now clear seven. Does this mean they will continue to improve until future generations will high-jump seven miles?

Runners improved until they ran the mile in less than four minutes. Does that prove that in time they will be able to run it in less than four seconds?

No one would contend that such improvement could continue to be made. And certainly, whatever limited improvements were made, the athletes would not have turned into different creatures. Neither does it follow that because flies are resistant to poison they will continue varying until they become eagles. Nor will moths continue varying in color until they eventually become pterodactyls.

There is a limit to things. There is a limit to speed. There is a limit to cold. And if we accept what the fossil record is shouting out, there is a limit to variation. Living things vary, but always stay within their kinds. They do not change into something else.

Another conversation of interest took place after a demonstration I attended at a university. The demonstration involved the radiocarbon clock, and the professor conducting it mentioned the length of time that man had been on the earth and referred to evolution.

When the professor was asked what the basis was for his belief in evolution he said, “Well, they can line up skulls from fish down to man and the resemblance of the neighbors in this lineup is striking. The resemblance can hardly be chance, but indicates that one came from the others.”

“Did they really?” I asked, since to me this seemed like a fallacy, a false, misleading notion.

He looked puzzled, not understanding my question. So I elaborated: “Did the animals in this lineup actually evolve in this sequence? I have seen this series of skulls in different museums offered as proof for evolution, but it is usually indicated that this is not an actual sequence that took place.”

“Oh, yes, that’s right,” the professor said. “This is only an illustration of the resemblance between different groups.”

Resemblance No Proof

I then asked: “Then wouldn’t this illustrate that resemblance, rather than proving evolution, doesn’t necessarily indicate descent at all?”

He smiled. I was his guest, and he was a gracious host.

“To me it seems,” I continued, “that evolutionists are very capricious. They will use resemblance as proof of evolution when it fits their fancy, but will dismiss it when it rubs the wrong way. For example, the octopus has an eye that amazingly resembles the human eye. Yet, no evolutionist claims that they are related.”

“Further,” I added, “fish and insects are unrelated, yet there are types of both that have similar luminous organs. Unrelated lampreys, mosquitoes and leeches have similar anticoagulants to keep their victims’ blood from clotting. Unrelated bats and dolphins have similar sonar systems. Unrelated fish and insects have bifocal eyes for vision both in air and under water.”

I continued: “Unrelated organisms have in common mechanisms and instincts for hibernation, migration, playing dead, poisonous stingers or fangs, and jet propulsion. To accept evolution, we would have to believe that these amazing things, so difficult for blind chance to accomplish even once, were accomplished independently many times by blind and random mutations in the many unrelated organisms that possess them. The odds against these things happening once are astronomical. But evolutionists assert that they happened over and over again, and by chance. Mathematics, without question, turns thumbs down on odds like these!”

“You are steamed up,” the professor said. We both laughed.

“I don’t object to discussing evolution as a theory,” I replied. “What galls me is the evolutionist’s dogmatism, his arrogance and tyranny of authority, his smearing others as ignorant if they don’t swallow his line.”

“Scientists are only human,” he replied. “They have their private interpretations, and often they go farther than the facts justify.”

Not True Science, but Science Fiction

His words reminded me of the admission by Dunn and Dobzhansky in Heredity, Race and Society: “Scientists, like all other men, often succumb to the temptation to prove some particular view or to reinforce some preconceived ideas.”

Sullivan, in The Limitations of Science, said that scientists do not “invariably tell the truth, or try to, even about their science. They have been known to lie, but they did not lie in order to serve science but, usually, [their own] religious or antireligious prejudices.”

Evolutionists also have the knack of quickly dismissing crucial problems with their airy speculations. Without proof, amazing transformations of one complex form of life into another are referred to as fact, in the style of the writer of fairy tales.

With the wave of a wand, the evolutionist makes a scale become a feather, or a hair. A fin becomes a leg, which somehow vanishes in a snake, but then turns into a wing on a bird, a hoof on a horse, a claw on a cat, a hand on a man. Such “explanations” are science fiction at its fictionest.

Nitrogenous wastes, once eliminated as ammonia by fish, are eliminated as urea in amphibians, but then changed to uric acid in reptiles, then back to urea in mammals. Mammals supposedly modified their sweat glands into becoming breasts that produced milk, and bore live young that by another chance coincidence developed, at the very same time, the instinctive wisdom to suck at the breasts!

At times, I felt that such explanations were not given in all seriousness. They must be joking, I thought. But they are serious! They are not joking! They accept science fiction as true science.

It is little wonder that their books are filled with ‘could-have-beens,’ ‘might-have-beens,’ ‘may-have-beens,’ which, after a while and after much repetition, become ‘must-have-beens.’ Possibilities become probabilities, which then become certainties. Assumptions evolve into dogmas. Speculations become conclusions. High-sounding language evolves into “evidence.”

All of this is traitorous to the true scientific method. But by means of this brainwashing, blind faith in evolution evolves. With it evolves the arrogant authoritarianism required to sustain what they cannot prove. Sweeping proclamations are used as a club against unbelievers, perhaps even reassuring the evolution priesthood, those who are its promoters.

But such science fiction is not at all reassuring to many parents with children in school. At home these parents may teach their children creation, while at school the teachers teach evolution. One thing is certain: Someone is lying!

If in school evolution were taught as a theory only, and creation acknowledged as an alternate that has scientific backing, then the contradiction in the child’s mind might be eased. But evolutionists fight tooth and nail the introduction of any idea but their own. Supposedly enlightened scientists and educators, evolutionists, try to crush thoughts that do not support their preconceived ideas. Where once they insisted on the right to teach the theory of evolution, they now try to deny anything else being taught.

Evolutionists also refuse to face up to their dilemma, which is a serious one: the fossil record shows evolution to be an inadequate explanation for the sudden appearance of complex life forms. But special creation fits the record precisely, yet is unacceptable to evolutionists emotionally. They simply cannot stomach the thought that they could be wrong, that there could be a Creator, a Power higher than their own brains, One who brought forth living things in His own way.

So, instead of being fair-minded, evolutionists generally try to impeach the fossil record. They resort to name-calling and insults against those who cannot swallow their tales. And they liken belief in creation to storks bringing babies. Like a religious hierarchy in the “Dark Ages,” they declare ex cathedra (with authority) that evolution is a fact, and excommunicate into the outer darkness of ignorance any who will not embrace their faith.

Evolution is to its promoters a sacred cow. But sacred cows have a way of being brought low by the advance of truth. Like a hammer, truth eventually smashes the altars on which false ideas have been enshrined.—Contributed.

How to Cope with Worsening Food Shortages

2008-10-07T03:29:00.001-07:00

FORECASTS are alarming. The Milwaukee Journal reported: “As the northern hemisphere enters the growing season of 1974, millions of the world’s people are on the brink of starvation. . . . The food situation is now the focus of international attention. Some see calamitous times ahead, not only for the world’s abjectly poor, but for the rest of the world.”—April 7, 1974.

Already the effects of shortages are being felt, even in wealthier nations. Food prices have skyrocketed. This means that millions of families cannot afford to buy regularly the foods that they once ate.

Have you as yet been forced to change your diet? What will you do when you are no longer able to afford foods you presently eat, or when these foods simply are not available? There are alternatives to consider, and these may even improve your health.

Blessing to Many

Nutritionists feel that the curtailing of regular food supplies may actually be a blessing, at least in certain prosperous countries where most people eat too much. In the United States, for example, up to 45 percent of the population are 20 percent or more overweight. Food shortages may force some of these people to eat less, as well as less of the kinds of food that are damaging to their health.

Dr. Jean Mayer, professor of nutrition at Harvard University, commented on this, saying: “The simple fact is that we Americans have—for quite a time—been eating too much of the wrong things. The price pinch might just force people to do what all our efforts at nutrition education have not quite succeeded in getting them to do. Most of all, that means eating less meat, and less fat on the meat we do eat.”

The amount of meat Americans eat is considered a dietary disaster by certain nutritionists. In 1973 Americans averaged 119 pounds per person in consumption of beef alone, not to mention other meats! However, too much of this nutrition-rich food is evidently dangerous. “That big marbled steak should be left for hard-working guys who are not a risk for heart disease—a danger faced by half the American population,” warns Dr. George Briggs, professor of nutritional science at the University of California.

Eating less meat would evidently benefit healthwise, not only Americans but millions of persons elsewhere by making more grain available to them. The reason for this is that many pounds of grain are fed to an animal to produce a pound of meat. And so in China, where comparatively little meat is eaten but grains are consumed in some direct form, less food is required per person.

One way, then, to cope with worsening food shortages is to eat less meat. To give an idea of how this could stretch the food supply, Dr. Mayer estimated: “The same amount of food that is feeding 210 million Americans would feed 1.5 billion Chinese on an average Chinese diet.”

To a limited extent, rising prices are beginning to force some people to obtain food alternatives. Britons, for example, reportedly eat less meat now than they did twenty years ago when meat was rationed. Such an alteration in eating habits is apparently beneficial for many persons.

On the other hand, adequate nutrition is needed for good health. What foods can be obtained to assure that one’s nutrition needs are filled?

Less Expensive but Nutritious

Actually, many less expensive foods have greater nutrition than more expensive ones. And eating smaller amounts of nutritious foods is better for us than eating a lot of modern-day “junk” foods, which are often more expensive as well.

It would be worth your while to study the nutritional value of various foods. This information is given in some cookbooks. If you have no such literature, it can usually be obtained from a library. Knowledge of the nutritional value of particular foods not only will help you to prepare healthful, low-cost meals, but will make cooking more interesting.

One quickly learns that proteins are vital to health. Meat and other animal products such as eggs and milk are an important source of protein. But legumes, including peas and beans, are also an excellent source, and are usually less expensive. “An adult could live very well on these proteins alone,” says Dr. Mayer. However, he advises that children should also have some animal protein. And some nutritionists say that adults should too.

From a cookbook one may learn many appetizing ways to prepare legumes. Loaves, patties, soups, stews and salads can all be prepared from them. Soybean, for instance, is produced in so many forms—soybean curd, dried soybean, green soybean, soy milk, soybean oils, soybean flour, and so forth. And there are numerous recipes for using these to best advantage. Also, brown rice is rich in important vitamin B, and it can be used as a replacement for macaroni and spaghetti.

Many families may still desire to have high-protein meat. Organ meats, such as liver, kidney, brains, heart, tongue, and so forth, are often less expensive, and yet are every bit as nutritious. And there are appetizing ways in which these meats can be prepared. Heart, for example, is sometimes an excellent beef buy. Its firmness and mild beef flavor make it ideal for use in casseroles or it can be sliced for sandwiches. Also, fish may well be less expensive than other meats, and it is an excellent source of complete protein.

The popular iceberg head lettuce, commonly used in green salads, may similarly be replaced by less expensive yet even more nutritive substitutes. For example, chopped white or red cabbage may serve this purpose. And, prepared with the right dressing, it can be just as tasty.

Butter is often very expensive. But there are nutritive alternative bread spreads, including margarine, cashew butter, coconut butter, peanut butter, soya butter, orange honey, mint honey, and so on. Recipes for these spreads for bread can be found in cookbooks. Perhaps one will find it economical to make them.

Bread is another food staple, and especially are the whole-grain, heavier breads nourishing. Many families stock up on it at outlet stores, and thus save 25 to 50 percent by buying in this way. The bread can then be kept in a freezer to preserve its freshness.

Getting More Out of Food

A wise food preparer will endeavor to preserve the most nutrition possible in the food. Fruit or vegetables should not be soaked in water for more than a minute or so. This avoids loss of vitamins and minerals.

When produce is obtained, it is good to wash it as soon as possible in very cold water. What will be used for the next meal can be kept in covered dishes, and what will not be used for even a longer time may be quickly dried and stored in plastic bags, tightly shut to exclude air. Salads should be prepared just before serving, and kept covered until eaten. Prepare only enough for one meal.

Peeling fruit and vegetables robs them of much nutrition. But, unfortunately, because pesticides have become so widespread, you may have to peel some commercially produced food as a health precaution, even though it means throwing good nutrition into the garbage. However, some persons use a brush with stiff bristles to remove dirt and poisons.

It is wise to use as little water as possible in cooking and to save every drop of the juices for use in soups and gravies, storing it in a tightly covered glass jar. Dr. Endel Karmas, professor of food science at Rutgers University, explains what often happens:

“Families usually eat their peas or frozen vegetables without the juice the vegetables are cooked in. They are throwing away all the minerals and some vitamins in the food. The minerals and water soluble vitamins in processed food leach out into the water—that is, they drain out the food in the liquid.”

Also, a good cook is careful not to over-cook vegetables, thus destroying their nutrition. Some persons avoid recooking leftovers, but, to preserve their nutrition, serve them cold. There are many appetizing ways that this can be done. Burning or charring meat should also be avoided, since this destroys valuable vitamins and minerals.

Gathering Food for the Table

At times a variety of fine foods can be gathered from the countryside. Literature on the subject can be very helpful in identifying various weeds that are nutritious eating. The dandelion is such a “weed.” Its young leaves can be used as salad. It beats all other common salad greens as regards vitamin A content, and it is rich in calcium, phosphorus, iron, sodium and potassium. The flowers are sometimes used for wine making. The root may be sliced and used in salad, or it can be dried, roasted and ground and used as a coffee substitute.

The nettle is another very nutritious “weed.” Its tender sprouts contain large amounts of vitamins A and C, and some vitamin B. They are also rich in potassium, calcium, phosphorus and iron, and contain protein and glucose as well. The young shoots, which appear in the spring, may be used as spinach, mixed with salad greens, or boiled to make soup. They may also be frozen raw for later use, or dried and milled into flour.

Pigweed, or lamb’s-quarters, as it is also called, is said to be a perfect spinach substitute. The young leaves may be prepared in the same way as spinach, or it can be used in salad. Besides the many edible wild green plants, there are different kinds of edible mushrooms, nuts and berries that can often be gathered in the countryside.

Emergency Situations

Should predicted famines strike, it may be important to know the things around us that can be safely and beneficially eaten.

Some persons stranded in a wilderness have been known to starve to death while all around them was a pantry full of life-sustaining food. The big question, though, is, What can be eaten?

What can help a person is to watch what the birds and animals eat. As a rule, what they eat you can eat. But not in every instance. So if you are in doubt as to whether something is poisonous or not, chew a little bit and hold it in your mouth. When there is a burning, nauseating or bitter taste, spit it out, A poisonous plant tasted in this manner is not likely to be deadly to you.

Eskimos have plundered mouse nests of their winter supply of roots, nuts and greens to add some vegetables to their diet. They knew they could rely on the mice to gather edible food. They carefully replaced with fish what they took, so that the mice could survive and gather vegetables for the next winter.

Almost all sorts of grass and clover are edible, although the stomach will have to get used to it gradually. Trees and bushes can also provide good food. Their fresh buds and shoots may be edible. The inner bark or sapwood of various trees, too, can be valuable for food. People have dried and cut it into pieces and ground it for use in porridge and bread. Lichen and moss are also edible. Western explorers of the Arctic regions are said to have survived by eating these. The common cattail can serve as food in a variety of ways.

Almost all animals, if they are healthy, can serve as food for humans. Many people are hesitant about eating certain animals, such as bears, wolverines, dogs, foxes, cats, snakes and squirrels, voles, marmots and other rodents. However, some of these are considered delicacies in certain places.

Practically all birds are also edible, including crows, magpies, gulls and swans. Their eggs also may be gathered as emergency food. In addition, there are insects. Grasshoppers, ants and termites have long served as food for some peoples.

Many birds and other animals live on larvae, caterpillars and worms, and humans are able to do so if necessary. There is actually a rich assortment of life-sustaining food among these tiny but numerous creeping things around us. It might sound repulsive to eat them, but they are not only nutritious, they are sometimes delicious as well. Snails, for instance, are considered a real delicacy on a gourmet’s table.

There is really much we can do to cope with the worsening food shortages. We can cut down on meat consumption if it is a major part of our diet. We can gain a knowledge of nutritional values of foods, and eat those best for us. We can also learn how to preserve the food’s nutrition while preparing and cooking it. And we can become acquainted with plants and animals around us that we may eat if present food shortages become full-scale famines.

Energy Supplies in Abundance

2008-10-07T03:28:00.002-07:00

ENERGY is very much in demand. All life in the universe depends upon it. Without energy there would be no food to eat, water to drink or air to breathe.

In recent years people have become concerned about the supply of energy available to man. Electric power cuts, blackouts, rising prices for heating fuels and long lines at gas stations have made “energy crisis” household words. This could lead some to believe that the earth’s supply of energy is running dangerously low. Is that really the case? Not at all. In fact, the earth has abundant, virtually unlimited, energy supplies. How so?

The Sun—Energy Unlimited

The sun is the principal source of energy for the earth. Each year this immense, nuclear furnace bathes the earth with energy equivalent to that contained in 250 million million tons of coal, about 100,000 tons for each person on earth. In one day enough sun energy shines upon Lake Erie alone to meet the needs (if it could be fully utilized) of the entire American populace for a whole year. Where does the sun get its energy? Scientist Ralph E. Lapp explains:

“The sun is an enormous nuclear machine. It runs by fusing ions of light hydrogen (H1) to form the heavier atoms of helium (He4). . . . The energy released becomes heat. Every minute about 40 billion tons of hydrogen atoms are fused on the sun.”

The sun is indirectly responsible for many other forms of energy too. The sun’s rays cause tropical air to warm up and rise while cooler air from polar regions flows in to replace it. This creates winds that can be used for sailing ships, grinding grain, or even for producing electricity from windmill-powered generators. Coal is the fossilized remains of plants that stored solar energy in their cells long ago. Likewise, the chemical energy in oil is the light and radiant energy of the sun stored in the cells of living things in the past.

Sun Power for a Modern World

Efforts in modern times to make greater use of sun power have been interesting. There are at least twenty houses in the United States using solar energy to reduce heating costs. An experimental house in Newark, New Jersey, derives 80 percent of its electrical, heating and air-conditioning needs from the sun.

Two United States solar energy researchers, Dr. and Mrs. Aiden Meinel, have suggested spreading out sunlight collectors over vast areas. They say that such “solar farms” covering a total area of 15,000 square miles in the southwestern United States could achieve an electrical generating capacity of one million megawatts, enough to care for the entire country’s electrical needs between now and the year 2000.

Some have suggested putting a huge solar energy collector into earth orbit. Such a satellite would contain “solar cells” that convert sunlight directly into electricity. It would beam this back to a receiving antenna on earth as microwaves that would be reconverted into electricity. And a satellite would be unencumbered by inclement weather.

God’s generous gift of the sun has made available to mankind virtually unlimited supplies of energy. Of course, devising means of ‘plugging into the sun’ for today’s massive energy demands presents some knotty technological, political and economic problems.

But is today’s massive energy consumption really working for man’s happiness? Does the ready availability of material gadgets in crowded, smog-filled cities result in a sense of well-being greater than in the society of bygone days?

Some persons have concluded that they would rather have a different way of life. They enjoy pollution-free power from their own windmill-powered generator. This source of power was common on farms in the past. But recently both individuals and the United States government have been giving windmills a second look. With little difficulty a family can at least pump water and provide light for their home in this manner.

Energy from Water in Motion

For thousands of years man has taken advantage of the power of flowing water as a source of energy. The first plant for generating electricity by water power appeared in Appleton, Wisconsin, in 1882. Hydroelectric plants now utilize the power of onrushing waters to produce close to a third of the world’s electricity.

The oceans, which cover more than 70 percent of our globe, hold vast potential as an energy resource. The ebb and flow of the tides keep countless billions of gallons of water in motion each day. During 1961-1967 a major hydroelectric plant that uses tidal energy was built in northern France. A dam equipped with reversible turbines permits production of electricity by tides flowing in either direction. In 1969 a tidal power plant was completed in the Soviet Union. There are nearly one hundred sites in the world that could, on the basis of man’s present knowledge, be utilized to provide tidal electric power.

Energy Beneath the Earth’s Crust

Another potent source of energy is within the earth itself. Less than forty miles beneath its surface there is a layer of molten rock and gas, called “magma.” This seething mass may reach temperatures as high as 3,300 degrees Fahrenheit. The gases from cooling magma heat underground water, causing geysers of hot water and steam to erupt, sometimes hundreds of feet into the air.

For decades some homes and greenhouses have tapped these “geothermal” energy sources for hot water and heating. In 1904 Italians hooked up generators to a source of natural steam at Lardarello, Italy. This power plant produces enough electricity each year to operate most of Italy’s railway system. Dr. Robert Rex, a geologist who has done much work exploring the possibilities of geothermal power, feels that large-scale exploration of this type of energy could turn up a generating capacity of a billion kilowatts, nearly three times the present United States generating capacity.

But economic and political obstacles crop up here too. The initial cost would be high, for geothermal steam is cooler than that used in most generating plants and, therefore, not so efficient. Extraction of energy from “dry” subterranean areas requires sinking wells into hot rock to allow water from the surface to penetrate so as to produce steam. Pollution from salts and sulfur in the hot water and steam is another problem. But if these difficulties could be worked out in a system of things in which love of neighbor took precedence over self-interest, how beneficial this rich source of energy that lies beneath the earth’s crust would be to mankind!

What About Nuclear Power?

Nuclear energy, that is, the energy locked up in the nucleus, or central mass of an atom, is by far the greatest known source of power in the material universe. Two ways of releasing that energy are called “fission” and “fusion.”

Nuclear fission means splitting a nucleus into two lighter ones. Scientists have learned that the combined weight of the two new nuclei is slightly less than the original one. The difference is converted into energy. So great is the power in the atom, it has been said, that the fission of a piece of uranium no heavier than a loaf of bread and smaller than a golf ball can provide as much energy as 2,300,000 pounds of coal.

But nuclear fission as an energy source presents problems. For one thing, only 7 percent of uranium, the fuel used for fission, is of a readily fissionable type (called uranium-235). Scientists have endeavored to overcome this difficulty by developing special “breeder reactors” that produce or “breed” more fissionable fuel than they consume. According to The Americana Annual for 1973, successful breeder reactors would permit man to use 50 to 80 percent of the world’s known uranium resources, enough to meet the world’s electrical needs “for at least several hundred years.”

The hazards of radiation from atomic power plants, especially in the disposal of radioactive wastes, present a more serious problem in the view of many. The danger of cancer and leukemia as a result of radiation is twentyfold higher than the experts thought less than ten years ago. And what if a nuclear reactor went out of control or was sabotaged by a hostile power? That could possibly result in the death of hundreds of thousands of persons.

Nuclear fusion, such as takes place within the sun, occurs when nuclei of two atoms come together, producing energy in the process. Nuclear fusion can produce heat energy 1,750 times as great as that which is necessary to cause it. And fusion does not present the radiation dangers of fission.

The difficulty of duplicating nuclear fusion is to build a device that could keep a “plasma” of fusable nuclei in a small enough area at sufficiently high temperatures (about 180,000,000 degrees Fahrenheit) for fusion to occur. If this process could be perfected, what would be its possibilities for producing energy? Science Year for 1972 observes:

“Fusion power plants will probably use lithium and two forms of hydrogen—deuterium and tritium—as fuel. Seawater has enough deuterium to meet the need for 3 billion years and the lithium in the upper kilometer of the crust could meet it for 15 million years.”

If the earth has such energy supplies in abundance, why all the talk about shortages? Principally because of a decrease in the availability of fossil fuels (coal, oil and natural gas).

The Problem with Fossil Fuels—Why?

What has caused shortages in fossil fuels?

John Noble Wilford, in the New York Times of April 22, 1973, points to the basic reason for today’s energy shortages:

“The energy crisis could have been predicted and perhaps averted—but it wasn’t. Americans chose a high-energy technological society. They drove more and bigger cars and moved offshore to drill for the fuel to run them. They installed washers and air-conditioners and all manner of gadgets, and they stripped hillsides for the coal to generate the electricity to run them. . . .

“No one wants to give up the good life of fast cars, jet planes and air-conditioning . . . Few Americans seriously want a slowing down of economic growth, for the consequences in unemployment, buying power and political power are at the moment unthinkable.”

Thus an enslaving political and economic system, human greed and shortsightedness have caused today’s energy pinch with fossil fuels, and have often hampered development of other energy sources. As for the Creator, He has given man energy supplies in abundance.

Oil Problems Shake the World’s Economy

2008-10-07T03:28:00.001-07:00

EARLIER this year, the Arab oil embargo against various Western nations was lifted, and a more normal flow of oil from North Africa and the Middle East resumed. Many people breathed a sigh of relief. They hoped that this would mean the end of oil shortages.

While the oil cutbacks ended, it was not the end of oil problems. There are related problems involving oil that may even overshadow the previous shortages. In fact, almost overnight, because of such problems, the world’s economy has been thrown into turmoil.

The economic problems center on what has happened to the price of oil, especially since the Arab-Israeli war of October 1973. That price has quadrupled in recent times. The oil-producing lands of the Middle East and North Africa were the first to raise their prices sharply. Then other major oil producers followed, such as Indonesia, Nigeria and Venezuela.

What are the consequences of such higher-priced oil to a world that had based its economy on cheap oil? Are the results really catastrophic for some nations, as many authorities say? And is this all a plot by the oil companies to make more money?

A Conspiracy?

There are many people who think that the oil shortages and higher prices were part of a conspiracy by the oil companies. In a poll taken by Business Week it was found that the American public’s attitude had grown sharply skeptical. It reported that:

“62% believe oil companies held back supplies to raise prices

“68% are not satisfied with the industry’s efforts to relieve it

“55% now doubt that the crisis is really a long-run problem.”

One reason for the skepticism was that the oil companies reported huge profits in 1973 and early 1974, much higher than in 1972. This came at the very time when there were growing shortages, especially after the Arab embargo. Many persons reasoned that if the shortages were as bad as reported, then why the huge profits?

The oil companies answered that their profits only looked that high in 1973 and early 1974, percentagewise, because 1972 profits were unusually low. Also, they claimed that their profits were no higher in relation to their investment than those of many companies in other fields.

Regardless of how much truth there was in the claims and the counterclaims, in a period of shortage and public sacrifice the oil companies reaped a vast treasure. Yet, what was to be expected? In most countries, companies are not in business just to please the public. They are in business to make money, and this is permitted by most governments.

The profit motive is uppermost in the minds of those who run businesses in such societies. As an executive said to editorial writer Leonard Silk of the New York Times:

“When a business statesman makes public speeches, he has to talk in terms of social responsibility and long-term profit maximization, but the truth . . . is that he is a short-term profit maximizer.”

This businessman was saying that company executives work for their company’s interests. They want to make the greatest amount of profit in the shortest amount of time. That is what they are in business to do. The editorial also noted:

“Acceptance of this simple fact of life should spare one a great deal of moral indignation and surprise—surprise that after years of receiving huge tax breaks and oil import quotas allegedly to avoid a domestic oil shortage, there should be a horrendous domestic oil shortage.”

No, in such societies there should be no surprise that oil companies, and others, do what they consider to be best for themselves. The fact that millions of ordinary people are inconvenienced and suffer is part of the system. It testifies clearly to the injustices built into the system when a problem can cause grief to so many, yet at the same time be very profitable for others.

Why Shortages?

Yet, in the United States there had been shortages of oil products even before the Arab oil embargo. Why did this happen? After all, the oil companies received favored treatment on taxes, and the competition of imported oil was limited. Should these facts not have been incentives to greater production, avoiding shortages?

The oil companies answer that the price of oil produced within the United States was kept too low by government regulation. This, it is said, did not allow the oil companies to make the profits needed to warrant drilling enough new wells to increase production. Thus, in time, much less oil was produced in the country than was used. The rest, about a third of all requirements, came from imports. However, those imports were also regulated by the government to avoid undue competition.

Because of these factors, the oil companies claim, they were not assured of getting all the crude oil they would need within the United States. So for years they did not build any new refineries to process crude oil into gasoline, heating oil and other petroleum products.

Instead, much of the oil companies’ profits were spent outside the United States where the return on their investments would be greater and the supply of crude oil more certain, it was thought. There would be no problem of demand, since Europe and Japan had seen a huge surge in the use of oil products in recent years.

Thus, domestic production and imports did not quite meet the rising demand inside the United States. That is why there were shortages of heating oil and gasoline even before the Arab oil embargo. The embargo late in 1973 merely made a troublesome situation worse.

The lifting of the embargo in 1974 relieved the worst shortages temporarily. But it did not really solve the supply problem, because the United States and many other countries use much more oil than they produce. And the demand for oil in those lands keeps growing. For the present and immediate future most of this increasing demand must be met by imports from the Middle East and Africa, where about 80 percent of the non-Communist world’s proved oil reserves are located.

Dr. Wilson M. Laird, director of exploration for the American Petroleum Institute, says: “It doesn’t take much of a mathematician to realize that we will be forced to import huge volumes of oil until we can either develop more of our own oil and natural gas, or develop alternate energy sources.” However, alternate sources are years away and will cost a vast fortune.

But while demand keeps growing faster than many officials anticipated, it is not at all certain that the supply will grow fast enough. Oil consultant Walter J. Levy writes in Business Week: “The oil-producing countries want to use the oil resources they have to develop future industrial and economic basis independent of dwindling oil reserves. However rich the reserves are, they are limited.”

Hence, the 130,000-member American Association for the Advancement of Science warns that energy problems are ‘serious and enduring.’

The Other Worry

While getting enough oil is a major worry, especially for the highly industrialized nations, there is another. It is the price that they will have to pay for oil products.

The price of oil quadrupled on world markets, resulting in price increases for all oil-based products. While prices may fluctuate, even going lower at times, there is no hope of their returning to the very cheap cost of years gone by. What that means was described by a petroleum research engineer who said: “There is not going to be any more low-cost energy. You have to accept the truth of the situation.” And economist Paul A. Samuelson warned: “The prices we now pay for gasoline may seem high, but they are not yet adjusted to anything like the world price level for oil.” In most countries gasoline prices had already jumped sharply since last year.

Yes, the consensus is that the age of cheap energy has ended. Harpers magazine reports:

“Historians may see 1973 as a year dividing one age from another. The nature of the changes in store for us is symbolized by the Shah of Iran’s announcement last December that the price of his country’s oil would thenceforth be $11.87 per barrel . . .

“The Shah accompanied his announcement with a blunt warning to the industrialized nations that the cheap and abundant energy ‘party’ was over. From now on, the resource on which our whole civilization depends would be scarce [and costly].”

World’s Economy Changed

The higher oil prices have shocked the oil-hungry nations. Many regard it as a greater problem than shortages. The Wall Street Journal observed:

“The biggest problem, though, isn’t shortages but the skyrocketing prices for oil and oil-related products. Such increases are going to be a strain for all consuming nations—and even more so, of course, for those with weak finances.”

The additional cost of oil for the importing nations is truly staggering. Gerald A. Pollack, an official of the huge multinational Exxon oil company, says, in Foreign Affairs, that for Europe, the United States and Japan “oil imports this year may be nearly $50 billion more than in 1973.” He notes that by 1985 the cost to those nations would approach $150 billion more than in 1973.

The oil-producing nations will reap vastly higher incomes from the increased prices. They may have surplus oil incomes of 50 to 60 billion dollars in 1974 alone; some put the figure higher. Exxon official Pollack feels that these nations could accumulate about $500 billion in surplus funds by 1980. He adds: “These magnitudes would seem to be enough to scuttle any monetary system.”

That is why a financial expert called the oil price rise “the most profound economic development of the post-World War II period.” And Chancellor Helmut Schmidt of the Federal Republic of Germany said: “No matter what action the industrialized countries may take to wipe out balance-of-payments current-account deficits, the fundamental problem as such will remain unsolved. A process of shifts in patterns of income has been set in motion on a huge scale.”

The higher oil prices threaten the very existence of the poor nations. Statisticians of the United Nations estimate that even the poor countries will have to pay about $14 billion more in 1974 for the oil they use. That extra money will have to be diverted from other necessary things, such as farm equipment, food, fertilizer and consumer goods.

Do the world’s leaders have solutions for the enormous problems arising from price inflation, particularly of oil products? Chancellor Schmidt said:

“It would be wrong, of course, to believe that the oil price explosion was the only cause of instability. But the massive increase in oil prices has clearly revealed the actual fragility of this elaborate system of economic relations among the nations of the world, from the structure of their balance of payments to their trade policy. . . .

“Oil has shaken the very foundations of the present world economic system. . . . oil may shatter the laboriously built structure of the world economy.”

In Harper’s magazine, author William Ophuls, commenting on the inability of governments to cope with these new developments, says: “The political system inherited from our forefathers is moribund [dying]. We have come to the final act of the tragedy.”

It becomes more and more apparent that the present system of things now dominating the earth is not able to handle mankind’s problems. What is needed is an entirely new system, one that will not be ripped apart by greedy commercialism and divisive nationalism. Who can provide such a new order? Surely not human leaders, for they have tried and their failures are apparent to all.

Only the Creator of man and this earth can construct such a new order for mankind. And God’s inspired Word, the Holy Bible, foretells such a new arrangement, calling it a ‘new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness is to dwell.’ (2 Pet. 3:13) The “new heavens” means a new government for all the earth, operating from heaven under God’s direction and in the hands of his tried and trusted Executive Officer, Christ Jesus. The “new earth” means a new human society.

That heavenly kingdom of God will usher in a new system for controlling and distributing earth’s plentiful resources. It will not work to the advantage of some and at the expense of others, for “when there are judgments from [God] for the earth, righteousness is what the inhabitants of the productive land will certainly learn.” (Isa. 26:9) Nor will such a new order be a long time in coming, for Bible prophecy clearly shows that the present corrupt system of things now managing earth’s affairs is near its end.—2 Tim. 3:1-5.

They Keep Dogs for Protection

2008-10-07T03:27:00.001-07:00

“BEWARE of the Dog,” printed in a bright, glowing orange, was observed as the most prevalent sign in one part of New York city. It was followed by a more official-looking one: “This Property Is Protected by Guard Dogs.”

People can hardly be blamed for seeking protection, especially after repeatedly being mugged or burglarized. But are dogs the answer? Are they really an effective crime deterrent?

What Dog Keepers Say

Dog trainer Arthur J. Haggerty, who has had over seventy rented dogs on nightly duty at construction sites in New York, says: “Contractors have told us that petty thefts and vandalism start to decline as soon as they post a ‘Warning—This Area Patrolled by Attack Dog’ sign on the site. When a dog moves in, thieves just move on to easier pickings.”

Dogs have also proved valuable in protecting stores. “I was robbed eight times in four years,” said Martin Blauvelt, the owner of a small liquor store, as he fondled his huge German Shepherd. “But since I bought Hercules two years ago, nobody has had the nerve to try anything.”

In large department stores, specially trained attack dogs accompanied by a handler patrol floors at night. While thieves may be able to conceal themselves from human guards, it is not so easy to hide from a dog. During the past year, according to Emanuel J. Falcone, security director at Gimbels, more than eighteen persons were apprehended with the help of dogs in one of their New York stores.

Many home dwellers, too, now consider a dog vital for their protection. For example, a family man living in a high-crime area explained: “Ordinarily I wouldn’t keep a dog in the city, especially a large one. But every home in this building has been burglarized, except ours. Besides, I would be afraid to let my wife step outside alone without him.”

A young man interviewed while walking his fierce-looking shepherd near the Brooklyn Heights section of New York felt similarly. Twice he had been mugged in recent months, once being severely knifed. “It wouldn’t have happened,” he claimed, “if my dog had been with me. I rarely go out without him now.”

Even little dogs are valuable, says Diana Henley of the Association for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Of her own Chihuahuas, she noted: “They couldn’t do anyone much harm, but they are great at alerting me if anyone is outside.” She also keeps a black Labrador that has growled at and scared off would-be muggers that have stalked her while they were out walking.

Even in many small towns and rural areas dogs are now considered important to have. For example, a young man living in the country at Wallkill, New York, recently paid $1,400 for a professionally trained guard dog.

Instinctive Characteristic

Such examples could be repeated thousands of times over. It is estimated that over twenty-five million dogs are maintained by households in the United States. And dog trainer Tom Nova claims that by far the majority of them instinctively protect the home. In addition, he says, many thousands of trained guard dogs are kept specifically for protection.

Most dog owners probably have observed a protective instinct in their dogs. Regarding it, The New Dog Encyclopedia says:

“Once a dog has accepted a person or family as his master, he immediately develops a well-defined sense of proprietorship and is ready to defend them, their home and possessions against all intruders. This sense of guardianship is present in almost all dogs, regardless of the breed, although it naturally asserts itself more in bolder or more aggressive animals. This guardian trait [is] now recognized by science and canine authorities as a definite instinct.”

This protective instinct can be encouraged and developed to a high degree of efficiency. A dog can thus become a weapon more effective, in certain circumstances, than a loaded revolver. For this, however, special training is required. Yet a dog may provide fine protection without any such training.

Dogs Without Guard Training

Professional trainers tend to categorize dogs according to the protection they provide. For example, a so-called “image dog” is large and imposing, belonging to a breed with a reputation for aggressiveness, such as a German Shepherd. Yet the dog need not have any aggressive tendencies. He can be mild-tempered and good with children. Simply his looks are a deterrent to wrongdoers. Interestingly, a dark-colored dog is generally feared more than a light-colored one, and so makes a better “image dog.”

A “watchdog” is a housedog that will bark, which is usually his principal effectiveness. Yet he may instinctively show signs of aggression in the appropriate situation. He may even bite an intruder, but since he has had no real guard training, there is little guarantee he will. You might consider a large “image dog” the best watchdog, but even inoffensive-looking little poodles or Chihuahuas can also make good ones.

Dogs with Guard Training

Then there are dogs with various degrees of special guard training. Some may simply be obedience trained, and developed to the point where they jump to their owner’s protection on command, or upon provocation. But they have, only to a very limited extent, been taught to bite.

It is different with the fully trained “guard dog.” He is trained to fight, and the power of his bite is developed by practice to where it can break an arm or snap a collarbone. He learns to protect himself and his handler from knife, gun and club. Such a dog has been compared to a professional soldier who may feel more at home in battle than in civilian life.

The dog is trained on a leash. A handler holds him while an “aggressor” agitates him with increasing offensiveness—by shouts, menacing gestures, digging a rounded-end stick in the groin, and so forth. The “aggressor” may have a heavily padded arm sleeve for protection, or hold a burlap bag that the dog bites. The dog’s confidence is built up in these attacks for he always drives off the aggressor. He never loses. Thus he is taught to believe that he can subdue any opponent.

An elite guard dog is sometimes called an “attack dog.” Instead of just a few weeks or months of training, he may require a year or so. Such a dog can sell for $4,000 and more. He will not only protect his owner but attack a specified person on command. This dog is, in every sense of the word, a weapon.

Are Dogs with Guard Training Safe?

Theoretically they are, since they supposedly will attack only on command, or under real provocation. Thus experiences are told of guard dogs escaping and being befriended by passersby who took them home and noticed nothing unusual about them. Yet different experiences occur too. Last fall in New Jersey two such dogs kept to protect contracting equipment escaped and killed six-year-old Hubert Russell. When they lunged at police officers, they were shot.

Even owners may not be safe. Craig Iwig paid $1,200 to a well-known New York dog trainer for a German Shepherd to protect his TV repair shop. The dog worked well for about six months. But then one Sunday, while alone in his shop, Iwig stooped to pick up a tool. The dog sprang, hitting him in the side of the face, and raking his scalp with his teeth.

“Guns misfire, and so do guard dogs,” trainer Tom Nova observed. “Like humans, dogs, too, make mistakes. They misinterpret. Two youngsters may be roughhousing, and a guard dog may hit one of them. It happens. I’d never keep one at home.”

Many trainers feel similarly. They are very hesitant to sell a guard dog for home use; some simply refuse to sell one to families with children. As trainer Jack Healy explained: “Sooner or later they’ll tease the animal, and even the finest dog can hit a child, given the right provocation.”

A Protection Dog for You?

Police departments and persons owning or in charge of stores, construction companies, trucking concerns and other commercial establishments may well decide that professionally trained guard dogs are for them. But is such a dog for you?

You might ask yourself: Would I keep a loaded pistol? Would I have it around the house where children might play with it? If not, a trained guard dog is not for you! The risk, not to mention the high price of such a dog, simply is not worth it, except perhaps under the most extreme circumstances.

However, due to skyrocketing crime, you may decide to keep a watchdog, or so-called “image dog.” But first count the cost. A New York city owner of a 75-pound German Shepherd recently calculated his weekly feed bill at $3.40. That is over $175.00 a year! Then there is the cost of collars, chains, license and perhaps veterinarian fees. And remember, a dog kept in an apartment needs to be walked outdoors at least once or twice a day.

Dogs can be wonderful pets and companions. How sad it is that world conditions are so bad that they have been trained to attack people! Happily, the promise of God’s Word is that soon, under His righteous Kingdom rule, all mankind will enjoy true security, with no need to keep dogs for protection.—Isa. 11:6-9.

Watching the World 5

2008-10-07T03:26:00.002-07:00

Sacrifice for the Poor?

? In parts of Africa and Asia thousands of people are now very hungry. At the same time, earth’s rich nations continue to glut themselves. Thus, of the international food situation, Science News concludes: “The issue is finally a moral one: Will the United States and other industrialized countries be willing to cut back on meat consumption to free grain for the world’s poor?” Perhaps that question can be partly answered by what took place during the recent petroleum crisis. The National Opinion Research Center says that most Americans, in spite of requests to the contrary, did not use car pools or greatly reduce the amount of driving that they did. Says director James Davis: “What they basically gave up was the Sunday ride.”

“Cult of the Self”

? Campus rebellions have died down in the U.S. A recent study by Daniel Yankelovich, called “Changing Youth Values in the Seventies: A Study of American Youth,” reports that young people now largely reject old-fashioned patriotism, mainline religions and corrupt governmental and business institutions. The report claims that students want to “find self-fulfillment within a conventional career.” On the surface this may seem like a good change. But is it? Not according to Fred M. Hechinger, a member of the New York Times Editorial Board. He says: “No amount of rationalizing can pretty up a picture of a new cult of the self.”

New York Homosexual Issue

? In May, a bill banning discrimination against homosexuals was put to a vote in New York. During the period before the vote the Catholic Church revealed how divided it is on the subject. Two New York Catholic newspapers, The Catholic News and The Tablet, had editorials opposing the bill. But twenty-eight New York Jesuits had other ideas; they issued a statement protesting their archdiocese’s opposition. Members of Dignity, a Catholic homosexual organization, received communion at St. Patrick’s Cathedral before going outside to demonstrate against the editorials. Meanwhile, The Advocate, official newspaper of the nearby Newark, New Jersey, archdiocese, favored the bill, stating: “To Catholics, homosexual acts are objectively wrong in the moral order, although individual homosexuals may be personally free of moral guilt, and should not be condemned by the community around them.”

Lowest Church Membership

? Church membership is declining just about everywhere. But in some parts of the U.S. low church membership is more obvious. Where? A recent study shows that in the Pacific region—Alaska, California, Hawaii, Oregon and Washington—no more than 37 percent of the population are church members. Washington State has the lowest figure—32.5 percent. About half the U.S. population does not have any religious affiliation, according to the study.

The Story’s Other Side

? Dr. George L. Kirkham, an assistant professor in Florida State University’s school. of criminology, wanted to study law enforcement firsthand. So he became a policeman. With what change in his outlook? He writes in the FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin: “Persons such as myself, members of the academic community, have traditionally been quick to find fault with the police. . . . Now, as a police officer, I began to encounter the offender for the first time as a very real menace to my personal safety and the security of our society. The felon was no longer a harmless figure sitting in blue denims across my prison desk, a ‘victim’ of society to be treated with compassion and leniency. He became an armed robber fleeing from the scene of a crime, a crazed maniac threatening his family with a gun, someone who might become my killer crouched behind the wheel of a car on a dark street. Like crime itself, fear quickly ceased to be an impersonal and abstract thing.”

Fewer Farmers

? Food grows scarcer around the world. But farmers continue at a rapid pace to forsake the land for other occupations. Now, Europe’s Vision magazine reports, farmers in the southern part of the continent are quitting in “massive” numbers. In 1964, for instance, Greece is said to have had 57 percent of its civilian labor force in agriculture; in 1971 the figure was 37.3 percent. Other outstanding drops in the European agriculture labor force about the same period include: Portugal, 42.1 to 30.6 percent; Spain, 37.9 to 27.6 percent; Norway, 20.6 to 12.3 percent; and West Germany, 11.6 to 7.5 percent.

Problems of Dams

? Egypt’s mighty Aswan Dam has come to be considered the “present-day symbol of schistosomiasis,” a parasitic disease already afflicting some 200 million persons in Asia, Africa, South America and the Caribbean. The dam will soon irrigate millions of Egyptian square miles—and spread the disease to millions more persons. Meanwhile, the Colorado River, a major U.S. stream laced with innumerable dams, irrigates some of the most arid land in the southwestern U.S. In its flow, it picks up mineral salts, which poison crops in neighboring Mexico’s fertile Mexicali Valley.

A Bishop’s “Gibberish”

? In this secular age one might expect atheists to refer to the Biblical account about the Tower of Babel and the changing of languages by God as a “myth.” But would a Catholic bishop say such a thing? Fulton J. Sheen recently did, adding: “This was no supernatural phenomenon.” Well, then, what was it? Sheen answers: “A direct result of the complexity of their technology. Architects, engineers, builders, brick masons, astrologers, bookkeepers developed their separate jargons and scientific gibberish so that one could not understand what the others were saying.” The Bible’s report on what happened was “inspired of God.” Where did Bishop Sheen get his information?

Greasy Grease

? Why did not someone think of it before? Make grease greasier! How? Engineers at General Motors Corporation have mixed tiny ball bearings into grease and, in doing so, claim the friction is greatly reduced. At slow-speed applications the new procedure is almost as effective as roller bearings, though at a fraction of the cost. A thousand-pound load placed on the new grease reportedly can be moved with one pound of force.

Drugs and Kidneys

? Both narcotic and medicinal drugs can bring about kidney disease. Dr. Garabed Eknoyan, professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, recently informed the American College of Physicians that kidney disease complications can arise from addiction to narcotics like heroin and cocaine. Meanwhile, Dr. Thomas G. Murray, with the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, claims that in a study of 101 cases of one form of kidney disease that he studied, some 20 percent were due to heavy use of non-narcotic analgesics, including aspirin, as well as other pain-killing, popularly sold drugs.

100th Derby

? On Saturday, May 4, the 100th Kentucky Derby was run in Louisville. But for the 100,000 spectators of this horse race much of the show was not on the track. One man wrote the Louisville Times: “Marijuana smoke filled the air. Drunken teen-agers streaked. Several males relieved themselves in the presence of the spectators. The mob tore down fences.” The city fielded a fourteen-man anti-pickpocket unit. At least 63 persons were theft victims.

Millions Cannot Read

? “There may be over a million adults of normal intelligence in Britain who cannot read properly,” reports London’s Daily Mail. And in the U.S., the results of a four-year testing program reveal that about a million youngsters between the ages of twelve and seventeen cannot read at a fourth-grade level. The test suggests, says the New York Post, that illiteracy is “more pervasive than ever before realized.”

“Increasing Lawlessness”

? Some people like to think that crime is limited to the big cities. But a report from Roundup, Montana (population about 2,000), indicates otherwise. The local weekly newspaper recently ran a front-page editorial referring to the “increasing lawlessness” that has led to talk of vigilantes; it urged citizens not to “take matters into their own hands.” County Sheriff George A. Palmer says that Roundup faces problems similar to those in the big cities: “Drinking, drugs and no respect for the law whatsoever.”

Non-Tobacco Cigarettes

? Non-tobacco cigarettes have been found to be just as harmful to the respiratory system as those made from tobacco. Researchers at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, using lettuce and bluestem grass cigarettes, conclude that smoke from any burnable material causes respiratory damage. Their report is found in a recent issue of Archives of Environmental Health.

The War’s Children

? The war in Northern Ireland has brought youngsters into contact with bloodshed and violence. The Irish Republican Army has warned children to stay away from soldiers. The British Army has even cautioned that youngsters should not play with toy guns, which often appear real. No one wants an innocent child to be shot by mistake. However, some youngsters are not entirely innocent as far as the fighting is concerned. According to a London Daily Telegraph report: “The young are rapidly becoming veterans of violence. Many thoroughly enjoy the stonethrowing and gun fights. The other night an 11-year-old told his mother he was going out to ‘pelt the soldiers.’ All the mother replied was: ‘Not in those best shoes you’re not.’”

No Stability

? “Stability,” says a recent Wall Street Journal editorial, “is a larger problem than ever.” As a consequence, around the world fewer leaders seem to be able to hold onto their positions. “It seems,” continues the Journal, “that the modern environment is an acid that attacks democratic leaders. The pace of life is so fast . . . that any problem or dislocation is likely to divide and inflame the public. In such a hectic and impatient age, political leaders cannot build enduring support; they are bound to fall victim to one passing crisis or another. It would be a mistake to underestimate this air of perpetual crisis.”

Bank Losses

? In the last six months of 1973 banks lost about $100 million to criminals. But less than $13 million was taken in holdups. The amount lost to embezzlers is said to be over five times that lost to robbers. California banks lost about $3.8 million as a result of illegal credit cards. “Robberies,” says the Los Angeles Times, “are small potatoes compared to bank losses from forgery, credit card fraud or embezzlement.” Banks are said to spend ten times their actual losses in attempts to protect themselves from criminals.

Doctors’ Hazards

? U.S. physicians suffer the highest rate of alcoholism of any profession, says the head of alcoholic detoxification at San Francisco General Hospital. Their “obsessive, compulsive, industrious” personalities lend themselves to addiction, he adds. These traits may be one reason that their wives have been found to seek mental help out of proportion to the general population, as their doctor husbands often fail to supply the affection wives need. Stresses on female physicians are such that their suicide rate is three times that of women generally.

Soviet Women

? Well over two thirds of the doctors in the Soviet Union are now women. Also, “women scientists account for 39 per cent of the country’s total,” says Soviet Life magazine.

Evolution and Religion—The Debate Continues

2008-10-07T03:26:00.001-07:00

MOST persons are somewhat acquainted with a debate that started over one hundred years ago. The issue is this: Was man placed on earth as a special creation of God, as stated in the Bible? Or, has man evolved from a lower creature? Do not mistakenly think that this is a dead issue in the 1970’s. Vigorous, even heated, language is still heard from both sides in this ongoing debate.

However, thousands of persons who have heard arguments from both sides are not sure what to believe. Why? Because certain of the participants have confused them. In what way?

Well, the average person expects men of science to support a belief in evolution; most scientists, though not all, usually do. But, on the other hand, most people also ordinarily expect that religious leaders will uphold the belief that God created man, as taught in the Bible. But with growing frequency that is not the case.

Of course, not all clergymen openly embrace and advocate evolution. A large segment of them try to take a “middle of the road” approach to the issue. They do not reject evolution as wrong; but, then, neither do they positively stand behind the Bible. Many try to make it appear that evolution and the Biblical account of creation are compatible and that both, in some way, are correct.

It is difficult for church and synagogue members to understand such reasoning. Why? They have read (or heard read) portions of the Bible book of Genesis, which shows that man was a separate creation of God, a creature that reproduces only ‘after its kind.’ But evolution says that man came forth from a lower “kind,” from animal kind. The Bible also indicates that the first man on earth was created by God about 6,000 years ago. But evolution says that man appeared over a million years ago, and then only after several million years of evolving.

Most people can see that these teachings are opposites. Both could not possibly be right. Thus they understandably expect participants in the debate to take a positive stand for one view or the other—for special creation as taught in the Bible, or for evolution.

It is not the particular purpose of this article to provide scientific details advocating either evolution or special creation. Rather, we want to give our readers an idea of how widespread the teaching of evolution is among religious organizations. With that knowledge one can better appreciate why so many people, even those claiming to be religious, do not have clear opinions on the subject.

Just what are religious men saying currently in this debate?

Some Protestant Views

Many Protestants have been startled to learn that their clergymen are rallying to the side of evolution. For instance, the Episcopalian dean of San Francisco’s Grace Cathedral says:

“That Biblical myth-story was but one of many such which were developed by primitive religions. Over 100 years ago modern science began to dismantle the superstructure of religious myth-stories of origins, and of the Genesis story in particular, by means of scientific investigation. In so doing, science rendered Biblical religion an inestimable service.”

This dean’s views are largely shared by William H. Amos, who teaches at the Episcopalian St. Andrews School in Middletown, Delaware: “The sweep of evolutionary development of man (and of all life) is both magnificent and humbling, and in no way is antithetical to our religious convictions.”

Too, consider the stand that Ernest Marshall Howse, a former moderator of the United Church of Canada, takes on this issue. His church members may expect that he would credit the God of Genesis with the wonders of creation. Yet he writes: “In a billion years the stupendous processes of evolution have worked marvels.” Similarly, Roy Essex, Baptist chaplain at the University of Toronto, says: “I don’t go along with the Adam and Eve stuff.” These are only a sampling of Protestant clergymen who have taken evolution’s side of the issue in the debate.

Evolution and Catholics

Some Roman Catholics have also been strong advocates of evolution, leaving many Catholics unsure as to what to believe in this matter. One prominent Jesuit who taught evolution was Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. Though he died in 1955, his evolutionary ideas still strongly affect the church. The December 15, 1973, issue of the Jesuit weekly America goes so far as to refer to Teilhard’s “inspiring vision” in which the concept of “God is revealed . . . as the culmination of natural evolutionary processes.”

The Liberal Catholic Church uses Teilhard’s evolutionary views as the basis for many of their teachings. Leading them to what conclusion? The “Reverend” Christopher Francis recently told The Oregonian: “We believe that Jesus Christ is the product of an evolutionary process . . . We do not believe that he is the redeemer.”

But failure to support the Bible’s creation account in this debate reaches outside the “Christian” religions.

What About the Jews?

A Jewish rabbi, Amiel Wohl, of the Congregation B’nai Israel in Sacramento, California, appeared before the California State Board of Education regarding that State’s school textbooks in 1972. Did he come positively to the defense of the Genesis account of creation? No. Part of his statement made reference to the “Adam and Eve stories” and “other Biblical tales.”

If you are Jewish, such a statement may surprise you. But it is hardly inconsistent with the stand taken by the recently released Encydopædia Judaica. In its article on evolution this Jewish work does not clearly favor the Bible’s creation account.

But are such statements by religious men upholding evolution limited to the “mainline religions”? No, more and more members of the churches that are not quite so prominent are also finding that religious leaders and outstanding members of their organizations do not always positively support the creation account.

What About Mormons and Evolution?

As a case in point, consider the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, whose members are often referred to as Mormons. To understand the stance of some current Mormons on the subject of evolution, it is helpful briefly to consider the views of its first president, Brigham Young, who lived in the nineteenth century. Was he one who clearly advocated the Bible’s creation account? We read in the Journal of Discourses:

“As for the Bible account of the creation we may say that the Lord gave it to Moses, or rather Moses obtained the history and traditions of the fathers, and from these picked out what he considered necessary, and that account has been handed down from age to age, and we have got it, no matter whether it is correct or not.”—(14:115-16), 1871.

From this statement it is evident that Mormonism has not taken an unequivocal stand on the validity of the Bible on this issue. Understandably, Mormons today whose professional field of interest in some way involves evolution often endorse at least some form of that teaching.

Thus Mormon William Lee Stokes, professor of geology at the University of Utah, says that he holds the Scriptures “in high regard.” But the 1973 edition of his textbook Essentials of Earth History states: “Although a century of investigation has revealed a great number of weaknesses in Darwin’s theory, the central idea that natural selection is the guiding principle in evolution remains as powerful as ever.”

A Mormon biologist at California’s American River College, George L. Moore, has a similar opinion:

“I believe in organic evolution to a point. It is quite logical the development of atoms to simple life forms as proposed by leading texts today . . . The exact mechanisms (steps) of course are still open to some discussion and how far this type of evolution proceeded in the development of different forms of life is not a serious conflict in my personal beliefs. Other evidences for evolution are extremely strong also and I feel very comfortable with them . . . I do believe that evolution is presently taking place through natural selection.”

Duane E. Jeffrey, an assistant professor of zoology at the Mormon-controlled Brigham Young University in Utah, states pointedly: “The question of whether species evolve is no longer open; it has long since been resolved affirmatively.”

Yes, religious leaders and prominent members of their flocks in Catholicism, Judaism and Protestantism do not positively support the Bible in this continuing debate. Because of their divided stand many of their religious followers are confused, not sure what to believe about evolution.

What are your views in this matter? Can you state clearly why you believe either one or the other, evolution or the Bible’s account of creation? If there is uncertainty as to what you believe in this respect, could the reason be that your own minister, priest or rabbi is himself not taking an undivided stand on this issue? What does he believe? The only way to know is to ask him.