Science Shams & Bible Bloopers

SCIENCE SHAMS & BIBLE BLOOPERS [1481-MILL] SCIENCE SHAMS & BIBLE BLOOPERS How You're Being Hoodwinked by Know-Nothing...

Author: David Allen Mills | David Mills

41 downloads 2074 Views 1MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

SCIENCE SHAMS & BIBLE BLOOPERS

[1481-MILL]

SCIENCE SHAMS & BIBLE BLOOPERS How You're Being Hoodwinked by Know-Nothing "Experts" and Gassy "Authorities"

David Mills [1481-MILL]

Copyright © 2000 by David Mills. ISBN #:

Softcover

0-7388-2281-7

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the copyright owner.

To order additional copies of this book, contact: Xlibris Corporation 1-888-7-XLIBRIS www.Xlibris.com [email protected]

CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ...................................................... 9 PART I Pseudoscience and the Professions

1. Chiropractic Health Care: Science or Religion? .....19 2. Overcoming Self-Esteem and Psychotherapy .........34 3. Cesspool of Pseudoscience: Your Local Police .........50 PART II Pseudoscience Affecting Children and the Family

4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Public “Education” vs. Homeschooling............... Early Learning vs. “Age-Appropriate” Learning .. Early Learning and the Myth of Pressure ............ Myths of Parental Convenience .......................... Children and the “Danger” of Internet Pornography ....................................

111 131 143 163 204

PART III Pseudoscience and Religion

9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

[1481-MILL]

Origin of the Universe: Natural or Supernatural? God of the Gaps ................................................ The “Miracle” of Heavenly Clockwork............... The “Miracle” of Life on Earth .......................... Answering Creationist Objections to Evolution...

221 235 240 259 272

14. Can Genesis be Reconciled with Modern Science?........................................ 15. “Miracles” of Personal Experience ....................... 16. The Myth of Hell ............................................... 17. Interview with an Atheist ....................................

289 308 321 341

EMAIL THE AUTHOR ......................................... 378 BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................... 379

For Sophia My Daughter May you forever ignore the counsel of those whose fundamental doctrine is that mankind “sinned” by partaking of the fruit of the tree of knowledge.

[1481-MILL]

INTRODUCTION Whenever you finish school, you usually forget immediately everything you ever learned about math and science. But when it comes to the more esoteric subjects—like psychology, philosophy or theology—you tend to remember just enough to screw you up forever. Pseudoscience—or false science—borrows the wackiest elements of psychology, philosophy and theology and bundles them into a new belief system which is often appealing and engaging, but which is nonetheless rooted in superstition, rather than science. Today, the most commonly cited example of pseudoscience is astrology, which proposes a causal relationship between celestial bodies and events in your personal life. If Jupiter is here, and Saturn is there, then you’ll meet a handsome stranger down on Earth. The purpose of this book is to convince you that pseudoscience in 21st-century America is far more pervasive and influential than you probably suspect. Practitioners of pseudoscience are now fully in charge of our public schools; and their moonstruck theories of education and child development have, predictably, led to disaster. Psychiatrists and psychotherapists, who themselves are often seriously maladjusted individuals, offer scientifically bogus “self-esteem therapies” to their emotionally troubled patients. Health food and diet supplement stores hawk herbal products which, at best, are absolutely worthless, and which often encourage the user to forsake traditional, science-based medicine in favor of an “all-natural” cure. Chiropractors, to this day, proudly embrace a comical theory of disease articulated by their founder, Daniel David Palmer, a 19th-century Iowa grocer and fish peddler. Law enforcement authorities, who claim to utilize the latest science in their pursuit of criminals, actually use investigative techniques akin

[1481-MILL]

10

DAVID MILLS

to those of the Salem Witch Trials. Christian Fundamentalists— calling themselves “creation scientists”—bulldoze their Bible-based textbooks into your child’s science class, textbooks asserting that Earth is six-thousand years-old and that men and dinosaurs walked the Earth side by side, like Fred Flintstone and Dino. This book irreverently challenges each of these pseudosciences, plus many others. We’ll talk about everything from the origin of the universe to the origin of diaper rash. It is insufficient, however, to cavalierly dismiss a philosophy as “pseudoscientific” without explaining why it fails to satisfy the scientific method. This book neither slanders nor ridicules individuals who adhere to principles which, in my opinion, are scientifically baseless. Rather, this book seeks to explain, precisely and entertainingly, why many of the so-called “sciences”—and their background and professional organizations—are no more scientific than a cabal of fortune tellers. I strive to be specific when attacking pseudoscience and to avoid generalized attributions such as “they say . . . ” or “lots of them believe . . . ” Instead, I cite chapter and verse, book title and page numbers in which pseudoscientists enunciate their beliefs. While it is nevertheless possible to misrepresent the beliefs of a philosophical adversary even though quoting him directly, I maintain that the most effective—and fun!—way to smoke out a pseudoscience is to allow its practitioners to boldly speak for themselves. Since neither I, nor the publisher, wishes to be sued for libel, my specific criticisms must be targeted toward those individuals who fulfill the legal definition of “public figure.” In legal terms, being a “public figure” does not necessarily mean that you are a public or government official. Nor is a “public figure” necessarily famous or even known to the public. Being a “public figure” means legally that you have “voluntarily thrust yourself into the forefront of public discussion or controversy.” Anyone who writes an article, pamphlet, or book and publishes the material is thereafter considered a “public figure” and, as such, forfeits his right to legal recourse designed to protect private individuals and private businesses from invasive or “unfair”


11

criticism. In other words, if you dish it out, then you’d better be prepared to take it. I myself have been publicly labeled “a spokesman for Satan,” “a disgrace to human dignity,” and, my favorite, “a pitiful middle-aged man, embarrassed by his lifelong unemployment, and frozen, emotionally and intellectually, in early adolescence.” Whew! The reason that I bring up these obscure legal definitions is to explain why many pseudosciences are rarely, if ever, criticized publicly. I am legally forbidden, for example, to say that “Dr. Harry Backsnapper, a local chiropractor, is a quack and is cheating his patients out of their money by offering fraudulent cures to nonexistent diseases.” Dr. Backsnapper could sue me for damages. By contrast, if Dr. Backsnapper publishes a booklet detailing his allegedly scientific theories, then both the doctor and his publicly-stated theories become fair game. To facilitate my criticisms, I may legally reproduce brief quotations from his booklet— whether he and his publisher like it or not—and may rebut his theories to my heart’s content. Likewise, Dr. Backsnapper may publicly criticize my writings. The point to remember here is that most practitioners of pseudoscience do not fulfill the legal definition of “public figure” and, thus, are immune from public criticism. That is why the pseudosciences are scrutinized and debunked less frequently than they deserve. When I began this writing project, I established four criteria to determine which pseudosciences to examine. All four conditions must be satisfied for inclusion in this volume: 1. The pseudoscience must embrace theories that are provably false. There are many religious and political ideas with which I strongly disagree, but these disagreements are usually issues of personal preference or opinion, rather than matters of scientific error. To be included in this book, the pseudoscience must espouse positions that directly violate established laws of the physical sciences. 2. The pseudoscience must command millions of loyal followers. If a particular belief system is shared by only a handful of

[1481-MILL]

12

DAVID MILLS

devotees, such as The International Flat Earth Society, then I omitted such refutations from the book. 3. The pseudoscience must be demonstrably harmful. Even though its tenets are false and are accepted by the multitudes, if a particular philosophy does little or no harm, then I withheld criticism. For this reason, this book contains no refutation of astrology. 4. I wanted this book to be original. If other books have addressed and adequately rebutted specific theories of the pseudosciences, then I again bypassed discussion of those topics. Why repeat what’s already been said? In the pages of this book, you will therefore find original material debunking pseudosciences that are provably false, wildly popular, and distinctly harmful. For the most part, the book’s chapters are independent and self-contained. Many people who read books— and a sensitive group they are!—feel slightly guilty if they skip around from chapter to chapter in a disorganized way. When reading this book, you won’t be disadvantaged by such hopscotching. If one chapter sounds most interesting to you, then dive into that chapter first, wherever its location in the book. Once you select a chapter to read, however, I might suggest that you do read it from the beginning, since there is usually a logical progression of ideas building and expanding throughout the individual chapters. Before we begin, I’d like to offer a few brief comments on writing in general. Mortimer Adler, the former Editor-in-Chief of Encyclopaedia Britannica, stated many years ago that “writing should be clear without being plain, and elevated without being obscure.” In the mid 1970’s, I published a pamphlet which drew a reader response. Familiar with Adler’s prescription for good writing, the respondent wrote, “Contrary to Mortimer Adler’s suggestions, Mr. Mills, your writing was plain without being clear, and obscure without being elevated.” I’m embarrassed to admit that my critic was correct in his assessment of the ill-fated pamphlet. From that point on, I realized that clarity— above all else—is what counts in writing. You may disagree with my


13

message; but you, as the reader, shouldn’t have to struggle to discern what that message is. Another priceless tip for good writing was handed down to us by Thomas Jefferson himself. In a letter to John Adams, Jefferson wrote, “I apologize to you for the lengthiness of this letter, but I had no time for shortening it.” Jefferson meant that a skillful writer uses as few words as possible to communicate his message. If I can successfully convey my thoughts to you using a 12-word sentence, then I am wasting your time—and watering down my message—by stretching the sentence to 13 words or to 30. Concise writing saves time and effort for the reader, but demands more time and effort of the writer, as Jefferson pointed out. In writing this book, I did devote the time necessary to shorten each sentence to its minimum length. I will share a secret with you that is closely guarded by authors and publishers. Most books, you should know, contain a maximum of two or three meaningful ideas. Authors and publishers sell you mammoth volumes, however, by cleverly reiterating their two or three main ideas throughout the entirety of the book. Authors sometimes write as if they are being paid a penny a word. Yet, substantively, they say little. After reading this book, you may find yourself in complete disagreement with every word. You may be offended by some material. You may believe that I’ve taken leave of my senses. But you will not believe that this book had little to say.

*** Why does it matter whether a belief system is a true science or a pseudoscience? Aren’t such questions relevant and interesting only to calculator-toting nerds, thoroughly disconnected from your daily concerns? What has science ever done besides threaten our children with nuclear annihilation and pollute our atmosphere with a thousand deadly chemicals? If you believe that science has little or no positive impact on your daily life, then let’s stop to think about a typical day without the benefits we derive from scientific knowledge. When you awoke

[1481-MILL]

14

DAVID MILLS

in the morning, you wouldn’t know the time, since all clocks— battery powered, electrically powered, and mechanically powered— utilize scientific principles to operate. You couldn’t even construct a rudimentary sundial without knowing more about astronomy than most college professors. So, without science, the time of day would forever be a mystery to you. After rising from bed, you’ll stumble in darkness because electric lighting was invented by a brilliant scientist named Thomas Edison. Without science, there is no electricity and no interior lighting. You can’t use kerosene either because it is likewise a product of scientific research. You’ll have to use candles. But how are you planning to light these candles? With a match? Without the background work of physicists and chemists, you’ll have no matches to strike. So what’s next? Are you going to brush your teeth? Have you ever read the multitude of chemical ingredients in simple toothpaste? Without the science of chemistry, you can’t even brush your teeth. And of course you can’t use indoor running water in the process, because the science of hydrology discovered how to control and pressurize the flow. You’ll have to carry a bucket from a nearby river or well; and if you need to use the toilet, there’s probably a bush somewhere around. If you need glasses or contact lenses to see clearly, then you’ll spend the day blind because the science of optics discovered how to rectify your naturally blurry vision. Are you ready for breakfast? Forget those convenient packaged foods. Maybe you can snare a pheasant and roast it on the fireplace, which you built because your shack has neither gas nor electric heating. Are you leaving for work now? Will you be riding the horse or the mule today? Remember, no cars are possible without the science of engineering. At work, you’ll have no telephones, no typewriters, no fax machines, no scanners, and no cash registers. Carrier pigeons are your fastest means of communication. And who needs an 800-MHz computer and a laser printer when you have an abacus and a quill pen? You’ll likewise have no air conditioning, and so you’ll stink


15

like a skunk. You can’t apply deodorant because it was invented by those “nerds” in the science lab, and you want to be “all-natural.” After an absorbing day shucking corn, you return by mule to your shack. Are you ready, now, for a little relaxation and entertainment? Forget it. There are no televisions, no radios, no VCR’s, no CD players, and no video games. Don’t despair, though, you’ll certainly enjoy whittling. You’re not concerned. You and your spouse can still engage in passionate lovemaking, just like people have done for millions of years. You won’t need science for that, will you? But contraceptives, let us recall, are the product of scientific ingenuity and pharmaceutical research. If you make love regularly, then you’ll probably have 10 to 12 children. You needn’t worry about feeding them all, however, since many will die in early childhood from diseases easily cured or prevented by modern medical science. If your children suffer an injury that becomes infected, then your local barber will be happy to hack off their arms or legs for a nominal fee—without anesthesia of course. Without the fruits of scientific innovation, you would live more primitively than a caveman; for even he discovered the scientific principle of friction and harnessed its heat and energy to start fires for cooking. In the 21st century, we rely on science so completely to maintain our standard of living, that a prolonged power outage would force most families to evacuate their homes entirely. If you still believe that science has little positive effect on your life, then consider this startling fact: In 1900, a child born in the United States had a life expectancy of only 47 years. Following a century of scientific advancement, a child born in the year 2000 can expect to live over 80 years. Science has therefore extended the lifespan of the average American by more than 30 years! And the quality of those years is immeasurably enriched through the application of scientific technology. As Carl Sagan used to say with his matchless enthusiasm, “It is science, rather than pseudoscience, that delivers the goods.” Science may be a crude and imperfect tool. It can be misused.

[1481-MILL]

16

DAVID MILLS

But its benefits to humanity are incalculable. The Ancient Greeks revered science and used its methods to create an advanced civilization envied throughout the ancient world. Then came the Dark Ages, when the scientific method was abandoned in favor of pseudoscience and religious fanaticism. For fifteen-hundred years thereafter, all scientific progress ceased and humanity wallowed in poverty, misery, and ignorance. Today, we tend to believe that, once knowledge has been acquired and technology developed by man, these gains are “locked in” and the future will only build upon these past achievements. But history argues forcefully against such an optimistic assumption. The Ancient Greeks and Egyptians made astonishing scientific discoveries and wrote detailed scientific analyses that were intentionally destroyed and suppressed for centuries by men of superstition. Could we, once again, embrace pseudoscience so unthinkingly that we thrust ourselves back to the Dark Ages? It sounds impossible. But such a scientific retrogression befell an entire European continent. The same calamity struck “modern-day” Iran during its Islamic Revolution of the 1980’s and 90’s. Someday, we too may unwittingly allow pseudoscience to once again dominate and suppress the voice of reason. It is therefore imperative that we, as a society, learn to differentiate science fiction from science fact. So let’s get started!

PART I Pseudoscience and the Professions

[0000-XXXX]

CHAPTER 1 Chiropractic Health Care: Science or Religion? Expecting our first child at any moment, my wife, Vanessa, and I strolled hand-in-hand through a shopping mall, looking for last-minute items we’d need at the hospital. For once, Vanessa’s belly stretched out farther in front than mine. As we walked, we were approached by a strikingly handsome gentleman, about forty, wearing an immaculately white lab coat and an oversized stethoscope. The stethoscope, it appeared, had been specially crafted to draw attention to itself. In a rich, confident voice, the dashing gentleman introduced himself as a “local physician.” He handed Vanessa and me a slick-looking yellow folder filled with attractively-printed pamphlets. The pamphlet on top was titled What Pregnant Women Need to Know about Chiropractic. The “doctor” then invited us to visit his “clinic” the following afternoon. This Hollywood-style man in white was a chiropractor. Back home, pamphlets in hand, I read that “although chiropractors do not deliver babies, chiropractic physicians frequently treat pregnant women to guarantee proper spinal alignment for childbirth. Such alignment makes the delivery safer and easier for both mother and child.” (I had never noticed any vertebrae in Vanessa’s vagina, but then, I’m not a “doctor.”) Another pamphlet, titled When Will I Get Better?, proclaimed that “the first chiropractic patient was deaf for 17 years and recovered (his hearing) almost immediately after one (spinal) adjustment! The blind, the crippled, the chronically ill, those near death,

[1481-MILL]

20

DAVID MILLS

have been seen to respond after one, or only a few, spinal adjustments.” As I continued perusing these articles, I thought of my old friend, Ralph Lee Smith. Decades ago Ralph authored two insightful books, The Health Hucksters and At Your Own Risk: The Case Against Chiropractic. It was Ralph who first opened my eyes to the pseudoscience of chiropractic “spinal adjustments.” Ralph’s books were written back in the 1960’s, so I had assumed that the intervening decades had toned down the bogus assertions made by chiropractic “physicians.” But my assumptions were wrong. If anything, the pamphlets I held contained more chiro-babble than those dissected in Ralph’s excellent books. I continued to read. A pamphlet titled Colds, Flu & Respiratory Disease asserted boldly that “Breathing in cold viruses does not in itself cause a cold.” The pamphlet explained that “misaligned vertebrae in your spine interfere with your nerves and the flow of information and energy between your brain and the rest of your body.” Spinal adjustments “relieve the spinal nerve stress and help restore optimal body functioning for higher resistance to disease, which, we cannot overstate, is the best defense against the common cold.” The pamphlet then sneered at flu vaccines and recommended that individuals not be inoculated against infectious disease. Instead, warned the pamphlet, we should all have our spines adjusted to prevent colds and other viral illnesses. Yet another brochure, titled What Does a Chiropractor Do?, went even further, claiming that potential chiropractic patients “may suffer from digestive problems, headaches, colds, menstrual cramps, depression, seizures, skin conditions and many other problems and (may) not be aware that a realigned spinal column could greatly improve their health.” As I thumbed my way through the yellow folder, each pamphlet I read made wilder claims than the pamphlet before. I was particularly “enlightened” by Why Should I go to a Chiropractor? Here I learned that “Chiropractic is for bed-wetting” and that “Anyone with menstrual problems should go (to a chiropractor).”


21

Moreover, “There are case histories of people recovering from nearly every known disease and condition under chiropractic care: heart trouble, hyperactivity, fatigue, allergy, digestive problems, colds, flu and hundreds of other conditions.” The unfortunate fact is that chiropractic “health care” shares many similarities with Fundamentalist religion. Both religion and chiropractic are wildly popular with the American public, claiming tens of millions of devoted followers. Both religion and chiropractic are represented by a superb network of skilled and attractive spokespersons, persuasively articulating the message. Both religion and chiropractic enjoy the background support of well-financed political lobbyists, guaranteeing that federal and state lawmakers “toe the line” on issues relevant to “the cause.” Both religion and chiropractic are rarely, if ever, challenged publicly to prove the validity of their doctrines. Both religion and chiropractic offer emotional consolation to the discouraged, claiming that traditional medicine too-easily dismisses the possibility of alternative or miraculous cures to disease. Both religion and chiropractic, despite their powerful and conspicuous presence on every-other street corner, view themselves as a meek and unfairly persecuted minority. Both religion and chiropractic believe that critically ill people may be cured instantly through the “laying on of hands.” Finally, both religion and chiropractic claim to be scientific, but are, in reality, steeped in pseudoscientific hogwash. What do traditional medical doctors say about chiropractic “health care”? Let’s listen to Milton Helpern, M.D., former Chief Medical Examiner of the City of New York: “The teachers, research workers and practitioners of medicine reject the so-called principle on which chiropractic is based and correctly and bluntly label it a fraud and hoax on the human race.” After an exhaustive and conscientious study of the chiropractic profession, the Faculty of Medicine of McGill University writes simply that, “The theory which underlies chiropractic is false.” The normally-restrained U.S. Department of Health spoke up loudly to say that “Chiropractic theory and practice are not

[1481-MILL]

22

DAVID MILLS

based upon the body of basic knowledge related to health, disease, and health care that has been widely accepted by the scientific community. Moreover, irrespective of its theory, the scope and quality of chiropractic education do not prepare the practitioner to make an adequate diagnosis and provide appropriate treatment.” In October, 1998, The New England Journal of Medicine published two persuasive studies demonstrating that chiropractic is not only worthless in combating disease, it is also virtually useless in the treatment of simple backaches. A control group, given a $2.50 booklet on back pain, fared just as well as patients who spent thousands of dollars on chiropractors. Even The World Book Encyclopedia boldly asserts, “Claims that chiropractic can cure diseases have never been proved scientifically. The American Medical Association (AMA) has a long history of opposition to chiropractic. In 1967, the AMA ruled that it was unethical for physicians to associate professionally with chiropractors.” Nonetheless, the American public appears to hold two erroneous beliefs about the chiropractic profession. The first misconception is that chiropractors treat only problems of the spine. A casual reading of chiropractic literature, however, reveals that spinal manipulation is offered as a cure for literally every malady known to mankind. The literature speaks for itself. The second, and more dangerous misconception about chiropractors is that they are “medical doctors” specializing in diseases and treatment of the spine. Chiropractors routinely advertise themselves as “doctors,” and the general public uncritically accepts their credentials as equivalent to an M.D. Factually, however, many chiropractors practicing today are not even college graduates. Chiropractic schools have long suffered a reputation for accepting practically anyone, regardless of his or her impoverished academic background. Ralph Lee Smith tells of his experience with the nation’s seven best-known schools of chiropractic. Ralph sent out seven letters of student application—each letter deliberately full of grammar and


23

spelling errors—applying for admission to these chiropractic schools. All of Ralph’s letters apologized for being unable to enclose a high school transcript or any evidence whatever of high school graduation. Five of the seven chiropractic schools nonetheless responded immediately with letters of acceptance. Another school suggested that the applicant take a GED examination, and, on that basis, gave him conditional acceptance! Because of these nonexistent academic standards, many boards of accreditation, until recently, did not even recognize “Doctor of Chiropractic” as an accredited degree. The typical chiropractic school is filled with students who first applied to colleges of medicine, but were turned down. To the above criticism, chiropractors often respond that, to earn their license to practice, chiropractors are required to pass the identical state board examinations required of medical doctors. While this fact is true, a crucial difference needs to be highlighted. The medical student takes his state board examinations as an incidental part of his career preparation, sometimes years before completing his science and medical studies and residency program. By contrast, chiropractic colleges do not teach the scientific causes and treatments of disease. Rather, the schools tend to focus on coaching the students to squeak past the state exam. Moreover, because chiropractors and chiropractic students have been historically barred from practicing in medical hospitals, most chiropractic students have completed their educations and become “doctors” having absolutely no experience with hospitalized patients. In no sense therefore is a D.C. (“Doctor” of Chiropractic) equivalent to an M.D.1

Why Chiropractic is a Pseudoscience What, precisely, is so unscientific about chiropractic theory and practice? 1. When you visit a chiropractor, chances are good that he will take a gigantic x-ray of your entire spinal column. (Critics of chi-

[1481-MILL]

24

DAVID MILLS

ropractic call these oversize x-rays “glamor photos.”) Unlike medical doctors, who x-ray only a small number of their patients, chiropractic “physicians” x-ray almost everyone who walks through the door. Ignoring for a moment the excessive radiation generated by full-spinal x-rays, and further overlooking the poor image quality intrinsic to these overly-broad exposures, the chiropractor claims that these x-rays are necessary to spot “pinched nerves” running through the spine. Such a claim, however, is completely vacuous because nervous tissue is invisible to x-ray film. No spinal nerves—“pinched” or otherwise—are visible on any x-ray taken by a chiropractor. To image a spinal nerve, a liquid or gaseous contrast media must be injected into the patient—a procedure that chiropractors do not perform. Since chiropractic x-rays cannot really detect pinched nerves, the true purpose of these mammoth-size x-rays is to serve as a prop in the chiropractor’s “show-and-tell” sales pitch.2 The chiropractor shows the patient the full-spinal x-ray, pointing out any minuscule asymmetries—asymmetries which every human spine possesses. The chiropractor then claims that these so-called “subluxations” are “impinging upon nerves and causing disease in the area of the body supported by the nerves.” A series of “spinal adjustments” is then offered for sale. The point to remember here is that these “pinched nerves,” like the objects of religious belief, cannot be seen or detected in any way, and must be accepted through blind faith in the “revelator.” 2. Even if we pretend that displaced spinal vertebrae are “impinging the flow of nerve energy and causing disease throughout the body,” chiropractic spinal adjustments do nothing to relieve the “problem.” Why not? Because vertebrae which are “realigned” by a chiropractor return to their original position almost immediately. No permanent realignment is accomplished through spinal “adjustment.” The chiropractor fully recognizes this fact, and so convinces the patient that a long-term series of “adjustments” may be necessary to cure his heart trouble or his acne. Thousands of chiropractors use the income-boosting techniques taught in How to Create


25

Lifetime Patients, an audio-videotape course, designed by and for chiropractors, teaching the art of slick selling, personal persuasion, patient recruitment and income enhancement. Another salesmanship tutorial, Textbook of Office Procedure and Practice Building for the Chiropractic Professional, blatantly admits that it (the Textbook) “is designed to make you a ‘D.C.’—‘Doctor of Chronics’ rather than a Doctor of Acutes.” “You’ll make a lot more money,” boasts the author and seminar instructor, James W. Parker. Intended for use by chiropractors, the Textbook advises that “You might suggest only as many adjustments as the patient can pay for.” This popular, yet unconscionable volume also tells chiropractors what to say to patients after each series of spinal “adjustments.” Suggested “post-adjustment” comments include: • • • • • •

“Your eyes are brighter.” “I hope you’re feeling as good as you look.” “You’re getting a spring in your step.” “Did you know you’ll live longer as a result of these adjusments?” “Did you know you’ll have fewer colds, sore throats, etc., as a result of these adjustments?” “Did you know you’ll do better work during the time you are having these adjustments?”

Chiropractors abandon science in favor of personal charm and hand holding. The Textbook additionally recommends that chiropractors occasionally give surprise gifts to their patients and, above all, to “Lather Love Lavishly.” Perhaps the most disgusting advice in this entire volume, however, is that chiropractors should frighten their patients with the “Yet Disease.” “If the patient has a pain in his left shoulder,” says the Textbook, “ask, ‘Has the pain started in your right shoulder yet?’ Use it when you must instill a sufficient amount of fear to get the patient to take chiropractic.” Enough said!

[1481-MILL]

26

DAVID MILLS

3. The chiropractic “pinched-nerve” theory of disease was “discovered” by Daniel David Palmer, a nineteenth-century Iowa grocer and fish peddler. Palmer, who married six times, claimed that his hands were magnetic and so opened a “magnetic healing center” in Davenport, Iowa, home of the now “prestigious” Palmer College of Chiropractic. In September, 1895, Palmer “adjusted” the back of Harvey Lillard, who had been deaf for the previous 17 years. (See an above reference to this event in the chiropractic pamphlet When Will I Get Better?) According to Palmer, Lillard’s hearing was instantly restored after the adjustment. (Palmer apparently did not realize that the bones of hearing are completely self-contained within the head and have no connection whatever to spinal “nerve energy.”) Palmer then began preaching the gospel that all disease is caused by misaligned spinal vertebrae. Thus was born the “science” of chiropractic. While many of today’s true sciences have equally zany origins, the “science” of chiropractic differs from the rest in that its principles have not been revised or corrected since its comical debut. Most chiropractors today still believe in Palmer’s original theory that misaligned vertebrae may cause virtually any health problem—including problems, such as Harvey Lillard’s deafness, which are, in reality, wholly unrelated to the “flow of spinal nerve energy.” (In July, 1913, Palmer narrowly escaped death. Palmer’s school had sponsored a high-spirited parade through the streets of Davenport to celebrate the wonders of chiropractic. Shortly before the parade started, Palmer exchanged heated words with his son, B.J., who was then president of the Palmer School. B.J. became so enraged that he later lurched his car out of the parade route and attempted to run over Palmer, who was standing on the sidewalk watching the parade! The local prosecutor sought an attempted-murder indictment against B.J., but two grand juries refused to indict.)3 4. That an interruption of “nerve energy” causes disease is easily disproved. Paraplegics and quadriplegics, whose spinal nerves


27

have indeed suffered damage, show no greater tendency toward deafness, arthritis, skin problems, eye disorders, ulcers, allergies, or any of the other problems allegedly curable through chiropractic spinal manipulation. If an impingement of “nerve energy” truly causes all of these diverse problems, then why do these ailments fail to manifest themselves in individuals whose spinal nerves have been severed? 5. Chiropractors claim to be practitioners of the scientific method and members of the professional scientific community. Why, then, has no article ever been published in a peer-reviewed scientific or medical journal substantiating the chiropractic theory of disease? Publication and peer-review are the scientific method. 6. Since chiropractors are forbidden by law to prescribe medicines, they hawk all forms of potions and elixirs. Such tablets as “Spine Align” and “Nutra-Disc” are sold routinely in chiropractic offices throughout the United States. These tablets are packaged in bottles which are designed and labeled to mimic the appearance of doctor-prescribed medications prepared by a pharmacist. “Spine-Align” is made from the freeze-dried spinal column of a cow. Some of these eye-of-newt remedies appear to have been inspired by various episodes of The Beverly Hillbillies and the prescription pad of Dr. Granny Clampett. 7. Why do veterinarians never suggest “spinal adjustments” for animals? Surely an occasional dog or cat must suffer a “subluxation” now and then. Wouldn’t a good veterinarian want to manipulate the animal’s vertebrae back into place, and thereby cure all forms of animal disease? Or is it possible that spinal manipulation of animals would be fruitless since they are not vulnerable to psychological and financial manipulation? 8. Both medical science, and simple common sense, tell us that, if a person truly suffers a pinched nerve, the last thing we should do—the very last thing—is to forcibly manipulate the victim’s spinal column! Such a pinched nerve would call for immediate and complete immobilization of the victim (rather than forcible manipulation), and would likely require the most-delicate surgery to repair.

[1481-MILL]

28

DAVID MILLS

Individuals who genuinely suffer spinal-nerve impingement are relatively few in number, usually sustaining their injuries in serious traffic accidents or through other violent trauma. The chiropractor, however, diagnoses “pinched nerves” on an hourly basis, even among those patients who never suspect that their backbones are hosting “the silent killer.”4 Chiropractors—and sue-happy attorneys—shamelessly postulate that a “victim” may be seriously injured for years and know nothing about it. Both chiropractors and attorneys are kind enough to offer “free consultations” to further discuss the injury. (When was the last time a real doctor offered you a free consultation?) The fact that many states permit chiropractors to testify in court as “expert witnesses” is a disgrace to the justice system, and is frightening evidence of the power of the chiropractic lobby to influence scientifically-illiterate legislators. If I were to further quote all of the pseudoscientific nonsense published in chiropractic pamphlets and patient handouts, such quotations would have to be so extensive that I would risk crossing the legal line between “fair use” and violations of federal copyright law!

Speak No Evil If chiropractic “health care” is as unscientific as I claim, why does the average person never hear a critical word spoken publicly about chiropractic? Is there a sinister plot to “keep the lid on”? Is there an elaborate mass conspiracy of silence to protect all chiropractors? The unfortunate and surprising answer is, “Yes, there is.” By threatening to file nuisance lawsuits against any public critic of chiropractic, the profession has enjoyed remarkable success in shielding itself from public criticism. Instead of rebutting their critics by publishing articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals— as true scientists do—the well-oiled machine of professional chiropractic associations can, at will, generate ten-thousand bullyraging telegrams of protest.


29

When a television news broadcast or magazine promotes an upcoming story focusing, even tangentially, on chiropractic, the organizational machine is shifted into overdrive, flooding the network or magazine with tough-guy threats of legal reprisals, both individual and class-action. The message from the chiropractic profession is clear: You’d better portray us in a positive light, or we’ll force you to spend a lot of money defending yourself against our harassing lawsuits. Here again, the chiropractic profession closely resembles a group of religious Fundamentalists, bombarding television networks and magazines with morally indignant letters whenever an opposing viewpoint is expressed publicly. Let me provide one chilling, concrete example of how the legitimate scientific community has been frightened into silence by the attack dogs and legal henchmen unleashed by chiropractic organizations: As the 1990’s began, the American Chiropractic Association (ACA) was still refusing to endorse routine childhood immunizations! Such a breathtakingly foolish policy was perfectly consistent, however, with the tradition of the National Chiropractic Association, predecessor of the ACA, which fought bitterly against the polio vaccination program of the 1950’s. (Let us recall that, according to chiropractic theory, immunizations are unnecessary if our spines are properly aligned.) During the 1990’s, the chiropractic profession launched a massive public-relations campaign to lure children into chiropractic back offices. Even babies were actively sought as patients. Meanwhile the American Academy of Pediatrics—which represents M.D.’s—became very distraught over the prospect of chiropractors’ discouraging new parents from having their children immunized. Moreover, children were being exposed needlessly to excessive radiation doses generated by the chiropractors’ giant “glamor photos”—all in pursuit of false theories of disease. Other pediatricians were upset because young children are especially vulnerable

[1481-MILL]

30

DAVID MILLS

to permanent injury or paralysis if their spines are rapidly or forcibly manipulated, as is standard chiropractic procedure. But perhaps the gravest concern of the medical community was the chiropractors’ advertising themselves as “Primary Care Physicians”—“physicians” whose standard recommendation is that ill children (and adults) forgo conventional medical treatment in favor of “spinal realignment.” Some chiropractors were even prescribing spinal manipulation for such childhood illnesses as asthma and ear infections! The real danger was (and still is) that children who urgently need medical attention will instead be rushed to the nearest chiropractor for another “glamor photo” and cure-all spinal adjustment. The Executive Director of The Montreal Children’s Hospital has denounced the chiropractors’ child-recruitment campaign as “akin to abuse” and has advised all pediatric hospitals in Canada to publicly oppose chiropractic treatment of minors. In the United States, however, the American Academy of Pediatrics remains officially silent on the issue. Why? Because of “fear of legal reprisals,” says a spokesman for the Academy. “But behind closed doors we wring our hands about their practice-building campaign.” It appears that America has sadly reentered the Dark Ages: a tragic time when men and women of science could not freely speak their minds, fearing goon-like revenge from practitioners of superstition and witchcraft. Honestly, now. What would our opinions be of a physicist or chemist who published no evidence whatever to substantiate his highly-dubious theories, and who threatened to file utterly groundless lawsuits against any scientist who published contrary opinions? Such a physicist or chemist would be viewed by his colleagues as an embarrassment to the scientific community; his very sanity would likely be questioned; and he would certainly be


31

shunned professionally by any university or research institute. Similarly, the chiropractors’ opposition to public debate, and their childlike intolerance of any form of criticism, are not only unscientific, but anti-scientific, directly rebuking the free flow of ideas upon which the scientific method is based. Few, if any, of these threatened lawsuits are ever actually filed. And, to the best of my knowledge, no judge has ever permitted such an ultra-frivolous lawsuit to go to trial. Most judges do still respect and enforce the First Amendment. But winning a lawsuit is not the chiropractors’ real goal. Their goal is simply to intimidate their critics into silence, just as the Catholic Church sought to strong-arm Galileo into silence. Such intimidation is not merely evidence of intellectual bankruptcy, it is evidence of blatant hypocrisy, since the chiropractic profession is itself continually publishing literature which openly ridicules vaccinations, antibiotics, surgery, and other effective tools of modern medical science. “They can dish it out, but they can’t take it.”

Stiffer Backbones I believe that the chiropractic profession should be free to practice without any form of government intrusion or outside restriction— just as I believe that The Psychic Friends Network should be free to operate unimpeded. Chiropractic literature should of course be openly accessible to everyone, as should The Tales of Mother Goose. But in my opinion, the field of chiropractic more closely resembles a religion than a science. And its practitioners more closely mimic television evangelists and faith healers than men and women of science. America’s medical doctors need to voice their objections to chiropractic more forcefully, openly and courageously. America’s M.D.’s need their backbones stiffened, not through spinal adjustment, but through a motivational kick in the ass. Medical doctors are often viewed as pillars of the community; and their stated opinions carry much influence, particularly on issues of health care.

[1481-MILL]

32

DAVID MILLS

Yet America’s M.D.’s are cowering from this debate like a frightened litter of whimpering puppies. Galileo and Darwin must be rolling in their graves, for both men taught us that science demands, not only brains, but guts. Question: What are the principal functions of the spine? Answer: To support the head To support the ribs To support the chiropractor. —B.J. Palmer, Answers (1952)

Notes on Chapter 1 1. Anyone who has earned an M.D. or a Ph.D. is justifiably proud of his credentials and, when publishing his name, writes “John Smith, M.D.” or “John Smith, Ph.D.” But chiropractors— and television evangelists—usually try to obscure their true credentials by writing their names like this: “Dr. John Smith.” 2. To forestall patient anxiety about excessive x-ray exposure, many chiropractors have dropped the term “x-ray” from their vocabularies and now use the folksier term “taking pictures.” It sounds less threatening to hear that the “doctor” is going to take a few pictures than to hear that he is going to bombard you with a half dozen gargantuan x-rays. 3. During his undercover investigation of the chiropractic profession, Ralph Lee Smith learned that B.J. Palmer and his family invariably went to traditional medical doctors whenever they themselves became ill—despite the fact that B.J. was president for decades of the Palmer School, and despite his being the son of chiropractic’s “founder,” Daniel David Palmer. Most chiropractors, when facing a true illness, follow B.J.’s example, placing themselves and their families in the hands of qualified medical doctors, rather than chiropractic “physicians.” B.J. was also the founder of


33

Davenport radio station WOC, whose call letters stand for Wonders Of Chiropractic. 4. What Does a Chiropractor Do? uses this phrase as a scare tactic to denote vertebral “subluxations.”

[1481-MILL]

CHAPTER 2 Overcoming Self-Esteem and Psychotherapy Thirty years ago, when a person complained of depression or unhappiness, helpful friends or therapists might have offered the following counsel: “Don’t dwell on your own misfortune. Try instead to become creatively absorbed into outside interests and external activities. Stop obsessively contemplating your own navel. Develop rewarding interpersonal relationships. Get your mind off yourself. If you merely focus attention elsewhere, then your self-centered emotional problems will die of neglect.” Today, however, the same individual, suffering the same depression or unhappiness, would likely hear radically different— and quite contradictory—suggestion and guidance, such as this: “Stop worrying about other people. Try instead to build up your own sense of self-worth. Take pride in yourself! Work toward elevating your own self-respect and enhancing your self-image. Your feelings of unhappiness and depression will surely evaporate if you only esteem yourself more highly!” Clearly, something monumental has changed in popular advice given the forlorn. Instead of espousing, as we did previously, that mental health is realized through lucid interpretation and interaction with the external world, we now seem preoccupied with the wholly internal effort to elevate our own self-appraisal. Forget our former effort to objectively perceive the empirical universe; today we simply want to feel good about ourselves. It has become irrelevant whether an


35

individual’s critical reasoning accurately maps external reality. All that matters is his internal self-image. Because of this shift in popular emphasis—from external preoccupation to internal self-contemplation—we find our libraries and bookstores stacked with radically different self-help texts from those published a few decades ago. Each new volume peddles a “breakthrough technique” or “revolutionary method” for conquering man’s ever-present doubts about his “true” value. Best-selling books, such as I’m OK, You’re OK, and its many clones, have sought to instill within the doubtful individual a belief that, although he may not be perfect, he is at least okay—and can thus bestow upon himself a modest allotment of self-respect and happiness. Yet, despite the wide distribution of such popular texts, and despite our tireless efforts to build within ourselves and our children a sense of self-worth, it seems, today, that the average person is as confused as ever (perhaps more so!) about his so-called “self-value.” Our lofty sermons deifying self-esteem have produced few if any tangible results. In practical terms, the average person doesn’t know what to believe about himself nor how he is supposed to establish such a “positive self-image.” The entire concept of “personal worth” has become hopelessly ill-defined and philosophically empty. In this chapter, I shall specifically detail why our over-hyped promotion of “self-esteem” has done demonstrably more harm than good, and why the prudent individual will resist the arrogant and childish temptation to “esteem” himself. Put another way, we shall learn why an individual would enjoy increased emotional stability and deeper contentment, and why he would suffer far less anxiety and inhibition by completely abandoning his drive for self-esteem. Unfortunately, the entire discussion in psychological circles has now focused on how best to teach self-esteem, rather than on whether self-valuation is emotionally healthy. Our blind devotion to self-esteem has become a virtual religion, a religion in which the worshiper and the worshiped are the same individual! The nobility of self-esteem has become a sacred, unchallenged article of faith.

[0000-XXXX]

36

DAVID MILLS

And just as the non-Christian is perceived as immoral by the Fundamentalist believer, so too the proposal to abandon self-esteem must appear a dangerous and obscene heresy to those preaching the self-esteeming gospel. We tend to ascribe many of our social maladies—notably the drug problem—to a lack of self-esteem among teenagers. Criminals, we say, have little self-respect; otherwise they would not behave as they do. Religious institutions especially have proposed an inextricable link between morality and self-respect. A person without self-respect is thought to be a person without ethical standards. It is popularly believed that the pauper, the downtrodden, and the homeless individual put himself in his sorry condition through a lack of self-pride: “Pride goes before a fall.” We harbor no doubt that a fallen man, completely unaided, can pick himself up by the bootstraps, if he only regains his self-esteem. Dale Carnegie, the genius of human relations, observed over fifty years ago that each person craves a “feeling of importance,” and longs to be recognized, praised, and appreciated by his peers. Freud himself proposed that virtually all human behavior can be traced ultimately to two basic instincts: the sex drive, and the “desire to be great.” The contemporary psychotherapist, Nathaniel Branden—along with his mentor, the late philosopher, Ayn Rand— hammers home one point repeatedly: that “The Psychology of Self-Esteem” is indispensable to an individual’s intellectual growth and overall psychological well-being. Why, then, should we abandon self-esteem? Isn’t such an idea fundamentally flawed, if not downright immoral? Wouldn’t society soon wither and decay if such a twisted suggestion were adopted? How could a person conceivably enjoy his life without some measure of self-esteem?


37

*** Let’s begin with a precise definition of terms. When we say that an individual has self-esteem—or self-respect, self-love, self-admiration, or self-worth—we do not mean that he values himself without proposed justification. We do not mean, in other words, that his self-esteem is unearned or unconditional. No, people tend to view themselves positively for a reason, usually because they perceive, correctly or incorrectly, that they possess admirable personal traits (e.g., intelligence, creative talent, physical attractiveness) or because they have enjoyed outstanding personal achievement (e.g., graduated from college, married well, landed a prestigious job). Self-esteem, it appears, comes through perceived individual accomplishment or through supposed possession of desirable personal characteristics. A businessman may enjoy self-esteem because, from his viewpoint, he is professionally successful and treats his family well. A teenage girl boasts self-esteem because she earned straight A’s on her report card and made the varsity cheerleading squad. A politician may feel self-esteem because he won a lopsided victory in the last election and sponsored a popular congressional bill to help his constituents. There is virtually always a direct correlation between an individual’s evaluation of his traits or achievements and his appraisal of his self-value. Remember, Key Point #1: Self-esteem must, in some way, be earned.

*** Not only must an individual’s self-esteem be earned, it must be reinforced repeatedly and tirelessly if it is to survive within his psychological framework. As an illustration, think for a moment about your own personal achievements. Select three lifetime accomplishments of

[1481-MILL]

38

DAVID MILLS

which you are most proud. Take ample time; give this question careful reflection before continuing . . . Now, after recalling your three most celebrated successes, ask yourself this question: “How long did I esteem myself following each of these achievements?” Your probable answer: “Not very long.” Regardless of how magnificent our performance at any specific endeavor, our feelings of increased self-worth following such an accomplishment are invariably short-lived. No feat of bravery, no act of heroism, no display of superior intellectual acumen will bless the individual with permanent self-esteem. He must savor the moment, for soon his expanded ego will deflate and, once again, he will feel driven to prove himself worthy of life and happiness. A majority of people seem to believe that, if they could gloriously achieve X or Y in their lifetimes, then such a celebrated accomplishment would forever rid them of intermittent feelings of inadequacy. They might aspire to be Chief Executive Officer of their corporation. They might envision themselves discovering a cure for cancer. Or they might fantasize about marrying a highly desirable member of the opposite sex. But, whatever the objective, it is folly to believe that this “ultimate” triumph will provide more than a temporary, fleeting sensation of self-esteem. It is no surprise, for example, that many boxers, long retired, feel compelled to reenter the spotlight (e.g., Mohammad Ali, Joe Frazier, George Foreman, Sugar Ray Leonard). Financial compensation, however important, was not the primary motivation inspiring their return to the ring. These champions sought to resurrect within themselves that former feeling of self-pride, which came through defeating a weaker opponent and through being the focus of public adoration. Not only the champion boxer, but many of us find it disheartening, even depressing, when forced to retire from a job, the performance of which is integral to our self-esteem. Presidents Nixon, Ford, Carter, and Reagan all disclosed in their respective memoirs that even becoming President of the United States soon becomes a routine, often boring affair. All four Presidents wrote that, despite being at the pinnacle of power, they


39

sometimes lacked full confidence in their executive decisions and, as a result, suffered occasional feelings of insecurity and self-doubt. So even famous and powerful individuals become discontent quickly if future goals are not continually established, pursued, and realized. Accomplishing X or Y—even when X or Y literally means winning the U.S. Presidency—will provide only a temporary emotional glow. President Nixon, in fact, described his disillusionment when, on the night of his 1972 re-election landslide, he inexplicably felt no pleasure or emotional excitation of any kind. By 1972, Nixon had already been President for four years and no longer derived self-esteem merely through being Chief Executive. Famous individuals, whether they are politicians, movie stars, or athletes, do not permanently feel their fame in the way imagined by the factory worker or the housewife. Even the Queen of England would soon feel despondent if separated from relationships and challenging activities essential to her self-esteem. Likewise for us commoners. An individual must constantly strive for, and perpetually achieve, new goals if his ego intoxication is to continue. Remember, Key Point #2: Self-esteem must be earned repeatedly. It is never permanent.

*** If self-esteem is realized through the successful completion of a particular task or goal, and if additional achievement must be eternally forthcoming, then it follows logically that all of us mortal human beings live in constant peril of losing our self-esteem, for at any moment, we may fail to perform adequately our exalted task. Worse yet, we may neglect to maintain those character traits or the desired physical appearance which we have so thoroughly incorporated into our personal tabulation of self-worth. The football player, esteeming himself for athletic ability, feels humiliated and self-loathing after repeatedly fumbling the ball.

[1481-MILL]

40

DAVID MILLS

The college professor, priding himself for eloquence in public debate, feels disgraced when his opponent’s arguments are clearly superior to his own. The teenage boy, deriving self-esteem exclusively through his girlfriend’s adoration, suffers the tortures of the damned when rejected by his beloved. It appears that the only theoretical means by which an individual could enjoy consistent self-esteem would be for him to become incapable of failure. He would, in addition, have to live in an environment where disappointment is impossible. He must, in other words, transcend his mortal limitations and become a godlike being. He must be immune from innate human fallibility and possess virtual omniscience and omnipotence. He must reside in some kind of heaven, where no rejection or behavioral inadequacies can occur. Otherwise, his fragile self-esteem is vulnerable to human failure and weakness and to the terrestrial terrors impinging upon him from without. Albert Ellis, a brilliant and well-known cognitive-behavior therapist and author, has suggested that “self-esteem” is simply a manifestation of what he calls a “Jehovah Complex.” According to Ellis, a person may observe that he has performed a certain task well, or that he possesses some desirable character trait; and these self-perceptions may be quite realistic and accurate. But the “Jehovah Complex” rears its grandiose head when the individual follows up his flattering conclusions with an arrogant non sequitur or “magical leap” in his thinking. Instead of believing that he is simply a person whose performance excelled or whose traits are commendable, he will believe, quite pompously, that he is therefore a superior person. He will see no distinction whatever between himself and his behavior; they are one in the same. If his performance is good, then he becomes good. Since his achievement was superior, he considers himself a superior, godlike individual, far above the lowly slobs he defeated. He will, for a time, revel in self-esteem and feel much happier than if he concluded merely that his external behavior was superior. He derives far more pleasure by imagining that he, his very being, his essence, is superior.


41

Unfortunately for this proud individual, he faces an insoluble dilemma: his self-esteem cannot be sustained for long. The person who feels noble and godlike today for succeeding, will feel equally hellish and self-despising tomorrow for the slightest failure. His entire self-perceived “value” as a human being is determined by satisfying some arbitrary goal. And when he fails to reach his majestic goal—as he invariably will do from time to time—his life seems to him worthless. The successful individual concluded, not only that he performed well, but also that he was transformed thereby into a superior human being. Likewise, the individual failing to achieve his goal may conclude, not only that his performance was inadequate, but also that he himself is a failure as a human being. Instead of feeling limitedly disappointed that he failed at his task, he feels utterly devastated that he is an “inferior” person. Sooner or later, the self-esteeming individual will pay the price for making his self-worth contingent upon outstanding achievement. Metaphorically at least, the universe will serve justice upon the sin of pride. There circulates a curious theory that self-rating and self-respect encourage moral behavior—i.e., that unless a person condemns himself for immorality, he soon becomes decadent. Factually, however, a person’s self-respect, far from promoting ethical standards, simply predisposes the offending individual to deny the immorality of his acts: The preschooler he beat “learned a good lesson.” The cabdriver he murdered “deserved to die.” The coed he raped “enjoyed it.” The convenience store he robbed “didn’t need the money.” To preserve his own self-respect, even the most heinous criminal can quickly rationalize excuses for his deplorable conduct. A philosophy of self-esteem, therefore, does not at all guarantee moral behavior. On the contrary, self-rating encourages the individual to redefine morality in self-serving ways, to guarantee the survival of his self-respect. The opposite of self-esteem is not self-hatred. In actuality, self-esteem and self-hatred are twin incarnations of the same

[1481-MILL]

42

DAVID MILLS

underlying philosophy: that one must “appraise” himself in relation to his achievements. Self-esteem and self-hatred therefore are two sides of the same self-appraising coin. If you view yourself as exalted and lordly for your successes, then you will automatically view yourself as paltry and worthless when failing. It is a package deal. You cannot enjoy self-worship without, very soon, suffering self-damnation. The tacit logic upholding your self-esteem can just as easily document your abject worthlessness. The individual who lusts after self-esteem will forever ride an unstable emotional roller coaster, up and down, up and down. He may indeed soar quickly to great heights. But he will inevitably sink rapidly into the depths of despair and dejection, because it is a single philosophy—his philosophy of contingent self-rating—that produces both his positive and his negative self-image. Remember, Key Point #3: Self-esteem leads intermittently to self-damnation.

*** Even if we grant that a compulsion for self-esteem occasionally brings forth adverse side effects, doesn’t the average individual still derive much more benefit than harm through pursuing a positive self-image? Isn’t the small price worth paying? The short answer to this question is, no, the price usually is not worth paying. The expense we incur for esteeming ourselves is by no means limited to feelings of humiliation when failing. If that were the case—if the only unpleasant consequence of self-esteem were an occasional feeling of disgrace when failing—then one could legitimately argue that self-esteem often benefits individuals who are exceptionally successful, attractive, or talented. Artistic individuals, we say, are motivated by pride in their creative projects. If a person paints a breathtaking masterpiece or writes a poignant novel, then surely he will esteem himself; and it is this sought-for


43

feeling of glorification and achievement that seems to inspire many creative pursuits. To a limited extent, the drive for self-esteem probably does spur some individuals to productive and creative activity. This reality, in fact, seems to be a popular “selling point” for self-esteem. Instead of stimulating genius and creativity, however, the theology of self-esteem more often results in severe behavioral inhibition and debilitating anxiety. With his entire self-worth at stake, the average individual will desperately avoid all “dangerous” situations wherein his self-esteem is vulnerable to loss. Take, for example, the average-looking, average-intelligence single male, who feels romantically and sexually attracted to a woman of extraordinary beauty and brilliance. This gentleman may fantasize vividly about dating or marrying such a desirable woman, and his self-esteem would no doubt be temporarily elevated if his fantasies were realized. But this man’s self-rating philosophy— i.e., his belief that self-worth flows from success—virtually guarantees that he will never befriend the woman he considers most desirable. Why? Because his precious self-esteem would be destroyed if he were rejected openly by such an attractive, enticing female. He cannot “risk” the “danger.” He will play it safe, asking out a less attractive, less intelligent woman. That way, the likelihood of rejection will decline, and the threat to his self-esteem will diminish. This single male’s ego, therefore, inhibited, rather than abetted, his search for cultured female companionship. If he simply forgot the “danger” to his pride—which of course is completely in his head and represents no actual danger in the empirical world— then he could telephone the woman he truly desires and may indeed make her acquaintance. If she, nonetheless, rebuffs his advances, then he will naturally feel disappointed, but, because his entire value as a human being is not in jeopardy, he will not feel ashamed or humiliated. When a person views himself as “worthless” and feels humiliated, he is then inclined to view himself as incapable of correcting his poor

[1481-MILL]

44

DAVID MILLS

performances. He tends to give up, and to rationalize excuses for withdrawing from outside activities and interpersonal relationships. After all, he reasons, how could a worthless bum such as himself succeed at anything truly significant? On the other hand, if an individual views his current behavior, rather than himself, as deficient, then he clearly sees that, through more practice and effort, he may in the future rectify his previously deficient behavior. Pause to ask yourself this question: Does your long nose or your poor complexion really prevent you from asking out highly desirable members of the opposite sex? Or is it, rather, your fear of ego-deflation that deters you from asking? Women, especially, should give careful thought to similar questions because, in our silly society, it is considered much more “risky” for a woman to ask out a man than vice versa. Likewise, our self-esteem inhibits us from participating in any activity in which failure is deemed disgraceful. And because failure in virtually any endeavor is deemed disgraceful by the self-esteeming individual, he becomes distinctly afraid to try anything unfamiliar. He passively goes through life doing what he’s always done— rarely involving himself in enterprises and human relationships whose success is not guaranteed in advance. Far from inspiring productive behavior and social interaction, the concept of self-esteem is the most inhibiting philosophy imaginable. That “most men lead lives of quiet desperation” can perhaps be traced to our chilling fear of losing self-esteem and to our resulting tendency toward a mundane, routine existence. Remember, Key Point #4: Self-esteem usually promotes social and behavioral inhibition.

*** I don’t mean to suggest that a philosophy of self-esteem inevitably leads to passive behavior; for, clearly, such an assertion would be absurd. Even the most timid person occasionally throws caution


45

to the wind and accepts the challenge of new adventure. Sadly, however, this person’s actual enjoyment of his bold adventure will usually be minimal. His anxieties, moreover, will often be intense, for he still believes devoutly that his entire value as a human being depends upon success at this new activity or relationship. And with so much at stake, with so much riding on success, he cannot possibly enjoy the intrinsic pleasures of the moment. He lives in constant terror of “making a fool out of himself.” Returning to our previous illustration: The average-looking, average-intelligence bachelor may indeed build up enough courage to telephone the beautiful and brilliant debutante. But he will clutch the telephone nervously as he dials. His hands and forehead will sweat profusely as her number rings. And his heart will palpitate uncontrollably as she picks up the receiver. Regardless of how smoothly the conversation flows, he will derive little intrinsic pleasure from the experience, because he fears that, at any moment, he might say the wrong thing, and his self-esteem would surely die a tortured death. Perversely, an individual’s self-esteem-related anxiety usually hinders, rather than enhances, his progress toward his chosen goal— the goal which, ironically, he seeks to accomplish in order to merit self-esteem! So he thoroughly defeats himself by maintaining this silly ego-bolstering philosophy. His anxieties sabotage his objectives, because he concentrates principally on how he is doing, rather than on what he is doing. His drive for self-esteem can be described accurately as a built-in self-destruct mechanism. The impotent male, for example, often creates for himself the specific sexual dysfunction he seeks to avoid so desperately. Instead of focusing in bed on his female partner, and thereby becoming sexually aroused, he obsessively monitors his own body for signs of potency. He must demonstrate his “manliness.” He must prove himself “worthy.” He does not pleasurably concentrate on sexually exciting images; instead, he literally terrifies himself with exaggerated visions of sexual failure and the resulting insufferable humiliation. His drive for self-esteem therefore is an impediment, rather than an asset, in bed. If this individual stopped distracting

[1481-MILL]

46

DAVID MILLS

himself with meaningless self-value tabulations, he might find it considerably easier to focus attention on his girlfriend and to thereby become satisfyingly horny. But because of his ego-centered fixation, his thoughts will converge only on himself and his holy self-esteem. The inexperienced public speaker also suffers self-esteem-related anxieties. He imagines himself becoming tongue-tied or failing to recall his memorized text. He sees ghastly images of the audience’ laughing at him and ridiculing his dismal performance. He foresees his face becoming red and his voice quivering. He concentrates therefore, not on the content of his speech, but on the need to preserve his self-esteem by avoiding such embarrassments. He suffers anxiety because his self-esteem is in danger of being lost. And this same disquieting anxiety will render almost impossible a smooth, professional delivery of his speech. Remember, Key Point #5: A compulsive drive for self-esteem leads to frequent anxiety. As an immediate corollary, we deduce Key Point #6: Self-esteem-related anxiety is an obstacle to achieving those goals essential to our self-esteem!

*** We now find ourselves boxed-in completely. If our self-worth depends upon external achievement, then naturally we believe that we must achieve. But if we must achieve, then our anxiety becomes so distressing and burdensome that we often withdraw from the activities and relationships that, potentially, we might enjoy the most. We withdraw in dreadful fear of an ego-crushing failure or rejection. If, however, we do not withdraw, then our self-esteem-related anxiety often makes our behavior inept and our social relations inelegant; and when we perceive these behaviors and relationships to be faltering, we bestow upon ourselves, not


47

self-esteem, but self-damnation. The self-damnation, in turn, makes us feel unworthy and incapable of future success. And since we are “therefore” incapable of ever achieving our chosen goal, we lose hope and withdraw once again from a potentially enjoyable part of living. Quite a pickle indeed! But can we somehow escape our boxed-in predicament? Is there an alternative to this self-defeating philosophy? Yes! We can help ourselves immeasurably toward greater happiness and emotional stability. We can overcome rapidly our needless anxieties, while profoundly enriching our enjoyment of life. We can conquer our social and behavioral inhibitions with surprisingly meager effort. Yes, we can indeed annihilate our self-sabotaging philosophy, but only if we are willing to pay the price. That is the all-important point, so I’m going to say it twice. We definitely can prevail over anxiety and inhibition, but only if we are willing to make a sacrifice: surrendering our compulsive drive for self-esteem. There is no other way to help ourselves in this regard. We are easily misled, however. We simplemindedly think that we can get something for nothing—that somewhere there is a Garden of Eden, where bountiful fruit may be harvested without corresponding work or sacrifice. Through the physical sciences, we learn that energy cannot be created out of nothing. In economic theory, we know that “there is no free lunch.” And it is equally naive to propose that genuine emotional or psychological benefit may be realized without some expenditure of work or sacrifice. In my opinion, this is why the “positive self-image” manuals usually fail to help the reader. These books claim to remedy self-condemnation without extracting the corresponding sacrifice of self-esteem. The reader, in other words, is promised something for nothing. Momentarily, an individual enjoys an exhilarating euphoria when esteeming himself, so he is understandably reluctant to sacrifice this intoxicating, positive self-image. On the other hand, he

[1481-MILL]

48

DAVID MILLS

is quite eager to rid himself of inhibition, anxiety, and feelings of self-deprecation when they occur. He must therefore make a choice, but not a choice between self-esteem and self-condemnation, for both attitudes are inseparable manifestations of the same self-rating philosophy. His choice, rather, is whether he will (or will not) rate himself at all, positively or negatively. He must choose between having a self-image and having no self-image. Instead of labeling himself as honorable or as foolish, he can more accurately and specifically rate the efficiency or inefficiency of his external actions, a subtle, yet critical difference in perception. Instead of speculating emptily that he is intrinsically noble or that he is intrinsically worthless, he can more scientifically view his outside behavior as advantageous or as disadvantageous to his chosen goals. He can, in other words, refuse to entertain any self-image. He can restrict himself to observing and evaluating the empirical universe, of which his behavior is a part—and he can forget about inventing and perpetuating any kind of self-image, which exists only as an egocentric vapor in his head. There is no law of science or psychology that requires an individual to habitually calculate his “self-value.” He does not have to continually monitor his “worthiness.” He can simply refuse to go along with the anxious, inhibited, self-appraising crowd. Revisiting our illustration of the average-looking, average-intelligence male attracted to the beautiful and brilliant female: So long as he abstains from consciously rating himself—or from being, in other words, self-conscious—then he can pursue the relationship even though success is far from guaranteed. If he is rejected, then his “ego” suffers no agony; though his romantic and sexual desires will of course be frustrated. If, on the contrary, he does consciously rate himself as a human being—i.e., if he is, in fact, self-conscious—then a rejection will be viewed as painful humiliation and as incontrovertible evidence of his essential worthlessness. So, remember, Key Point #7: To overcome self-esteem-related anxiety and inhibition, recognize that your choice is not between


49

self-esteem and self-condemnation. Your choice, rather, is between establishing an overall self-image and establishing no self-image. View your external actions and traits as desirable or undesirable, but abstain from esteeming or damning yourself as a whole.

*** In practice, the average person appears to spend only a scant few moments each day consciously tabulating his “self-value” (though these brief periods of self-appraisal are quite sufficient to establish and reinforce an overall psychological inclination toward self-rating.) He spends most of his hours, however, observing his external environment and trying to do something interesting or productive within that environment. If, then, he already spends most of his time not contemplating his self-worth, why can he not, through resolution and industry, eliminate virtually all of his self-image? The answer, of course, is that he can eliminate his self-image, once he recognizes that such an absence of self-image is possible and is, in fact, preferable to his frequent anxiety and inhibition. Other members of the Animal Kingdom do not seem to ruminate much over their “self-value.” One rarely sees a self-esteeming alligator or a self-despising kangaroo. Animals, other than man, seem completely content as egoless creatures, simply observing the outside world. They seem entirely free from the anxieties and hang-ups suffered so often by their self-centered human cousins. It may be argued convincingly that other animals are intellectually inferior to man and thus possess no capacity for self-esteem. Perhaps so, but the “dumb” animals also possess no capacity for astrology, for superstition, nor for bigotry. Neither do the “inferior” animals devote themselves fanatically to a crackpot religion. So it is amply apparent that the superior human intellect often invents and adheres to unhealthy philosophical systems. It is just possible that the philosophy of self-esteem fits neatly and properly into that category.

[1481-MILL]

CHAPTER 3 Cesspool of Pseudoscience: Your Local Police All pseudosciences (or false sciences) share at least five common elements: 1. All pseudosciences believe that an individual’s internal emotional state or feelings point to, or prove, some kind of external, objective reality. 2. All pseudosciences bypass traditional methods of scientific confirmation and rely instead on the subjective, highly dubious, and unverifiable testimony of “true believers” and “experts.” 3. All pseudosciences attempt to affirm or rebut specific theories by “looking into the eyes” of the witnesses and by observing their “demeanor.” 4. All pseudosciences quickly resort to needlessly complicated or meaningless jargon as a substitute for intellectual substance. 5. All pseudosciences ultimately rely on gimmickry and outright fraud to “prove” their theories valid. If these five characteristics are hallmarks of a pseudoscience, then the majority of police departments across the United States clearly qualify as cesspools of pseudoscientific malpractice. Although most citizens do not usually think of their local police as an organization of professional scientists, police departments throughout the nation have, for a decade, waged a public-relations campaign


51

to emphasize how dazzlingly scientific are their investigative techniques. Police want you to think of them as champions of the scientific method, both because science lends prestige and credibility to their investigative efforts, and because juries are more likely to convict suspects fingered by “experts” from the police crime lab. Police departments are therefore striving mightily to establish the term “Police Science” as a common phrase in the English language. But the term “Police Science” is, in reality, an oxymoron: a self-contained and flagrant contradiction in terms. Police investigators are no more scientific in their pursuit of criminal suspects than are astrologers in their pursuit of futuristic visions. Moreover, “Police Science” poses a grave threat to our civil liberties because the freedom of innocent people is imperiled by this pompous and pretentious charade. Why do I label the police as practitioners of pseudoscience?

Lie Detectors Twenty years ago, I published a book titled Holy Hypnosis in which I detailed fifteen methods used by various religions to brainwash (or hypnotize) suggestible individuals into joining the creed and believing religious doctrines. The number one method of Holy Hypnosis is to convince the potential convert that his emotions represent more than just feelings in his gut: His emotions are profound evidence of the imminent presence and operation of supernatural Powers. Protestant Fundamentalists, for example, are taught that a holy ghost “dwells in their hearts.” If a Fundamentalist sins, his feelings of guilt do not result solely from his belief that he has displeased God. No. His guilt results from the Holy Ghost’s “convicting him of his sins and motivating him to repent.” If a Fundamentalist feels peaceful or happy at other times, his feelings are not merely the result of his belief that God is pleased with him or that he is going to Heaven. Heavens no! His serene feelings are the Holy

[0000-XXXX]

52

DAVID MILLS

Ghost’s “comforting the hearts of God’s children with an inner witness.” So regardless of whether the religious adherent experiences pleasant or anxiety-plagued emotions, these emotions are viewed as evidence that the Holy Ghost really does exist and that the religion itself has thereby been proven valid. In actuality, emotions, whether soothing or upsetting, prove only that individuals do hold specific beliefs. Generally speaking, the more strongly a belief is held, the more intense will be the emotional response. An individual’s emotions do not prove, however, that the beliefs themselves are correct. To therefore assert an inextricable link between your transitory, internal feelings and external, objective reality is to embrace mysticism and pseudoscience of the worst sort. We may contemplate our own navels until doomsday; but in doing so, we engage only in self-absorption and self-delusion, rather than scientific inquiry. In stark contrast to the scientific method, your local police believe that there is a mystical link between outside reality and a person’s inner gut feelings. Police departments routinely employ so-called “lie detector” tests in their effort to prosecute and jail criminal suspects. Although most states wisely prohibit the introduction of “lie-detector” results into criminal trials, most prosecutors rely heavily on these tests in deciding whom to indict. And because most indicted suspects are found guilty (rightly or wrongly), the “lie detector” is probably the single most important determinant of who goes to prison and who avoids trial altogether. Moreover, unlike in criminal proceedings, judges in civil lawsuits frequently admit polygraph “evidence” into court. The jury, basing its verdict upon this “proof,” may then impose millions of dollars in penalties on a completely blameless company or individual. The question, therefore, of whether “lie detectors” are reliable and scientific is a question of extraordinary consequence. Whoever originally coined the term “lie detector” was, undeniably, a public-relations genius; for it is impossible to speak or write the term “lie detector” without simultaneously attesting the reliability of the device. When you call it a “lie detector,” you


53

strongly imply that it does detect lies. But even the most ardent defenders of “lie detectors” have, in recent years, abandoned the term in favor of calling it a “polygraph,” which, they hope, sounds more sophisticated and scientific, and less subject to ridicule from the scientific community. In my opinion, the most accurate name for the device would be “nervousness detector” because, at best, nervousness is all the machine detects. (I shall hereafter refer to “lie detectors” or “polygraphs” as nervousness detectors, although many psychologists argue that the device doesn’t even detect nervousness reliably.) The theory under which police operate is that suspects who lie under interrogation are nervous, and that this nervousness is evidence of their lying. But the obvious fallacy, here, is the presumption that the only reason for a person to be nervous is that he or she is lying. Police misuse of nervousness detectors has a sorry and disturbing history. Prior to the advent of DNA analysis (which we shall discuss later), police either believed or scoffed at a rape victim’s allegations based upon how she performed on their nervousness detector. The traumatized victim was typically wired up to the machine and asked questions such as this: “Did the alleged assailant place his hand on your breast?” “Did the alleged assailant violently tear your skirt and remove your panties?” “Did the alleged assailant have an erection?” “Did the alleged assailant forcefully insert his penis into your vagina?” “Did the alleged assailant threaten to slit your throat if you refused to cooperate?” It is truly stating the obvious that these questions would evoke an intense emotional reaction in any woman who had recently suffered the horrors of molestation, because such questions would remind her all-too-vividly of the crime perpetrated against her. It is likewise fair to say that even a woman who had not been raped would be emotionally traumatized by such probing and intimate questions leveled at her by a stranger, who was almost invariably a man. But police didn’t see things that way. If the rape victim became emotionally agitated during the inquisition—as revealed by

[1481-MILL]

54

DAVID MILLS

the nervousness-detecting machine—then she was probably lying. She was inventing the rape story to attract sympathetic attention to herself, or to frame someone she disliked, such as an ex-boyfriend. When answering police questions, she displayed signs of anxiety “because her conscience was bothering her.” And her conscience was bothering her “because she was lying.” Police will howl in protest that, today, they have changed their methods. Today they use “control questions” and a “soothing atmosphere” to “guarantee” that only false answers evoke nervousness in victims or suspects. Let’s say, for example, that I’m arrested on suspicion of robbing a local bank. Police haul me to the station and set up a nervousness detector in a “soothing atmosphere” (sic). I could of course refuse to take the test, citing my Fifth Amendment rights. But police—and the public at large—would conclude immediately that I must be guilty of the crime. Why else would I refuse the test? So I voluntarily submit to the nervousness detector and am asked a series of so-called control questions: “Is my name David Mills?” “Was George Washington the first President?” “Am I an American citizen?” “Are my eyes brown?” These control questions are supposedly asked to check my physiological response to telling the truth. I am then instructed by the examiner to falsely answer a control question. For example, I might answer “no” when asked whether my name is David Mills. The examiner then checks my physiological reaction to this known lie and establishes my “base” or “set point” on the nervousness detector. Now, the examiner begins the official test. I may be asked whether I was in the vicinity of the bank on the day it was robbed. I may be asked whether I know the whereabouts of the stolen money, or whether I was in fact the robber himself. Sandwiched between these relevant questions will be other control questions, such as “Is the bank located on 4th Avenue?” or “Are there windows in the bank?” According to police theory, these control questions will help me relax, so that any marked alteration thereafter in my physiological reaction must indicate deception.


55

Such control questions might indeed effectively serve the intended purpose if the person under examination were so utterly stupid as to be unable to differentiate a control question from a relevant question. The average person, however, is clearly able to distinguish a control question from a relevant question and therefore suffers apprehension and anxiety in direct proportion to the relevance of the question. So, while I may not feel threatened by a question regarding my eye color, and suffer no anxiety at that moment, I probably will feel seriously threatened—with a trial and imprisonment—when questioned about my alleged participation in a bank robbery. The more relevant the question is to the charges against me, the more anxiety I feel when hearing that same question, whether I’m guilty or not. So the entire theory behind the use of “control questions” presupposes that the individual under examination is both highly unintelligent and highly insensitive to his own emotions. A psychological phenomenon called “cascading emotion” tends to overtake many individuals hooked to a nervousness detector. When people are asked directly whether they committed a crime, they virtually always experience at least mild anxiety. People who are at all introspective or sensitive to their own emotions will of course notice that they are anxious. Since they realize moreover that their physiological reactions are being closely monitored, they fear that their anxiety is indicating deception to the examiner. This fear that they are failing the test further heightens their anxiety, which, in turn, leads to greater fear and greater anxiety. An individual’s emotions may, in this manner, cascade out of control until the needles on the nervousness detector are literally flying off the paper. Some people have literally suffered full-blown panic attacks while truthfully answering questions posed by polygraph examiners. Every human being is different, with a unique psychology and a singular emotional constitution. Every person reacts differently to stressful circumstance; and any police interrogation would, in my view, have to be regarded as intensely stressful. Even if, theoretically, a

[1481-MILL]

56

DAVID MILLS

nervousness-detecting machine could be finely tuned to reveal the truth or falsity of one person’s testimony, the machine would then be ill-adjusted to fairly evaluate a different individual, whose emotional sensitivities may be wholly dissimilar. Even the noted FBI polygraph expert Drew Richardson was forced to confess on this point that “The diagnostic value of this type of testing is no more than that of astrology or tea leaf reading.” Yet police and government agencies continue to give tens-of-thousands of nervousness-detecting tests a year. Why? One reason is that nervousness detectors provide a ready-made excuse for lazy government investigators to sit idly on their butts. Take the case of Aldrich Ames. Ames was a 52-year-old, 31-year veteran of the CIA, having access to secret intelligence data critical to US security. Ames had for years been a traitor, selling CIA secrets to foreign powers for over two-million dollars in payoffs. Ames had even sold the names and addresses of US covert agents working abroad, many of whom were executed as a direct result. The money that Ames “earned” betraying his country was used to fund his ultra-lavish lifestyle—a lifestyle about which Ames publicly boasted. All of Ames’s family, friends and neighbors knew that he was somehow earning a literal fortune to support his extravagance. Meanwhile, back at the CIA, Ames had submitted year after year to all routine nervousness-detecting tests required of CIA employees. Each time, Ames passed the test without arousing suspicion that he was a traitor. Even a cursory examination of Ames’s finances or possessions would have instantly revealed that his meager government salary could not support his opulent living. But why should the government conduct a real-world investigation when it’s so much easier to use a nervousness detector instead? After being tipped off, the FBI finally arrested Ames in 1994, ten years after he had first masked his crimes using bogus “lie-detector” results. Said Ames from behind prison bars, “You have to realize that the government swears by these lie detectors. First, they swear that they don’t swear by them; then they swear by them. I always found that if I got a good night’s sleep before the test and just relaxed, I could pass without any problem.”


57

So nervousness detectors not only make innocent people look guilty, they frequently make guilty people look innocent. In a 1998 case argued before the US Supreme Court (United States versus Scheffer), government lawyers stated that “Polygraph evidence is inherently unreliable as evidence in a trial. There is no objectively verifiable method of determining the accuracy of a polygraph examination.” Others argued in court that if an individual “presses his toes firmly against the bottom of his shoe, the lie detector can be fooled.” That’s right folks! Just press your toes firmly against the bottom of your shoe and lie away. The nervousness detector, in all its scientific glory, will be dumbfounded. It is open to debate as to which theory is more rattlebrained: (a) the claim that toes bewilder “lie detectors,” or (b) the claim that “lie detectors” work in the first place. Let’s pause for a moment, and think carefully about the statement made by US government attorneys before the Supreme Court: “There is no objectively verifiable method of determining the accuracy of a polygraph examination.” In point of fact, there is a verifiable method of determining the accuracy of a polygraph examination—a method which I myself desperately sought to pursue in 1995. I had been extremely skeptical for some years about the scientific basis of these tests; so I attempted to conduct my own experiment by undergoing several polygraph examinations myself. I sent the following letter to fourteen different businesses which advertised themselves in the Yellow Pages or on the Internet as “Polygraph Examiners”: “Dear Sir: “I understand that you conduct polygraph examinations for hire. At your convenience, I wish to schedule such an appointment. I am researching the scientific validity of the polygraph device and want to undergo the examination myself. My intention is to incorporate your test results into an anonymous statistical analysis, along with results submitted by

[1481-MILL]

58

DAVID MILLS other polygraph examiners. I wish your examiner to report whether, during my examination, I truthfully answer each of the following 25 questions: 1. Did your father serve in World War II? 2. Was your first car a Volkswagen? 3. Do you live in a brick house? 4. Is your middle name Allen? 5. Do you have two brothers? 6. Did you wear braces on your teeth as a teenager? 7. Is your shoe size 10? 8. Have you ever broken a bone in your body? 9. Did your mother attend high school with Soupy Sales? 10. Did you vote for Walter Mondale in 1984? 11. Do you frequently watch Zorro on the Disney Channel? 12. Are both of your wife’s parents deceased? 13. Is your second cousin Gene Cernan? 14. Did you ever shake hands with Princess Diana? 15. Have you ever tasted coleslaw? 16. Is your daughter’s hair brown? 17. Do you live on a one-way street? 18. Have you visited the State of Michigan? 19. Were you married in Poland? 20. Do you currently own a Japanese car? 21. Does your mother-in-law live on Staten Island? 22. Are you a graduate of Ohio University? 23. Have you ever smoked a pipe? 24. Do you have diabetes? 25. Did you ever ride a motorcycle?”

Because of the ubiquitous sloth, discourtesy, and inefficiency of the American business community, I fully expected that some of my written appeals to the polygraphers would go unanswered. That is why I sent out fourteen letters when my actual intention was to undergo only four or five examinations. Even I was sur-


59

prised, however, when none of the fourteen polygraph consultants agreed to examine me. Only one of the fourteen bothered to contact me at all, writing that “We prefer to deal with group contracts rather than individuals.” While I hesitate to play “mind reader,” I think it’s fairly clear that the primary reason that the polygraph examiners refused my money was that I would obviously know damn well whether I was lying or telling the truth in answer to my own self-written questions. The person actually being tested, therefore, would not be me, but the polygraph examiner and the polygraph device itself. Apparently, none of these fourteen businesses had enough confidence in their nervousness-detecting gizmo to accept my money and to be held accountable—even anonymously!—for the accuracy of their tests. Although I have, to this day, never managed to take a polygraph examination, I recently engaged in a lengthy conversation about “lie detectors” with a retired police detective. Although this gentleman never personally administered these tests, he stated that he frequently ordered them done as part of his official investigations. (I might add that this retired detective was, by all accounts, a public servant of impeccable integrity and courage. He is likewise a man of extraordinary talents, who can singlehandedly build an elegant home or paint a portrait as realistic as a photograph.) So I was naturally quite interested to learn of his professional experiences with nervousness detectors. Like the CIA, he absolutely swore by them. He was so enthusiastic in his praise of the polygraph that I asked him the following question: “In all of your decades of service on the police force, did you ever know of a single instance in which a polygraph indicated that someone was lying when, you later determined, he was actually telling the truth?” His immediate response was “no.” In other words, he devoutly believed that the nervousness detector never falsely implicates an innocent person. This detective, in my opinion, accurately reflects the generally-held belief among police departments that the nervousness detector is practically infallible. As

[1481-MILL]

60

DAVID MILLS

Aldrich Ames said, “You have to realize that the government swears by these lie detectors. First, they swear that they don’t swear by them; then they swear by them.” This universal belief among law enforcement officials—that nervousness detectors are virtually infallible—is itself good evidence that the tests are highly suspect, to say the least. All legitimately scientific tests will, from time to time, yield false results. And any member of the scientific community who publicly announced that he had devised an infallible test (of any kind) would be viewed as a fool by his professional colleagues. In the real world of science, false results are to be expected, as physicians who read PAP smears and mammograms will openly and honestly admit. Devout beliefs in infallibility are therefore articles of religious faith and evidence of pseudoscientific crackpotism. No scientific test is infallible; and no “infallible” test is scientific. And nervousness detectors are neither infallible nor scientific. Just as Creation “Science” preserves the infallibility of its doctrines by ignoring or rationalizing any contrary evidence, defenders of nervousness detectors preserve the infallibility of the polygraph by concocting twisted excuses for test results which are incompatible with police theories of the case. If, for example, someone who doesn’t like you tells police that you are a child molester, you could be hooked up to the nervousness detector at police headquarters. If you pass the test, police do not thereafter concede your innocence and apologize. Never! The reason that you passed the test was that you have been “calcified,” by which police mean that you have been hardened and desensitized to the horrible nature of your actions by your frequent repetition of the crime. You therefore have no conscience left upon which the “lie detector” may act. So if you fail the test, you are a child molester. If you pass the test, you are a serial child molester. Police will occasionally concede that a person may fail the polygraph even though he is truthfully denying the charges against him. But, again, police do not admit that their device is mistaken. The reason that their “lie detector” implicated the wrong person was that, even though the suspect is innocent of the specific charges


61

currently against him, the suspect must be guilty—because the “lie detector” said so—of similar past criminal acts, which are haunting his guilty conscience. In other words, if police discover incontrovertibly that you were 1000 miles away when the local bank was robbed, your having failed their nervousness detector means that you must be guilty of other bank robberies instead. As with all religions and pseudosciences, anything which disagrees with the official dogma is explained away with tortured logic and absurd rationalization. According to Doug Williams, “the polygraph is a sick joke.” Doug Williams is a former Detective Sergeant with the Oklahoma City Police Department. Williams is also a renowned polygraph examiner, who administered over 6000 tests before decrying his chosen profession as a “total hoax.” Williams writes that “The polygraph is not a lie detector. Don’t make the mistake of thinking that, just because you are telling the truth, you will pass the polygraph test.” Williams appeared on CBS’s 60 Minutes to document on camera his critical assessment of the polygraph. He hired three polygraphers to question suspects about a crime that never actually occurred. All three polygraph examiners confidently labeled these innocent people as “liars.” Williams himself then took the test under disguise and lied about literally everything, including his own name. The polygrapher then told Williams that he (Williams) was “the most honest person I ever tested.” So let’s burn this honest man’s words into our memories: “The polygraph is a sick joke.” In many states, there are no conditions or educational requirements of any kind to become a polygraph “expert.” Tomorrow, I could mail-order a polygraph device, print business cards, and advertise myself as “David Mills, Polygraph Expert and Consultant.” I may then be hired by your boss to sit in judgment of you, determining whether you get a job promotion because of your honesty, or are fired because you “deceptively” answered my questions about stealing company assets. Many businesses lazily and

[1481-MILL]

62

DAVID MILLS

foolishly hire such “experts” to assess the truthfulness of resumes submitted by prospective employees. Ironically, most of these resumes could be evaluated more economically and far more accurately by making a few quick telephone calls to the academic institutions and former employers boasted by the applicant. But it is easier, and carries more mystique, to farm the investigation out to “men of science” and their nervousness detectors. It would be a wonderful thing—perhaps—if science actually could devise a machine capable of discerning truth from deception. The guilty could be immediately fingered and the innocent swiftly exonerated. But this fanciful dream, like so many others peddled by the charlatans of pseudoscience, must be recognized as a futuristic vision, rather than swallowed naively as current reality. 1

The Mantra of Pseudoscience: “Observe their demeanor. Look into their eyes.” Let’s imagine ourselves at a science conference. The topic being debated is whether the universe contains enough matter to produce the gravitational attraction necessary to one day stop the universe from expanding. For six uninterrupted hours we listen attentively to the first group of astronomers. They present their painstakingly-gathered data, which, in their view, demonstrate why the universe will expand forever. After a short break for lunch, we listen for six additional hours to a second group of astronomers. They argue why, from their perspective, the scientific evidence points to the opposite conclusion—that the universe will eventually stop expanding and collapse upon itself. Following these twelve hours of highly detailed evidentiary presentations, a news reporter asks several scientists in the audience what conclusions they had drawn from the day’s lectures, and why they agreed or disagreed with each speaker. One scientist replies, “I agree with the astronomers who believe that the universe will expand forever. I carefully observed their


63

demeanor as they were speaking, and they seemed to be calm and confident. None of them perspired or looked especially nervous.” A second audience member states, “I find myself in agreement with the opposing camp. I looked closely into their eyes as they were presenting their evidence, and I didn’t detect any sign of deception.” A third scientist concurs, saying that “this afternoon’s speakers were better dressed than those from this morning’s session, and they didn’t shuffle their feet or twitch their fingers as much during the lecture.” If an audience of scientists truly judged evidence on the basis of the speakers’ physical appearance or personal mannerisms, we would consider such an evaluation to be hopelessly misguided. We might legitimately ask what the hell an astronomer’s physical appearance has to do with the validity of the evidence he is presenting? We would be offended by the suggestion that a scientific discovery should be judged by the price of the speaker’s suit, or by whether his eyes looked shifty or virtuous during his lecture. If nervous hands and shuffling feet disqualified a scientific theory, we would condemn this presumption as pure idiocy. Yet in virtually every courtroom in the United States, judges instruct juries to “evaluate the credibility of witnesses by observing their demeanor.” This jury instruction has been universally adopted as standard courtroom procedure; and juries do in fact render their verdicts based largely upon their assessment of the defendant’s appearance and demeanor on the witness stand. But evaluating court testimony on the basis of personal mannerisms or physical appearance is no less asinine than evaluating scientific evidence by the kindly expression on the biologist’s face. To instruct a jury to “judge a witness by demeanor” is to advocate that a witness be judged by what he looks like. If he looks like he’s telling the truth, you should believe him. If he looks like he’s lying, you should reject his testimony. What horse shit! To judge a person’s veracity by physical appearance and personal idiosyncrasies is the ultimate in bigotry, prejudice and ignorance. This jury instruc-

[1481-MILL]

64

DAVID MILLS

tion is worse than being merely pseudoscientific. It is, for the following reasons, absolutely immoral: 1. There is no scientific evidence that handsome men or beautiful women are more honest than the rest of us. Nor is there any evidence that smart people are more virtuous than the less educated. Nor are socially cultured people more trustworthy than the average blue-collar worker. Yet virtually every psychological study on the subject demonstrates conclusively that juries are indeed more likely to believe the testimony of attractive, articulate, well-mannered witnesses than they are to believe those who are homely, illiterate and socially unpolished. This unfair prejudice is itself a travesty of justice, without the judge foolishly encouraging this type of bigotry by instructing the jury to focus on the witness’s appearance and demeanor. 2. Your degree of comportment on the witness stand has literally nothing to do with the credibility of your testimony. To be forced to testify in court is to become an unwilling public speaker. And public speaking always tops the list of activities most feared by the average individual. Now, you may be a wonderful public orator, smooth and composed. Or, more likely, you may be a wholly inexperienced speaker, stuttering and stammering while soaked in nervous sweat. But your integrity should not be evaluated by how slick-talking you are. The biggest liars in the world are also the slickest speakers, as the President and Congress demonstrate daily. There is in fact a direct correlation between a politician’s skills as a liar and the degree of his electoral success. The more charming and confident his demeanor, the more likely voters are to believe his absurd and irresponsible promises. To rely even slightly on demeanor is to surrender oneself to being hoodwinked—either by swallowing big lies, or by arrogantly scoffing at honest truth because it was clumsily presented. 3. Prosecuting attorneys have rehearsed and repeated their identical courtroom tactics and sermons hundreds of times. They have it down pat. They are relaxed. The defendant, by contrast, is al-


65

most always speaking in public for the first time in his life. He is under extraordinary pressure; and he is understandably nervous. Is it really fair to look askance at the defendant’s testimony simply because his demeanor was less relaxed than the prosecutor asking the questions? Many prosecutors boast in having never lost a case in court. But their pristine record is usually achieved through deliberately selecting defendants for trial who are uneducated and inarticulate. These disadvantaged defendants are typically unable to discern, and to rebut on the fly, errors of fact and logic often embedded within the prosecution’s questions. Because of their unfair advantage, most prosecutors harbor a wildly inflated appraisal of their own polemic skills, which are usually mediocre at best. 4. It is said that “the eyes are the windows to the soul.” But despite cliches and popular mythology, you cannot judge a person’s credibility by looking into his eyes any more than you can determine his truthfulness by looking into his nostrils or up his asshole. Whether a person’s eyes “look honest” is almost entirely genetic in nature. If a witness’s eyes shift around nervously as he is speaking, and if he perspires and twiddles his thumbs anxiously, then he could probably benefit from a Dale Carnegie course in public speaking. But to judge the merits of his testimony by these trivial quirks of demeanor is, again, a reflection of unadulterated ignorance. I know several people—and you probably do also—who can look directly into your eyes and cooly fabricate the most elaborate and outlandish lies imaginable. By contrast, I also have friends who, despite their absolute sincerity, twitch and shake while speaking like a man being electrocuted. We must descend from our pompous ivory towers, and show a little understanding of individuals whose diplomatic skills and speaking abilities are less refined than our own. Ignore any judge who instructs you to gauge a man’s character by observing his demeanor. 5. If I should ever be brought to trial for a crime I didn’t commit, I suspect that my demeanor would frequently alternate between fear and hostility. If I openly appeared to be wimpish and

[1481-MILL]

66

DAVID MILLS

afraid, however, the jury would likely perceive my demeanor as lacking the confidence of my own innocence. In other words, my fear would indicate “consciousness of guilt.” If, instead, I openly displayed hostility toward the prosecutor and the court for bringing these unjust charges against me, then my bitterness and anger would be perceived as evidence of my “underlying criminal nature.” If a defendant is soft-spoken and remains relatively calm during trial, then he is perceived as “not angry enough to be a man wrongly accused.” If he defends himself vociferously, then the prosecutor trots out the cliche that “none cry innocent louder than the guilty.” So if we are judged by our demeanor, we are placed in an unwinnable situation, in which our personal mannerisms—whatever they are—are always interpreted as indicative of our base criminality. 6. There is an increasing tendency for courts to use and rely upon the testimony of witnesses questioned on videotape. A skillful prosecutor—or defense attorney for that matter—can use subliminal techniques during the videotaping to make the witness’s demeanor appear jittery or ominous. Television news magazine shows are notorious for using these unethical tricks to make individuals look sinister. There is, for instance, a “privacy zone” or “comfort distance” we usually maintain between ourselves and another person. During routine conversation, this distance is approximately 3 to 5 feet. Move in closer than that, and you’ll seem intimidating to the person whose personal space you have invaded. This same “comfort distance” also applies to individuals we see on television. The camera usually maintains this “safe” distance from the subject, so that we subconsciously feel at ease while watching our local weather report or a late-night TV talk show. If, however, the camera zooms in uncomfortably close to the speaker, we feel the same subconscious foreboding as if someone had stepped within inches of our face. The result is that every shift in the subject’s eye position is magnified remarkably, so that the subject looks


67

remarkably shifty-eyed. Every tiny drop of perspiration looks like a bucket full; and every wrinkling of the forehead looks like a defiant scowl. These tricks were used when David Frost interviewed former President Richard Nixon shortly after Nixon was forced to resign because of the Watergate scandal. Whenever Nixon was discussing foreign policy or the economic agenda he pursued as President, the camera kept its distance, showing Nixon sitting relaxed in a plush armchair. When the subject turned to Watergate, however, the camera zoomed in so tightly that only Nixon’s eyes, nose and mouth were visible on screen. He looked horrible—as most of us would; and he appeared to be extremely ill-at-ease because of the excessive magnification of his facial movements and expressions. The point here is that Nixon’s words alone were sufficient evidence to implicate him as a key player in the Watergate scandal. Dishonest tricks with the camera were unnecessary and certainly led me to question whether the television production crew was pursuing honest truth or simply wanted to further smear an already-unpopular figure. Another smear tactic used during videotaping is to raise the camera height to a level above that of the subject. The camera is then forced to “look down” on the person being recorded, making him or her appear to be cowering and unworthy of respect. Political consultants use the opposite camera angle when filming campaign commercials. The camera height is lowered so that we must “look up” to their noble candidate, who then appears to be a lofty and majestic figure perched atop Mount Rushmore. The way in which a subject is lighted also plays a critical role in determining how we perceive his demeanor, whether on screen or in person. Fortunately, few prosecutors are savvy to these videographic subtleties of perception. But as videotaped testimony is introduced more and more into criminal and civil proceedings, the potential for abuse will grow accordingly. Most important to remember, however, is that the only reason why we are forced to concern ourselves with these video techniques is that judges instruct juries to “observe and evaluate

[1481-MILL]

68

DAVID MILLS

the witness’s demeanor.” If this jury instruction were eliminated, and if jurors rendered their verdicts solely upon actual evidence rather than visual appearance, then a discussion of camera angles and zoom lenses would be wholly irrelevant, as it should be. 7. The most disturbing element of judging people by their demeanor is that, psychologically, we tend to approve of others only when they look and act like us. To judge a person by how he looks is therefore an open invitation to racism. The way we look— and our personal mannerisms—are primarily inherited characteristics. To condemn a defendant for these inherited traits is as outrageous as the Salem Witch Trials, in which defendants were found guilty because of inherited birthmarks left on their skin “by Satan.” 2 If I am a 60-year-old upper-middle-class white female sitting on a jury, then I may look skeptically upon the testimony of a black teenager with purple and green hair and rings through his nose and tongue. But such a skeptical appraisal, based solely on a witness’s appearance, is fundamentally unfair and unscientific. While I myself find it difficult to understand why someone wants to pierce his tongue, there is no logical reason to believe that such an individual is more likely to lie than I am. Remember, our own parents and grandparents looked with equal disgust upon our own ways of dressing and acting as youth. So, above all, let’s avoid the fatal error of passing judgment on others because their physical appearance, or ways of communicating, are not copied identically from our own “model” examples. Instead of foolishly telling jurors to look at the witness’s demeanor when evaluating testimony, judges should provide a jury instruction stating precisely the opposite. Here is my suggestion: “Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury: When evaluating the credibility of each witness, you shall in no sense take into consideration the physical appearance of the witness, nor whether he or she appeared nervous or relaxed when testifying. Neither shall you be influenced by the


69

witness’s ability, or lack of ability, to speak in an articulate manner. Neither shall you be swayed, either for or against a witness, by any personal mannerisms or idiosyncrasies exhibited by the witness. You shall evaluate a witness’s testimony solely on the basis of its substance, or lack of substance, as you determine from the testimony’s own internal logic or from corroborating or conflicting evidence presented by other witnesses during trial.”

“Protecting and Serving the Public” —through Fraud All pseudosciences claim that their beliefs and theories are derived from a solid body of empirically verifiable evidence. When challenged to publicly disclose their “proof,” however, most pseudosciences resort to (1) grossly misrepresenting the nature and quality of their “substantiating” evidence, and (2) committing outright fraud when mere distortion of the facts fails to adequately bolster the holy cause. Once again, your local police department fulfills this definition of a pseudoscientific organization. Here’s why:

Dropsy Evidence Although sworn to uphold the law and to defend the Constitutional rights of every citizen, police departments are, in reality, bitter and unabashed enemies of the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution. The Fourth Amendment protects the people from “unreasonable searches and seizures” and prescribes that no person or place may be searched without a warrant “particularly describing the things to be seized.” What this means is that police may not randomly search anyone they want for any reason they want. Law enforcement authorities must have “probable cause” to conduct a search and must be

[1481-MILL]

70

DAVID MILLS

looking for specific, pre-defined items before the seized property may be used as evidence in court. Nonetheless, police departments, without exception, view the Fourth Amendment as a painful thorn in their flesh and as a hindrance to the swift performance of their duties to the community. The attitude prevalent among police officers is that “If you have nothing to hide, then why should you care if we search your person or property?” In other words, the police believe that the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution was a clear-cut mistake, drafted by overly philosophical liberals unfamiliar with the real-world brutality of contemporary street crime. On a daily basis, therefore, cops on patrol face an aggravating conflict between the law and “what’s best for the community.” For example, two police officers may spot a suspicious-looking vehicle—“suspicious-looking” to them because the policemen are white and the occupants of the vehicle are black or Hispanic. Police are sadly inclined to believe that minorities have no right to drive an expensive automobile. Any minority driver, thus, who appears “too successful” immediately arouses police suspicion. Still, under the law, these officers cannot simply stop and search the “suspicious” vehicle or its occupants without reason. So what do the officers do? If police have no legal reason to stop and search a vehicle or person, but believe nevertheless that something is amiss, police will invent a reason to stop the “suspects”: the vehicle was “speeding” or “driving recklessly” or “failing to signal before turning”— any excuse will do. When stopped, police then order the “suspects” out of the vehicle and conduct a thoroughly illegal and unconstitutional search. The first (highly insulting) question usually posed by police to the minority driver is “Whose car is this?” Note here that, if the driver is white instead of black or Hispanic, police rarely ask “Whose car is this?” They assume that the Caucasian driver is the owner of the expensive automobile. But if the driver is a minority, then police presume that his vehicle was either stolen or purchased with


71

drug money—and must be searched, notwithstanding the constitutional and legal prohibitions. During most of these illegal searches, the police of course find nothing unlawful in the “suspect’s” vehicle. Do you speculate, then, that the officers apologize for their deplorable, illegal and sometimes-race-based intrusion into someone’s privacy? Not a chance! The driver is told curtly to “carry on.” In the unlikely event that police do discover something unlawful during their unconstitutional barnstorming—such as marijuana or other illegal drugs or firearms—the items are immediately confiscated and the vehicle’s occupants are often arrested. Far from being a rare occurrence, these unauthorized and illegal police searches are conducted hundreds of times daily throughout the United States. Often the victims are black or Hispanic; but anyone (including you!) may be targeted at the arbitrary whim of any police officers. A person well-versed in constitutional law may be highly skeptical of my claim that police routinely behave in such a lawless manner. “Why,” some might ask, “would police deliberately use unconstitutional means to seize evidence when such evidence cannot be legally introduced thereafter into court proceedings against the defendant?” The answer is that the so-called “police report,” filed by the arresting officers, is conveniently inaccurate in its description of how the evidence was confiscated. This report will contain one of two standardly-employed bogus assertions which police use daily to camouflage their illegal searches: (1) Police will claim that the seized evidence (e.g., marijuana, guns) was “clearly visible” when they approached a vehicle or pedestrian, thus making a search unnecessary. (2) Police will claim that, in the officers’ presence, the seized evidence “dropped out of the defendant’s pocket into plain view.” This second lie is utilized so frequently and universally by police that it has acquired its own specialized name: “Dropsy Evidence.” That’s right. The police didn’t conduct an

[1481-MILL]

72

DAVID MILLS

illegal search. Those butter-fingered criminals just let the evidence slide out of their slippery pockets.3 To me, what is more distressing than these unconstitutional searches and deliberately falsified police reports is that the prosecuting attorneys, who eventually try these cases, know unequivocally that the policemen are lying in their account of events. Unless the prosecutor is new to his office, he has read hundreds of police reports detailing confiscated evidence that “dropped out of the defendant’s pocket in police presence.” The prosecutor need not be a genius to discern an unmistakable pattern of police deception. What, then, does the prosecutor do? Does he indict the lying officers for perjury? Are the officers then fired? Hardly! The prosecutor is delighted that the policemen are lying about how they obtained the evidence. Otherwise, no charges could be filed against the defendant. The prosecutor therefore suborns perjury by calling the police officers to testify under oath against the defendant. Wearing an immaculate, well-pressed uniform and newly-shined badge, the clean-shaven and well-rehearsed officers repeat in court their fanciful tale about how they innocently observed dropsy evidence. Responding to each question with a choirboy “Yes Sir” and “No Sir,” the officers put on a convincing show, saying exactly what the prosecutor needs, true or false, to win a conviction. Moreover, just as prosecutors know damn well that policemen are lying about their illegal searches, judges also clearly realize that fraud and perjury are being committed under their noses by policemen on the witness stand. The worst mistake made by jurors, therefore, is to trust the judge as a neutral and objective arbiter of law between the prosecuting attorney and defense counsel. A jury should more incisively view the judge as lead attorney for the prosecution. Whenever a member of the prosecution files a motion or petitions the court, the judge in the case usually thinks to himself “Is there any possible way I can legally grant this request?” Whenever the defense files a motion or petitions the court, however, the judge


73

thinks to himself “Is there any possible way I can legally deny this request?” So we should not be surprised that judges virtually never throw out evidence, even though they know absolutely that it was obtained illegally and unconstitutionally. But why is this so? Any judge who honestly and courageously defends the US Constitutional prohibition against unlawfully-seized evidence will swiftly lose his position on the bench. It’s as simple as that. If the judge is an elected official, for example, his opponent in the next election will portray him as “soft on crime” for dismissing criminal charges “on a mere technicality”—that “technicality” being the US Constitution itself. “Vote for me,” says the opponent, “and I’ll be a friend to our heroic police officers and be tough on crime.” If, instead of being elected, the judge is a political appointee, he is pressured equally by his bureaucratic superiors to admit illegal evidence. Take the case of US District Court Judge Harold Baer, Jr. of New York, who was appointed by President Clinton. Judge Baer had ruled that 80 pounds of cocaine and heroin confiscated by police could not be used as evidence against the defendant because police had seized the drugs “illegally and without probable cause to conduct a search.” Public sentiment was so outraged by Judge Baer’s constitutional ruling that the President of the United States himself sent his press secretary, Mike McCurry, to give Baer a message: “Reverse your decision or resign.” Senator Bob Dole, running for President himself at the time, stated publicly that Congress should “impeach Judge Baer and remove him from the bench.” Sadly, Judge Baer did kowtow to these political pressures and reversed his decision regarding the illegally-seized evidence. Whether elected or appointed, therefore, judges in the real world are pretty much forced, like it or not, to accept police perjury and illegal evidence as standard courtroom procedure. Charles Hynes has seen dropsy-evidence cases from a variety of vantage points. He has been the Brooklyn District Attorney since 1990; but prior to that, he worked as a Legal Aid lawyer defending poor and minority clients, who make up a disproportionate number of the dropsy cases. Hynes recalls, “What I used to do

[1481-MILL]

74

DAVID MILLS

when I was a defense lawyer working for the Legal Aid Society was put eight or nine dropsy cases on the calendar in a row. I remember one instance where a judge, who is now probably retired or even dead, said, ‘What do you want me to do with these (police) perjury cases?’, and I responded, ‘Grant one motion.’ He did and denied the other motions.” Hynes, in other words, cleverly shamed a judge into dismissing a case because it was based on illegally-obtained evidence—a decision which any honest judge should render and is obligated to render under the law. More revealing, however, is that this judge, in typical fashion, permitted the other eight cases to proceed, even though he understood fully that these were illegal dropsy cases as well. So if you should ever fall victim to a dropsy-evidence scam by police, you should not expect your defense attorney to stand up in court like F. Lee Bailey or Johnny Cochran and seriously challenge the credibility of the officers’ testimony. Through past experience, the defense counsel knows that such efforts are virtually never successful, because of the judge’s complicity in the stunt. Moreover, your defense counsel usually has friends on the police force and in the district attorney’s office; and he is not inclined to jeopardize these friendships by calling the police and prosecution a pack of liars, even though such a description may be accurate and richly deserved. Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz laments that “police are trained to lie at police academy.” In my opinion, the criminal justice system is never going to voluntarily curtail the disgraceful hoax of dropsy-evidence testimony by police. In 1994 the newly-elected Republican House of Representatives quickly sought to implement its Contract with America. First on the agenda of these “law-and-order, family-values conservatives” was legislation making it easier for prosecutors to use illegally-obtained evidence in court! These same ultra-conservative, ultra-hypocritical zealots tied America in knots for an entire year pursuing Articles of Impeachment against President Clinton for perjuring himself about “touching Monica


75

Lewinsky’s breast with the intent to arouse.” Lying about sex, it appears, is cause for impeachment; whereas police perjury about dropsy evidence is to be encouraged, rewarded and expanded. I believe that public education is probably the only means of eradicating this rampant corruption within our judicial system. The public needs to fully comprehend that tens of thousands of times per year, police allege that relevant and incriminating evidence conveniently dropped out of someone’s pocket as police were coincidentally standing in the vicinity. If jurors are truly savvy to this common hoax—which, ironically, is both exceedingly disturbing and exceedingly comical—then I say let the police and prosecutors and judges offer all the dropsy-evidence testimony they wish. Well-informed jurors will simply roll their eyes incredulously, shake their heads in disbelief, and ask the court “Do we really look that gullible?” Then, and only then, will this farce be ended.4 I realize that my charges seem harsh against the police, prosecuting attorneys, and judges. But it is not my intention to ascribe evil motivations to these law enforcement officials. They genuinely believe that the end justifies the means. They are “taking criminals off the streets” and thereby protecting our communities. So what does it matter if a few “white lies” are necessary to accomplish this higher goal? The danger, however, is that when policemen, prosecutors, and judges all conspire to deliberately and systematically violate the law—and to subvert our Constitutional rights—these government officials become a more ominous threat to American values than are the “criminals” they strive to imprison. If we, as a nation, want to repeal the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution, let’s do so, candidly and aboveboard. But, until then, let’s not hypocritically claim that we are upholding the rule of law by habitually violating it.

[1481-MILL]

76

DAVID MILLS

“It’s about Winning” Like the gurus in charge of other pseudoscientific cults, law-enforcement authorities look for potential converts to brainwash. In a courtroom, these unsuspecting raw recruits are known as the “jury pool.” And the method by which these jurors are handpicked for a trial is both exceptionally disturbing and highly revelatory of the prosecution’s underlying motives. Contrary to popular myth, the prosecutor doesn’t want a fair trial for the defendant. The prosecutor doesn’t want intelligent, open-minded jurors to carefully analyze the evidence. The prosecutor wants only one thing—to win his case through any means and at any cost. Do you doubt my last statement? Do you believe instead that District Attorneys are genuinely more interested in “upholding justice” than in winning a shallow personal victory in court? Then let’s listen to former prosecuting attorney Jack McMahon of Philadelphia. In addition to prosecuting cases himself, McMahon specialized in training rookie prosecutors how to select jurors. In 1997, McMahon’s political opponent, Lynne Abraham, released to the media a videotape of McMahon’s private training sessions for new prosecutors. The jury-selection methods described on this tape were—and still are—used widely, not only in Philadelphia, but across the United States. Transcribed from his videotape, Jack McMahon’s following words tell how your local prosecutors select jurors for a trial: “The case law says the object of getting a jury is to get a competent, fair and impartial jury . . . Well, that’s ridiculous. You’re not trying to get that . . . You are there to win. If you go in there, any one of you, and think you are going to be some noble civil libertarian . . . that’s ridiculous. You’ll lose. You’ll be out of the office. “You are there to win . . . The only way you’re going to do your best is to get jurors that are unfair, and more likely to convict than anybody else in that room.


77

“You do not want smart people on the jury. I wish we could ask everyone’s IQ. If you could know their IQ, you could pick a great jury all the time. You don’t want smart people because smart people will analyze the hell out of your case. They have a higher standard. They hold you up to a higher standard. They hold the courts up to a higher standard . . . They take those words ‘reasonable doubt,’ and they actually try to think about them. You don’t want people who are going to think it out. “You don’t want social workers. That’s obvious. They got intelligence, sensitivity, all this stuff. You don’t want them . . . Teachers, you don’t like. Teachers are bad, especially young teachers . . . If you get like a white teacher teaching in a black school that’s sick of these guys (i.e., “the blacks”), maybe that may be one you accept . . . Bad luck with teachers, bad luck with social workers. Bad luck with intelligent doctors. “Let’s face it . . . The blacks from the low-income areas are less likely to convict. There’s a resentment for law enforcement. There’s a resentment for authority. And as a result, you don’t want those (black) people on your jury. “My experience, young black women are very bad. There’s an antagonism, I guess maybe because they’re downtrodden in two respects. They are women and they’re black . . . so they somehow want to take it out on somebody and you don’t want it to be you (the prosecutors).”

So to summarize McMahon’s widely-used jury-selection techniques: Prosecutors hope to seat a jury of unfair, ignorant whites. This is how prosecutors hope to win through any means, fair or foul. We have already discussed how naive jurors are being bamboozled by dropsy evidence scams. But there is a far-more-ominous fraud being perpetrated throughout US courtrooms.

[1481-MILL]

78

DAVID MILLS

Crime Labs In theory, DNA evidence is a marvelous scientific tool for fingering the guilty and exonerating the innocent. When properly collected, stored, analyzed, interpreted and reported, DNA evidence is probably the single most reliable indicator of who, among millions, committed a particular crime. Expert criminologists, such as Connecticut’s Henry Lee, have solved baffling crimes that, without DNA technology, would have been mysteries forever. But forensic experts of Henry Lee’s caliber and credibility are scarce indeed. The ugly fact is that a majority of our state crime labs are staffed by unqualified amateurs, hired by political hacks to be lapdogs for the prosecution. Just as police officers perjure themselves daily in regard to dropsy evidence, crime lab “experts” perjure themselves daily in regard to “scientific” evidence. They habitually misrepresent in court the nature and reliability of the tests they perform. And their test results are almost invariably skewed in favor of the prosecution. Too often, the results of scientific tests are completely fabricated to bolster the prosecution’s case. Moreover, these forensic “experts” often have minimal training in the scientific disciplines about which they testify in court. One week, a state “expert” may testify about DNA. The next week, he’s in court describing blood spatter and how the defendant is implicated. The following morning, he’s testifying about shoe prints and, in the afternoon, fiber matching. These boys from the crime lab exhibit a depth and diversity of scientific knowledge that puts Isaac Asimov to shame. But their predictable incompetence really doesn’t matter, because the mission of the typical crime lab has nothing to do with science at all. Instead, the crime lab’s true function is to help the prosecutor win through any means necessary. A classic example is that of Fred Zain, former Chief of the West Virginia State Police Crime Lab. Initially, Zain got his job by lying about his background and his “education,” which in no way certified him for the scientific and investigative duties of his position. In college, Zain had taken only one course relevant to his


79

State employment—a course in which he earned an F. Nonetheless, Fred Zain soon became a crime-solving superstar. Whenever prosecutors faced difficulty amassing sufficient evidence to bring an indictment, Zain always saved the day by conducting some kind of scientific test that implicated the suspect. Zain was so talented that he could sometimes write a lab report before the materials to be tested even arrived in his lab! He frequently testified about the results of tests that he never actually performed. And those test “results” always pointed to the guilt of the defendant. Fred Zain was beloved by the prosecutors and police of West Virginia, and, like many other forensic “experts,” he would literally say or do anything to send a defendant to prison. Scores of juries reached guilty verdicts on the basis of Zain’s sworn testimony. And hundreds of “criminals” were sent to prison because of his “scientific” tests. Then, suspicion was raised about the quality and objectivity of Zain’s work. Several “convicts” appealed for independent scrutiny of Zain’s laboratory analyses. Glen Dale Woodall, known throughout West Virginia as the notorious “Mall Rapist,” finally persuaded authorities to let truly qualified scientists examine the genetic material collected from the rape victim. Woodall eagerly volunteered his own blood sample for comparison. The result was that Glen Dale Woodall, who, by this time, had been imprisoned for five years, was found to be completely innocent. Another man had committed the rape. The State of West Virginia ended up paying Woodall 1 million dollars in damages—small compensation for his suffering at the hands of Fred Zain. But the Woodall case was merely the tip of the iceberg. Zain’s entire body of work became suspect. Of the first 36 cases reexamined, Zain was found to have lied about evidence in all 36! By the mid 1990’s, West Virginia was forced to release many other individuals from prison—some innocent, some guilty—because of Fred Zain’s falsifying test results to please prosecutors. Then, just when this horror story seemed to be winding down, the West Virginia Supreme Court heard evidence, on June 1, 1999, that 60 or more

[1481-MILL]

80

DAVID MILLS

totally innocent people remained in West Virginia prisons due to Zain’s skullduggery. Fred Zain may ultimately bankrupt the State of West Virginia paying monetary damages to those falsely imprisoned. What do you suppose happened to Fred Zain once he was exposed as a fraud? How long did he go to prison himself? The answer is that, after Zain was thoroughly discredited in West Virginia, he simply packed his bag of tricks and moved to Texas, where he promptly resumed his investigative career! Unlike West Virginia, Texas often employs the death penalty. So perhaps it crossed Zain’s mind that “dead men tell no tales.” Fortunately, authorities in Texas soon became suspicious of his work and fired him. But, again, Zain never spent a day in jail or paid one dollar in fines to the State. In late 1998, Fred Zain was finally returned to West Virginia to stand trial for his villainy. But three days before the trial began, all charges were suddenly dismissed because the indictment did not specify to the penny how much salary he had collected during his employment from 1986 to 1990. In other words, law-enforcement authorities were not really too upset with Zain; for he had been their best friend. Fred Zain indeed gave new meaning to the term “Crime Lab.” You may wonder why those falsely convicted (because of Zain) didn’t hire independent experts during their trials to rebut Zain’s fabricated testimony. The answer is twofold. First, dozens of defense attorneys were simply too lazy to seek an independent analysis of the evidence. During Zain’s entire career, hardly any of his sworn “scientific” testimony was ever challenged at trial. Like many other white-collar professionals, defense attorneys tend to be slothful and to do as little work as possible to earn their money. More importantly, however, no independent scientific tests could be performed unless someone paid for the tests. The prosecution uses its own crime lab and yes-men. But the defendant must pay himself for truly objective testing. Sadly, most defendants are poor and simply cannot afford to hire exorbitantly-priced


81

private-sector science labs. Many outside experts charge 20 to 30 thousand dollars to testify at trial in your behalf! The color of justice is therefore neither black nor white, but green; for, in the United States, justice must be purchased. Even when faced with incontrovertible proof of their own incompetence and corruption, law-enforcement authorities refuse to concede that many innocent people have been imprisoned. Take the incredible story of Wilbert Thomas, a black resident of Huntington, West Virginia. On the night of March 22, 1987, Wilbert Thomas was at home with his wife and twin boys. After tucking his sons into bed, Thomas lay down beside them and fell asleep. Soon thereafter, Thomas was arrested by police for a rape that had occurred on that same evening. Thomas and his family swore that he had been home the entire evening, but their firm declaration of his innocence fell upon the deaf ears of the local prosecutor. The prosecution had no legitimate evidence of Thomas’s guilt, so, at trial, a commendably open-minded jury acquitted him of the sexual assault charge. The jury was hung, however, on an unrelated, secondary charge of theft. At this point, something happened that truly boggles the mind. The judge in the case, L.D. Egnor, refused to officially record the jury’s verdict of “not guilty” on the rape charge, and instead declared a mistrial because the jury had failed to reach a verdict on the charge of theft. Thomas was therefore forced to stand trial a second time for the sexual assault charge—in absolute violation of the US Constitution’s prohibition against double jeopardy! Since Judge Egnor has, to date, refused to be interviewed about this case, it is unclear whether his actions were motivated by blatant corruption or unimaginable ineptitude. During Thomas’s second trial, the jury was again hung; so prosecutors decided to try the case a third time. So Wilbert Thomas faced a third trial on sexual assault charges for which he had already been found not guilty. During the third trial, prosecutors brought in an “expert” witness, State Trooper Howard Myers, who worked under the direction of his mentor, crime lab chief Fred Zain! Myers falsely

[1481-MILL]

82

DAVID MILLS

testified about the results of a serology test which he had never performed. (Serology is the study of blood serum.) Myers claimed that his test pointed to the defendant, Wilbert Thomas, with a likelihood of over 99 percent. Understandably, the jury then found Thomas guilty of the rape, and Judge Egnor sentenced him to 15 to 25 years in prison. As Thomas languished in prison year after year, both he and his family steadfastly maintained his innocence. Finally, scientists developed a new DNA technique for analyzing genetic material from rape victims. The test was performed—by independent specialists—on the crime victim’s clothing. And Wilbert Thomas was proven not to have been the rapist. State Trooper Howard Myers, who had testified against Thomas, was later found by a Federal Court to have falsified test results as part of the State Crime Lab’s “standard frame-up procedures.” The Federal Court also found that Judge Egnor had clearly violated Wilbert Thomas’s Constitutional rights against double jeopardy—not to mention triple jeopardy. So, do you think that Wilbert Thomas was then released from prison? Did Judge Egnor and the prosecutors then apologize to Thomas and implore the State Legislature to pay him a multi-million-dollar compensation? Did Judge Egnor and Howard Myers (who repeatedly lied under oath) suffer legal ramifications? Not a chance! Abandoning any pretense of neutrality, or of common decency, Judge Egnor and the local prosecutors then teamed up to file a brief of amicus curiae (i.e., friend of the court) in desperate hope of stopping the Federal Court from releasing Wilbert Thomas. As I type these words into my computer, Wilbert Thomas is still in prison, 12 years after he was arrested for a rape he never committed and for which a jury found him not guilty. If a tiny sliver of good is to come from the tragic story of Wilbert Thomas, it may be that the public was given a rare, behind-the-scenes glimpse of how our judicial system often works. As Prosecutor Jack McMahon said in his training tape: being a prosecutor has nothing to do with being fair or with being a noble civil servant. “That’s ridiculous,” said McMahon. “It’s all about winning.” And the reason


83

that it’s all about winning is that prosecutors and judges are reelected by sending lots of people to prison, not by releasing individuals whom they have falsely detained. For law-enforcement authorities, nothing is more embarrassing than admitting that they have arrested the wrong person. That is why you never see a policeman or prosecutor apologize to a person wrongfully apprehended. Once a person is brought into police custody, the ball is rolling. And there is no turning back. Any police official who helps convict the accused is rewarded professionally, whereas any law-enforcement official who helps free the defendant is swiftly disciplined, fired, or voted out of office. “It’s all about winning.” Likewise, crime lab employees get promoted and rewarded by fingering suspects, not by exonerating them. Any state-employed forensic scientist would be dismissed as incapable if he rarely found a match between the suspect and the crime-scene evidence. Regardless of how dishonest or reckless some law-enforcement authorities may be, however, they virtually never suffer negative consequences. They do not fear the law, because they are the law. They do not fear the authorities, because they are the authorities. They do not fear jail because they are the keepers of the key. Policemen, prosecutors, and forensic “experts” thus have everything to gain—and nothing to lose—by “enhancing” their evidence against a defendant. They rationalize their deplorable conduct by imagining that “if the defendant isn’t guilty of this crime, then he’s certainly guilty of others. And if he isn’t guilty of any crimes yet, then we’ll prevent crime by keeping him in custody.” Perhaps you believe that such egregious police and prosecutorial misconduct is confined to the back hills of West Virginia. You are confident that more sophisticated law-enforcement agencies, such as the FBI, would never engage in such Zain-like treachery. But Frederick Whitehurst tells a different story. For over a decade, Whitehurst was the FBI’s foremost expert on bomb residue. Whenever a terrorist attack occurred, such as the World Trade Center or Pan Am 103 bombings, Whitehurst, along with the forensic specialists he trained, would

[1481-MILL]

84

DAVID MILLS

painstakingly sift through the ruble. Using true scientific wizardry, Whitehurst and his team would determine who the culprits were, even if the terrorists had plotted their bombings in far-away nations, such as Libya or the Sudan. If there ever lived a real-life Sherlock Holmes, it was Dr. Frederick Whitehurst. But Whitehurst was profoundly troubled by the unethical practices he observed at the FBI crime lab. Forensic evidence was routinely being doctored by the lab to support the prosecution’s side in various cases; whereas exculpatory evidence—that pointed away from the accused—was often suppressed or destroyed altogether, again to help a prosecutor win through any means. For ten years, Whitehurst complained internally about these abuses and injustices within the FBI crime lab. But the lab’s distortion and misrepresentation of scientific evidence only grew more commonplace. For example, lab reports detailing the chemical components of bomb residue would be derived, not from an examination of the crime scene or explosion epicenter, but from a list of chemicals seized from the suspect’s garage! Needless to say, such lab reports invariably pointed to the guilt of the suspect. Whitehurst was also alarmed that his own lab reports were sometimes edited, censored, or completely rewritten by non-scientists at the FBI, all for the purpose of helping a Federal or State prosecutor win a conviction at trial. After seeing innocent people go to prison, and after fruitlessly struggling for years to change the system from within, Whitehurst went public with his shocking allegations of FBI forensic fraud. Whitehurst said merely that the FBI crime lab should objectively and accurately report forensic test results, rather than writing a fictional script to compensate for gaps in the prosecution’s case. As you might guess, the FBI adamantly denied any wrongdoing. Then, the Bureau launched a sleazy campaign to publicly discredit Whitehurst. The FBI telephoned various news organizations, spreading rumors that Whitehurst was mentally unstable— a charge which was completely false. Whitehurst’s family also fell victim to slanderous FBI attacks—reminiscent of the days when


85

the infamous J. Edgar Hoover headed the Bureau. Even Whitehurst’s physical appearance was mocked and ridiculed by FBI spokespersons, hoping to belittle their own world-renown scientist through any means possible. In direct violation of US Federal law, the FBI then leaked Whitehurst’s confidential medical records to the public, a libelous move which would later cost the Bureau hundreds of thousands of dollars in civil judgments. While the FBI waged its dirty propaganda war against Whitehurst, others in Washington listened attentively to his allegations of Bureau corruption. Foremost among them was Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa. Grassley, a tough law-and-order conservative, had always been a powerful ally of the FBI. But Grassley knew that Whitehurst had earned too much respect over the years to be dismissed as a nutcase. Grassley and others then asked the FBI to conduct an investigation of its own crime lab. Lawsuits were filed, demanding the release of FBI lab reports to outside experts for objective analysis. In the end, Frederick Whitehurst’s longstanding criticisms of the FBI crime lab turned out to be understatements. Not only had the FBI habitually doctored evidence to please various prosecutors, but the FBI lab itself no longer met the minimal requirements for basic accreditation! That’s right. The world-famous FBI crime lab—legendary in mystery novels, Hollywood movies, and popular TV series—had degenerated into a shoddy gaggle of bungling and dishonest amateurs, unfit for basic accreditation. Moreover, Whitehurst was awarded almost 2 million dollars by the courts for the FBI’s false and derogatory statements against him—and for the Bureau’s other loathsome misdeeds. Today, Dr. Frederick Whitehurst is director of the Forensic Justice Project, whose stated goals are as follows: “Review cases handled by the FBI crime lab to ensure that innocent people have not been wrongfully convicted through the misuse of forensic science; “Monitor the performance of the FBI crime lab to ensure

[1481-MILL]

86

DAVID MILLS that the work of the lab conforms with the forty recommendations for reform issued by the Department of Justice Office of Inspector General and to assure that true outside oversight of the laboratory is achieved; “Provide expert testimony in cases in order to ensure that forensic science is not misused in civil and criminal prosecutions impacting on the public interest or the rights of individuals; “Offer an objective scientific evaluation of scientific evidence; “Publish or distribute information necessary for an objective analysis of the quality and objectivity of forensic science and crime laboratories nationwide.”

*** I now realize—in a way I did not appreciate before writing this chapter—that a discussion of “Police Pseudoscience” requires a full-length book of its own. Although we must soon direct our attention elsewhere, I cannot, in good conscience, close this chapter without mentioning briefly the following, additional examples of pseudoscience, or just plain injustice, as perpetrated by your local law-enforcement authorities: • Extorted Testimony—Whenever prosecutors lack sufficient evidence to bring a suspect to trial, they frequently extort or purchase incriminating testimony from already-convicted felons, who are promised a reduced or suspended sentence if they implicate someone else. Needless to say, a man facing a mandatory 15 years in prison will literally say anything to be promised parole in 6 months. Could there be a greater incentive to lie? To get out of prison, these prosecution-sponsored witnesses will be happy to implicate you as a participant in their drug-peddling operation. In mid-1998, a Federal court ruled that the government’s offering leniency to felons in exchange for implicating others


87

amounted to “legalized bribery” and is “an open invitation to false testimony.” Immediately following this historic ruling, Federal and State prosecutors banded together to appeal the court’s decision banning the practice. Prosecutors argued that the ruling must be reversed because “this is our method of doing business.” Sadly, in January, 1999, a Federal appeals court did indeed reverse the lower court’s ruling. So legalized bribery continues to be the method by which your local prosecutor “does business.” • Child Abuse Investigators—Just as police-sponsored forensic “science” is highly unreliable and frequently corrupt, the child-abuse investigators and counselors employed by law enforcement authorities are usually unqualified for the job, and are notoriously trigger-happy in making false accusations of child sexual abuse. Did you ever stop to consider how psychologists, social workers and child abuse counselors were initially introduced to their professions? The answer, very often, is that they themselves were emotionally unstable, neglected or abused as children and underwent counseling of their own. Because of their youthful exposure to counselors who helped them and whom they admired, these victimized individuals decided to become counselors also. The counselors’ own past history, however, erects a serious obstacle to their conducting an objective investigation of child-abuse charges. For, just as a man repeatedly struck by lightning will overestimate the likelihood of lightning’s striking others, child-abuse consultants almost never see a child who, in their opinion, wasn’t molested. Moreover, child-abuse investigators use the most unscientific methods imaginable when conducting their interviews with children. For example, a child may be given paper and crayons to draw a picture—“any picture that comes to mind.” If the child decides to include the colors red and black within the drawing, this color selection is considered a likely indicator of sexual abuse! Needless to say, this “link” between crayon selection and sexual abuse is errant horse shit. (What child doesn’t use red and black crayons when drawing?) Additionally, any behavioral peculiarities or problems at school are often

[1481-MILL]

88

DAVID MILLS

diagnosed by incompetent counselors as having resulted from childhood sexual molestation. If your child properly uses the words “penis” and “vagina”—instead of “dick” and “pussy”—when referring to sex organs, this sophisticated vocabulary is considered yet another warning signal of possible sexual abuse by adults! If the child denies to the investigator that he or she was sexually abused, this denial is never accepted. The investigator will prod, push, shout, scream, coerce and lie incessantly to persuade the terrified child to implicate someone. The child will be told (falsely) that “all of the other students have said that the teacher molested them. And you’re just as smart as the other students, aren’t you?” When the child responds “yes,” the teacher is promptly arrested. If an unusually independent-minded child somehow resists this brainwashing, his or her continued denial (of being abused) is then diagnosed by the “experts” as having resulted from “subconsciously suppressed memories of the trauma.” A therapist or hypnotist is then recruited to “retrieve these suppressed memories.” These worthless therapists and hypnotists then create, within the child’s mind, confabulated memories of sexual encounters that never occurred. During the 1970’s and 1980’s, hundreds of groundless accusations were leveled against daycare workers, teachers, and parents because of the lunatic theories of child-abuse “experts.” The most famous case involved the entire staff of the prestigious McMartin Preschool of Manhattan Beach, California. Seven individuals, including owner Peggy McMartin (a feeble old woman confined to a wheel chair), were charged with molesting and torturing children and animals in ways too horrible to describe. The children who testified at trial against McMartin and her son, Raymond Buckey, were not trying to frame innocent people. The children honestly believed that the horror stories were true. But the jury refused to convict the McMartin defendants, because videotapes of the interviews with children showed indisputably that therapists had planted these ghastly images in the children’s


89

minds—images which the children were now confabulating as “recovered memories.” In other words, the only true child abuse in the McMartin case was inflicted by the police-sponsored interrogations. The tragic result of this and numerous other such witch hunts is, not only that innocent people are sometimes sent to prison, but that a cynical backlash has arisen that sometimes causes juries to doubt the veracity of child abuse charges that are true. Some psychotherapists have now been successfully sued for their misuse of “recovered memory” techniques, which have needlessly destroyed scores of previously happy families. Consequently, many of these therapists revamped their practices during the 1990’s. Instead of “helping” people recover “suppressed memories” of childhood sexual abuse, the therapists are now assisting individuals who are emotionally tormented due to their suppressed memories of Satanic ritual abuse and of UFO and alien abductions! • Perp Walks—Police and prosecutors love to take defendants on Perp (i.e., perpetrator) Walks in front of television cameras. Typically, police will telephone local news bureaus with information that a specific defendant will be available for a photo opportunity at a certain place and time. The defendant, who, let us remember, is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, is then publicly trotted out in police custody, shackled in handcuffs and leg irons, and wearing bright orange prison garb. This sinister image of the defendant then appears on TV news and in local newspapers. Through Perp Walks, police accomplish their dual goals of (1) making themselves appear hardworking (for having captured a “criminal”) and (2) creating a horribly negative impression of the defendant to taint potential jurors in the community. Curiously, police are hardly ever purposefully taking the defendant from somewhere to somewhere on these Perp Walks. The entire spectacle is merely a public-relations stunt and propaganda ploy. • Sex for Silence—Except for a few counties in Nevada, prostitution is illegal throughout the United States. So why do police

[1481-MILL]

90

DAVID MILLS

departments experience such difficulty tracking down and arresting prostitutes—even those who are standing openly on street corners and advertising themselves boldly in the Yellow Pages? In almost every major city in the United States, uniformed, on-duty police officers extort free sex from neighborhood prostitutes in exchange for permitting them to operate their businesses. The prostitutes are given an ultimatum: “Make a contribution to your local police or be arrested.” The understanding is as simple and clear as that. I myself have spoken to professional “call girls” who said of the police, “It’s just like being raped. You are forced to have sex against your will and without being paid. It’s disgusting. But they’ll close us down if we don’t go along. It’s the cost of doing business.” When, occasionally, police do arrest a group of prostitutes, you may safely assume that the arresting officers were, for one reason or another, rebuffed or displeased with the service. Hypocritically, these same police departments then hire young, attractive women to stand on street corners in short skirts and high heels, teasing men into propositioning them for sex. When the men offer money for sex, the undercover policewoman arrests them! The “moral” of this story is that, if you should call the police and they take an inordinately long time to arrive, then you may have caught them with their pants down. • Planting evidence—With all the new DNA technology and sophisticated scientific tools for apprehending criminals, the planting of evidence by police, as we saw earlier, has largely moved from the streets to the police crime lab. Nonetheless, we should keep in mind that the old-fashion methods are still commonly employed. For example, police in the 39th District of Philadelphia boasted a truly phenomenal record in the 1990’s when making drug busts. They always seemed to find drugs in the suspect’s possession after battering down his door and ransacking his home. As it turned out, however, the reason for their string of “successes” was that Philadelphia police brought drugs with them whenever conducting a search. Such tricks


91

are still played frequently. Police in Philadelphia were caught; but most aren’t. As the number of home and business computers continues to skyrocket, there will be a corresponding increase in the number of computer-related crimes and criminal investigations. After police seize computers from homes or businesses in search of incriminating evidence, investigators can easily alter or add files to hard disks to implicate the suspect in any crime imaginable. A few new email messages may suddenly appear “confirming” drug transactions or stolen money. A sampling of child pornography may mysteriously turn up on the hard disk. Whatever it takes to gain a conviction or guilty plea will be found. “It’s all about winning.” Do you doubt this? Just ask Fred Zain or the FBI crime lab. • Over reliance on the credibility of eyewitnesses—Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., the venerated Supreme Court Justice, once remarked that “when I must render a verdict as to whether a rabbit has walked past, I would much prefer to see rabbit footprints in the snow than to hear a dozen Catholic priests swearing on a stack of Bibles that they saw a rabbit.” Holmes did not mean that Catholic priests are not highly trustworthy individuals. Instead, Holmes meant that eyewitness testimony, even from virtuous men and women, should be viewed with extreme skepticism, because human perception is infinitely fallible and witnesses’ memories are manipulable, fluid and highly selective. Many psychological studies have proven that most individuals significantly overestimate their ability to recall specific details of events. In other words, our powers of observation and memory are not nearly so good as we think. Memories of traumatic or emotionally charged events—which people imagine they remember most vividly—have been shown by psychologists to be among our least accurate recollections. In 30 percent of rape cases, for example, DNA testing reveals that the true assailant is someone other than the person identified by the victim. Emotion clouds perception and memory, rather than enhances our mental faculties.

[1481-MILL]

92

DAVID MILLS

In April, 1988, John Demjanjuk, a Cleveland, Ohio, auto worker was sentenced to death by the Israeli government for being Ivan Marchenko—also known as “Ivan the Terrible,” butcher and executioner at the Treblinka death camp in Nazi-occupied Poland. At trial, scores of Treblinka survivors positively identified Demjanjuk as being Ivan. One eyewitness walked over to Demjanjuk, stared into his eyes from six-inches away, and fainted dead on the floor from the shock of once again confronting his torturer. But all of these eyewitnesses turned out to be completely wrong. In September, 1993, the Israeli Supreme Court released Demjanjuk as a victim of mistaken identity. At the last moment, he had been saved from the gallows by new information. Demjanjuk had served in the Nazi military and probably had committed war crimes. But he was not “Ivan the Terrible” and had never set foot in the Treblinka death camp. The eyewitnesses had been absolutely sincere in their testimony. But they had been sincerely wrong. I am always startled whenever I read my old diary entries. In my mind, I seem to have very clear recollections of certain events which occurred years ago. I remember what happened, who was there, and all of the surrounding details. Then, I read my diary. My “clear” memory of the event is usually flawed, sometimes embarrassingly so. If the diary entries were not penned in my own handwriting, I would swear that the journal-keeper was lying or trying to bend the facts. Nonetheless, I must face the reality that it is my memory, rather than the diary, that is betraying me. Here is a simple test which you can perform yourself to see how predictably inaccurate are most eyewitnesses. The next time a commercial airliner crashes, save your newspaper from the following day. It will contain quotes from eyewitnesses, telling what they saw moments before the crash. Store the newspaper in a desk drawer for a few months. Meanwhile, the FAA will be conducting a scientific investigation of the accident, based upon examination of (1) the wreckage, (2) the flight data recorder, (3) the voice cockpit recorder, and (4) control tower audio tapes. When the FAA issues its report detailing the final


93

moments before the accident, compare its findings with the statements of the eyewitnesses as reported in your newspaper. You will be amazed. Compare such factual points as whether the plane burst into flames before or after hitting the ground—whether the right wing or left wing first struck ground—whether the landing gear was up or down—whether the engines were silent or operating on impact. You will see that the eyewitnesses are wrong approximately 50 percent of the time on each question. A person who didn’t see the accident at all could guess the answers to each of these questions with as much accuracy as the eyewitnesses. It is for this reason that FAA airline-accident investigators hardly ever bother to interview eyewitnesses—because their testimony has been shown repeatedly to be useless in determining what actually occurred. If you’re ever on a jury, keep this fact in mind. And remember what Oliver Wendell Holmes said about rabbit footprints. • Coerced confessions and plea bargains—When a suspect is taken into police custody, the last thing that prosecutors really want is to be sucked into a time-consuming, full-blown trial of the case. That’s a lot of extra work for them. Instead, police and prosecutors want you to immediately confess to a crime, so that they can quickly get credit for capturing yet another criminal. When you are brought to the police station for questioning, you are expected to be completely honest and forthcoming with the officers or detectives who conduct the interview. Any factual errors in your statement “can and will be used against you in a court of law.” By contrast, police believe that they themselves may resort to any form of lying treachery to force a confession from you, whether you’re guilty or not. For example, if police detain two robbery suspects, these individuals will be interviewed in separate rooms “because such an arrangement prevents the two from hearing, adopting, and corroborating each other’s fabricated alibis.” At least, this is the publicly-stated reason offered by police for their interrogative procedures. But the principal reason for separating the two suspects is

[1481-MILL]

94

DAVID MILLS

actually for police to individually lie to each one about how the other is supposedly implicating him as the “gang leader.” Police hope that their own unabashed lying will trick suspects into confessions such as “No, I only drove the get-away car. The other guy was the trigger man.” Whenever you read in the newspaper that a suspect has signed a confession at police headquarters, do you ever consider, even for a moment, that he may be perfectly innocent of the crime to which he has confessed? Your answer is probably “no.” But, in the real world, law-enforcement authorities often force individuals to confess to crimes which they did not commit. In such “plea bargains,” the defendant pleads guilty to a lesser charge to avoid trial and to avert a lengthy prison sentence. Plea bargaining does have its fair and legitimate uses in our judicial system. So I do not believe that it should be eliminated. But the public needs to appreciate that a significant minority of those who plead guilty and sign confessions are, in actuality, innocent of the charges against them. Why would an innocent person plead guilty? Here’s a typical scenario: Suppose that your friend is arrested by police for selling heroin to 12-year-old children. He is threatened with 20 years in prison. Prosecutors tell your friend that, if he implicates others in the drug-selling operation, he may be released within a few months and put on probation. So to escape a long prison sentence, your friend tells police that you smuggled the heroin from Mexico into the United States with him. When confronted by police interrogators, you adamantly and truthfully deny any participation in, or knowledge of, your friend’s illegal drug activity. Police and prosecutors then give you a choice: (1) Plead guilty to a lesser charge—perhaps that of simple drug possession—and receive a fifteen-hundred-dollar fine and three-months’ probation, or (2) Go to trial. Here, many people declare that they would never, under any circumstances, plead guilty to a crime of which they were wholly innocent. At first blush, most people insist, on


95

ethical principle, that a trial is essential “to clear their good names and to prove their innocence.” Law-enforcement authorities then warn you that, if you elect to go to trial (and give them all that extra work), the prosecution will: (a) ask the judge to keep you in jail until trial begins (perhaps 6 to 9 months from now), (b) call the local news media and take you on a few “Perp Walks” thereby ruining your reputation and career, (c) see that your children are sent to foster homes while you’re in jail awaiting trial. Moreover, the prosecution will threaten to introduce powerful evidence against you at trial, such as your “friend’s” perjurious testimony and perhaps “scientific” evidence from the police crime lab. You will be forced to hire a criminal defense attorney, thereby forfeiting your life savings and your children’s college fund. And, in the end, you’ll probably be found guilty and sent to prison for a decade! So, now, do you want to reconsider your decision, and pay the goddamned fifteen-hundred-dollar fine? I would. Millions of Americans were offended by Ken Starr’s prosecutorial overkill during his do-anything-to-win vendetta against Monica Lewinsky, Susan McDougal, Hillary Rodham Clinton and, of course, President Clinton himself. But Ken Starr was by no means an unusually vicious prosecutor. Starr’s distinction was that of being unusually petty in his choice of “crimes” to prosecute. Starr’s rabid, mad-dog tactics are commonplace in law enforcement. Similar abuses occur every day in every city across the United States. And the fact that a defendant pleads guilty may ultimately say more about the prosecutor’s ethics than it does about the “criminal’s.” • Profiling—Police departments often attempt to identify likely suspects to a crime by consulting their book of criminal profiles. A profile is a description of a “typical” offender for the crime in question. For example, if an unknown perpetrator has created and spread a malicious computer virus on the Internet, or has destructively hacked into a government web site, law enforcement officials know

[1481-MILL]

96

DAVID MILLS

through profiling that the culprit is almost certainly a male between 15 and 28. So police will not squander their time interrogating 80-year-old nuns in a convent. Profiling is a useful tool for law enforcement. But, like forensic science, police often misuse and misapply the tools of their trade. If an apprehended suspect happens to match the statistical profile of likely offenders, then the suspect is thereafter assumed by police to be guilty, whether or not there is corroborating evidence of guilt. There is no need for further investigation. Police have their man. Suppose that you are a male with a daughter who is 8 to 12 years old. If, tragically, your daughter should be molested, then you will immediately become the prime target of investigation. If you happen to be the girl’s stepfather, rather than her natural father, then you’ll almost certainly go to prison. “But I’m innocent,” you protest. “They couldn’t possibly have any evidence against me.” Rest assured that, if you fit the profile, evidence will surface, either from the police crime lab or from interviews conducted with the girl by child-abuse “experts.” The main problem with profiling is that it leads to a lazy, highly dangerous, and often-race-based closed-mindedness on the part of law enforcement. • Highway Robbery—Did you know that police have unbridled legal authority to stop you on the highway, steal your money at gunpoint, and keep it forever without even permitting you a preliminary hearing? That may sound ludicrous or inconceivable to you, but such police confiscations occur daily and are perfectly legal. Police need only label your assets as “drug money” in order to take and keep the contents of your wallet. Authorities in Volusia County, Florida, for instance, are notorious for stopping motorists at random and pocketing their vacation money. Police need not find drugs on your person or in your vehicle to legally take your last dollar. If they say “it’s drug money,” then it’s theirs—period. Police may respond that they sometimes perform an on-the-spot test of suspicious cash to determine whether it contains traces of cocaine or other drugs. But a full 70 percent of all US currency—


97

including cash in your possession—tests positive for drug residue. So this residue test is useless as a scientific tool, but is nonetheless employed by police as a pretext for their brazen highway robberies. If you don’t believe that these robberies really occur, or that they occur infrequently, you should know that, as of 1999, over 1 billion dollars of known assets—in both cash and property—had been confiscated by US law enforcement agencies. And what happens to cash once it is seized? Assuming that it reaches the police station, authorities may legally keep and use the funds “for public welfare.” • Police Brutality—During the 105th Congress, legislation was proposed to help protect battered women from their abusive husbands and boyfriends. This very modest bill—unfortunately tabled—would have denied a handgun permit to any man charged with domestic violence. To me, this proposal was simple common sense—a law that should have been enacted 100 years ago. And, for a few days, the idea was embraced even by conservative Congressmen loyal to the powerful gun lobby. It seemed that nobody wanted hot-headed wife beaters to carry loaded pistols. Then the National Rifle Association came out against the bill. Why? According to NRA spokesmen, if this bill were passed into law, tens of thousands of police officers would be forced to resign, since they could no longer legally carry a handgun. In other words, there are tens of thousands of police officers across the United States who have been charged with domestic abuse by their wives or girlfriends! It is apparently no coincidence therefore that the divorce rate among police officers is astronomically high. Being a police officer is a difficult and thankless task; and on-the-job stress does indeed affect many marriages. But it is also possible that men attracted to police work are, almost exclusively, individuals who are not overly averse to violent confrontation. Otherwise, they would never be drawn to such a turbulent, hard-nosed profession.

[1481-MILL]

98

DAVID MILLS

Now, I must confess that, if someone were breaking into my home, I would much prefer that the police send, for my protection, a gang of fearless, head-cracking tough guys than a prissy assemblage of poets and cosmologists. To be fair, I must additionally point out that most police officers never fire their weapons even once during their entire careers. Nevertheless, police brutality continues to be a problem in many cities. Amadou Diallo, an innocent and unarmed African immigrant, was walking alone into his New York apartment building when police “mistakenly” fired 41 shots at him, killing him instantly. Abner Louima, a Hispanic American, was thrown into a squad car and beaten. When he arrived at police headquarters, five officers rammed a wooden pole up his rectum, then shoved it down his throat. Louima required three operations to repair his injuries; yet police, at first, claimed that Louima had sodomized himself! Anthony Baez was passing football with a friend. The ball accidently rolled into the path of an oncoming patrol car. The officers placed Baez in a choke hold and killed him on the spot. Tyisha Miller, a black teenager from Riverside, California, fainted in her car at a gas station. Relatives called 911 for help. Policemen responded and shot the unconscious woman 12 times. Robert Ellison, of Bluefield, West Virginia, looked suspicious to police, so they handcuffed him and knocked him brutally to the ground. Police then dragged Ellison down the sidewalk by the hair, breaking his neck and paralyzing him for life. Early in 2000, it was discovered that entire divisions of the Los Angeles Police Department—and especially the notorious Rampart Division—were marauding the city committing murder, robbery, assault and battery, selling drugs, framing innocent people, planting evidence, and threatening to kill anyone who objected to their reign of terror. An independent investigation revealed that, in Los Angeles, as in countless other cities, the most ruthless criminal gang in town was in fact the local police department. While we generally think of police brutality as happening on the streets, Amnesty International reported in 1999 that police


99

barbarism in prisons is a widespread, yet little-discussed problem in America. Behind prison walls, inmates are beaten at the whim of any freewheeling guard. More often, guards encourage the inmates to fight among themselves in an entertainment spectacle akin to a cockfight. Moreover, Amnesty International reports that women are frequently raped in American prisons by male guards. Do you believe, as I formerly did, that women in US prisons are supervised by female guards? The truth is that 70 percent of those guarding women prisoners are men. Male guards openly watch women inmates as they undress, use the toilet, take showers, and even as they insert tampons during menstruation. Strip searches are conducted solely for the male guards’ entertainment and titillation. Amnesty International reports that, not only are women inmates often raped by male guards, but these goons frequently “rent” the female prisoners as sex slaves to male inmates. Most of these abuses go unreported, however, for fear of retaliation. William Schulz, Executive Director of Amnesty International USA, says “When the U.S. house is not in order, it makes it far harder for the U.S. to take the kind of leadership role in international human rights that many of us in Amnesty would like to see it take. The U.S. decries other countries while not abiding by international treaties and principles of human rights itself.” There are bad apples in all professions. And most law-enforcement personnel abhor the abuses listed above. But police departments presently deal with brutality charges by giving the tyrannical officers a temporary desk job—until public outrage blows over. After a few days, the abusive officers are returned to their previous duties. Instead, we need a policy in which police barbarism—whether on the job or in their domestic relationships— results in their immediate and permanent expulsion from the force. • Blue line of silence—The primary reason why police brutality is so difficult to eradicate and to prove in court is that policemen share a “brotherhood of the badge” or a “blue line of silence.” Under no circumstances will police testify willingly against each other

[1481-MILL]

100

DAVID MILLS

or report even the most horrendous abuses by fellow officers. Remember the scandalous Rodney King video, in which scores of Los Angeles policemen were caught on tape beating, kicking, taunting and shocking a black motorist as he lay prostrate on the ground. How many of those officers returned to police headquarters and lodged complaints against their comrades? The answer, of course, is none of them. The thought is laughable, because law-enforcement authorities employ a double standard of justice: one that applies to you and me, and another for themselves. As with dropsy evidence and crime-lab reports, police believe that their own lies, dirty tricks, concealment, brutality and courtroom perjury are not only permissible, but are indispensable elements of being a true-blue cop. Were it not for the infamous videotape, Los Angeles police would have denied unequivocally all of Rodney King’s accusations of police savagery. What happens to those rare police officials who violate the blue line of silence? The example of Police Chief Jeff Harbin is almost beyond belief: The case began on December 26, 1997, when Pennsylvania State Police stopped a motorist for an alleged traffic violation. The two troopers wrote in their arrest affidavit that the motorist, after being stopped, attempted to run and elbowed an officer in the face. After reading this affidavit, local prosecutors planned to charge the motorist with assaulting a police officer and with resisting arrest—two serious offenses. Carnegie, Pennsylvania, Police Chief Jeff Harbin then viewed a videotape of the entire incident, as recorded by the police cruiser’s own surveillance camera. The tape showed that, in reality, the motorist had not assaulted the troopers at all. Instead, the troopers had violently jerked the motorist out of his car, then began punching and kicking him repeatedly like a gang of street thugs. The motorist only then began to run, and only in self-defense. To protect the motorist from unfair criminal charges, Police Chief Harbin turned the videotape over to local prosecutors. Many nearby police departments then voiced absolute disgust and outrage at Harbin!


101

How could he betray his fellow police officers like that? What about the brotherhood of the badge? Area police were so incensed at Harbin that they began electronically jamming the communications of the Carnegie, Pennsylvania, Police Department, which Harbin headed. Police departments in surrounding towns stated openly that they would no longer support or back up Carnegie police in an emergency, because Harbin had surrendered the videotape to prosecutors. The striking fact here is that Pennsylvania police departments were not angry with the State Troopers, who brutally beat a motorist, then attempted to frame him by lying in a sworn affidavit. No. The police were instead angry that Harbin handed over the police department’s own videotape, which simply recorded the truth. So if you should someday sit on a jury, remember that, while there are admirable exceptions, such as Chief Jeff Harbin, most policemen would rather frame an innocent man, and send him to prison, than to betray their fellow officers, even when those officers are in fact the true lawbreakers. “That’s the kind of mindset that needs to be changed,” Harbin said. “Attitudes haven’t changed since I started 22 years ago.” • High Speed Chases—Hundreds of times each year, police’ high-speed chases needlessly kill or maim innocent motorists and pedestrians. Television networks and their affiliates, eager to boost ratings, compete among themselves to air the most daredevil “real cop” footage. It is not uncommon for historic Presidential addresses and news conferences to be preempted by local coverage of a breakneck police chase. Via helicopter-mounted camera, TV viewers follow the thrilling action, as police speed 120mph through a school zone in pursuit of teenagers who stole a tank of gas or gave police the finger. Television audiences love the excitement, especially when the chase ends in a fireball collision and death. Police seem only too happy to accommodate the public’s appetite for crash-and-burn law enforcement. Assuming that the fleeing suspects are captured alive, do you

[1481-MILL]

102

DAVID MILLS

know what is usually the most serious charge filed by prosecutors against this type of defendant? The answer is resisting arrest. In other words, the original “crime”—the crime for which police began their chase—is normally of lesser gravity than the crime of fleeing police. We thus have a comedic situation resembling a dog’s chasing its tail. The dog is trying to capture its tail primarily because the tail is fleeing. And the tail is fleeing because the dog is trying to capture it. But there is, in reality, nothing comedic about the carnage often wrought by these foolhardy police drag races. To steadfastly enforce the law, high-speed chases are rarely necessary. If police have truly eyeballed the “get away car,” then they know the make, model and license number of the vehicle. Using their own computerized database, authorities immediately know: (1) who owns the vehicle, (2) where that person lives, and (3) whether he has a criminal record. Instead of cannonballing through densely-populated areas at perilous speeds, police should— and sometimes do—abandon the chase, and arrest the suspect, by surprise, at his residence. If the fleeing vehicle is stolen and the driver’s identity is therefore a mystery, then a computerized database may be worthless; but, again, high-speed pursuit is seldom needed to maintain constant surveillance of, and to capture, the escaping suspects. For regardless of how fast the crooks are fleeing, they cannot exceed the speed of light (i.e., the speed at which police’ radio messages travel across town.) If police know, for example, that a stolen red Ford Mustang with gold wheel covers is heading south on Interstate 95, then patrol cars along the route and throughout the city can be instantly alerted. There is little chance that a competent police force, even when driving responsibly, will allow the stolen vehicle to disappear off the face of the earth. If high-speed chases are carried out even for minor law infractions, and if these chases are both dangerous and unnecessary to apprehend the suspects, why then do police departments continue their hotrod tactics? Police officers continue to drive like NASCAR racers because


103

they enjoy it so much. They learned high-speed driving techniques at the police academy and, by God, they’re not going to be outrun by a carload of teenage hooligans! So police continue to drive recklessly because of their own juvenile egos. Although a small minority of high-speed chases may indeed serve the public interest and be worth the risks, a majority of these chases speedily degenerate into an overreaching game of trivial pursuit. • Juries—There are two kinds of juries within our judicial system: (1) Grand juries, which hand down indictments for the prosecution, and (2) Petit juries (or trial juries), which render verdicts of guilty or not guilty. Grand juries conduct their business in highly secretive proceedings closed to the public. Even the transcripts of grand jury hearings are usually kept under seal. By contrast, petit juries sit in final judgment in trials open to news media and, often, to live television coverage. In my opinion, our entire grand jury system (which hands down indictments) should be abolished because it has become a pointless anachronism. Like the stagecoach, grand juries once served an important purpose, but time and circumstance have rendered them obsolete. When being interrogated before a grand jury, suspects are not even permitted the presence of legal counsel! Nor is the defense allowed to introduce its own witnesses or to present any form of exculpatory evidence! There is therefore no pretense of fairness in the grand jury, which invariably rubber-stamps any indictment sought by the prosecution. The grand jury system is thus a government authority whose deliberative process is identical to that of an old Soviet-style parliament: the rules established by the government preordain an outcome scripted by the government, yet, to the credulous, there is a facade of fairness, democracy, and even profundity. A commentator once observed that “prosecutors could lead a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.” As an alternative to grand juries, I believe that prosecutors, of their own accord, should have the right to indict suspects. I hold this opinion, not because I trust prosecutors to be fair or to exercise

[1481-MILL]

104

DAVID MILLS

restraint, but because prosecutors, in effect, already possess this unchecked authority. As a result, the grand jury system lends an undeserved air of legitimacy to every indictment handed down. When the defendant is then tried before a petit jury, his or her presumption of innocence becomes a joke, because petit jurors believe, almost universally, that an innocent defendant would never have been indicted by the grand jury and put on trial. Whether serving on a grand jury or a petit jury, most jury members themselves attempt to be objective and to take their responsibilities seriously. But many jurors—more than you think— view jury duty as a burden to be ended as rapidly as possible. Jurors have been known to quickly vote “guilty” so that they could return home before day’s end to water their gardens or to cook dinner. Jurors are sometimes angry for having been involuntarily taken away from their jobs and families. And their anger is usually vented on the defendant, who, in many localities, is found guilty almost 90 percent of the time. Moreover, since the 1995 acquittal of O.J. Simpson on charges of first degree murder, the percentage of trials ending in conviction has risen, probably because of public disdain for the Simpson verdict and a resulting, overly compensatory attitude among jurors to “do justice” and to “not turn criminals loose.” Most jurors—like most people in general—have little confidence in their own perceptions and critical reasoning. A majority of jury members are therefore easily influenced during deliberations by one or two strong-willed and vocal members, who, because of their more aggressive personalities, usually favor conviction. Jurors, moreover, often behave collectively like glassy-eyed followers of a mindless religious cult. The courtroom is seen as a holy sanctuary and the judge is seen as a noble, saint-like figure incapable of deceit. Most jurors are entirely unaware that judges are frequently in cahoots with prosecutors to introduce illegal dropsy evidence at trial and to knowingly permit and encourage police perjury on the witness stand. Jurors foolishly view the judge as a neutral arbiter of law, who makes his rulings solely “by the book.”


105

But law books and legal case histories are so hopelessly convoluted and contradictory that a judge can easily find statutes and legal precedents to support any decision he wishes to make. So while judges usually do render their decisions based upon “the law,” it is not law blindly applied, but law selectively chosen from a vast and disorganized assortment—law hand-picked by the judge to favor the prosecution.5 Juries should, for a moment, entertain the tiny possibility that the judge is not Jesus Christ Himself and that the prosecution is not always motivated by a humble and altruistic devotion to serving humanity. From both a legal and a logical frame of reference, it is disconcerting to hear jurors comment that they voted “guilty” because the defense didn’t prove this or didn’t prove that. Both law and logic place the burden of proof upon the affirmative position— that a defendant did commit a crime. Requiring the defense to prove anything is as illogical and unscientific in principle as assuming that life does exist on Pluto until someone proves that it doesn’t. Such a “prove-it-doesn’t” attitude is the hallmark and fundamental cornerstone of all pseudosciences. To remedy many of the problems within our law-enforcement and judicial systems, therefore, jurors need only exercise a healthy and heightened scientific skepticism about evidence presented to them at trial. This skepticism, in turn, will be developed through public education about the real world of law enforcement, as opposed to the idealistic view held by many uninformed suburban whites. And it is here—on the importance of public education— that we close this chapter on an optimistic note. Ken Starr, more than anyone in human history, has publicly exposed the cut-throat tactics of prosecutors obsessed to win through any means. News media are also playing a substantive role now in educating the public about the true inner workings of our judicial branch of government. In January, 1999, The Chicago Tribune ran a provocative series of articles detailing over 400 specific instances of police and prosecutorial misconduct, many of which resulted in the imprisonment of innocent people. Working on a shoestring budget,

[1481-MILL]

106

DAVID MILLS

Innocence Project at New York’s Cardozo Law School has, in just a few months, collected data on 77 death row inmates completely exonerated by DNA testing. One of these falsely condemned men was five days from execution! In a brilliant, Pulitzer-deserving 10-part series titled Win at all Costs, investigative reporters Bill Moushey and Bob Martinson write in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: “Hundreds of times during the past 10 years, federal agents and prosecutors have pursued justice by breaking the law. They lied, hid evidence, distorted facts, engaged in cover-ups, paid for perjury and set up innocent people in a relentless effort to win indictments, guilty pleas and convictions. Rarely were these federal officials punished for their misconduct. Rarely did they admit their conduct was wrong. “New laws and court rulings that encourage federal law enforcement officers to press the boundaries of their power while providing few safeguards against abuse fueled their actions. Victims of this misconduct sometimes lost their jobs, assets and even families. Some remain in prison because prosecutors withheld favorable evidence or allowed fabricated testimony. Some criminals walk free as a reward for conspiring with the government in its effort to deny others their rights.”

Notes on Chapter 3 1. Recently, police have begun using voice tension tests in their attempts to discern whether a suspect is telling the truth. Voice-tension analysis is based upon the identical principle of the “lie detector”—that the only reason for a suspect to be nervous is “consciousness of guilt.” Voice tension tests are therefore just as useless and unscientific as “lie detectors.” 2. Many American businesses have begun screening potential employees with a technique called Face Reading. Supposedly, various line or wrinkle patterns on the forehead, or certain chin sizes


107

and structures, indicate whether the candidate will be a hardworking and loyal employee. I personally have watched videotaped job interviews in which well-qualified applicants were refused employment because “their chins jutted out, indicating that they would attempt to dominate conversation and be insubordinate.” To me, there is no ethical difference between refusing employment due to facial lines or structures and refusing employment due to facial color. Both forms of discrimination flow from ignorance, rather than science. The pseudoscience of phrenology—in which bumps on the head were analyzed to predict the future—was laughed out of existence a century ago. But it appears to be staging a powerful comeback under a new name: Face Reading. 3. A new variant of dropsy-evidence abuse is for police to claim that the defendant deliberately threw the evidence on the ground, so as not to be arrested possessing it. This scenario sounds a bit more plausible but is nonetheless a fabricated tale to conceal unconstitutional police searches. 4. If you should be summoned for jury duty and want to avoid it, don’t say to the judge that you have to work. Your excuse will never be accepted. Don’t say that you must babysit your children. Again, your excuse will be considered insufficient. If you want to avoid jury duty, then politely say the following: “Yes, I believe that I can be a fair and impartial juror. In fact, I think I’m especially well qualified since I’ve been reading a lot recently about dropsy evidence.” Once the prosecutor hears you use the phrase “dropsy evidence,” you’ll be excused in a flash, whether or not the current case involves such deception. 5. If you believe that judges derive their decisions exclusively from the law, rather than from emotional attachment to an idealistic viewpoint, then consider this fact: The US Supreme Court consists of nine highly intelligent legal scholars, each of whom has decades of experience with the law and the

[1481-MILL]

108

DAVID MILLS

courts. Yet the Supreme Court commonly hands down 5-to-4 decisions. Are the four dissenting Justices ignorant of the law? Or is there enough law to cover any decision a judge wants to make?

PART II Pseudoscience Affecting Children and the Family

[0000-XXXX]

CHAPTER 4 Public “Education” vs. Homeschooling My wife and I have swapped traditional roles. While she works an eight-hour day outside the home, I care for our 3-year-old daughter, Sophia. My respect for mothers—always high—has been further heightened by my day-to-day experience with Sophia. In my role, I have become quite a curiosity in our neighborhood: a middle-aged man sauntering up and down the street each day, pushing a baby stroller and tying toddler shoelaces. A few neighbors believe that I’m gay—or that I at least lack a strong masculine character. Others wonder whether I am to be trusted with the care of a small child. Men in the neighborhood question when I’m going to get a “real job.” It is perhaps a sad commentary on the condition of American fatherhood that my status as primary caregiver is viewed as novel or suspicious. Babies, I have learned, draw lots of attention from passers-by, particularly from women and girls, whose maternal instincts invariably demand a glimpse of the baby and a prying question or two. As all fathers, I enjoy boasting about my child, and usually embark on a more-long-winded narration than listeners care to endure. But I also enjoy turning the tables, and posing a few questions of my own to the neighborhood kids. My first question is, “How are you doing in school?” Second, I’ll ask, “How do you like school?”

[1481-MILL]

112

DAVID MILLS

“Honor Students” Since virtually all of the children answer quite truthfully that they are “Honor Students,” I was initially very impressed with the elevated academic performance of our neighborhood. Almost every car cruising down the street displays a bumper sticker reading “My child is an honor student at Possum Hollow Middle School,” or “My child is a gifted and talented student at Jethro Elementary.” I thought that, despite its slum-like appearance, my neighborhood must be the intellectual capital of the state, producing dozens of future Newton’s and Einstein’s. I was puzzled, though, by the children’s invariant reaction to my second question—whether they liked school. For despite their status as “Honor Students,” the neighborhood kids always claim that they despise school. They hate going to school; they hate the teachers; they hate being in class; and they hate the course work. The only things they like about school are the frequent class cancellations—for Spring Break, for teachers’ meetings and luncheons, for Groundhog Day, for ice-skating parties, for field trips to the Coke bottling factory, for bad weather, for the possibility of bad weather, and for reasons of lesser gravity. Any conceivable excuse— such as the opening of deer-hunting season1—is justification for local school boards to close school for days or weeks at a time. The only school activities taken seriously are the sporting events, which neither hurricane nor nuclear war could disrupt. We’ve all bemoaned the familiar news stories about the drugs, violence, teacher incompetence, and lack of student discipline within our crumbling school houses. But an even graver problem, in my opinion, is the public school’s wholesale abandonment of a core educational curriculum. As I type these words into my computer, I see, on the desk beside me, a copy of my neighbor’s class schedule for next semester. My neighbor is a bright fourteen-year-old girl completing 8th grade. Here is her class lineup: (1) Aerobics, (2) Cooking, (3) English, (4) Art, (5) Steps (i.e., a free-for-all forum in which students “study” a variety of non-specific


113

subjects), (6) Tech Ed, (7) Creative Stitchery (i.e., sewing). Other courses available to her include “Self-Concepts” (i.e., a school-sponsored sermon on the alleged virtues of self-esteem) and “Eagles Nest,” whose rationale I have yet to decode. Today’s kids view school as a humorless joke and as a complete waste of time. I am inclined to agree with their assessment. Are your local schools as bad as ours? I doubt it. Are your local schools significantly better than ours? I doubt that too. While they may not close for deer-hunting season, the academic standards of your own neighborhood schools are probably declining as well. Ample evidence of this collapse is seen in the spectacle known as “Grade Inflation.” Grade Inflation refers to the fact that an A or B or C isn’t worth what it was a few years ago. Just as monetary inflation erodes the value of a dollar, Grade Inflation erodes the value of a student’s grades. In many school districts, almost 40 percent of the students now earn straight A’s. Many teachers routinely give A’s to any student who simply shows up for class regularly. Moreover, while students have been “earning” higher and higher grades over the past twenty-five years, their performance on standardized SAT tests has, by contrast, declined to all-time lows. America’s students rank at or near the bottom in virtually every academic discipline when compared to students in other countries. Yet American students “earn” the highest grades. Clearly, our public school system has self-destructed and is now, I believe, beyond redemption. The reason why public schools are hereafter beyond redemption is that all newly-trained teachers now entering the classroom were themselves “educated” by the same broken-down system which now employs them. We therefore face an inescapable downward spiral in which a failed system produces poorly-trained teachers, who, in turn, perpetuate a failing educational system. Today’s public school teachers are little more than state-hired babysitters, warehousing the children while parents work or watch television. The sad, yet irrefutable fact is this:

[1481-MILL]

114

DAVID MILLS

The public schools of the United States are an unqualified disaster and are now incapable of properly educating our children.

If You Want It Done Right . . . I am not revealing a deeply-hidden secret that the public schools are an abysmal failure. You knew that already. The seemingly insoluble problems with our educational system are all-too-familiar, yet, paradoxically, all-too-rarely addressed. The popular “solution” now embraced by many parents is to withdraw their children from public school and enroll them in privately funded institutions. Many political and civic leaders are proposing government-sponsored vouchers, which parents may use to finance their children’s private educations. Such proposals, however, face rabid opposition from many professional educators, who believe that public money should go to public, not private, schools. Powerful teachers’ unions, such as the NEA, also fear that diverting government funds from public to private schools will further impoverish an already-underfunded public school system, thereby worsening its myriad problems. Unquestionably, the United States has many outstanding private schools for elementary, middle school and high school students. But contrary to conventional “wisdom,” our country has plenty of lousy private schools as well. The truly outstanding private schools are few in number. If you live in a rural area, as I do, your options are limited (or nonexistent) for enrolling your children in a quality private school. Moreover, top-notch private schools are usually prohibitively expensive for the average middle-income family, particularly if more than one child is enrolled. Even worse for those considering private education is that many private schools in the United States are religion-based institutions. Although the drug, violence and disciplinary problems are often less pronounced in religious-affiliated schools, their academic curriculum is frequently no better than that of the public schools— and is sometimes worse! Religion-based schools (and private schools


115

in general) do tend to more-properly emphasize the important basics of reading, writing and arithmetic. SAT scores document the religious schools’ noteworthy success in this regard. So let’s give credit where credit is due. But because of the schools’ religious affiliation, the remainder of the curriculum frequently suffers a painful debauchery, especially in schools run by Protestant and Fundamentalist groups. As we discuss elsewhere in this book, biblical literalists wed themselves to the Genesis chronology, which portrays a 6000-year-old Earth. In order to maintain their belief in a young Earth, it is necessary for religious schools to disregard or grossly pervert the teachings of modern anthropology, archeology, astronomy, biology, chemistry, geology, paleontology, physics, and zoology. Moreover, students in many religious schools are taught that Earth had no Prehistoric Era, since Adam and Eve, who allegedly began Earth’s history, were created by God only 6000 years ago and lived side-by-side with the dinosaurs. The Flintstones had it right after all! Perhaps I am biased, but I do not believe that such religious teachings qualify as “educational.” On the contrary: such teachings make a mockery of everything that mankind has discovered since the Renaissance. Impressionable children are not being properly educated if they are taught that religious dogma is synonymous with scientific reality. When we consider that quality private schools are few in number and prohibitively expensive, we often turn to the religious schools for our children’s educational “salvation.” When we realize, however, that the religious schools’ curricula are usually quite anti-science, we face a stark reality: If you want your children to be properly educated, then you will probably have to educate them yourself.

[1481-MILL]

116

DAVID MILLS

Teaching Your Own Children Perhaps you would like to homeschool your children, but you feel unprepared or unqualified for the task. You are not a professional teacher, and maybe you’re not a college graduate. Perhaps you don’t even consider yourself particularly bright. Nonetheless, if you are reading and comprehending the words printed on this page, then you are capable of successfully educating your children up through, and including, high school. Indeed, if you can somehow purchase a Teacher’s Manual—listing the answers to questions posed in the student’s textbook—you will instantly acquire as much “specialized training” and “professional expertise” as your child’s public school teachers. Did you know that over 50 percent of all teachers in public schools did not major in college in the subject they teach? Any additional knowledge you impart to your child—beyond merely reading the answers out of the Teacher’s Manual—will be a bonus, placing your child well ahead of the traditionally “educated” students in the public schools. While a parent’s high intelligence is certainly helpful in carrying out a homeschooling program, a towering I.Q. is not essential. The problem with public school teachers is not that they necessarily lack intelligence. The problem is that, for a multitude of reasons beyond their control, public school teachers lack motivation and particular interest in your child. By contrast, a child who is homeschooled receives thirty times more personalized instruction than a child who sits in a public school classroom alongside thirty other students! This exponential increase of personal instruction and interaction provides your child with incalculable advantages over students in the public schools. Moreover, the homeschooled child has a drug-free, violence-free, distraction-free environment in which to learn. It is better for a child to enjoy sustained, loving, one-on-one attention from a parent of average math ability than to be lectured by a Nobel laureate with whom the child can rarely interact. No matter how poorly and inadequately a parent may educate


117

his or her own child, the parent may take comfort in the certainty that the public schools would have done worse. It takes very little knowledge or effort on the parents’ part to provide a better education at home than the public schools provide. Parents who educate their own children risk failure. Parents who send their children to public schools guarantee failure. It is better to trust a child’s education to parents of questionable competence than to a public school system whose incompetence has been proven beyond doubt. The success of a homeschooling program is determined less by a parent’s intelligence than by his or her ability to spark excitement and curiosity about the subjects being taught. Glenn Doman, whose pioneering work we discuss later, tells of two kinds of mothers he has trained to be homeschooling parents. The first type is the serious, scholarly, university graduate armed with her Ph.D. The second group Doman calls the “Dizzy Blondes.” By “Dizzy Blondes” Doman does not mean that these particular mothers are suffering vertigo, nor that their hair is necessarily blonde. The term “Dizzy Blondes” is used by Doman to denote mothers who tend to interact with their children in a silly, lighthearted and excitable way. Doman confesses that, initially, he expected the serious, scholarly mothers to be the better homeschooling teachers. Forty years of experience, however, have now convinced him otherwise. Doman now asserts that a parent’s exuberance, animation and obvious excitement about the subject matter are far more predictive of homeschooling success than a parent’s scholarly background. As unlikely as it seems, The Andy Griffith Show is one of the finest “training courses” for parents who wish to homeschool their children. The universally beloved deputy, Barney Fife, played by Don Knotts, provides the best example I’ve ever heard of how to speak entertainingly and interestingly to a child. I’m told that, in reality, Knotts is a calm, low-key, rational individual. Yet when playing Barney Fife, Knotts’ voice fluctuates energetically from high pitch to low pitch and back again. His character exudes a boundless enthusiasm, an over-excitement about his current circumstance.

[1481-MILL]

118

DAVID MILLS

His facial expressions are wildly exaggerated. His body language reflects zeal and over-ambition. If you were to read a typewritten manuscript of The Andy Griffith Show, I doubt that Don Knotts’ dialog would come across as particularly funny. Rather, it is Knotts’ manner of speaking which so delights the viewers and which holds their captive attention throughout the 500th rerun of the same episode. Let’s remember Barney’s unbridled energy and vivacity the next time we want to hold a child’s attention. Barney Fife never acts bored, and therefore never bores his audience: a valuable lesson for any homeschooling teacher—and a lesson long since forgotten in the moribund public schools. I don’t mean to suggest that a parent need only do a reasonable impersonation of Barney Fife in order to establish a successful homeschooling program. No. While attracting and maintaining a child’s willing and loyal attention are the indispensable first step, there clearly must be a substantive academic curriculum to be taught and learned. Ironically, the actual teaching of a fundamental, core curriculum—which the public schools have now forsaken altogether—is easily manageable for the homeschooling parent. The parent-instructor need not be a genius or, like Isaac Asimov, a bonafide expert in every field of study. The parent-instructor need only be willing to joyously share with the child the excitement of exploring a world of fascinating educational materials. Walk into any library or bookstore, and you see thousands of beautifully printed, superbly-written books, for all ages, on every subject imaginable. It is not difficult to choose books that are infinitely more educational, better-written, and far more absorbing than the miserable textbooks used in the public schools. John Leo, of U.S. News & World Report, laments the deplorable textbooks now being introduced into the schools. Leo writes that “one sign of the times is the popular textbook Secondary Math: an Integrated Approach: Focus on Algebra. It talks about the rain forest, Maya Angelou’s poetry, and student feelings about zoos but doesn’t get around to solving its first linear equation until Page 218.”


119

Again, the public schools have thoroughly demonstrated their inability to educate children. Why would homeschooled students therefore want to use public-school textbooks which are proven failures? Even a book selected blindly or randomly in a public library or bookstore has more educational promise than a textbook proven by millions of students to be educationally worthless. Walk into a computer store, and you see hundreds of educational CD-ROM titles for children 18 months and older. Most of these educational CD’s are truly spectacular learning tools! Children adore the motion, the brilliant color, the music, the characters, the interaction, and the just-plain fun these CD’s provide while educating. A child’s interactive encyclopedia on CD-ROM is a fabulous treasury of knowledge for any child (or any adult!). New educational software is released almost daily by hundreds of different companies. And no topic, however obscure, is left unexplored or unexplained by the world’s leading experts on the subject. Using a computer, your child may personally interact with Leonardo da Vinci, Isaac Newton, Abraham Lincoln, or a Killer Whale. With today’s unprecedented availability of delightfully educational books and powerful, interactive CD-ROM libraries of learning, the current generation of children should be the brightest in history, rather than the most unremarkable. So what’s the problem? The greatest tragedy of the public schools is not that the students are left uneducated—though that is usually the case. The greatest tragedy is that public schools instill within children a life-long hatred of learning. I myself attended public schools, and you probably did too. Okay, then, please tell me honestly whether the following words evoke in you a positive or a negative emotional response: • Homework • Study

[1481-MILL]

120

DAVID MILLS

• Book Report • Pop Quiz • Memorization • Report Card • 10-Page Essay • Final Exams These words induce, in almost everyone, feelings of anxiety, tension, and impending doom. The principal reason why children hate school so universally and unequivocally is that they are literally forced to attend, forced to participate in boring classroom activities, and forced to complete meaningless, busywork assignments. If a child refuses to cooperate, he is penalized, ridiculed and, sometimes, physically beaten. Inherently fascinating subjects of study become onerous and despised when poorly taught and when made compulsory. No one—least of all a child—likes to be forced to do anything. Rebellion is the result, and a life-long hatred of learning is the predictable and invariant consequence. Which book would you study with more interest and in greater detail: (1) a book which you personally selected and read comfortably at your own pace, or (2) a book which someone else selected, then forced you to read under a high-pressure deadline? Children are extremely curious about the world in which they live. Children naturally want to learn. They love learning because knowledge-acquisition is our species’ most developed, genetically-encoded survival skill. Children would much rather study the most insignificant detail of their surroundings—curiously overturning each newly-discovered rock—than to be forced by parents to play with a store-bought toy, however expensive the toy might have been.


121

The public schools do a magnificent job of crushing a child’s innate curiosity. Any child who thinks independently or who displays any exceptional ability is quickly humiliated and hammered into conformity with the mediocre masses. Public school teachers dislike students who think creatively, because these students ask questions not addressed in the Teacher’s Manual. If the homeschooling parent does little more than preserve and encourage the child’s natural-born inquisitiveness, the homeschooling program will be a monumental success, regardless of the parent’s academic background. When the homeschooling parent is asked a question which he or she cannot answer, the parent and child can eagerly and happily search together for the answer, even if it means an extra trip to the library, or a history lesson from a neighbor who vividly recalls the painful details of the Great Depression. So remember: You do not have to be a professional teacher or a genius to educate your own children.

Homeschooling and the Law Laws in all fifty states now permit homeschooling. In many school districts, you simply notify the school board in writing of your intention to homeschool—and that’s it. In other districts, your children must take a yearly exam to confirm that they are keeping pace with students in public schools. (That’s not asking a lot.) Some states require that the parent-instructor must have completed four more years of formal education than the highest grade he will be teaching at home. If, for example, the parent is teaching 1st grade, then he must have completed 5th grade himself in the public schools. If the parent-instructor is teaching 8th grade, then he or she must have completed 12th grade. These rules are not unreasonable or overly burdensome. The laws regulating homeschooling are continually being amended, so you’ll need to research the laws

[1481-MILL]

122

DAVID MILLS

governing your own geographical region. But generally speaking, if you want to homeschool your children, you usually can. Elsewhere in this book, I criticize the Fundamentalist Christian community for its scientific misstatements. But, in regard to homeschooling, I am again forced to give credit when credit is deserved. The fact that homeschooling is now legal in every state is due primarily to the skilled and effective lobbying efforts of Protestant Fundamentalists. Following the 1963 Supreme Court decision that removed mandatory prayer and Bible-reading from the public schools, many Fundamentalists began educating their children at home. Local school boards often objected, and Fundamentalists fought many legal battles to win the right to homeschool. Today, every homeschooling parent, regardless of his or her religious views, owes a debt of gratitude to those believers who paved the way.

Working Parents and Homeschooling Many parents are now thoroughly disgusted with the public schools. These parents sadly realize that their children learn nothing each day in the classroom. If the children merely return home after school with no stab or gunshot wounds, the school day is considered a success. Moreover, many parents recognize that a homeschooling program, however inadequate or ineptly taught, would provide their children a better education than do the public schools. Nonetheless, even these highly dissatisfied parents rarely choose to homeschool their children. Why? The main objection which parents voice against homeschooling is that their work schedules do not permit sufficient time for a home-based learning program. Both mother and father are forced by economic reality to work an eight-hour day. And with life’s other chores and responsibilities, there’s not much free time available for homeschooling. Perhaps the public schools do function as mere babysitting services. But a lot of parents need a free and dependable babysitting service


123

during the day. If scant time is available for the parent and child to interact, homeschooling may seem an impossibility. “Not so!” say David Colfax and his wife, Micki, who together authored Homeschooling for Excellence. In their enlightening and provocative book, the Colfaxes make a startling assertion about the time wasted in public school and, in comparison, the time required for successful homeschooling. “The numbers are straightforward and irrefutable. The child who attends public school typically spends approximately 1,100 hours a year there, but only twenty percent of these—220—are spent, as the educators say, ‘on task.’ Nearly 900 hours, or eighty percent, are squandered on what are essentially organizational matters. “In contrast, the homeschooled child who spends only two hours a day, seven days a week, year-round, on basics alone, logs over three times as many hours ‘on task’ in a given year than does his public school counterpart. Moreover, unlike the public school child, whose day is largely taken up by non-task activities, the homeschooled child has ample time left each day to take part in other activities—athletics, art, history, etc.—without having to sacrifice other interests, as is commonly the case in school where, for example, one may have to choose between playing sports or playing in the orchestra simply because of time constraints.” So according to David and Micki Colfax, two hours per day, every day, of homeschooling provide your child with three times more educational hours than the public schools! The Colfaxes’ book, moreover, was published over ten years ago, after which time the public schools have sunken deeper and deeper into the abyss. Today, the reality may be that thirty minutes of homeschooling provide your child with thirty minutes’ more education than he or she would receive in public school. Obviously, the more time you devote to homeschooling, the better the result. But if both parents must work outside the home, and if time is a scarce commodity, I can think of no more splendid or fruitful use of that limited time than for parent and child to share the pleasures of learning together. Both emotional bonds

[1481-MILL]

124

DAVID MILLS

and intellectual development will be richly enhanced for parent and child alike. Remember: Homeschooling does not necessarily require a great deal of time.

College for Homeschoolers David and Micki Colfax also explode the myth that homeschooled children have difficulty being admitted to major universities or elite colleges. Any homeschooled student who can do reasonably well on a few standardized tests, such as the SAT, and who can write a decent essay, will face no problem being admitted to a good college, say the Colfaxes, who clearly know what they’re talking about. All four of their homeschooled children graduated from college with honors, three of them from Harvard University! You may wonder whether the four Colfax children simply inherited “smart” genes and whether their extraordinary academic achievements occurred in spite of—rather than because of—their homeschooling background. The nature-versus-nurture question has, in this case, a definitive answer, since two of the four Colfax children were adopted, one an African-American child, the other a child of Asian ancestry. The Colfaxes’ natural-born children are Caucasian. So there! A good home-based educational program can produce Harvard material from children of diverse racial, economic, and ethnic backgrounds. Would your children, if homeschooled, graduate with honors from Harvard? Probably not. Would your children, if homeschooled, get a better education at home than in public school? Absolutely! Admissions directors of major universities are now thoroughly fed up with the multitude of straight-A high school graduates who, once admitted to college, reveal themselves to be functional illiterates. Regarding homeschooled college applicants, one admissions director writes, “We get very weary of reading application


125

after application from students who are first in their class and captain of the football team. It’s refreshing to come across someone who is different.” I (David Mills) possess a partial list of American colleges which openly recruit and accept homeschooled students. This list, though incomplete, now exceeds 700 schools and is growing rapidly as the public schools continue to implode. Virtually every American university whose name you would recognize now accepts homeschooled students. When compared to students in public school, homeschooled students are usually better prepared for college and have little difficulty being accepted by the college or university of their choice.2

Critics of Homeschooling Critics of homeschooling frequently argue that “book learning is not everything” and that “children need personal contact with other kids to enjoy themselves and to develop important social skills. A healthy child needs friends to play with,” say the critics, “and homeschooling, by definition, occurs in relative isolation.” It is scandalous that the primary function of public schools is now to provide a facility in which the students may establish social contacts! Sad but true that the public schools now justify their existence by claiming to be a force for community interaction, rather than primarily institutions of learning. While I agree wholeheartedly that children need to develop a diversity of friendships, this fact does not, in theory, preclude the schools from teaching substantive courses on meaningful subjects. In practice, however, the public schools have wholly abandoned basic education and are now focused on social engineering—particularly the teaching of self-esteem. While even America’s top students rank at the very bottom academically when compared with students in other industrialized nations, American students nonetheless enjoy the highest reported levels of self-esteem

[1481-MILL]

126

DAVID MILLS

when compared with their foreign counterparts. In other words, American students feel the very best about doing the very worst. Instead of teachers’ and students’ “esteeming” themselves for their dismal performance, perhaps students and teachers alike need a refresher course in shame and humility. Returning to the question at hand: homeschooled students are almost never isolated from other children. Homeschooled kids meet and make friends with other children in a multitude of ways and in a wide variety of places: around the neighborhood, at church, on sports teams, at the playground, at the mall, etc. Moreover, many homeschooling families join local, state, and national organizations, which sponsor frequent social events and get-togethers so that homeschooled kids can get acquainted. The only social contact missed by homeschooled children is the peer-group pressure exerted within the public schools to experiment with drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, unprotected sex, reckless driving, and to generally rebel against parental authority. Your children can happily do without these social influences.

Undoing the Damage Needless to say, the opinions I’ve expressed in this chapter are not popular or widely accepted within the educational establishment. Teachers, principals, and school board officials vociferously defend their positions within an entrenched educational bureaucracy. Here is a typical reaction I hear from defenders of the public-school status quo: “Mills, you must be totally out of your mind to imagine that pulling children out of school is a responsible act! Unless compelled to attend school, children will simply sit at home watching television, playing video games, or getting into trouble on the streets. Are you so naive, Mills, as to believe that children who quit school devote themselves suddenly to solving algebra equations and diagraming sentences?”


127

It is instructive to notice here that, in voicing their skepticism about homeschooling, public school employees find it totally inconceivable that children might want to learn something. That children might enjoy the educational process is truly laughable to the public school establishment. The reason for this hard-nosed cynicism on the part of professional educators is that virtually every child they encounter on a day-to-day basis hates school with a passion. Teachers assume therefore that children simply hate to learn. Such a belief, however, is analogous to a serial rapist who observes that all of his victims despise him. The rapist then concludes that his victims must hate sex. The rapist and the public schools share the philosophy that force and intimidation must be exerted to secure the cooperation of unwilling participants. Yet the rapist and the public school establishment fail to realize that they are despised precisely because of the force and intimidation they exert. Sex, if uncoerced and freely chosen, can be a highly pleasurable experience—just as learning, if uncoerced and freely chosen, can be fun and deeply enriching. Children have no intrinsic aversion to learning. Their aversion is to being forced to attend schools which teach nothing interesting or useful. Psychologists tell us that women who have been abused repeatedly over many years—perhaps by wife-beating husbands or pedophile step-fathers—sometimes develop a generalized (and understandable) hatred of all men, even men who never abused them in any way. Similarly, if your child has been victimized for years by America’s wretched public schools, he or she may have already developed a generalized hatred of learning. A reliable indicator is whether your child, during his own free time, voluntarily reads books unrelated to his school assignments. In other words, does your child sometimes read for pleasure? If your answer is no, you may indeed face modest, short-term rebellion to homeschooling—until the home atmosphere, along with your love and patience, provides an antidote to your child’s poisoned attitude toward learning—a poison injected by the public schools.

[1481-MILL]

128

DAVID MILLS

Your child may literally suffer a temporary form of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder caused by his warlike years in public education. It is usually possible, however, to undo the damage and to revive your child’s inborn curiosity about the world in which he lives. Just as prevention of a car accident is preferable to surgically repairing the wounds, your duty as a parent, above all else, is to protect from harm your children’s innate desire to learn. You must prevent the public schools from corrupting your children’s attitude in the first place. You may succeed in this goal only by homeschooling your children from the start in a relaxed, pressure-free environment in which the children themselves have a major voice in determining what is studied and how it is taught. Adults who believe that homeschooling will fail “because children don’t like to study” are believing erroneously that children view learning with the same disdain as do adults, whose own ambition for learning was long ago crushed by public education. It is crucial, therefore, that the homeschooling parent begin early, and always display an exuberant, overly-enthusiastic attitude toward learning. The parent must become a child at heart and, from the start, express a child-like excitement about exploring a universe of knowledge. The principal reason why Carl Sagan was so popular with his readers and television viewers was that he himself was obviously thrilled by his topic of discussion. If a new hunk of rock were discovered orbiting Neptune, Sagan’s demeanor would rise to orgasmic ecstacy. His eyes would sparkle in wonder; his voice would choke with emotion when describing the latest findings. Sagan, I’m sure, would readily admit that thousands of other scientists were as knowledgeable as he was. But Sagan, unlike most other adults, never lost his child-like sense of adventure. And that is why Carl Sagan became the world’s most beloved educator. Remember: Children will enjoy and cooperate with a homeschooling program unless their attitude toward learning has been poisoned beforehand by the public schools.


Quotations “It is, in fact, nothing short of a miracle that the modern methods of education have not yet entirely strangled the curiosity of inquiry.” —Albert Einstein “My schooling not only failed to teach me what it professed to be teaching, but prevented me from being educated to an extent which infuriates me when I think of all I might have learned at home by myself.” —George Bernard Shaw “I remember that I was never able to get along at school. I was always at the foot of the class.” —Thomas Edison “Show me the man who has enjoyed his schooldays and I will show you a bully and a bore.” —Robert Morley “School days, I believe, are the unhappiest in the whole span of human existence. They are full of dull, unintelligible tasks, new and unpleasant ordinances, and brutal violations of common sense and common decency.” —H.L. Mencken “The founding fathers in their wisdom decided that children were an unnatural strain on their parents. So they provided jails called school, equipped with tortures called education.” —John Updike “Natural ability without education has more often raised a man to glory and virtue than education without natural ability.” —Cicero

[1481-MILL]

129

130

DAVID MILLS “I suppose it is because nearly all children go to school nowadays, and have things arranged for them, that they seem so forlornly unable to produce their own ideas.” --Agatha Christie

Notes on Chapter 4 1. I am not attempting to be humorous. Many school boards in the state in which I live do in fact close school for a full week at the onset of deer-hunting season. The reason given for this week-long sabbatical is that few of the students would attend class anyway, since their fathers, who are invariably and inexplicably unemployed at the start of deer-hunting season, want their children to learn firsthand how to gun-down animals. 2. The Home School Legal Defense Association published a study in 1999 revealing that homeschooled students score significantly higher in every subject and at every grade level on standardized tests than their public and private school counterparts.

CHAPTER 5 Early Learning vs. “Age-Appropriate” Learning If a key to effective homeschooling is to begin early, before the public schools have done their damage, then at what age should you start educating your children? Conventional wisdom holds that, as children grow and mature year by year, they become increasingly capable of learning facts and absorbing educational materials. Child-rearing experts tell us that babies and toddlers cannot comprehend complex information and, thus, must be loved and nurtured, but not educated. For this reason, children do not begin formal schooling until age six, when they enter 1st grade. Until that time, children are supposedly too immature for “serious” learning. In reality, this conventional “wisdom”—that children, as they age, grow increasingly capable of learning—is not only false, but extraordinarily harmful mythology. The scientific fact is that a newborn child learns faster during his first year of life than during his second. He learns faster during his second year of life than during his third. As the child’s brain ages, the rate at which new information is acquired declines dramatically, rather than increases. The reason for this decline in the rate of knowledge acquisition is not that the child has already “filled his brain to capacity” or has already “learned all the fundamentals.” This gradual retardation of learning proficiency is solely the result of physical changes occurring within the brain itself. By the time the child is 6-years-old—and of “school age”—his brain is physiologically complete. The fact that the brain is physiologically complete may sound

[0000-XXXX]

132

DAVID MILLS

like a great advantage, or even an essential prerequisite to the introduction of educational materials. But the opposite is actually true. Precisely because the brain is no longer physically developing, learning becomes difficult and time-consuming for the child. If a 1st grader, for example, merely learns his ABC’s and can recognize a few basic words, his achievements are cause for grand celebration because of the alleged difficulty and complexity of these tasks. Again, the popular belief is that babies and toddlers are unable to grasp sophisticated intellectual concepts. Babies, therefore, are treated like babies, and are not deliberately introduced to complicated intellectual challenges. But, although babies are not deliberately introduced to high-level concepts, all young children, through happenstance, immediately face, and swiftly master, what is probably the toughest intellectual challenge in the world: learning a language. Children learn to understand their native tongue at a speed that no adult, however bright, can match. With no classroom or formal lessons of any kind, tiny children quickly master a “foreign” language- “foreign” in the sense that it is completely unfamiliar to them at birth, just as Japanese or Swahili is unfamiliar to you and me. Children learn language much faster, and infinitely better, than do adults. This crucial fact is important to fully understand, so let’s provide a clear illustration. Think, for a moment, about the most dim-witted married couple you know—a couple whose combined IQ would still fall in single digits. Now suppose that this dullest of all couples has a baby, who, we’ll speculate, did not exactly inherit genes from the Nobel spermbank. Take this baby at birth and place her on a ship. Aboard this ship, we’ll also reserve a seat for my cousin, Bob, who is 50 years-old. Cousin Bob is better known to the academic community as Dr. Robert Entzminger, the renowned professor of language and English literature. There’s no doubt that, when it comes to language, Bob knows his stuff. If you tape recorded a conversation with Bob, and typed up a transcript, his spoken words could be published as an article in any scholarly journal with no


133

editing whatever. I never read one of his books or essays that didn’t send me to the dictionary repeatedly. Frequently, the unfamiliar words aren’t even found in my dictionary. Whenever I phone Bob for help, his wife, Mary Lou, usually tells me that he’s out of town, or out of the country, presenting a paper at some highbrow conference or giving one of his guest lectures on language at Oxford. So Bob, along with the newborn baby, boards the ship and, let’s say, sets sail for Japan. Arriving on the Japanese shore, Bob and the baby go their separate ways. The baby is cared for by a working-class Japanese couple of below-average intelligence. The baby, as she grows, is given no special advantages or “language lessons” of any kind. Bob, however, is welcomed to Tokyo University, where he is provided a private tutor to assist him in learning the Japanese language. Bob is also given an armload of language-training cassettes and a generous supply of English-Japanese textbooks, dictionaries, and phrase books. Now, let’s fast forward the calendar six years into the future. We’ll check out the progress made by Bob and the now-6-year-old child in learning to speak Japanese. Who do you think speaks more fluently? With all due respect to Cousin Bob, whose language skills I greatly admire, the child’s mastery of the Japanese language will be superior. The child will communicate with far more natural ease, and she will better understand the spoken words of others. Moreover, the child will have mastered the language effortlessly, never once viewing the Japanese language as a burdensome imposition. Never once will the child have considered herself to be “studying” a language. She felt no pressure and no apprehension about the incredibly difficult task of learning a language. For six years, she simply absorbed the Japanese language with the same unconscious ease as her lungs absorbed the surrounding oxygen. Bob, by contrast, will have suffered a tortuous ordeal, more resembling a lung cancer operation than an effortless breathing of oxygen. Despite his always-diplomatic exterior, Bob will have cursed privately at his English-Japanese textbooks. He will have shaken his fist angrily at his language cassette tapes. And he will

[1481-MILL]

134

DAVID MILLS

have cried in anguished despair over his “easy-to-use” Japanese phrase books. Furthermore, regardless of the size of Bob’s Japanese vocabulary, he will forever speak with a thick accent, which the 6-year-old child will view as comical, since she herself speaks with no accent. The moral of this story is that an average child—even a below average child—learns easier, faster, and better than the most brilliant adult. Preschool-age children do not perceive learning with the same anxiety and foreboding as do adults. Consequently, preschoolers do not suffer the pressure and emotional turmoil which bedevil adults who strive to absorb new information. It really is difficult to teach an old dog new tricks. But whether canine or human, the young learn faster than the old, despite the prevailing “conventional wisdom” to the contrary. So the next time you see a newborn baby, do not imagine yourself to be “intellectually superior” to the child; for you are not. You may have memorized a few more facts than the child, due to your having lived longer. But your ability to learn new information, and your overall educational potential, dwarf in comparison to the child’s capabilities. Again, the younger the child, the easier, faster, and better he or she learns. The very young learn the very fastest because their brains are still in the process of physical growth and development. It is both sad and ironic, therefore, that children are usually denied an education until age 6, by which time their brains have ceased developing, and their ability to learn is greatly diminished. A fitting analogy is the building of a computer. If you are designing a computer to perform specific tasks, your computer will operate far more efficiently if those tasks are designed and built into the system hardware, rather than performed by software contrived as an afterthought to overcome hardware limitations. By analogy, anything the child learns while his brain is still “in design and development” becomes, in effect, part of the “system hardware.” After age 6, when “design and development” are complete, new tasks can be accomplished only


135

through slow, inefficient “reprogramming,” which, in our analogy, corresponds to the “education” children are given by programmers (teachers) in the public schools. Children are denied an education during the early years when they are most educable. Then, at age 6—by which time children are relatively uneducable—they are forced to attend public schools, where they are pressured and harassed by teachers and parents, and where children’s attitudes toward learning are forever corrupted. One of the great tragedies of our generation is that, during the earliest years of our children’s lives, when new information is absorbed most easily and quickly, most parents expend no conscious effort to educate their children. These early years, from birth to age 5, are squandered irremediably by virtually all parents. Anything the child learns, such as how to speak his native language, is learned more or less by accident, rather than through a systematic program of early learning. Buckminster Fuller once remarked that “all children are born geniuses, and we spend the first few years of their lives degeniusing them.” We degenius our children by failing to educate them during their earliest years, when learning is accomplished joyously, effortlessly, and most productively. To bolster my contention that very young children can learn highly-complicated concepts, I cited the example of language. Any adult who has attempted to learn a foreign language will confirm that no subject is as difficult to study—or as frustrating. Yet young children swiftly and handily surmount this herculean challenge. Children so easily learn language that we invariably take their accomplishment for granted, overlooking the extreme complexities involved. The reason I cite language-acquisition as an example of early-childhood learning is that a child’s language development is self-evident: we hear the child speak; we see the child behave (sometimes) in response to our spoken requests. We know that he or she understands. Language development, in other words, is easier to recognize than other intellectual capabilities possessed by very young children. But there is, in reality, nothing special or unique about

[1481-MILL]

136

DAVID MILLS

the way a child learns language. Parents are simply more apt to notice language development. Language-acquisition is unique for the child only in that it is the most complex of the intellectual challenges he will face. If tiny children can rapidly learn language—the toughest subject on earth—then they can quickly absorb simpler material. And if children learn language, not through organized instruction, but through happenstance and random exposure, then children can be taught literally anything if they are introduced to a methodical and loving program of early learning. The term “early learning” refers to programs that teach children at a very young or “early” age. The term does not mean, as the uninformed critics suggest, that educational materials are presented to children “too early.” What, then, may be accomplished through early learning? What are the materials and techniques used in such programs? And aren’t there potential risks or undesirable side effects for the child? In answering these questions, I am strongly tempted to share with you many of my personal, firsthand experiences, since my wife and I have used early-learning techniques with our daughter, Sophia, since birth. I shall resist the temptation, however, for this reason: Half of what parents say about their children is a wild exaggeration, and the other half is an outright lie. I have heard too many parents rattle on about their “gifted” and “talented” children, only to discover that their children were less intelligent than the hoop-jumping dolphins at Sea World. Parents show little objectivity or credibility when describing their own children’s capabilities. Rather than falling into this common trap, I’ll instead make a few general statements that apply to all children—yours, mine, and the couple’s down the street. All children who, at birth, are started on an early-learning program can achieve the following by age 3: • •

Learn to read at, or beyond, 1st grade level. Learn, not merely the alphabet, but the phonetic sound produced by each letter, enabling the child to decipher unfamiliar words.


• •

•

•

• • • •

137

Learn and identify all 42 Presidents of the United States. Learn and identify all 50 states. (When I say “identify” I mean that, when asked the location of Missouri, the child will instantly point to Missouri on a US map.) Learn and identify the capital of each state. (The child will point to Florida when asked which state has a capital city of Tallahassee.)1 Learn to boot-up a computer, log onto the Internet, and choose a desired web site, such as Disney.com or Barneyonline.com. Learn the names, faces, and works of the great composers, artists, and inventors. Learn the names, faces, and accomplishments of the great explorers, scientists, and political leaders of history. Learn to identify hundreds of different animal and plant species. Learn as many languages as are spoken by family members.

I fully anticipate that many readers of this chapter will be very skeptical, to say the least, of my claims regarding the educational potential of 3-year-old children. Some readers will charge that I’m really laying on the bullshit. Others may wonder whether I’ve been duped by some slick-talking guru of early learning, who is trying to sell books or videotapes through exaggerated promises. Some readers may concede that, on rare occasion, an exceptional 3-year-old may achieve some of the educational milestones listed above. But few people accept that every child nurtures such underlying capabilities. The claim is just too far-fetched to believe, because no 3-year-old child familiar to the skeptics has mastered any of the above educational material—much less all. The skeptics raise an important issue, however; and they do pose a natural question: “If children are really capable of learning at such an accelerated pace, why is early learning not practiced by more parents, teachers, and child-rearing experts?”

[1481-MILL]

138

DAVID MILLS

There are two distinct reasons why the vast majority of parents fail to take advantage of their children’s most educable years: (1) Most parents, teachers, and child-rearing “experts” are simply unaware of the concept, techniques, and benefits of early learning. (2) The few parents who have heard of such accelerated-learning programs tend to harbor absurd misconceptions about them and therefore fear that their children will be “harmed” or “pressured” by early learning. In the next chapter, I intend to fully address—and thoroughly rebut—the myth that children are “harmed” or “pressured” by early learning. But first, let me detail the historical background and current techniques used in the most popular early-learning programs. The most widely-used and effective early-learning program is the result of forty years’ work by a remarkable and selfless gentleman named Glenn Doman. Doman, like many pioneers before him, receives little public attention or praise—and never complains when his ideas are routinely copied without due credit. After graduating from the University of Pennsylvania in 1940 with a degree in physical therapy, Doman devoted his life to helping handicapped children. In the mid-1940’s Doman became very distraught over the sad reality that brain-injured and Down syndrome children were usually discounted as “hopeless” and confined for a lifetime in deplorable, state-run mental institutions. Doman set out to design new therapeutic methods to improve the lives and prognosis of these neglected children. So in 1955, Glenn Doman founded The Institutes for the Achievement of Human Potential. The Institutes, located in a suburb of Philadelphia, began accepting children from all over the world who, through birth defect or injury, suffered some form of cognitive impairment or mental retardation. At first, Doman experimented with a multiplicity of therapeutic approaches. Some worked a little; some didn’t work at all; but Doman persisted. He immediately observed that mentally-impaired children—like all children—would never sit still


139

for a long-winded tutorial or verbal therapy session. If these handicapped children were to be educated or rehabilitated, the therapy sessions would have to be extremely brief. Doman discovered that, if he wanted to teach these children the names of ten different household items, such as spoon, toaster, bathtub, etc., he would need to show the children ten large, separately mounted photos of these items in no longer than ten seconds. Each photo would be shown for a maximum of one second, a feat which required considerable practice on Doman’s part and the manual dexterity of a Las Vegas dealer. If the children viewed a single photo for more than one second, they became disinterested and easily distracted by peripheral objects and activities. If the ten photos were shown for one second each, three times a day (for a grand total of thirty seconds’ therapy), the children immensely enjoyed and anticipated the brief “shows” and usually learned the names of all ten items within five days. Moreover, Doman realized that this learning process was very beneficial to the children, not only because of the facts they learned, but also because this program stimulated physical brain growth and synaptic connections crucial to effective cognitive development. Doman also discovered that words could be substituted for photos in his lightning-fast therapy sessions. So instead of showing a photo of an alligator, Doman very briefly showed the children the word “alligator,” printed largely, clearly, and in isolation from other words or photos. In this way, Glenn Doman discovered that tiny children—even those with severe brain injury—could easily and pleasurably learn to read. 2 The children learned word-recognition as quickly as they had learned photo-recognition. And the long-term benefits to the children were even more profound. Glenn Doman had taken brain-injured children—whom society had dismissed as “hopeless”—and had taught them to read better than well children of the same age in public schools! Even more significant than Doman’s innovative therapeutic technique was his discovery that the younger the children were,

[1481-MILL]

140

DAVID MILLS

the more they benefitted from his program. Doman’s explanation was that younger brains, still in the process of physical growth, could be molded, educated, and rehabilitated with greater ease and effectiveness, since any therapeutic progress would literally enhance the physical structure of the brain itself. Doman quickly realized that the key to helping brain-injured children was to educate them early—as young as possible—beginning immediately after birth if circumstance permitted. Moreover, Doman discovered that any early-learning program must be thoroughly entertaining and enjoyable for the children. Otherwise the children will not happily participate, and no benefits will be derived. Doman believed that good teachers and therapists must be charismatic showmen (and show-women), and always follow the show-business axiom to “quit before your audience wants you to quit.” By showing fewer photos and words than the children wanted to see, Doman raised their interest to fever pitch and almost invariably earned their undivided attention at “show time.” When, on rare occasion, a child became distracted and failed to look at all of Doman’s rapidly-presented materials, the therapy session was never repeated immediately, and no criticism was ever voiced against the child. Coercion and threats of punishment, as employed in the public schools, are never used in early-learning programs. Pressure and intimidation are not only morally repugnant when applied to children, but absolutely guarantee that your educational program will fail utterly and that the children involved will hate you eternally. Again, the public schools have provided a perfect example of how to alienate, rather than educate, our children. Doman, by contrast, was determined to tread a more humane path, one he christened “The Gentle Revolution.” Doman spent the next decade helping thousands of handicapped children move into life’s mainstream. Doman was so successful in educating mentally impaired children that “experts” began to wonder whether certain mental handicaps treated by Doman actually provided previously-unknown learning advantages—something akin to


141

the misunderstood and misnamed “idiot savant.” But there was, in reality, nothing positive or advantageous about brain injury or mental retardation. The simple fact was that Glenn Doman had succeeded, where others had failed, in developing an effective, systematic approach to educating mentally handicapped children. After a decade of working exclusively with the handicapped, Doman began to theorize about the benefits his program might bring to well children. He continued his research and discovered, unsurprisingly, that well children using his program learned even faster than mentally impaired children. Toddlers, barely old enough to stand, were being taught by Doman to read with good comprehension years before “experts” said it was possible. Again, skeptics speculated that Doman was somehow playing a magician’s trick. It couldn’t be true. The children weren’t really learning to read in the adult sense. But it was true. Doman had once again proven the conventional “wisdom” wrong. Tiny children can learn to read and “can learn absolutely anything that is presented to them in an honest and factual way,” said Doman. The public-school philosophy— that educational material must be taught on an “age-appropriate” basis—was shown by Doman to be altogether erroneous and pseudoscientific.3

Notes on Chapter 5 1. A 3-year-old child may, or may not, be able to clearly speak words like “Tallahassee” and “Indianapolis.” But speaking is a motor skill, rather than a cognitive (or thinking) skill such as reading. Because motor skills tend to develop more slowly than cognitive skills, critics of early learning commit a fundamental error when claiming that clear speech must precede the introduction of reading materials. I trust, for example, that you, as an adult, do not have to read aloud the words of this book in order to understand their meaning. Similarly, stroke victims may be completely unable to speak, due to motor impairment, yet be able to read a book

[1481-MILL]

142

DAVID MILLS

with full comprehension. Children can learn to read years before they become verbally articulate. 2. Doman found that, for very young children, a whole-word approach to reading was more productive initially, and that phonetics should be introduced second. 3. The Institutes for the Achievement of Human Potential; 8801 Stenton Avenue; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19038; Telephone: (215) 233-2050; Web site: http://www.iahp.org

CHAPTER 6 Early Learning and the Myth of Pressure In the last chapter, we saw that the overwhelming majority of parents fritter away their children’s most educable years, from birth to age 5. The primary reason for this parental oversight is that most parents are simply unaware of the existence and benefits of early-learning programs. But there is a second reason for early learning’s lack of popularity: the false perception that early learning “pressures” a child and is therefore harmful and unethical. It is this second point—that of “pressuring” and “harming” the child— that I wish to address now.

*** The most famous and widely-read criticism of early learning is published in a series of child-rearing manuals titled What to Expect. The three books in this wildly-popular series are What to Expect When You’re Expecting, What to Expect the First Year, and What to Expect the Toddler Years. Any woman who has given birth in recent years, or who has visited a pediatrician’s office or local bookstore, is familiar with these titles. I do not know the total sales, but we may safely assume that this series has sold tens of millions of copies. These books were written by Arlene Eisenberg, Heidi E. Murkoff, and Sandee E. Hathaway (hereafter referred to collectively as “the authors.”) The authors flatly tell their millions of readers to avoid early-learning programs because they are “harmful.” Although other, equally uninformed writers have attacked early

[0000-XXXX]

144

DAVID MILLS

learning, I would like, now, to respond point-for-point to the arguments against early learning published in the What to Expect series. I wish to respond directly to these unwarranted criticisms, both because of the vast readership of the What to Expect series, and because I feel that the authors fairly articulate the anti-early-learning sentiment held by many individuals. Before butting heads with these authors, let me say that, generally speaking, the three books mentioned above are praiseworthy. My wife and I frequently consulted these volumes during her pregnancy and throughout our daughter’s first years of life. I recommend these books to prospective parents and have purchased copies myself as gifts for friends who were expecting children. The brief sections of these books which I find objectionable constitute less than one percent of the published material. So it is not my intention to trash these books in toto, or to say that you shouldn’t purchase them. It is my intention, however, to show that the authors of What to Expect know nothing—and I do mean literally nothing—about the early-learning techniques they condemn unequivocally. I intend to show, moreover, that the “facts” they cite to support their position are fabricated or inaccurate, and that the authors’ negative conclusions about early learning are textbook non sequiturs: their conclusions do not even follow logically from the premises of their own arguments! For example: 1. On page 275 of What to Expect the First Year, the authors begin a special essay titled “Raising a Superbaby.” This essay quickly degenerates into a rabid diatribe against early-learning programs. Referring to children who are introduced to such programs, the authors write, “With an odd mixture of curiosity, disapproval, and envy we’ve listened as their proud parents described their incredible accomplishments: reading words at six months, books at a year, The New York Times at two. We wonder how anyone could push their1 baby so intensely.”


145

In this opening paragraph of their essay, the authors immediately reveal that they lack even a passing familiarity with early-learning techniques. The authors seem to believe that only through being “pushed intensely” can children learn to read at an early age. The implication, moreover, is that early learning is a highly unpleasant experience for these children, who are tormented by pushy, intensely aggressive parents. The authors of What to Expect apparently believe that early-learning programs are modeled after classrooms in public school, except that the children involved are much younger. Like the public schools, early-learning programs supposedly force unwilling children to sit for hours in uncomfortable chairs, force them to listen to frightfully boring lectures, force them to complete tedious assignments, and punish them if they refuse. If early-learning programs bore the slightest resemblance to the tyranny of the public schools or to the Stalinist police state imagined by the critics, I too would wholeheartedly oppose such programs, as would any ethically-minded person. But the reality of early learning is very different. “Early learning” simply means that parents become entertainers, staging very brief “shows” with colorful, eye-catching “props.” Unlike public schools, early learning demands no tests, no assignments, no report cards, no deadlines, no pressure, and no passing or failing. If the child doesn’t want to look at the materials on a particular day—a very rare occurrence— the program is put away until another day (or another week or until the child shows an interest). Contrary to the critics’ belief, it is impossible to force a toddler to learn to read, even if the parents are so inclined. Young children, like adults, tend to succeed in activities they enjoy, and to fail in activities they deplore. Any child who is, as the authors allude, “reading words at six months” and “books at a year” is fortunate to have parents who turn reading into a thoroughly delightful game, which the child begs to play several times a day. An “intensely pushy” program could never succeed at teaching a toddler to read. The child would quickly rebel against such a program, and develop the same lifelong hatred of learning

[1481-MILL]

146

DAVID MILLS

that the public schools instill. Interestingly, the critics voice no opposition whatever to the public schools’ coercive methods of “education,” yet voice moral outrage at early learning’s “intensely pushy” techniques, which are figments of the critics’ uninformed imaginations. So if you see a young child who truly excels at reading (or singing or playing basketball), you may be certain that the child also enjoys that activity immensely. Human beings, regardless of age, virtually never excel at hobbies they despise. 2. The authors continue: “Programs and books that dedicate themselves to the raising of these tiniest of wunderkinds have proliferated—there is even an institute devoted to this purpose. But among the most reliable experts in the field of child development, the proposition that babies and children should be pushed (sic) to achieve way beyond their normal rate of development has yet to make a ripple.” Here the authors of What to Expect clearly indicate to whom their criticism is directed: Glenn Doman’s Institutes for the Achievement of Human Potential. It is partially true that Doman’s early-learning programs and books have proliferated, though no such books apparently have reached the hands of What to Expect’s authors; for their criticisms reveal their total estrangement from the actual methods used in early-learning programs and described in early-development books. The authors cite “the most reliable experts in the field of child development” with whom early learning “has yet to make a ripple.” If the authors are referring here to experts within the scientific community who study child brain development—i.e., neurologists, biochemists, and physiologists—then their statement is embarrassingly inaccurate. In recent years, the scientific journals have published innumerable articles documenting and detailing the crucial early period, from birth to age 5, in the development of child brain structure and function. The scientific conclusion is incontrovertible: these early years are by far the most determinative of your child’s eventual intellectual capabilities. To the best of my


147

knowledge, there is not a single member of the scientific community who disagrees with this conclusion. The problem is that when the authors of What to Expect cite “experts in the field of child development,” they are referring, not to members of the scientific community, but to members of the educational bureaucracy: those “reliable experts” who devised the curriculum now taught in America’s public schools. Here the authors are quite correct that early learning “has yet to make a ripple.” In reality, most child-development “experts” know as little about early learning as the authors of What to Expect. Until the early 1960’s, America’s public schools functioned reasonably well without the aid of child-development “experts.” After this profession was invented out of whole cloth, the number of education “experts” grew geometrically and seized control of the public school agenda. Thereafter, the entire school system crashed, burned, and imploded. So if these “experts” now recommend against early-learning programs, then we may confidently assume that early learning must be a pretty good thing. 3. Explaining why these child-development “experts” recommend against early-learning programs, the authors state, “That’s because scientifically there’s no evidence that such programs are beneficial, or even that they work. Though it’s possible to teach an infant a wide variety of skills long before they are ordinarily learned, including how to recognize words, there is no proven consistent method for doing so.” Here the authors make blatantly contradictory assertions on the question of early learning’s true effectiveness. First, they claim that “there’s no evidence that such programs are beneficial, or even that they work.” Then, in the very next sentence, they concede that “it’s possible to teach an infant a wide variety of skills long before they are ordinarily learned, including how to recognize words.” So which is it? The authors are not quite sure. As we saw in the preceding chapter, early-learning programs were originally developed to educate and rehabilitate mentally handicapped children. Since the mid-1950’s, hundreds of thousands

[1481-MILL]

148

DAVID MILLS

of brain-injured and Down syndrome children have used these programs to overcome personal tragedy and to lead fuller, more independent lives. Before Glenn Doman advanced early-learning therapies, most of these children would have spent their lives in a state-run mental institution. I wonder whether the authors of What to Expect would have the gall to tell these grateful children that their parents are “pressuring them” or that “there’s no evidence that such programs are beneficial.” 4. The authors continue their attack: “Nor is there any evidence that intense (sic) early learning actually provides a long-term advantage over more traditional learning patterns.” Oh really? The errors here are numerous: First, if your child learns to read at an early age, he or she definitely will not be among the 40 percent of American students who never learn to read properly in the public schools. Is this not a long-term advantage over traditional “learning” patterns? Second, any knowledge acquired by the child during the earliest years of life directly stimulates and enhances physical brain growth and neurological and synaptic connections, which, again, provide lifelong cognitive advantages to the individual. Any knowledge acquired after the brain has completed its physical development—around age 6—produces none of these long-term benefits and, quite literally, makes no permanent impression on the brain. Third, it is much easier and faster to teach a very young child than a school-age child—if the parents understand and practice early-learning techniques. Are speed and ease not advantages? Fourth, young children better remember what they learn than do older children or adolescents. Again, the example of language acquisition proves illustrative. A child can effortlessly learn a foreign language during the earliest years of life. Thereafter learning a new language becomes painful (or, in my case, impossible) and is viewed, not as a childlike joy, but as an irritating burden. How well do you remember the French or Spanish that you first encountered in high school? Other than counting to ten, can you string together two good sentences in a foreign language? I can’t, despite my being married for fourteen years


149

to a bilinguist. My preschool-age daughter, however, already understands and speaks more foreign words and phrases than I do because she was taught two languages from birth. If early learning provides no long-term advantages over “traditional learning patterns” as practiced in the public schools, then adolescents and adults should be able to absorb a new language with the same unconscious ease as young children. But this is decidedly not the case. Why not? Because the brains of older children, adolescents, and adults are no longer in the process of physical growth. Their “hardware” has been finalized and cannot easily be “upgraded.” The young child, by contrast, is far more flexible and impressionable in his thinking. Although we usually employ the term “impressionable” in a pejorative sense, the term also denotes a child’s ability to be quickly and powerfully influenced by his environment. Early-learning programs take advantage of this valuable opportunity. Adults, who boast of being less impressionable than children, must also accept that they (the adults) are correspondingly less educable. A few pages back, I proposed a hypothetical ship sailing to Japan from the United States. The purpose of this voyage was to determine whether early learning or “traditional learning patterns” would be more effective in mastering the Japanese language. Alongside the newborn baby and my cousin, Bob, I’d now like to seat aboard this ship the three authors of What to Expect. I’m absolutely convinced that, upon their arrival in Japan, the authors, like the newborn child, will soon speak fluent and flawless Japanese. I also expect the authors, like the newborn child, to speak with no accent whatever since, in their own words, “there is no evidence that early learning provides advantages over traditional learning patterns.” Finally, early learning is fun for kids. The programs are designed to be entertaining, as well as enlightening, and children find the game delightful. Children perceive learning in a vastly different way than do adults. To young children, learning is a joy; to adults, it is a sometimes-necessary burden. That the authors of

[1481-MILL]

150

DAVID MILLS

What to Expect consider early learning to be “pressure” says more about their own attitudes toward learning than it does about the children’s feelings. Even if someone proved to me incontrovertibly that early learning provides no long-term educational benefits at all, I would nonetheless continue to show my daughter the large words and pictures, simply because she enjoys it so much, and because it gives us a little something to do inside on a rainy day. The What to Expect series is, in most other respects, quite up-to-date on the latest science. But on the subject of child brain development, the authors are forty years behind the curve. The fact that early learning enhances brain growth and structure has been prevalent in the scientific literature since the late 1950’s. The only thing new about early learning is that the supporting evidence has become so overwhelming that the popular news media are now picking up on the issue, running television specials and publishing cover stories on the topic. My best guess is that the only exposure the authors have had to early learning is through these recent popular accounts, which, almost by definition, are written and reported by nonscientists. The authors therefore have a distorted, secondhand impression and, ignorant of early learning’s long history, believe that it is some newfangled and untested theory. 5. Continuing their negative campaign of slur and misinformation, the authors write, “Studies of extremely successful adults in such vastly different fields as music, athletics, and medicine have shown that not only did their acquisition of skills in their fields not begin early in childhood, but when it did begin, it was more likely to have taken the form of play than serious (sic), high-pressured (sic) activity.” Before discussing adult musicians, athletes and scientists— and whether their skills were cultivated early in life—I’d like to offer one final observation on the authors’ claim that early learning is “serious, high-pressured activity.” I am quickly tiring of rebutting again and again this same fallacious charge. But I hope, before we move on, that you’ll think carefully about the following fact: The authors of What to Expect write in paragraph after paragraph,


151

page after page, that early learning is serious, high-pressured activity. In plain language, the authors are suggesting that early learning is a form of child abuse. Yet throughout their entire, lengthy tirade against early learning the authors fail to cite a single quotation from any early-learning manual to prove their assertion that these books advocate high-pressure techniques. Why can’t the authors pull a few direct quotes from these villainous books to document their objections? While it is nevertheless possible to misrepresent an opponent’s position even though quoting him directly, the most convincing argument against any philosophical adversary is made through turning the adversary’s own words against him. So again I ask you: Why do the authors of What to Expect provide no direct quotations to back their claim that early-learning manuals recommend coercive educational methods? Can’t the authors cite at least one example that even implies that children should be pressured into premature learning? The answer is no, they can’t, because there are no such quotations to be cited. I have thoroughly studied the works of Glenn Doman and many other writers on early child development, including Masaru Ibuka, the famous early-learning advocate and founder of Sony Corporation. I would be happy to testify under oath in any courtroom that there is not a single word in any early-learning manual I’ve read that recommends—or even implies—that parents should pressure their children to learn against their will. That is why the authors of What to Expect provide no quotations! Their arguments against early learning are cheaply-manufactured strawmen, set up for the purpose of being knocked down, and to cloak the authors in a pompous mantle of ethical sensitivity by recommending against these tyrannical programs. And just how truly sensitive are the authors to children’s being pressured by their parents? Not very! On page 261 of What to Expect the First Year they discuss children with sleeping problems, who are understandably terrified of being abandoned by their parents in a darkened room: “If you can

[1481-MILL]

152

DAVID MILLS

tolerate an hour or more of vigorous crying and screaming, don’t go to baby, soothe him, feed him, or talk to him when he wakes up in the middle of the night. Just let him cry until he’s exhausted himself.” In other words, it’s perfectly acceptable to lock a terrified child in a dark room and let him cry and scream for hours in horror—as long as there is no early learning involved. Now, what about the authors’ claim that outstanding musicians, athletes and scientists did not begin to acquire their skills early in childhood? Here I must confess that the authors forced me to do a little old-fashioned research, focusing first on the backgrounds of outstanding musical composers. For several years I have owned a 3-CD music collection titled History’s Greatest Musical Compositions. While any judgment of what is “history’s greatest” is of course highly subjective, I do feel that the composers showcased in this collection can, as a group, be considered truly extraordinary. The twenty featured composers are Bach, Beethoven, Berlioz, Bizet, Borodin, Brahms, Chopin, Debussy, Handel, Haydn, Liszt, Mendelssohn, Mozart, Rachmaninoff, Rimsky-Korsakov, Schubert, Strauss, Tchaikovsky, Vivaldi, and Wagner. Using the printed version of The World Book Encyclopedia and the CD versions of Encyclopaedia Britannica, Grolier’s Multimedia Encyclopedia, and Microsoft’s Encarta, I spent three full days reading the biographies of each composer. Of these twenty musical geniuses, how many do you suppose were introduced to music and to musical composition in early childhood? The answer, unsurprisingly, is all twenty. The overwhelming majority of these famous composers were introduced to music by their own parents, starting at birth. A typical example is that of Mozart, who was composing music himself by age 5. Mozart’s father, Leopold, was also a famous and supremely talented musician and composer. Whenever Leopold rehearsed, performed or attended a concert, he invariably brought along young Wolfgang and involved him intimately in the musical activities. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart was, to my knowledge, never


153

once left with a babysitter or abandoned to a daycare center. Are we to believe the authors of What to Expect that early learning had nothing to do with creating and nurturing Mozart’s genius? Would Mozart have composed his identical masterpieces if his father had exposed him only to herding sheep? The thought is absurd. Like Mozart, most of the great composers came from talented musical families in which parents and siblings alike played numerous musical instruments. Many of the great composers were, by age 10, virtuoso pianists and violinists. So how long could their introductions to music have been delayed? Not long. From birth, these great composers were exposed by family (or friends of the family) to a rich diversity of musical composition—music which the young children grew quickly to love and to perform and compose themselves. The only great composer whose family or friends did not provide early training and encouragement was Peter Tchaikovsky. (Perhaps Tchaikovsky’s parents had read an essay discouraging early learning!) Nonetheless, the very young Tchaikovsky was absorbed by music despite his imbecilic parents’ lack of support. Unlike most discouraged children, he courageously and independently sought outside mentors to cultivate his budding musical interests and abilities. I personally hold a higher opinion of Mozart’s father than I do Tchaikovsky’s, though it is unclear whether the authors of What to Expect feel the same. Just as a child must learn a spoken language early in life if he is to speak fluently and without a burdensome accent, a child must be exposed very early to music if he is to develop outstanding ability. Fortunately, most children in the United States are exposed to music during their earliest years—though usually by accident. Very young children hear music on television and radio, and on their parents’ stereo systems. And all of the musical instruments broadcast over these various media are invariably in perfect tune. That is important to understand. One virtually never hears an out-of-tune guitar or piano played publicly. For this reason, children unconsciously develop a sense of proper musical intonation (i.e., how instruments, chords,

[1481-MILL]

154

DAVID MILLS

and scales are supposed to sound). If children are denied early exposure to tuned musical instruments, the children will become irremediably tone-deaf. And studying at the Juliard School for the next 50 years will do nothing to rectify this early neglect. When I was a teenager, I worked for a time as a guitar teacher in a local music store. I taught a diverse group of students, ranging from 1st-graders to senior citizens. One of my students, whom I shall call “Harold,” was a 45-year-old CEO of his own highly successful business. By any standard, Harold was a brilliant man; but he had experienced an unusual upbringing. He was born during the Great Depression in the early 1930’s, and had grown up with his family on a small, unproductive farm in rural Appalachia. Harold claimed that he didn’t even have an outdoor toilet as a small boy. When nature called, he and his family ran behind a bush. They had no electricity, no running water, no radio, and of course no television. Harold and his family lived on this isolated farmland until he was 6 years-old, at which time his parents moved to a nearby town so that he could attend school. Harold claimed—and I believe him!—that during these first 6 years of his life, he heard no music whatever while living on the farm. The only local music was heard at the Baptist church, and Harold’s parents were not particularly religious. The consequences of Harold’s early years were twofold: First, he was fanatically driven to escape poverty and to succeed financially and educationally. Here, he triumphed! The second consequence of Harold’s early upbringing was that he became the most utterly hopeless guitar student since the instrument was invented. Primarily because of his early hardships and lack of musical exposure, Harold was quite determined to learn the guitar. Unlike my other students, Harold practiced diligently every day, and never missed his weekly lesson. Harold purchased the most expensive guitar of any student I taught. Month after month Harold struggled in earnest to play a little tune: “Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star.” Harold’s forehead would drip with perspiration, and his teeth would grind in determination to


155

play this childhood melody. My own attitude alternated between suppression of laughter and suppression of tears. Despite his brilliant mind and his admirable devotion to learning the guitar, Harold never learned to play this song—or any other song. Needless to say, his attempts to tune his guitar were even more fruitless. Why? Because Harold was tone-deaf. And Harold—trust me—will always be tone-deaf because his parents failed to introduce him to music during the crucial early years. If Harold’s father had been Leopold Mozart, Harold too would have composed masterpieces in childhood and been a virtuoso performer. The next time you encounter a music teacher, ask him or her whether adults or children learn music faster? Although there are exceptions to virtually every rule, I am hard-pressed to think of a single example in which a 35-year-old man or woman began playing a musical instrument and achieved even mediocrity. There may be such exceptions, but they are just that: exceptions. The rule is that the younger a child is introduced to music, the greater his abilities will be. The authors of What to Expect claim that “studies of extremely successful adults in such fields as music” have shown that “their acquisition of skills in their fields (did) not begin early in childhood.” What “studies” are they talking about? Of course no specific references or sources are provided by the authors because these “studies” are complete fabrications, invented on the spot to “prove” how “useless” early learning is. The historical and empirical facts unequivocally contradict the authors’ statement that musical geniuses do not learn their skills early in life. Ironically, the authors’ directing our attention toward the childhoods of musical geniuses becomes a powerful argument for early learning, since virtually all of the great composers were introduced to music soon after birth. As with language, music education is not a question of “sooner” rather than “later.” It is a question of “sooner” rather than “never.” The authors also claim that, like musicians, outstanding athletes “do not begin learning their skills in early childhood.” But once again, their arguments against early learning are based upon

[1481-MILL]

156

DAVID MILLS

exceedingly careless errors of fact. Star athletes earn their living by running, jumping, throwing balls, catching balls, hitting balls, swinging clubs or rackets, intimidating each other, and knocking each other down. So the question now becomes: Do children begin learning these “skills” early in life? Anyone who has ever babysat a group of toddlers will quickly attest that their favorite activities are running, jumping, throwing balls, catching balls, hitting balls, swinging clubs or rackets, intimidating each other, and knocking each other down. What are professional sports other than adults’ skillfully playing children’s games? Think of the various Olympic gold medalists. Did they suddenly decide at age 16 to start taking swimming lessons or skiing instruction? Were the medal-winning gymnasts sedentary couch potatoes until weeks before Olympic tryouts? No. Those who truly excel in athletics have, for better or worse, devoted their entire lives to developing and perfecting their abilities. Take, for example, the popular women’s ice-skating competition. All of the recent gold medalists—Tara Lipinski (1998), Oksana Baiul (1994), Kristi Yamaguchi (1992), and Katarina Witt (1988 & 1984)—began skating at roughly the same age they began walking: in early childhood. Oksana Baiul literally lived at an ice rink during part of her childhood. We may legitimately question whether sports should so preoccupy a child’s time and whether such fanatical devotion to a sport should be permitted by parents, since most children never derive the benefits of professional or gold-medal-winning status. But it is utter nonsense to claim that star athletes don’t start early in life to develop their physical skills and coordination. We have learned from troubling cases of child abuse that children must develop their physical abilities early, or not at all. Abused children, who are denied opportunity to physically exert themselves at play, suffer irremediable developmental problems. Again, while there may be exceptions, the general rule is that the younger a child starts to develop his athletic abilities, the greater those


157

abilities will be. Ask millionaire golfer Tiger Woods and his father-coach! Do you think Tiger Woods is pleased or angry that his father introduced him to golf when he was a toddler? Lastly, the authors of What to Expect assert that, like musicians and athletes, medical scientists “do not start to develop their skills early in life.” Admittedly we don’t send toddlers to medical school, but toddlers are nonetheless far better scientists than are most adults. When you purchase a new toy for a tiny child, what does the child do? He immediately conducts five sophisticated scientific tests on the unfamiliar object. First, he looks at the toy from every angle. Second, he puts the toy in his mouth to conduct a taste experiment. Third, he smells the toy to determine whether it smells good or bad. Fourth, he shakes the toy to see whether it makes a sound. Finally, he thoroughly runs his hands over the entire area of the toy to determine texture and surface composition. All five of these experiments are usually conducted in about one minute. The child then throws the toy aside (to the parents’ dismay) and searches for other unfamiliar objects upon which to conduct the same five scientific experiments. The great scientists of history made their discoveries by acting upon their residual, childlike inquisitiveness about the world in which they lived. Men and women of science, like the child, strive to view reality directly, without the fogging effects of bias, preconceived theories, or personal prejudice. For a brief and precious time, children are indeed capable of unfettered empirical observation. Tiny children perceive their environments clearly, directly, and scientifically. Adults, by contrast, perceive external reality in fleeting and transitory glimpses, blinded almost completely by emotion and preestablished expectation. Most adults become wholly incapable of differentiating objective reality from personal opinion, particularly on questions of religion and the so-called “supernatural.” Any magician will acknowledge that adults are much more vulnerable to perceptual illusion than children, since adults have recalcitrant,

[1481-MILL]

158

DAVID MILLS

fossilized thought patterns about how the world is “supposed” to operate. The magician takes advantage of this cognitive “filter effect.” Children more scientifically view the magician’s tricks and can almost always figure out before the adults how the illusion is performed. To summarize the point at hand: The authors of What to Expect state that successful adult musicians were not introduced to music as young children; successful athletes engaged in no athletic activity; and scientists made no discoveries or empirical observations as toddlers. Based upon these “facts”—and upon the authors’ mysteriously anonymous “studies”—they warn us to completely avoid early learning programs because they are “harmful.” The authors hereby commit two egregious fallacies of logic. Not only are the “factual” premises of their arguments bogus, but the conclusion they draw from these “facts” is, once again, a non sequitur. For even if we charitably concede the accuracy of their premise—i.e., that successful adults do not begin learning their skills in early childhood—the conclusion does not logically follow that early learning is harmful. Nor does it follow that successful adults could not have achieved greater success, or achieved success more easily, quickly, or pleasurably if they had enjoyed the benefits of early learning. But the authors of What to Expect happily abandon all facts and all logic to trash the early-learning programs they misunderstand so completely. 6. In a continuing effort to discourage parents from teaching their young children to read, the authors write, “It’s more important for your baby to know that a dog barks, eats, can bite, has four legs, and has hair all over than to be able to recognize that the letters d-o-g spell dog.” Then, on page 455 of What to Expect the Toddler Years, the authors sneer that “monkeys can be taught to read too.” I do agree that it probably is more important for a young child to learn an animal’s characteristics than to spell the species’ name. But these two spheres of learning are, in no sense,


159

mutually exclusive. The authors here commit the logical fallacy known as “false either/or”: either you teach your child “that a dog barks, eats, can bite, has fours legs, and has hair all over” or you teach your child “to recognize that the letters d-o-g spell dog.” The authors demand a false choice. Teaching your child that d-o-g spells dog in no way prevents him or her from learning about a dog’s physical and behavioral characteristics. Obviously, the sooner your child starts reading, the more he or she can learn about dogs—and about everything else! The authors of the What to Expect series are well-educated, highly-literate women. We might expect therefore that, at a time when our public schools are leaving millions of students illiterate, the authors would applaud parents who take the initiative and teach their own young children to read. Instead, the authors mock and belittle such parents and children, smirking that “monkeys can be taught to read too.” Several comments: (a) I think that the authors were pitifully trying to say that chimpanzees—not monkeys (sic)—can be taught to understand symbolic language. Scientists at the University of Nevada, Reno, and the Yerkes Primate Research Center in Atlanta, Georgia, have succeeded in teaching chimpanzees (and other primates) American Sign Language, as used by deaf individuals. Monkeys are far less intelligent than chimpanzees—a completely separate species— and cannot be taught to read as the authors erroneously claim. (b) If chimpanzees can successfully interpret the meanings of various symbols, including a few written words, then such accomplishments clearly attest the chimpanzees’ high intelligence, rather than the alleged harm and futility of early-learning programs for humans. What a bizarre and twisted interpretation of scientific data to claim that primate intelligence discredits early-learning programs for children! On the contrary, the Yerkes Center has succeeded in teaching symbolic language only to young primates, thus confirming the importance of early learning in numerous species. The authors’ reference to “monkeys” within the context of early

[1481-MILL]

160

DAVID MILLS

learning is little more than juvenile name calling. Such ad hominem tactics indicate that the authors have truly hit bottom in their attack on early learning. (c) The inconsistency of the authors’ position is flagrant and humorous. They gullibly swallow the myth that monkeys can be taught to read like human children. Yet the authors express hard-nosed skepticism that young children can be taught to read like monkeys supposedly can! Anyone who believes that monkeys can read should have no problem accepting that young children can do the same. (d) I wonder how the authors would react if I attended a dance recital for one of their daughters and crudely announced to the gathered audience that “monkeys can be taught to dance too.” The audience would likely gasp with indignation and would rightfully consider me an uncivilized jerk. Yet the authors of What to Expect apparently believe that their own identical slur is perfectly acceptable. 7. Feigning sympathy for children on early-learning programs, the authors lament, “What of the emotional impact and psychological stigma of being a child in college? . . . there have been instances where the lives of child ‘geniuses’ have been disastrous.” Yet again, the authors wholly pervert and misrepresent the facts of early learning. Forcing children into college is not the purpose of early child development. Nor does any early-learning manual suggest college for children. The authors, in typical form, have erected a strawman, knocked him down, and deluded themselves that their shadowboxing has somehow invalidated early learning. I suppose that, if we conducted a nationwide search, we might locate a handful of people whose lives, for peculiar reasons, have been made disastrous by too much education. By contrast, we can easily locate tens-of-millions of people whose lives have been made disastrous by too little education. Honestly, which problem do you think poses a greater threat to our children? Too much education too soon? Or too little too late?


161

8. The authors continue: “Babies have lots to learn in the first year of life . . . During these twelve busy months, their agenda will include building attachments to others . . . learning to trust . . . and grasping the concept of object permanence. They’ll also need to learn to use their bodies . . . and their minds . . . the meanings of hundreds of words and how to reproduce them using a complicated combination of voice box, lips, and tongue; and something about who they are . . . With such a heavy course load lined up already, it’s probable that adding supplementary learning material would force one or more of these critical scheduled developmental areas to be neglected.” I stated previously that, despite having published a widely-read, no-holds-barred condemnation of early learning, the authors of What to Expect have, in my opinion, never read a single book on the subject. In making this statement, I was suggesting, quite kindheartedly, that the authors were simply ignorant of the facts on early learning, rather than deliberately misrepresenting the facts. The authors’ latest gripe—that early learning is too time-consuming—erases any doubt about the authors’ wholesale lack of familiarity with the subject of their own essay. In reality, early-learning programs require only a few seconds per day of a child’s time. Glenn Doman, and other early-learning advocates, recommend that, at most, children explore no more than ten categories of knowledge concurrently. (Most children cover only two or three.) Ten categories equal 100 individual photos or words, each shown for one second. That’s 100 seconds to cover all ten categories once. If the categories are repeated three times daily, that’s a total of 300 seconds (or five minutes) per day maximum devoted to early learning. Therefore, we must conclude either: (a) that the authors of What to Expect believe that five minutes per day is too much time devoted to education, or (b) that the authors are ignorant of the minimal time requisites of the early-learning programs they harshly criticize. The sorry fact is that millions of preschool-age children scream more than five minutes a day in an effort to free themselves from playpens—imprisoned by adults for the adults’ own convenience

[1481-MILL]

162

DAVID MILLS

and leisure. At night, most children are forced to go to bed earlier than they want or need. Likewise, “caregivers” force children to take daytime naps more frequently than is necessary for good health. Millions of children spend hours a day locked in a nursery, staring aimlessly at a mobile or blank wall—all to create more free time for the adults. Whenever children request a little personal attention or guidance, their emotional needs are often rebuffed with an order to “Go outside and play!” To claim, therefore, that children have no time for early learning is a transparent rationalization concocted by parents and “experts” trying to preserve their own leisure time. The great misfortune now facing America’s preschool children is not that they receive too much attention and education from parents. The problem, in stark contrast, is that preschool children receive too little attention and too little education from their often-absentee parents. While early learning takes only seconds per day of a child’s time, the preparation of early-learning material does require a little extra time and effort on the parents’ part. After the children fall asleep, it’s easier to relax and watch television than to print, cut, paste and organize educational material for tomorrow’s showings. And this added work and time commitment are the genuine, underlying reason why many adults contrive bogus arguments against early learning: They simply don’t want to bother with it. In a word, then, the arguments conjured up against early learning boil down to what I call, in the next chapter, Myths of Parental Convenience.

Notes on Chapter 6 1. I cannot resist the evil and ironic pleasure of pointing out that the authors commit a vulgar grammatical error in their very first paragraph criticizing early childhood education!

CHAPTER 7 Myths of Parental Convenience A Myth of Parental Convenience is a false belief, regarding children or child-rearing, held by parents whose true, subconscious motivation is to minimize the time and work demands of parenting. Apart from the falsehoods we have discussed surrounding early learning, here are some additional Myths of Parental Convenience: Myth: Children need to go to bed earlier than adults. Fact: Children need to go to bed when they are sleepy and want to go to bed. Children who truly need sleep will be visibly lethargic, often falling asleep of their own accord in uncomfortable positions and noisy surroundings. Parents schedule early bed times for children in order to get rid of them. How sad this is! Forced afternoon naps are likewise a selfish parental convenience. Comment: Let your children stay up as late as they want. Your children know far better than you whether they are tired or sleepy. At most, children will stay up too late one night. The next day, their fatigue will make them crave sleep appropriately. Most child-rearing manuals contain inaccurate information on children’s sleep requirements, since the manuals usually report the number of hours that parents force their children to sleep, rather than the number of hours that children truly need to sleep. Children probably require about three hours’ less sleep per day than most child-rearing manuals recommend.

[0000-XXXX]

164

DAVID MILLS

*** Myth: Children should learn to sleep in a room by themselves. Fact: The young of virtually all mammal species sleep in direct physical contact with their mothers. This powerful attraction on the part of offspring to be in close proximity to the mother is Nature’s way of guaranteeing some kind of adult protection of the highly vulnerable young. Most mammals—and especially human children—possess an innate and profound fear of darkness, which likewise deters the young from straying into harm’s way at night. This prophylactic fear of darkness must be extremely intense to override children’s other natural tendencies to explore and to learn what’s “out there.” Homo sapiens did not evolve its genetic code during a period when children slept in separate bedrooms! Comment: Never force a baby or toddler to sleep alone in a darkened room. Let your children sleep with you, particularly if they are under 5 years of age. By cruelly mandating separate bedrooms, parents can eventually horsewhip children into being somewhat less fearful of darkness; just as parents can eventually render their children less fearful of spiders by repeatedly hiding tarantulas in toy boxes and dollhouses. But such “training” is unethical in my view, and is of questionable value. Young children naturally want to sleep with parents and should be permitted to do so, whether or not this arrangement is convenient or pleasing to Mom and Dad.

*** Myth: Diaper rash is an inevitable part of being a baby. Fact: Diaper rash usually results from parental neglect. If moms and dads more closely monitored their babies’ bowel and bladder


165

habits, and changed their babies’ diapers in a timely manner, diaper rash would be a rare occurrence, rather than so common that parents view it as “inevitable.” Babies of course do urinate during their sleep, and the wet diaper frequently goes undiscovered and unchanged until morning. This is normal and understandable. You should not wake a sleeping baby to change a wet diaper. Moreover, high temperatures and humidity can make diaper rash—and other rashes—more difficult to prevent and cure. Nevertheless, the incidence of diaper rash could be reduced by 90 percent at least if parents paid a little extra attention to their babies’ needs, and showed a little more ambition in their care. Comment: Feel guilty if your baby develops diaper rash! It’s almost certainly your fault. Don’t accept the comforting and convenient myth that the problem is “inevitable.”

*** Myth: Children would rather play with other children than to interact with adults. Fact: For most children, their preferred order of playmates is: (1) Mommy, (2) Daddy, (3) any other adult who will pay attention to the child, and (4) other children. Comment: Do not force your children to “Go outside and play” when their true desire is to share time with you.

*** Myth: Daycare is good for children because they participate in stimulating and educational activities and because they learn social skills through interacting with other children. Fact: The typical daycare center provides the stimulation and

[1481-MILL]

166

DAVID MILLS

educational opportunity of a day in prison—and spreads far more infection and communicable disease than the county jail. Kids do not learn social skills through interacting with other kids, any more than children learn to play the piano through interacting with other musically illiterate children. Children learn social skills through observing and emulating adult behavior. Comment: Never leave your child in the custody of a stranger. The fact that a daycare center is “licensed” or “state approved” is meaningless. Even child abusers can easily craft neatly-typed resumes with impressive-sounding references. We, as a nation, look askance at welfare mothers, caring at home for their own children, while we idolize millionaire CEO’s who place their children in daycare so that both spouses can pursue their holy careers. Defenders of daycare sometimes cite dubious studies alleging that, in the long run, stay-at-home children often fare no better than daycare children in terms of parental bonding, emotional development, and educational achievement. If these studies are to be believed—and that is a big “if”—it is not because daycare centers now provide the loving, one-on-one attention enjoyed by children at home. It is rather because, now, children at home are often sadly ignored with the same indifference previously found only in daycare centers. In other words, if daycare and home care are now comparable, it’s because the quality of home care is declining, rather than because the quality of daycare is improving. Although daycare is sometimes necessary in today’s ever-shifting society, a married couple should not, in my view, plan a pregnancy unless one spouse—the wife or the husband—is committed to permanent, full-time care of the child.

*** Myth: Children need to learn independence. Fact: It is indeed necessary and of monumental importance that your children learn to be independent—when they leave for


167

college, get married, or move away from home in search of better employment opportunities. The idea, however, that toddlers and preschoolers need to learn independence is, not only absurd, but distressing as well; for such an attitude reflects the parents’ desire to rid themselves of unwelcome parental responsibilities. Newlywed couples often express an over-enthusiasm for rearing a houseful of children. But when the children finally arrive— and demand far more time and attention than the couple naively imagined—the new mother and father eagerly anticipate the day when their children will become more independent, demanding less time and less attention. Married couples cite their children’s alleged “need for independence” as an all-purpose excuse for refusing to spend as much time with their children as the children would like: “Johnny needs to learn to play on his own.” Comment: Nature itself has devised a perfect solution for preparing children for independence from parents. This solution is known as puberty. When the time is appropriate, your children will naturally want to distance themselves from you, both emotionally and geographically. Parents should fully expect independent, rebellious behavior from their teenagers, and should accept such adolescent insurrection as a normal and healthy preparatory step toward adulthood. Ironically, parents never seem to be satisfied. When their teenagers strive for independence, parents gripe about “rebellion.” When their much-younger children bond closely and want to spend every moment with Mommy and Daddy, the parents bellyache about their kids’ “lack of independence.” It’s easy to get the impression that some parents just like to complain.

*** Myth: “Children should be seen, but not heard.” Fact: After a newborn child is brought home from the hospital, the proud parents start envisioning the glorious day when their

[1481-MILL]

168

DAVID MILLS

baby learns to speak and to communicate with them. A year or two later, however, when the child actually starts talking, the parents immediately change their minds, frequently telling the child to “be quiet” or “hush.” Parents rudely make comments like, “Shut up while I’m watching television.” After waiting so breathlessly for their children to start talking, parents often threaten punishment if the talking doesn’t cease at the parents’ convenience. Comment: Repeatedly telling your children to “shut up” is, not only ill-mannered, but is the best way I know to guarantee that your children will become shy and socially backward adults. To develop a healthy confidence in their social skills, children need unlimited opportunity to express themselves uninhibitedly. Most sociological surveys reveal that adults tend to fear public speaking more than death itself. And quite probably this ubiquitous terror of verbal humiliation is rooted in childhood experiences in which verbal expression was repeatedly criticized or punished by parents. The moment that you attempt to inhibit your children’s self-expression, is the moment that your children start to become inhibited individuals. The moment that your children ask why the sky is blue, and you answer “be quiet,” is the moment that your children’s innate scientific inquisitiveness is destroyed forever. My uncle, Golden Mills, told me of his own childhood experience in this regard. Golden said he was visiting relatives, having a great time, running around as children do and jabbering endlessly about everything he saw. One of his elders suddenly looked at Golden and said, “Boy, you talk too much.” When Golden heard those harsh words, he said that something deep inside him died. His boyhood zest for life ended with that idle and thoughtless comment. No one punished Golden that day for his frivolous chattering, nor was he rebuked a second time. But the memory of those words—“Boy, you talk too much”—is still vivid and fresh in his mind. Golden was 6-years-old when those words were spoken to him. He is now 84.


169

So whenever you feel the urge to stifle your children’s joyous self-expression, remember that 78 years from now, your children may be replaying your inconsiderate words over and over in their minds—replaying your joy-crushing comments decades after you’re dead and gone. Children should be allowed to express themselves as they see fit, rather than merely as you see fit. I have heard so many parents bark angrily at their children to “shut up” that I am inclined to believe that it is usually the parents, rather than the children, who “should be seen, but not heard.”

*** Myth: Children should and must attend kindergarten, elementary, middle school and high school. Fact: America’s system of public “education” is an unqualified disaster. Virtually every pupil is now designated as an “Honor Student” even though he or she may be functionally illiterate. The public schools no longer teach anything beneficial or important— other than perhaps how to survive in a combat zone. Even worse, the mandatory nature of classroom assignments and meaningless busywork instills within children a lifelong hatred of learning. The average public school is so useless and irksome that thousands of perfectly healthy children must be drugged with Ritalin to sit through the insufferable tedium. The primary role of the public schools is to provide a free and convenient babysitting service for parents who work or who wish to rid themselves of the kids during the day. School destroys the joy of being a child and irremediably crushes a child’s natural curiosity and love of learning. Comment: Any parent of average intelligence can provide a far richer education through homeschooling than the public schools could ever hope to provide. Homeschooling is legal in all fifty states. And you need not be a professional teacher to homeschool your children legally and successfully. Regardless of how inad-

[1481-MILL]

170

DAVID MILLS

equate your teaching abilities, you couldn’t possibly do worse than our miserable system of public “education.” Your children have everything to gain, and nothing to lose, through homeschooling. Chapters 4 and 5 of this book elaborate in greater detail why your children should avoid public “education.” Read these chapters, then encourage your children to quit school immediately.

*** Myth: Children need a firm set of disciplinary guidelines. Fact: Children derive their sense of right and wrong, not from a parentally-mandated list of do’s and don’ts, nor from reading the Ten Commandments, but from keenly observing their parents’ day-to-day behavior. If you conduct yourself with a high degree of civility, intelligence, and compassion for others, then your children will likewise become well-mannered, sensitive individuals. If you rudely and impatiently scold your children like a Drill Instructor in the Marine Corps, then your children will likewise become obnoxious hellions bent on causing you as much trouble as possible. If you foolishly smoke, then your children will probably smoke. If you are a couch potato, then your children will also vegetate. If you are frequently dishonest, then your children will follow suit. If your grammar is abominable, then your children will parrot your errors. If you are immersed in religious mythology and supernaturalism, then your children will be equally unscientific. If you cheat on your spouse, then your children will eventually do the same. Critics may charge that this “monkey-see, monkey-do” theory of child development is overly simplistic. But there are, in practice, few exceptions to the rule. The worst piece of nonsense that any parent can believe is that “my children will learn from my mistakes.” There is a well-established body of sociological data proving that children tend to imitate the behavior of adults in


171

their environment, even when children dislike the adult behavior, or thoroughly despise the adult. This surprising fact, along with its ramifications, is important to understand. Take, for example, instances of child abuse and molestation recurring generation after generation within the same family. My own inclination would be to think that children who suffer the horrors of abuse and molestation would be less likely than other people to perpetrate such crimes against others, since, presumably, the abused children would understand, better than anyone else, the physical and emotional devastation involved. Statistically, however, abused and molested children are more likely than other people to become abusers and molesters themselves. Similarly, children of alcoholic parents run an increased risk of becoming alcoholic themselves, at least partially because they observe and emulate parental behavior, even though the behavior is highly unattractive and obviously self-destructive. The point here is that establishing strict disciplinary guidelines for your children is useless. From their moment of birth, your children watch your behavior to formulate their concepts of proper conduct. Your arbitrary dictates mean nothing. Your observed actions mean everything! Outside influences, such as television, movies, video games, and friends at school, play a relatively minor role when compared to the influence you have in setting forth your children’s sense of ethical values. Comment: Forget the nonsense that children will “learn from your mistakes.” On the contrary, children will imitate your mistakes to their own disadvantage. Avoid repeating the absurd cliche: “Don’t do as I do. Do as I tell you.” Such claptrap merely teaches hypocrisy. Always set a fine example yourself; and your children will more than likely become upstanding young men and women.

[1481-MILL]

172

DAVID MILLS

*** Myth: “Spare the rod and spoil the child.” Fact: Almost all parents who beat their children carry out their violent acts in a cloud of mental self-delusion and denial. Child beaters sincerely believe the following falsehoods about their behavior: “I merely brushed the child’s face gently with my hand.”— “I only dusted the seat of his pants.”—“I was simply teaching her to follow instructions.” Child beaters invariably use euphemisms to perfume the stench of their actions. They never “beat” or “hit” their children. They “spank” or “correct” instead. Moreover, many child beaters “justify” their brutality by citing the unfortunate fact that a majority of parents do use violence occasionally against their children. Child beaters convince themselves that, if their disciplinary methods inflict only modest pain and leave no physical scars, then such punishment is not only ethically permissible and “ordained of God,” but is good for children in that they learn to differentiate wrong from right. Comment: Do not delude yourself that, because you strike your children only once in a while or very “mildly,” you are not really a child beater. You are! Stop rationalizing! Any violence against children, however “gentle,” must be viewed with the same outrage and contempt as violence against a spouse—even more so—since children are clearly more vulnerable emotionally and physically than adults. If hitting, or being hit by, your spouse is unacceptable to you, then how can you possibly justify hitting your children? “To teach them wrong from right,” you say? Save your moralistic lessons! Every wife beater also believes that his wife needs to “learn a lesson” about “wrong” and “right.” Is wife beating okay if the pain is only modest and if you leave no physical scars? Millions of married couples who would never tolerate being


173

hit by their spouses see no impropriety in hitting their children. Is this inconsistency due to the fact that parents can get away with hitting their children, whereas the police might intervene if they hit their spouses? Is beating your children acceptable because most other parents do it too? Do parents hit their children because they know that the children can’t retaliate? Most parents strike their children, not in a calm, rational effort to teach rules of proper etiquette, but in anger. Parents who are immature and childish themselves become irrationally enraged when their children do the normal things of childhood: running, getting dirty, refusing to eat or go to bed, talking loudly and endlessly, being selfish and disobedient. This is the way children are! If you can’t accept this fact happily and calmly, then don’t have children. You’ll just become another short-tempered, screaming parent who beats his children, while calling it “spanking” or “discipline.” Such parents are already too abundant in every shopping mall, rudely sniping at their pitiful kids for such “offenses” as asking to throw a penny in the wishing well or wanting another ride on the merry-go-round. Let’s jerk the kids by the arm, tell them to “shut up,” and they’ll know who’s boss. I have never clearly understood the admonition not to “spoil your children.” What does this mean? Is it bad parenting to be invariably kind and cooperative with your children? Is it harmful if parents put forth an extraordinary effort to make their children happy? No, it’s just inconvenient to selfish parents, who swallow another Myth of Parental Convenience—namely, “it’s better for the children if we don’t give them too much, or do too much for them.” Parents who routinely scream at their children learn quickly that such hot-headed vitriol doesn’t work. Children soon adjust to the average-daily-bombast spewing from their parents. If the parents usually explode in anger twice a day, for instance, the children fully expect these two outbursts and are not particularly surprised or disturbed by them. When parents see that their children ignore these tongue-lashings, the volume level is increased: the

[1481-MILL]

174

DAVID MILLS

parents scream louder and more frequently, and they may throw in a beating or two. The children may then cooperate—for a day or two—until they become accustomed to their dictators’ new average-daily-bombast. Once accustomed and indifferent to their parents’ heightened level of screaming, children will then provoke and test the parents again, in an ever-escalating battle of “crime and punishment.” Instead of recognizing, however, that screaming and spanking are counterproductive, loud-mouthed parents conclude that their children are out of control because they (the parents) are being too lenient and are failing to impose punishments that are harsh enough. The parents become ever more obnoxious, and the children ever more rebellious. These parents then blame their child-rearing woes on liberal parents whose soft-spoken tolerance of childhood merriment has allegedly destroyed all respect for parental authority! As we mentioned above, your children will eventually become well-mannered if you are well-mannered, or beast-like if you are bestial. The next time you feel like “spanking” your child, ask yourself why he or she is behaving so unattractively. Is your daughter’s poor conduct due to actual demonic possession? Is your son really intrinsically evil? That’s very doubtful. Your child’s foul-mouth and ill-temper were more likely copied from you. So cut out the middle man, and kick your own ass instead. Beating your children—by whatever name you call it—doesn’t teach them wrong from right. It only teaches wrong; for your violent behavior will be emulated by your children; and you will have produced a new generation of child beaters.

*** Myth: Children are too immature and shy to openly discuss sexual issues. Fact: It is usually the parents, rather than the children, who are too immature and embarrassed to openly discuss human sexuality. Parents love to hide their own cowardice behind the facade


175

that children “won’t understand” or are “too young” to learn the explicit details of sex and sexual relations. Exceptionally squeamish adults, including some conservative Members of Congress, even allege that explicit or graphic information on sex is “harmful to minors” for reasons never clearly articulated. Most parents are abysmal teachers of sex education, not because they necessarily lack knowledge, but because their stuttering, red-faced demeanor communicates to children the impression that sex is “shameful” and “dirty.” Consequently, children feel extremely reluctant to talk about these “shameful” and “dirty” subjects with their parents. Children accurately sense that Mom and Dad would rather avoid the topic altogether. As a result, therefore, of the parents’ discomfort over sex, parents and children rarely communicate effectively on this most-important of all family issues. When “children” reach puberty, and acquire the physical ability and desire to copulate, honest communication between parent and teen usually declines to absolute zero. Why? Because parents, recalling their own screw-happy teenage years, foolishly begin preaching abstinence. Parents naively delude themselves that their sermons on chastity will somehow deter teen sexual experimentation. In reality, pompous orations on celibacy merely deter honest conversation between parents and teens. How can you openly ask Mom about birth-control pills when you’re not supposed to be thinking about sex? How can you question Dad about the most-reliable condoms when “it’s a sin to look with lust upon a woman”? The more closed-minded the parents, the less efficacious is communication between parents and teens, and the more pretentious the relationship. Comment: Whether your children are toddlers, preschoolers, elementary-age or adolescents,1 strive to maintain a relaxed, confident attitude when sharing information with them about sex organs or sexual relations. As silly as it sounds, it’s a good idea to practice in front of a mirror saying words like “penis,” “vagina,” “sperm,” and “orgasm” before you actually talk with your children

[1481-MILL]

176

DAVID MILLS

face to face. Children are not naturally embarrassed by such words or discussion. Nor are children ashamed even of public nudity. Most mothers will attest that toddlers are especially fond of peeling off their clothes at the most embarrassing moments—embarrassing for the parents, that is. Children themselves have no innate sense of “shame” or “sin” regarding nudity or matters of sexuality. Children quickly become distressed and ill-at-ease, however, if parents reveal their own emotional turmoil over these issues. Even liberal, freethinking parents often unconsciously alter their facial expressions or vocal intonation when speaking about sex. So rehearse in front of a mirror or video camera. Talk to your children about sex with the same composure and objectivity you use to discuss the baseball scores or a fudge recipe. Like most parents, you are troubled by rampant teenage sexual promiscuity. You worry that your own children may fall victim to a sexually-transmitted disease or to unwanted teen pregnancy. You want to protect your children from these tragedies and to persuade your teens to make responsible choices when they are confronted with sexual temptation. Fine. If that’s really your overriding concern—to protect your adolescents from unwanted pregnancy and disease—then I’ll teach you how to exercise powerful influence over their conduct in male-female relationships. I’ll quickly explain how your family can reduce to a bare minimum the possibility of teen pregnancy and disease, regardless of how lustful your kids may be. Be forewarned, however, that most parents will steadfastly reject my advice, because they are foolishly more concerned about the Holy Ghost’s alleged disapproval than they are about effectively protecting their children from the very real dangers of pregnancy and disease. If, above all else, your overriding goal is truly to shield your teenagers from harm, then here’s how to be maximally effective: Never, under any circumstances, express a hint of disapproval of any consensual sex act between two teenagers. Regardless of


177

your true feelings, speak and act as if you think teenage screwing is normal, healthy, pleasurable and inevitable. What! Tell your teenagers it’s perfectly okay to have sex with anybody they want? Tell them to act like barnyard animals, hopping from bed to bed like a ten-dollar whore? What kind of parental guidance is that? What decent parent would offer such irresponsible and unethical counsel? “What kind of parent?” you ask. The answer is a parent who understands how to maintain influence over adolescent teens. If, like most parents, you imply or overtly express your condemnation of teen sexual adventurism, you will abruptly sever free and open communication with your teenagers. You will thereafter have little or no idea what they are doing sexually, or with whom they are intimately involved. You’ll be almost completely in the dark and, worse yet, you’ll be unable to openly persuade your teens to use condoms and oral contraceptives, and to be reasonably selective in their choice of sexual partners. In other words, to exert influence over your teenagers’ sexual behavior, you must be able to converse with them uncritically and without embarrassment. Otherwise, your children will avoid you like the plague—avoid you above all others—when it comes to discussing their relationships with the opposite sex. And you will have thereby forfeited any possibility of promoting effective methods of disease and pregnancy prevention. Because this whole spectacle of teen screwing is so emotionally charged for parents, it is quite impossible for most dads and moms to coolly and objectively see through the moralistic clutter to determine the best course of action to protect their children. Instead of using proven methods of psychological persuasion and influence, parents counterproductively dump their raw emotions: “Hell no, you’re not spending the night with your boyfriend!”—“You leave that trashy girl alone!”—“You’re grounded if I catch you again with that loser!”— “Would Jesus have been making out in the backseat with his pants unzipped?”

[1481-MILL]

178

DAVID MILLS

Let me provide here a concrete illustration of my thesis that only through uncritical acceptance of teen sexuality can you maintain a guiding hand in steering your children away from trouble. To see through the obscuring cloud of emotional and self-righteous hot air, let’s use an analogy that is less emotionally charged: baseball. Suppose that your teenage son enjoys playing sandlot baseball. You have noticed that the old metal cleats on his shoes are sometimes causing him to stop precipitously when he slides into base. You fear he’ll break a leg. You’re concerned for his safety. How would you handle this situation? The father would probably say something like this: “Son, I know you enjoy playing baseball. You’re starting to look like a real professional out there running the base paths. I’m worried, however, that those rusted metal cleats need replacing. I’m concerned that you might even break a leg if you continue using them. Here’s a good magazine article on athletic shoes written by two professional ball players. Why don’t you read it, and decide what kind of shoes you’d like. After you make your decision, we’ll drive to the sporting-goods store together and buy them for you.” Unless your son is most unusual, he’ll be eager to read the specific recommendations of his favorite sports heroes and purchase a new pair of athletic shoes. No ill feelings or bitter arguments need occur between father and son because both of them want the same thing: safer and newer sporting equipment. Similarly, no ill feelings or bitter arguments need occur between parents and teens over the dangers of unwanted pregnancy and disease, since parents and teens share an identical desire for these tragedies to be avoided. What teenager, may I ask, wants to acquire a sexually-transmitted disease or to cause an unwanted pregnancy? The potential conflict between parent and teen is of course how best to prevent these crises: through abstinence or through condom usage and other methods of birth control. Suppose, now, that instead of advising his son to purchase a new pair of athletic shoes, the father had taken a radically different


179

approach, such as this: “Son, it’s immoral for you to play baseball. You’re grieving the Holy Ghost and ruining our reputation in the neighborhood. It’s dangerous too; you almost broke your leg today. Maybe the Lord was warning you to forsake your evil participation in that godless sport. I absolutely forbid you to play that sinful game again.” The son replies, “You’re right, Dad, I almost broke my leg today wearing those old shoes; so may I purchase a new pair?” “What!” retorts the father angrily. “Buy you a new pair of baseball shoes? Don’t be vulgar and insulting! Buying sports shoes would only encourage you to wallow in sinful athletic competition. My conscience won’t permit it. The matter is closed. No new shoes. Go to your room.” Although this father no doubt sincerely wants to protect his son from breaking a leg, the father’s more powerful motivation is to shield his son (and himself!) from perceived moral abomination. Because the father is overwhelmed with, and controlled by, emotion and mysticism, he has failed to correct the source of real danger to his son—the defective shoes. The son will hereafter be safer only if he abstains forever from playing baseball. Otherwise—if he plays again—his defective shoes will place him in greater danger than if his father had purchased a new pair. The obvious question now becomes: If you forbid your teenagers to have sex, and if you refuse to supply them with birth-control pills and condoms and instructive knowledge, then will your children be in greater danger or less danger than if you helped them screw safely and happily? The answer is that by forbidding sexual activity and by refusing to help them with disease and pregnancy prevention, your children will be in greater danger. Why? Because teen adolescents are not going to abstain long from sex. I know what you’re thinking: My position is “defeatist,” isn’t it? Your children are different, aren’t they? Your teenage boys are gentlemen, who view teenage girls as friends and classmates. And your teenage girls are intelligent and responsible young women, primarily interested in academic pursuits and career preparation. Right?

[1481-MILL]

180

DAVID MILLS

Wrong! Your teenage boys, despite their pretensions of disinterest, are totally obsessed with sexual fantasies and carnal impulses. They masturbate almost daily to images of nude women, and will instantly bed down the first pretty girl who’ll spread her legs. Your teenage girls may not be that interested in sex, but fantasize just as vividly about “falling in love” and finding a starry-eyed boyfriend to love them “truly” and “forever.” Consequently, teenage boys offer love to get sex, while teenage girls offer sex to get love. So for reasons natural or ill-advised, your teenagers will be screwing, a lot sooner and more frequently than you think. So you’d better wise up and help prepare them to use safe and effective contraception and disease prevention. I realize that it is difficult for parents to comfortably behave in a manner that is contrary to their own ethical values, even if, in doing so, they serve their children’s best interest. I myself face the same ethical dilemma on the subject of intravenous drug use. As a person who has never placed a cigarette (of any kind) in his mouth, and who averages about three alcoholic drinks a year, I cannot easily relate to someone who injects heroin into his veins. Such drug abuse is exceedingly unwise in my opinion, and I pity those sad individuals who have fallen victim to such destructive addictions. At the same time, however, scientific examination forces me to admit, whether I like it or not, that needle-exchange programs do indeed prove highly effective in reducing the spread of disease among intravenous drug users. So even though I strongly condemn intravenous drug abuse, I just as strongly support the expansion of needle-exchange programs. But doesn’t easy access to condoms or to sterile needles encourage irresponsible behavior? And doesn’t that irresponsible behavior then increase the likelihood of disease? Let me answer these questions by posing two questions to you. Please answer them as honestly as you can: If you were given free access to an unlimited supply of sterile needles, would you start injecting yourself with heroin? If you received a complimentary truckload of high-quality latex condoms, would you suddenly have more sex partners?


181

“No,” you may reply, “but other people are less responsible than I am. They would take advantage of the opportunity to behave unethically and would thereby get themselves into trouble.” While you and I may egotistically applaud ourselves for supposedly being wiser and more responsible than everyone else, the reality is that you and I are probably no different from most other people in our daily conduct and habits. In other words, easy access to condoms or needles does not lead to sexual promiscuity or heroin usage among individuals who already behave responsibly. For those, however, who have already chosen to live recklessly and dangerously, access to condoms or sterile syringes will hopefully encourage them to live a little less recklessly and dangerously. I am not postulating here a moral equivalence between heroin addiction and normal, healthy sexual intercourse among teens. No! My fundamental message is that, if our moral objective is one of extraordinary consequence, such as literally saving a life from deadly disease—be it spread through sex or dirty needles—then we must sacrificially go to extraordinary lengths, despite our own emotional disquiet, to accomplish this higher moral good for others. Otherwise, we are being selfish and self-righteous—and accomplishing nothing. For political and social conservatives, who are more driven by the quest for ideological purity than practical consequence, there is a grandiose temptation to reject any form of compromise. But for those of us living on this planet, beneficial and workable compromise is often necessary and, in the end, is clearly more ethically productive than marching over the cliff with the ideological banner waving proudly. You should not be surprised to learn that, as an outspoken liberal, I receive more positive feedback from liberals than conservatives. Over the years, I have befriended, through letters, email, and personal contact, perhaps two dozen married couples whose parenting styles truly qualify as ultra liberal. By “ultra liberal” I do not mean, as the joke goes, that the only family rule is “no heroin at the dinner table.” I mean that these parents responsibly and

[1481-MILL]

182

DAVID MILLS

intelligently prepare their teenagers for sexual activity. The girls openly take oral contraceptives, or are fitted by a gynecologist with other means of birth control. These parents unashamedly provide condoms for both sons and daughters, along with explicit tutorials and almost-daily reminders to practice safe sex. Of these two dozen or so liberal couples, none of them has seen a teenage daughter become pregnant or contract a sexually-transmitted disease. Likewise, no male in these families has ever caused an unwanted pregnancy or contracted or transmitted a disease through sexual contact. Can the same be said of every family in your neighborhood, which is undoubtedly more conservative? Probably not. In the State of Nevada, where prostitution is legal and aboveboard, not a single case of HIV transmission has been documented between prostitute and patron. Openness, honesty, and realism in Nevada regarding the sex industry have permitted state health officials to closely monitor and regulate “brothels,” virtually guaranteeing disease-free sexual encounters. In other states, where prostitution is driven underground by repressive and antiquated laws, disease transmission has been commonplace. The moral of this story is that, if you’re serious about preventing sexually-transmitted disease and pregnancy in your teen children, then your best hope of effective control is to openly permit them to have sex, preferably in your own home. A middle-aged father in Indiana wrote to me years ago detailing his nearly fail-safe method of protecting and supervising his sexually adventurous 17-year-old daughter, who was extremely attractive and highly popular with the boys: “Whenever Jennifer, my daughter, dates the same boy for two or three months, my wife and I invite him to spend the night at our house. I shake hands with the boy when he arrives and introduce myself in a friendly way. Then I’ll usually just read or watch TV without trying to become ‘best buddies’ or interfering with their plans.

SCIENCE SHAMS & BIBLE BLOOPERS “Before retiring for the evening, however, I’ll take the boy aside into my personal study. I’ll walk him over to my office desk where, on the ledger, the boy sees two tickets to tomorrow’s NFL football game. I hand him the tickets and say that I know he and Jennifer will enjoy the game together. Invariably, the boy is delighted, since these tickets are expensive and difficult to come by. This sets a good, positive tone. “Next, I’ll tell the boy that he’s welcomed to take anything in the desk for his own use. I motion for him to open the first of four side drawers. He eagerly opens the first drawer like a child on Christmas morning, perhaps expecting additional football tickets. What he finds is a box of plain lubricated condoms. “At this point, the boy is embarrassed and doesn’t know what I expect him to say or do. I then say, ‘I don’t mean to tell you what to do. You’re an adult. Even though you’re spending the night here with Jennifer, don’t feel obligated to use these condoms. Maybe the second drawer will appeal to you more.’ “The boy then opens the second drawer to find a box of red condoms with decorative yellow fringe around the bottom. By now, the boy and I are usually grinning at each other. Then I’ll say, ‘They sure think of everything these days, don’t they. I never saw any condoms like that when I was your age.’ “Next I’ll motion for the boy to open the third drawer. Inside he’ll find yet another box of condoms— glow-in-the-dark orange. Finally, I say this: ‘Personally, I never liked to use condoms myself. I certainly understand why guys your age don’t like them. I don’t blame you a bit. So if you’re not interested in what’s in the first drawer or the second drawer or the third drawer, then I’ll definitely arrange for you to get what’s in the bottom drawer instead.’ “I then open the bottom drawer myself, revealing a

[1481-MILL]

183

184

DAVID MILLS six-shooter, which looks like a weapon Wyatt Earp might have used to gun down outlaws in Dodge City. I pick up the gun and rapidly spin the cylinder, like they do with Russian Roulette, closing it with an unexpectedly loud snap. With a genuinely friendly smile on my face, I look the boy directly in the eye and say, ‘I like you. I’m glad you’re spending the night with Jennifer this evening. I know how much she likes you. I just want to make sure that you and I understand each other.’”

Many self-righteous parents will be shocked and morally appalled by this Indiana father’s “permissive” approach. I suggest to you, however, that he is tactfully and effectively exercising greater control and authority over his daughter’s sexual contacts than are more conservative parents, whose sons and daughters are frantically screwing without protection in bushes and backseats to avoid parental discovery. Most importantly: the honest, open, nonjudgmental approach to managing teen sexuality almost invariably works in forestalling pregnancy and disease. And that is— or should be—what really counts.

*** Myth: Parents should take their children to church to learn ethical and religious values. Fact: Statistically, married couples are more likely to attend church regularly in the years following the birth of their children than before. The reasons are twofold for this postpartum splurge of religious devotion. First, the typical married couple believes that family church attendance positively influences the moral character of their impressionable children. Second, religious-minded parents want Jesus to save their children’s “souls” from roasting in hell.


185

Comment: I am inclined to agree with the old Christian adage that “it does no good to take your children to church—you must bring them instead.” Dropping your children off at the church door, and picking them up later in the day, do little to boost their religious piety, because children (as we discussed earlier) are far more influenced by your actions and your personal example than by your verbal instructions. If you do bring, rather than take, your children to church regularly, then you will doubtlessly succeed in teaching them to believe in mystical beings and supernatural legerdemain. But listening to the typical Sunday-morning sermon does nothing to “build moral character” in children, because issues of true ethical relevance are virtually never addressed in these painfully boring monologues. This fact becomes evident when we carefully dissect the three varieties of sermons to which children are exposed in churches throughout the United States. The first type of sermon focuses primarily on Scripture reading. Pounding the pulpit overzealously, the preacher will quote, often from memory, a biblical passage such as this: “And the word of the Lord came unto me the second time, saying, Take the girdle that thou hast got, which is upon thy loins, and arise, go to Euphrates, and hide it there in a hole of the rock. So I went, and hid it by Euphrates, as the Lord commanded me. And it came to pass after many days, that the Lord said unto me, Arise, go to Euphrates, and take the girdle from thence, which I commanded thee to hide there. Then I went to Euphrates, and digged, and took the girdle from the place where I had hid it: and, behold, the girdle was marred, it was profitable for nothing.” Jer. xiii. 3-7. Perhaps the Scripture-based sermon will cite other passages: “And thou, son of man, take thee a sharp knife, take thee a barber’s razor, and cause it to pass upon thine head and upon thy beard: then take thee balances to weigh, and divide the hair. Thou shalt burn with fire a third part in the midst of the city, when the days of the siege are fulfilled; and thou shalt take a third part, and smite about it with a knife: and a third part thou shalt scatter in the

[1481-MILL]

186

DAVID MILLS

wind; and I will draw out a sword after them. Thou shalt also take thereof a few in number, and bind them in thy skirts.” Ezekiel v. 1-3. Needless to say, neither parent nor child derives much sense or benefit from these long-winded Scripture readings. But because these words came from the Bible, they somehow must “build moral character.” Bullshit! The second type of sermon is the kind preached by political activists like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. To these and other such “men of God,” “ethical conduct” means that you support and campaign for the most ultra-conservative right-wing extremist on the ballot. To be “moral,” you must also oppose gay rights, oppose affirmative action, oppose gun control, be violently anti-abortion, loathe the United Nations, despise Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, and believe that men should rule over women within the family. If you deviate from these hallowed beliefs, then you will burn eternally in the fires of hell. Here, again, it is difficult to see how children are taught any useful ethical lessons from these politico-religious sermons. The only message that children are likely to absorb is one of intolerance and hatred of people with opposing viewpoints. Bill Bennett, conservative author of The Book of Virtues and The Children’s Book of Virtues, invariably scowls with contempt and disgust whenever someone takes issue with his extremist political views. Perhaps Bennett’s face was permanently frozen into a sour grimace by all his years of virtuous chain smoking. To millions of churchgoers, the terms “ethical conduct” and “Christian conduct” are synonymous and interchangeable. A “Christian act” is by definition an “ethical act.” And an “immoral deed” is necessarily “un-Christian.” The logical problem posed by these definitions, however, is that non-Christians—be they Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists or atheists—must necessarily be perceived as unethical—or at least less ethical—when compared to “true” Christians, simply because they hold differing religious beliefs. For if


187

your beliefs are absolutely, positively true and “ordained of God,” then anyone who disagrees with you is absolutely, positively wrong and is a damnable tool of Satan. Such “thinking” leads to religious bigotry and prejudice—and to Holy War. So, perhaps, we should think twice before introducing our children to such a biased and discriminatory “ethical” system—a system which admittedly promises heavenly rewards for faith and proper religious beliefs, rather than for ethical treatment of others. For example, a man could theoretically kill hundreds of innocent people, rob fifty banks, poison the drinking water of an entire region, or even start a World War. But if this man, during his last few seconds of life, sincerely repents of his sins and “accepts Jesus into his heart,” he will be taken to Heaven and rewarded eternally. By contrast, a woman can sacrificially devote her entire life to charitable work and to generously helping disadvantaged children throughout the world. But if she neglects to recognize the existence of a supernatural Power, then she will be barbecued forever in the pits of hell, according to Christian doctrine. Christianity, therefore, defines ethics primarily in terms of an individual’s religious beliefs (which affect no one else) rather than in terms of unselfish conduct toward others. Martin Luther King, Jr., taught us to judge individuals, not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. Many Christian Fundamentalists, however, judge individuals, not by the content of their character, but by the color of their religious beliefs. If your opinions on religion disagree with those of the Fundamentalists, they will for that reason declare your character to be bankrupt. Moreover, Fundamentalists sincerely believe that, because of your “bankrupt, un-Christian character,” you are more likely (than the Fundamentalists) to commit immoral deeds. In other words, “true” Christians are necessarily more ethical than non-Christians. Such religious bigotry is no less offensive than claiming that a man born African-American or Chinese is for that reason more likely to commit immoralities. So, while masquerading as a fountain of ethical virtue and love, Christian Fundamentalism instead teaches our

[1481-MILL]

188

DAVID MILLS

children an unhealthy (and unethical) religious prejudice and hostility toward individuals of diverse opinion and background.2 Not every minister, however, is a rabid Bible thumper or a hypocritical political activist. A few liberal clergymen do attempt to teach ethical sensitivity, usually by citing the Ten Commandments. But this type of sermon is usually a bland exercise in stating the obvious: We’re told not to kill people, or to steal their property, or to bear false witness against our neighbors. If you read the Ten Commandments carefully, then you will observe that the majority of them deal, not with prescriptions for moral conduct toward other people, but with ritualistic mandates on how to correctly practice religion: no graven images, remembering the Sabbath, no gods before me, no blaspheming God’s name, etc. Again, the emphasis is primarily on religious belief, rather than on ethical behavior toward others. If your parenting style and personal example are such that your children are truly unaware that they should not commit murder or burglary or perjury, then by all means bring them to church to hear the Ten Commandments. But you should probably be placed under investigation to determine what, precisely, the children observed you doing that left them so confused as to whether murder and thievery are acceptable conduct. It is a Myth of Parental Convenience, as well as an abdication of parental responsibility, to believe that a local minister or television evangelist should be in charge of teaching ethics to your children. Again, setting a fine example yourself for your children to emulate will shape their moral characters far more effectively than all the sermons and Scripture readings in the world. And I venture to guess that most ministers would probably agree. The second reason why parents send their children to church— other than to supposedly learn ethics—is to save their “souls” from eternal damnation. Millions of children are cruelly and brutally warned that, unless their religious beliefs measure up to Jehovah’s requirements, God will torture them everlastingly in hell’s raging inferno. Fundamentalist parents savagely threaten their


189

horror-stricken children with morbid descriptions of a literal hell. The torment in hell is portrayed as identical to a child’s being dowsed with gasoline and set ablaze with a match. Elsewhere in this book, I rebut in great detail this ghoulish and inhumane Fundamentalist teaching. Let me say, here, that only mental illness or supreme ignorance can explain why a parent would deliberately teach his children that they are in actual danger of being sadistically and unendingly tortured. What a perfectly horrible thing to tell an innocent child! Such a parent, in my view, is no less abusive than a molester and should be held in no higher esteem. As an avowed atheist, here is my advice to religious-minded parents on child rearing: Be sure you uncompromisingly force your children to attend church! Pressure them unremittingly to attend both Sunday school and church services, whether they want to or not. Demand that your children return to church on Sunday nights for choir practice and evening worship. During the week, command them to attend Youth Bible Study and prayer meetings. Insist that your children always say their prayers before bedtime, especially that happy little prayer with the cheery phrase “ . . . if I should die before I wake, I pray the Lord my soul to take.” As soon as your children finish the school year and are looking forward to a summer of fun, be certain that you sign them up immediately for Vacation Bible School. On beautiful summer days, children love to memorize Scripture and make religious-oriented crafts out of glue and popsicle sticks. After they finish Bible School and perform in the mandatory religious skit at graduation, never forget to pack them off to church camp for a couple of weeks. The spiritual counselors at camp will guarantee that the boys and girls never touch each other. Never let your children go on dates with the opposite sex until they are at least 21-years-old, and never let your teenage daughters wear lipstick, perfume, eyeshadow, tight jeans, short skirts, or high heels. Punish your boys severely if you find a Playboy or Penthouse magazine in their rooms or if, God forbid, you catch them masturbating. Remind your children many times a day that God may

[1481-MILL]

190

DAVID MILLS

“require their souls” (i.e., kill them) at any moment, and that sinners are tortured in hell forever. Finally, you should seriously consider reinstating the traditional method of Christian discipline—a method universally practiced by Christian parents for centuries but unfortunately abandoned early in the 1800’s: Before bedtime, beat your children with a stick, regardless of how well-behaved they appear to have been during the day. You must beat them because the Bible says that every person sins every day—and you cannot create the impression that any sin goes unpunished. As an atheist, I sincerely hope that all of you religious parents will carefully heed the above suggestions on child rearing. For, if you do, you will certainly produce a child who is more likely to agree with my position on religion than yours. While I consider it far preferable that an individual’s atheism be based upon a rational and scientific examination of the relevant issues, atheism adopted in rebellion to religious authoritarianism is preferable to no atheism at all.

*** Myth: Marital satisfaction is enhanced by having children. Fact: Before debating whether children enhance or impair marital satisfaction, we must clarify, and agree upon, a concrete definition of “marital satisfaction.” Most couples enter marriage expecting: (1) to share and to enjoy each other’s companionship, (2) to share and to enjoy life experiences and mutual interests, (3) to give and to receive romantic love and emotional support, (4) to provide and/or to receive adequate financial support, and (5) to provide and to receive pleasurable sexual gratification. Millions of married couples soon discover that their spouses fulfill none of these five expectations. Even successful, long-term marriages tend to be strong on certain points, but weak on others. An older couple may richly enjoy each other’s company and emo-


191

tional support, but engage in sexual relations only occasionally or not at all. By contrast, a younger couple may lack comfortable financial support and share few common interests, yet screw to orgasmic ecstasy every night. The emphasis that you and your spouse place on each of these five marital satisfactions may differ radically from the values held by other couples. What works in my marriage may prove disastrous in yours, and vice versa. But despite our important individual differences, I believe that we may objectively agree that these five marital expectations—and whether each is satisfied—are often important determinants of marital happiness and longevity. In other words, if a couple shares little in common, feels no romantic love or emotional commitment, grovels in poverty, loathes to spend time together, and never has sex, we might objectively conclude that their marriage is quite unsatisfying. If, instead, a couple delights in each other’s company, feels deeply committed romantically and emotionally, shares numerous common interests, enjoys a lucrative family income, and has marathon lovemaking sessions every night, we can probably agree that their marriage appears to be healthy and satisfying. So if marital satisfaction is indeed often linked to gratifying the five expectations noted above, then the introduction of children into the husband-wife relationship makes such satisfaction more difficult to achieve and to sustain. Why? Because if you are a good parent, you will devote a large portion of your time—often all of your time—to properly caring for your children. The more time that you and your spouse devote to nurturing the children, the less time remains to nurture the relationship between you and your spouse. If you and your mate enjoy conversation, your discussions will be brief and scant after the children are born. If you enjoy quiet meals in a good restaurant, your dinner dates will be sporadic and chaotic after the children join you at the table. If you and your spouse enjoy a wild and wonderful sex life, the quality and quantity of your lovemaking will decline significantly, due to extreme fatigue and inevitable time constraints—

[1481-MILL]

192

DAVID MILLS

and your lovemaking will sometimes be interrupted in mid act by crying children who demand and deserve your immediate attention. Whatever your disposable income, your financial health will suffer a substantial setback with each new child added to your family. Whatever your emotional needs, your spouse will comfort you less frequently because he or she now has others to console as well. If you enjoy reading, or computers, or watching television, or gardening, or music, or talking on the phone, or sporting events, or fishing, or sewing, or taking naps, the addition of children to your household will either eliminate your hobbies completely or will drastically reduce the time that you and your spouse share together enjoying your mutual interests. Rearing children, in other words, requires a remarkable devotion of time—time which is directly and unavoidably siphoned from the husband-wife relationship. Comment: I am not claiming that married couples usually regret having children. No. Nor am I suggesting that a married couple’s overall enjoyment of life is not enhanced by starting a family. Most married couples delight in their children. What I am saying is that, although your overall happiness may (or may not) increase after having children, the satisfaction that you derive strictly from the husband-wife relationship will be negatively affected. Despite popular myths to the contrary, the injurious effect of children upon the husband-wife relationship is very well established in the psychological literature (Miller, 1976; Glenn & McLanahan, 1982; Cowan, Cowan, Hemming, Garret, Coysh, Curtis-Boles, and Boles, 1985; White, Booth, & Edwards, 1986; Umberson, 1989; Umberson & Gove, 1989; Wallace and Gotlib, 1990; Conger, Elder, Lorenz, Conger, Simons, Whitbeck, Huck, & Melby, 1990; Cowman & Cowman, 1992; Lavee, Sharlin, & Katz, 1996)3 “But,” you may respond, “don’t married couples enjoy the mutual satisfaction of caring for their children, and doesn’t this shared experience, in turn, make the husband-wife relationship closer?” The answer is: only rarely. Despite our living in a supposedly liberated,


193

equality-based society, women continue to provide a disproportionate share of the childcare in the United States. Husbands may occasionally stroll by to help a little, or to criticize. But most men unfortunately view childcare as a burden forced upon them, rather than a pleasure to be shared and enjoyed equally by husband and wife. Many “wonderful” husbands quickly become useless absentee fathers when their naive and fanciful visions of fatherhood confront the day-to-day rigors of caring for their children. Your husband may prove himself to be very different, being the most cheerful, reliable, and entertaining babysitter since Mary Poppins. But I wouldn’t count on it, and I certainly wouldn’t plan a pregnancy with that presupposition in mind. Husbands and wives seldom divide and share equally the satisfactions and tribulations of caring for their children. Some men apparently believe that their fatherly responsibilities end at ejaculation. Men are deservedly notorious for wanting to have children— or at least wanting to have sex—then walking away dispassionately from the families they create. But why do men behave so irresponsibly? Are men natural-born jerks, tailored by evolution to cum and go without remorse? The answer, in my opinion, is probably “yes.” In fact, I once proposed a theory to simultaneously explain (perhaps) why men are both more interested than women in fertilization (i.e., sexual intercourse) and less interested than women in nurturing the resulting offspring. Since I have, throughout this book, scoffed at others’ theories because they lacked supporting evidence, let me point out, before someone else does, that my proposed “explanation” of male behavior has no empirical scientific data to support it. I am admittedly speculating why men frequently “cum and go.” Here is the theory: After a woman is impregnated, the strength of her sex drive becomes irrelevant to the successful propagation and evolution of the species. The reason that female sexual desires are unimportant after fertilization (from an evolutionary point of reference) is that, regardless of how much additional semen is ejaculated into her vagina, no further pregnancies can occur until the

[1481-MILL]

194

DAVID MILLS

current gestation is complete. Evolution, therefore, would place little emphasis on strengthening female libido, but great emphasis on strengthening maternal bonding to the helpless infant. A man, by contrast, can theoretically impregnate a different female each time he ejaculates, provided that he does not monogamously attach himself to one particular woman or “waste” time caring for his children—time that he could spend copulating with other women and siring more offspring. In other words, what we today call “responsible male behavior”—that is, the fatherly devotion of time to child rearing, and the controlled suppression of polygamous sexual impulses—would in fact operate to the evolutionary disadvantage of the species, inhibiting full-time procreation by the male. Natural Selection would therefore strive mightily to eliminate “responsible behavior” from the male genetic code. It is not my intention to defend philandering husbands and absentee fathers. I myself have never cheated on my wife, and I consider myself a damned good father. But we had better realistically disabuse ourselves of the nonsense that men are naturally attentive fathers and monogamous husbands. They’re not! I am also convinced that both males and females are genetically predisposed to underestimate the difficulties of rearing children, since any species which cautiously and endlessly mulled over the decision to bear young would rapidly drive itself into extinction. Natural Selection would therefore favor and preserve the biological tendency toward hasty and careless reproduction. In more down-to-earth terms, married couples face two potential crises due to their miscalculation of the effects of children upon the husband-wife relationship: (1) Couples are generally unprepared for the arduous task of rearing a child, and tend to blame the child (and each other)—rather than blaming their own naivety—for their unforeseen frustrations. Previously-strong marital bonds are weakened by this bickering, often resulting in divorce and broken families. (2) Couples who never got along well


195

believe idiotically that having children will “bring them closer together” and “patch things up between them.” Needless to say, the addition of children to the already-strained relationship only hastens divorce. A few pages back, I stated that good parents dedicate a large portion of their time to childcare. I argued that the time you devote to your children is, in most instances, siphoned directly from the time you previously invested in fortifying and enjoying the husband-wife relationship. It logically follows therefore that, if you devote very little of your time to childcare, then the effect of children upon your marriage will be negligible. Perhaps someone else takes care of your kids during the day. You first see your children each day at the dinner table. After dinner, you watch television while the kids play elsewhere. You then force your children into their bedrooms at a ridiculously early hour, such as 8:00PM, so that you won’t be annoyed by their presence. You pat yourself on the back for reading them a lousy 5-minute bedtime story. If this is your situation, then your children will obviously have a minuscule effect upon your marital relationship, because you devote only a minuscule fraction of your time to your children. There is a direct correlation between the quality of childcare you provide and the negative impact such childcare exerts upon the husband-wife relationship. Stating aloud that children degrade marital satisfaction is as frowned upon socially as announcing in church that you disagree with Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount. Public reaction is likely to be one of horror and indignation, regardless of how meritorious your supporting arguments may be. If, however, you can disregard social mythology and fully accept the fact that childcare does require a major sacrifice of marital satisfaction, then having children will probably enrich your life immeasurably despite the sacrifices involved. If, instead, you continue to echo the popular mantra that “children make a marriage closer,” then your misconceptions will

[1481-MILL]

196

DAVID MILLS

likely ensure that you enjoy, neither your children, nor your marriage, and that you will blame and criticize your family for frustrations that are, in reality, to be fully expected.

*** Myth: If my spouse and I are unhappy together, it’s better for the children if we separate and divorce. Fact: Even if you vehemently disagree with everything else you’ve read in this book, here are two depressing facts on which we probably concur: (1) Young men and women in the United States are frequently making ill-fated decisions in their selection of “compatible” marriage partners. (2) Married couples are usually having children before sufficient time has passed to determine whether the marriage will survive long-term. The combined impact of these two lamentable facts is that more and more children are being born into marriages which soon break apart. According to US News & World Report, almost half of America’s 12-year-old children have spent a portion of their childhoods in a broken family. This social tragedy is only going to worsen. All reliable psychological studies and demographic data reveal that children of divorced parents are more likely themselves to divorce their spouses than are children whose parents remained married. In other words, divorce begets divorce. The traditional American family is therefore being driven to near-extinction by a runaway chain reaction— a repetitive cycle in which divorced parents rear divorce-prone children who, in turn, rear yet another generations of divorcees. It would be wonderful indeed if children learned a beneficial lesson from their parents’ marital conflicts. But, statistically, children more often repeat—rather than learn from—their parents’ marital failures. The divorce rate is sadly exacerbated by the reality that two cooperative partners are required to build a successful marriage; whereas one intransigent spouse can tear a marriage apart. In future years,


197

therefore, as this trend continues, it will become increasingly unlikely that both spouses in a new marriage will have been reared by parents who never divorced. Because of the proven inclination of children to mimic their parents’ marital failures, and because two agreeable spouses are required for marital longevity, the rate of divorce will thus continue to skyrocket. By the time the World War II generation passes away, America’s divorce rate may well climb above 80 percent. Comment: Almost all couples engaged to marry are so swept away with bubbly emotion that they become incapable of objectively assessing their future mates’ undesirable characteristics, in addition to their positive qualities. Rational thinking ceases, retiring into a sleepy winter of hibernation. Young couples, entranced by romantic sentimentality, become, in the words of Albert Ellis, “love slobs,” whose behavior resembles that of an hourglass: The head empties as the heart fills up. Newly-married couples therefore acknowledge little possibility that their own glorious union will ultimately fizzle—like the shattered marriages of all their divorced friends. “How could our rich and beautiful romance ever crash and burn? How could my ‘perfect’ mate ever betray me? We’ll be married ‘til death do us part.’” A detached, outside observer, however, trusts cold-blooded census-bureau statistics and depressing courthouse records to document his skepticism that a newly-married couple will truly live happily ever after. Romantic love’s blinding influence creates two distortions of perception for engaged and newlywed couples. The first perceptual problem, as we noted, is that individuals fall “head-over-heels in love” with incompatible, unsuitable, and often bastardly partners. The second problem, even worse, is that, by grossly overestimating their odds of marital success, young couples give woefully insufficient thought to when or whether to have children. I am quite convinced that most couples who are engaged to marry plan their weddings in far greater detail than they plan

[1481-MILL]

198

DAVID MILLS

their families. The question of whether to have children is seldom discussed. The question instead is the number of boys and the number of girls to be spawned, and what their names will be. And even here, many couples practice birth control so haphazardly and irresponsibly that their “family planning” quickly becomes a joke. Moreover, little thought is usually given to whether the couple can financially afford to properly support these children. Even questions of supreme and immediate necessity are often ignored altogether—urgent questions such as “Who will care for our children while we work?” Any husband and wife announcing publicly that they don’t want children are viewed as selfish and sinister freaks, who probably need psychiatric counseling to restore their good moral judgment. A typical newlywed couple, therefore, produces children before the marriage has matured, before accumulating a sufficient savings account, and before reliable and meticulous plans are crafted for day-to-day care of the children. Unsurprisingly, the newlyweds find married and family life to be vastly different—and far more frustrating—than they naively envisioned. Husband and wife soon start blaming each other (and the children) for their tedious, impoverished, and unsatisfying home lives. After a few sincere attempts to “save the marriage,” the couple files for divorce. Even the most insensitive mother and father realize that breaking apart their home and family is a traumatic ordeal for the children, who tend to blame themselves for their parents’ self-inflicted marital wounds. The parents feel guilty for destroying their children’s entire world. To sooth their own guilt, most parents contrive bogus excuses to explain why their desire to divorce is more important than their children’s desire to live with both Mommy and Daddy. The excuse invented most often is that, since we (the parents) can’t live together peacefully and happily, it’s better for the children if we separate and divorce. Parents thereby send mixed, and emotionally devastating, messages to their children about why they are divorcing. Parents who divorce repeat over and over to their children that “It’s not your fault.


199

It’s not your fault.” Then, in direct contradiction, parents claim that they are divorcing “because it’s best for the kids.” In other words, we are divorcing because of the children after all. Children seem far more adroit at detecting, and taking to heart, these conflicting messages than are their insensitive, battle-weary parents. I am decidedly not a religious man. But if the demons of hell ever devised a diabolical lie to destroy children’s souls, it is the filthy hoax that divorce somehow benefits children. Without question, this lie is the most harmful of all Myths of Parental Convenience. There are, in my opinion, only two rare exceptions when a divorce is advisable for the children’s well-being: (1) when the children are being physically brutalized, and (2) when the children are being forcibly molested. Absent true physical or sexual abuse, children are not “better off ” in a broken home. To the contrary, numerous psychological surveys conducted in the mid-1990’s indicate that, even when parents argue frequently in front of the children, and even when one spouse is openly involved in an adulterous affair, the children, almost without exception, want their mothers and fathers to remain married and to live together with them as a family unit. The warring spouses, however, are so seething with mutual hostility that they falsely believe that the children share their hatred of the other spouse. Needless to say, what the children really want is for Mommy and Daddy to love them and to get along with each other a little better. I may be “stating the obvious” here; but “the obvious” usually disappears from plain view thanks to relationship “experts” who convolute these issues with their jargon-filled books and gobbledygook analyses. What I mean by “the obvious” is that, while husband and wife may have solid and justifiable reasons of their own for wanting a divorce, the children, with rare exception, live happier, better-adjusted lives, now and in the future, if their parents remain together, despite marital crises and conflicts. Let’s say, for example, that you and your spouse thoroughly despise each other. You are continually quarreling, often boisterously

[1481-MILL]

200

DAVID MILLS

and in front of your children. You wouldn’t care much if your spouse dropped dead this evening. In fact, that would probably solve a lot of your problems. Moreover, both you and your spouse are in love with other people outside the marriage, with whom you are already having sexual relations. Should you divorce? From your point of view, and that of your spouse, the answer of course is yes. Both of you would certainly be happier if you went your separate ways and never looked back. From the children’s perspective, however, your divorce is not in their best interest. If you are genuinely concerned about “what’s best for the kids,” then you and your spouse will stay married and continue living together. You will conduct your juvenile, imbecilic arguments in private, far beyond the children’s range of hearing. When the children are near, you and your spouse will behave in a civilized, diplomatic fashion, trying in earnest to make every moment of their childhoods pleasant and filled with happy memories. Perhaps one or two nights a week, you and your spouse can alternately and discreetly step out of the house for a few hours—if you must—to see your lovers. But you will return home that same night to be there for your children when they awake in the morning. If this arrangement sounds absurd or unworkable to you, then it is probably because you and your spouse are selfishly more concerned with your own convenience than with your children’s happiness and well-being. Maybe your selfishness also explains why you and your spouse couldn’t get along together in the first place. Whenever I visit a bookstore, I usually browse through the newly-published titles on “relationships” and “self-help.” I sometimes can’t help thinking that, 50 years ago, before any of these love-potion manuals were published, very few couples ever divorced. Today, with such “wisdom” readily accessible to everyone in paperback form, the divorce rate is soaring through the stratosphere. Why? The authors and relationship gurus would claim that their self-help books are written in response to the rising divorce rate. Nevertheless, I sometimes wonder whether the publication of these


201

“revolutionary breakthroughs in marital communication” is partially to blame for the rising divorce rate. I’ve encountered some good advice in many of these books, particularly in regard to specific sexual technique. But I fear that most “relationship” and “self-help” books fail to address the true, underlying cause of divorce, and thereby send couples off in the wrong direction, chasing elaborate—and false—psychological theories in pursuit of a “deeper understanding” of their marital conflicts. Many of these “experts” on love and marriage have themselves divorced numerous times. Radio talk-show personality Barbara DeAngelis, for instance, who has sold millions of books and videotape courses on “relationship building” and “mate selection,” has herself married five times already; and she is still a young woman. “Physician heal thyself.” In my opinion, the fundamental cause of most marital discord is simple: one or both spouses fail to consistently practice old-fashioned good manners. Marriage, to be happy, must never be the place for unrestrained candor. Instead, marriage should be the place for graceful diplomacy. Most couples, however, unfortunately view marriage as a free-for-all dumping ground for unedited self-expression and raw emotion. If we invariably treated our spouses with the same good-natured decency that we show our friends and coworkers, then divorce would be virtually eliminated. But if we treated our friends and coworkers with the same callous insensitivity that we frequently show our spouses, then we would virtually eliminate our friends. It is indeed ironic that the only people against whom we usually level rude and hurtful insults are the people we call “loved ones”: husbands, wives, children, mothers and fathers. Can’t we treat our own families with the same respect we show a stranger sitting beside us on a park bench? Few marriages are destroyed because an outside crisis unexpectedly imposed itself on the relationship. Rather, couples slowly drift apart because, each day, they step on each other’s feelings with a bit more indifference. The overwhelming majority of marriages could be

[1481-MILL]

202

DAVID MILLS

saved from divorce if husbands and wives merely smiled at each other and waved goodbye every morning. As I write these words, my (first and only) wife and I (her first and only husband) are approaching our 15th wedding anniversary. During these 15 years, I have never raised my voice in anger to my wife. This feat was easy to accomplish because, during our 15 years together, my wife has never given me reason to raise my voice. So it is uncertain whether I would behave so calmly if I were provoked deliberately by a less compassionate spouse. Nonetheless, I hope that our 15 happy and scream-free years will permit me to recommend two books to you on building a happy long-term relationship. These books profoundly influenced me when I first read them as a teenager and, I’m confident, helped make me easier to live with—which is no small accomplishment! Curiously, neither of these books is generally considered to be a “marriage manual.” The first volume is Dale Carnegie’s original How to Win Friends and Influence People. This book, first published in 1936, teaches more about human psychology and personal interaction than all the psychology textbooks, marriage manuals, and modern-day self-help gibberish put together. All bookstores generally carry this historic title. Literally millions of people have read Carnegie’s original masterpiece, yet continue to treat their spouses rudely. For, although these readers may learn intellectually from Carnegie how to comport themselves in a variety of situations, their uncontrolled emotional outbursts tend to override their intellects, reverting them to oafish behavior. Because, in most marriages, irrational emotion overshadows and disables thoughtful reason, I recommend Albert Ellis’ A Guide to Rational Living. This title, originally published in 1961, teaches an individual how to understand and modify self-defeating—and relationship-defeating—emotional disturbance. For only when you feel calm, will you generally act calmly and retain the level-headed solemnity to resolve, rather than to aggravate your marital conflicts.4


203

Notes on Chapter 7 1. It’s sometimes said that most parents give identical advice to their teenage and preschool daughters: “Be careful. Don’t touch that. Don’t put that in your mouth.” 2. Historically, Christian Fundamentalism has also fought bitterly against women’s rights by citing Bible verses such as First Corinthians 14: 34-35—“Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.” 3. Reference material provided to me through the superb work of Gregory Schramka. 4. A Guide to Rational Living is available in many, but not all, bookstores. If you are unable to locate a copy, contact the Albert Ellis Institute, 45 East 65th Street, New York, N.Y. 10021. Phone: 1-800-323-4738. Web Site: http://www.irebt.org

[1481-MILL]

CHAPTER 8 Children and the “Danger” of Internet Pornography Perhaps I’m unsophisticated or culturally deprived. But I’m not the least bit interested in the history of French ballet. I know absolutely nothing about the subject, and I don’t want to know anything about it. A list of my favorite ten-thousand subjects would contain no reference at all to the history of French ballet. In fact, I’d much rather lie down and take a nap than to read about the history of French ballet. I respect and appreciate those artists and scholars who find the topic fascinating. But as for me, forget it. I’m just not interested. What I am interested in, among other things, is computers. I bought my first computer in the early 1980’s, when the machines were first introduced for home use. My first computer, purchased at Radio Shack, had all of 4K memory—not 4 megs mind you—I mean 4K (4096 bytes). I marveled at this enormous RAM and was awe-struck by the machine’s incredible CPU speed, which was slightly less than 1MHz. In its most powerful graphics mode, my first computer could simultaneously display four different colors! The internet back then was almost exclusively the province of a few elite universities and research centers. No one ever heard of Netscape, Windows Internet Explorer, or Bill Gates. The World Wide Web was a decade into the future. The internet then was a text-only medium, requiring the manual entry of painfully-intricate address codes to navigate the system. My first modem occasionally achieved a


205

blazing 300 baud, though most of the time I had to settle for 150. Since those days—which don’t seem that long ago—computers and the internet have changed unimaginably, becoming exponentially more powerful and (perhaps) a little easier to use. During the 1980’s and 1990’s, I logged onto the internet thousands of times, connecting to tens-of-thousands of sites around the globe. In all those years of net surfing, however, I never—not even once—connected to a site referencing the history of French ballet. I’m confident that many such references exist on the internet. But I have never bothered to search for them, because I don’t give a damn about the subject. Even if I knew exactly where to look, I would not look.

*** During the 1980’s, I never heard a single negative comment voiced about the internet. Sure, internet users themselves were constantly complaining that the system was slow and difficult to navigate. But no one ever suggested that the internet was a bad thing or an evil force. Starting in the early 1990’s, however, Fundamentalist Christians—and sensation-seeking news media—began portraying the internet as a mortal danger to humanity. For a few years, we heard frightening stories about terrorists’ allegedly using the internet to pilfer plans for building a nuclear bomb. The internet, it seemed, was literally going to destroy the planet. Never mind that the same nuclear technology was also available in any college textbook. Because the internet was the messenger, all these conspiracy stories seemed far more ominous, and more likely to result in Armageddon. The internet was little understood by the average citizen, who feared what he didn’t understand. The next horror-story circulated about the internet was that millions of murderers, kidnappers, and pedophiles were lying in wait behind their computer terminals, ready to attack any member of your family who went online. Supposedly, these violent predators were all computer geniuses, who could decipher your

[0000-XXXX]

206

DAVID MILLS

home address simply by viewing your E-mail address. Using this cryptic information, these internet stalkers could break into your home and slit your throat as you lay sleeping. Ironically, those voicing such fears of internet stalking voiced no objection whatever to publishing a City Phone Directory, which provides full names and home addresses of practically everyone in town.1 But fear of internet-inspired nuclear bombs and internet-savvy criminals has currently taken a back seat to the gravest threat of all: the horrifying possibility that someone—perhaps even an “underage” teenage male—may use the internet to view photographs of nude women! Motivated by campaign contributions from Christian conservatives, the US Congress in 1995 passed the Communications Decency Act (CDA). The CDA sought to “protect minors” from the “threat” of internet pornography. Moreover, software publishers and internet service providers began offering tools to block out selected internet sites deemed “harmful to minors.” Programs such as Net Nanny, Cyber Patrol, Cybersitter, Internet Filter, and Surfwatch sold hundreds of thousands of copies to parents concerned about their children’s unsupervised computer usage. Thousands of sexually-oriented web sites began using Adult Check, an age-verification system to deny entrance to minors. Donna Rice Hughes, who thought nothing of sleeping with any married man “destined for the White House,” became spokeswoman for Enough is Enough, a group of born-again Christians striving to “protect our children from the dangers of internet pornography.”

*** Is there truly a problem of children’s accessing pornography on the internet? And if there is, shouldn’t we, as adults, strive mightily to prevent impressionable children from viewing sexually-oriented material intended solely for adults? The answers to these questions are: 1) There is no problem, and (2), We should not strive to “child-proof ” the internet.


207

When I assert that we should not child-proof the internet, I am not attempting to raise a 1st-Amendment or Constitutionally-rooted objection to government censorship. Although I enthusiastically applauded the Supreme Court’s declaration that the CDA was unconstitutional, I wish to argue on completely different grounds why I believe that internet censorship is both unnecessary and quite counterproductive in shielding our children from imaginary “harm.”

*** The crucial, relevant—and invariably overlooked—fact about children and pornography is that children have no libido. In other words, children have as much attraction to sexually-oriented websites as I have to French ballet websites: None. For this reason, any thunderous public effort to shield children from internet pornography is likely to be iatrogenic. “Iatrogenic” is an obscure term denoting a disease caused entirely by the attending physician and his prescribed “remedy.” To the tiny extent that adult websites attract children, the attraction is not one of lust, but of curiosity—curiosity generated by our endless discussion and public hand-wringing over the issue. Morally-crusading adults awaken in children an attraction to websites that, naturally, children do not possess. Experts on child psychology—including both Sigmund Freud and Jean Piaget— demonstrated decades ago that all children experience a prolonged period of sexual latency, during which they have no lustful inclinations whatever. This period of sexual latency ends with the onset of puberty in the early-to-mid teens. That children have no sexual urges or erotic fantasies is almost impossible for adults, particularly male adults, to comprehend or accept. The average adult male is obsessed with sexual imagery. So he tends to project his own psychological framework and habits onto others, including children. It is difficult for adults to really believe that children spend literally no time engaging in erotic fantasy. Precisely because sexual imagery does not occur naturally during

[1481-MILL]

208

DAVID MILLS

the childhood latency period, most—not all, but most—children’s accounts of sexual abuse by adults are probably true. Unless spoon-fed these fantasies by an incompetent psychotherapist or social worker, sexual imagery and desire are totally absent within children until puberty begins. A desire to download sexually-stimulating computer images is likewise wholly absent within pre-adolescent children. Let’s firmly keep in mind that websites, regardless of their content, must be actively selected by the computer user. The only things that appear on your monitor uninvited are advertisements and error messages. I mentioned earlier that, during my two decades of internet use, I never accessed a single website referencing the history of French ballet, even though such sites certainly exist. No law of Congress prohibited my viewing such material. No “blocking” software or Adult Check screened me out. And no political or religious group tried to deter me from entering. My own intrinsic lack of interest was by far the best “safeguard” against exposure to the ballet. Suppose, however, that Congress passed a law called the French Ballet Decency Act. I think that my curiosity would suddenly awaken. Suppose also that software companies and internet service providers were working feverishly to guarantee that I never learned the secrets of the ballet. And imagine that the commentators and religious activists were endlessly preaching about the “dangers” of my accessing French ballet websites. I think that I would probably lie awake at night wondering what all the commotion was about. The next time that I logged onto the internet, what sites do you think I would search for? Again, any alleged “problem” of children’s accessing internet pornography is entirely iatrogenic, caused by the guardian physicians of morality. We can easily think of numerous examples in which the moralistic “cure” caused the “disease.” One of my favorite television programs of all time was Married With Children, whose every episode was admittedly filled with sexual innuendo and unabashed lusting, though never for the characters’ own spouses. When FOX Television first aired Married With Children in 1987, its ratings


209

were abysmal. Nobody watched the show, and FOX planned to cancel the program. Then a woman, whose name, alas, I do not know, began to publicly voice her outrage at the show’s raunchiness. She wrote letters. She tried to persuade the show’s sponsors to discontinue their advertising. She organized protests. The result was that public attention began to focus on Married With Children. The show’s ratings went up instantly and dramatically. And the program continued to run for ten seasons! If I only possessed the name of this blessed woman, I would certainly send her a thank-you card for her indispensable contribution to keeping my favorite program on the air. Another example: I live in a rather small town in the heart of Appalachia. In 1997 the local Ku Klux Klan announced that it was planning a demonstration in a local park. Such a demonstration, far from any residential or populated area, would have involved five or six semi-literate racists garbed in their white costumes. No one in town would have paid the slightest attention to these kooks, let alone be influenced by their message of hatred. Local politicians, however, were determined to thwart plans for the Klan rally. First, local officials tried to challenge the constitutionality of such a gathering. When that failed, they sought to organize a massive counter-demonstration across the park from the Klan rally. The result was that, for months, each day’s newspaper carried banner headlines detailing the battle over the proposed Klan rally. And, sadly, Klan membership grew as never before. Millions of dollars could not have purchased the newspaper and television coverage given freely to the Klan, courtesy of local politicians. The point here is that you shouldn’t direct the public’s attention toward an issue that you want overlooked.

*** Even if one concedes that children do not lust for erotic materials— and that anti-porn campaigns only provoke children to investigate— the question still remains: “What about post-adolescent teenagers?

[1481-MILL]

210

DAVID MILLS

Don’t they actively seek out internet pornography of their own accord?” The answer here depends entirely upon the gender of the teenager. Females, whether teenage or adult, are very rarely aroused by visual pornography. Men may fantasize that millions of women surf the net in search of penis portraits. But such a belief reflects basic unfamiliarity with female psychology. Visual pornography is almost exclusively a male pastime. So if we leave aside the supposed “problem” of women and children’s lusting over internet porn, then the remaining demographic group is the post-adolescent teenage male. This group includes males from approximately 13 to 17 years of age, having experienced puberty and sexual maturity, but who are still legally “underage.” Are these males “endangered” by girly pictures on the net? When viewed in historical perspective, it is difficult to believe that teenage males are genuinely harmed by sexual images. Let us recall that throughout 99 percent of human history, males began copulating as soon as they reached sexual maturity in their early to mid teens. All other animal species likewise engage in sexual activity as soon as they are physically capable. In earlier times, teenagers commonly married, reared children, held jobs, operated businesses and occasionally ruled nations. The World Book Encyclopedia says, “Most teenagers mature psychologically at the rate set by their society.” The reason why we, today, gasp in horror at the thought of teenagers’ copulating is that the Industrial Revolution necessitated formal education throughout the teen years. Today we correctly view as foolhardy any teenage couple dropping out of high school to marry or to have children. The Industrial Revolution demanded that marriage and children be postponed until formal education ended at age 18. During the last quarter century, economic and technological advancement have required education beyond mere high school. Thus the median age of marriage rose well above 18. And, again, we viewed as foolish any couple marrying or having children before finishing


211

college at age 22. As advanced degrees become more and more necessary in tomorrow’s economy, the median marital age will likely continue to rise. So economic reality, more than anything else, has crafted our perception that teenage males are “harmed” by sexual preoccupation. Today’s male faces a frustrating gap of approximately ten years between the onset of his sexual maturity and the median marital age. Genetically and hormonally, however, today’s teenage male is unchanged from the day when teenage copulation was the accepted norm. During this extended gap between puberty and marriage, all teenage males masturbate frequently; and the overwhelming majority of them view pornography as well. Again I pose the question: If, throughout the entirety of human history, teenage males were not “endangered” by full penile-vaginal intercourse with their teenage partners, how then are today’s teenage males “endangered” by mere photographs of women? No credible sociological or psychological study of this question has discerned any harmful effects whatever of a teenage male’s viewing photos of nude women or of adult copulation. When all the religious and moralistic blathering is dismissed, opponents of internet porn have failed utterly to document any empirical “harm” to teenage males, who simply use porn as a masturbatory stimulant. In the end, arguments against net porn are identical to arguments voiced against masturbation itself: it grieves the Holy Ghost; it corrupts the soul; it transmutates males into monstrous criminals.

*** Religious conservatives often quote a report issued by the Meese Commission to “substantiate” their contention that pornography leads to crime2—especially violent crime against women. So let’s open-mindedly examine the Meese Commission, its charter and background, and the report it issued in 1986: During the election campaign of 1980, Ronald Reagan courted

[1481-MILL]

212

DAVID MILLS

and won the support of America’s Fundamentalist Christian community. Historically, this voting bloc had supported Democratic candidates in Presidential elections. But by 1980, Fundamentalists were fed up with “sinful” Jimmy Carter, who had supported the “satanic” Equal Rights Amendment to the US Constitution. The rejection of Carter by the Fundamentalists was particularly ironic because Jimmy Carter was unquestionably a devoutly religious man, who openly professed to having been “born again.” Reagan’s religious views, by contrast, were transparently scripted by pollsters and speech writers. Once Reagan won the election and assumed the throne, his Fundamentalist worshipers expected the new President to wholeheartedly push their extremist agenda (i.e., an end to all abortions, returning prayer to public schools, requiring high school biology courses to include creation “science”). Whenever the Reagan Administration occasionally showed signs of slight moderation or pragmatism on social issues, the Fundamentalists openly chastised the President for “forgetting his electoral base.” So to throw a bone to this gaggle of religious malcontents, Reagan instructed Edwin Meese in 1986 to form a commission to attest the evils of pornography, a longstanding thorn in the flesh of Protestant Fundamentalists. Edwin Meese was Reagan’s ruthless, scandal-ridden, political hatchet man, who was given the job of US Attorney General as a blatant political payoff. Meese was deeply entangled in the Iran-Contra scandal, the Wedtech scandal and half a dozen other sleazy affairs. But, now, Meese was to sit in moral judgment on “depraved” publications such as Playboy and Penthouse. Meese carefully selected his cohorts for the Inquisition. Foremost among them was radio and television evangelist James Dobson, whose Focus on the Family broadcast was legendary for its stridently conservative, anti-porn sentiment. Other members of the Commission, though not household names like Dobson, were similarly predisposed to reflect the Meesian viewpoint. So the Commission launched its quest to discover the real truth about pornography in the United States.


213

Since the stated goal of the Commission was to link pornography to crime, many observers expected the members to carefully examine crime statistics and to consult with outside experts on the psychology and background of criminal offenders. The Commission, however, had other ideas. Instead of trying to discern the underlying causes of crime, Commission members decided that, before anything else, they wanted to see a little pornography for themselves. So a literal truckload of material was delivered for the Commission’s close inspection. The members began by looking at 25 hardcore pornographic films. (One might speculate that the viewing of 25 such “movies” would have provided the Commission with a graphically clear impression of the subject matter. But no.) The Meese Commission decided that they needed to study more porno films. So they examined more—and more—and more—and more. The Commission also ordered a massive shipment of pornographic magazines, examining each one thoroughly and meticulously. By the time the Inquisition was finished, the Commission had reviewed no fewer than 2,370 hardcore films, 2,323 magazines, and 725 books—proving that, for right-wing conservatives at least, pornography appeared to be addictive! The Commission then published a 300-page summary of the pornography it had examined. Among the summarized movie dialogue was: “I want to taste your cum. I want you to cum in my mouth. I want to feel your hot cum squirt in my mouth.” The Commission’s summary contained innumerable such references and was itself one of the most pornographic documents ever compiled, setting a new milestone for government publications!3 The conclusion reached by Commission members was that they alone should be allowed to view such material, whereas everyone else should be restricted by law from access. The stated rationale for such a conclusion was that “pornography causes crime.” Yet the Meese Commission presented no evidence whatever to substantiate their dubious conclusion, which had been scripted and preordained from day one. The Commission’s goal, however, had

[1481-MILL]

214

DAVID MILLS

been achieved: the Fundamentalist “electoral base” had been pacified—temporarily at least. Hypocritically, members of the Meese Commission never expressed fear that they themselves might become criminals after viewing such huge volumes of pornography! They did not consider themselves poorer husbands or fathers. Nor did they consider themselves greater threats to neighborhood safety. In their defense, however, I should point out that no Commission member resorted thereafter to a life of crime—the lone exception being Meese himself. Conservatives who declare—“Guns don’t kill. People kill.”—are the same conservatives who instantly blame pornography, rather than individual choice, for every crime imaginable. Were it consistent, true conservatism would demand less government restriction of pornography and the internet.

*** I don’t mean to suggest that all members of the Reagan Administration were as biased and closed-minded as Edwin Meese. Reagan’s Surgeon General, Dr. C. Everett Koop, was in ways the quintessence of scientific objectivity. Despite his vehement anti-abortion views, for example, Dr. Koop refused to sign a statement prepared by Fundamentalists declaring that abortion caused women permanent psychological damage. Koop said that, despite his personal distaste for abortion, no evidence supported the assertion of psychological injury. Koop was likewise personally opposed to pornography. But when questioned directly about the true harm of pornography, Koop responded that “only two reliable generalizations could be made about the impact of exposure to ‘degrading’ sexual material on its viewers: it caused them to think that a variety of sexual practices were more common than they had previously believed, and it caused them to more accurately estimate the prevalence of varied sexual practices.” In other words, pornography apparently caused no harm and was, in fact, moderately educational. This was


215

the conclusion of an extraordinarily conservative Surgeon General, whose courageous adherence to the scientific method precluded his echoing the party line. Individuals of religious persuasion have every right to trumpet their objections to pornography and masturbation. But their objections, we should realize, are rooted in religion rather than science. Be very skeptical of any religious spokesperson who claims that her objections to internet pornography have nothing to do with her religious beliefs. When this crusader claims that she is trying to protect children from the dangers of the internet, what she really means is that she is trying to save teenage “souls” from hell. Since the crusader cannot convincingly present a Scripture-based argument to a secular audience, she must concoct some fictitious “danger” that supposedly exists wholly independent of her religious convictions—i.e., photos of nude women increase the crime rate. The best way, I have found, to “smoke out” the true motivations of anti-porn crusaders is to point out that many European nations have much lower crime rates than the United States, yet have far more liberal laws regarding pornography. Moreover, in countries such as Saudi Arabia, Iran and China, where pornography is punishable by death, violent crime against women is disgustingly common. So if crime rates are “directly linked” to pornography, then we should unhesitatingly truck more porn into the US to reduce crime as in Europe.4 In reality, however, the true motivation of anti-porn crusaders has nothing to do with “crime rates.” These Christian Fundamentalists simply want to impose their religious viewpoint on everyone else, like it or not, by force of Federal and State legislation. There are many psychological parallels between Christian Fundamentalists and the Muslim Fundamentalists who brought Ayatollah Khomeini to power in Iran in 1979. Both Fundamentalist groups want their religious beliefs enshrined as the secular Law of the Land. Both groups are absolutely intolerant of democracy or opposing viewpoints, since only their opinions are “ordained of

[1481-MILL]

216

DAVID MILLS

God.” Neither group of Fundamentalists would ever permit freedom of choice, allowing each person to choose for himself whether or not to view pornography. Instead, the “scourge” of pornography must be eradicated from the face of the earth, and all smut peddlers consigned to eternal damnation. If untempered by secular culture and by the historical and legal safeguards of our Constitution, many religious zealots would today be burning “witches” as did their spiritual forefathers. A little known, yet well documented preparatory step in the burning of a witch was the close-up inspection of her vagina by the priests and ruling male authorities. With full erections, the men inserted their fingers into the “witch’s” vagina, spreading it apart in search of hidden satanic amulets. One of the reasons why witch burning continued for centuries in Europe, then later in Colonial America, was that the “inspectors” enjoyed the procedure so much. It is a shame that the Meese Commission was forced by circumstance to live in the 20th century. I have no doubt that, centuries ago, the Meese Commission would have joyously searched for witches and hidden amulets with unprecedented thoroughness.

Notes on Chapter 8 1. Although not directly related to the internet, the entire Y2K frenzy was another classic illustration of groundless computer-related fear gone berserk! 2. Child pornography, in which children are forced to perform sexual acts with each other or with adults, is—and should be!—a crime. Since child pornography is by definition a crime, an increase in the volume of child pornography would directly raise the crime rate to that degree. So while every civilized person condemns child pornography, let us recognize that such illegal materials constitute only a minuscule fraction of 1 percent of the pornography in circulation. As an excuse for censoring the internet, anti-porn activists invariably bring up the hot-button issue of child


217

pornography, which all sides condemn already, and against which we already have tough and strictly-enforced laws. The issue of child pornography is therefore a diversionary tactic used to distract attention from the real issue—the censorship of pornographic images of adults. 3. It was not until Ken Starr’s sexual Inquisition a decade later that Republicans trumped themselves, producing even more titillating government publications about Presidential cigars in Monica Lewinsky’s vagina. 4. X-rated movie theaters and strip clubs are indeed usually located in high-crime areas, but only because conservative politicians enact restrictive zoning ordinances forcing sex-related businesses into these areas. Try opening a strip bar next door to a Baptist church or elementary school! You’ll be forced elsewhere by a lynch mob.

[1481-MILL]

PART III Pseudoscience and Religion

[1481-MILL]

CHAPTER 9 Origin of the Universe: Natural or Supernatural? In 1919, a thoughtful young scientist named Edwin Powell Hubble joined the ambitious staff of the Mount Wilson Observatory in California. Focusing their 100-inch telescope on the darkened sky, Hubble soon made a profound and startling observation. Hubble detected on his carefully-prepared photographic plates that light emitted from distant galaxies was shifted appreciably toward the red end of the spectrum. Hubble discovered, moreover, that the farther away the galaxy was from Earth, the more red-shifted it appeared. These two astronomical observations, later confirmed by independent scrutiny, came to be known as Hubble’s Law. Edwin Hubble’s most exciting and enduring contribution to astronomy, however, lay in his explanation of the observed red-shift. Hubble reasoned that the perceived shift in color (i.e., wavelength) was due to the relative motion, away from Earth, of the distant galaxies. Since Hubble knew that the red-shift in a galaxy’s spectrum increased in proportion to the galaxy’s distance from Earth, he concluded that the farther away the galaxy was, the faster was its motion. Regardless of where in the sky Hubble pointed his optical instruments, he found that all galaxies—or, to be more precise, all galaxy clusters—were quickly receding from the Earth, and from each other as well. Through one additional step of logic, Hubble realized that, if the galaxies are receding—that is, if, yesterday, they were closer to us (and to each other) than they are today—then, at sometime in the very distant past, all the matter in the universe must have been

[1481-MILL]

222

DAVID MILLS

squeezed together into a contiguous area of tiny volume and extremely high density. The observed expansion of the universe, then, must have resulted from some kind of initial propulsive force or explosion. This theoretical explosion of the universe was soon lightheartedly dubbed the Big Bang. Evidence supporting Big Bang cosmology is not limited to Hubble’s red-shifted galaxies and logical deductions. In 1965, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, working for Bell Telephone Laboratories in New Jersey, detected faint microwave background radiation pervading the universe in all directions. This microwave radiation later proved to be an electromagnetic “fossil” of the Big Bang— and provided powerful, independent evidence to substantiate the theory of an expanding universe. In early 1992, NASA’s COBE satellite (Cosmic Background Explorer) recorded slight asymmetries in this background radiation. These slight variations, long sought by cosmologists, are necessary to explain why matter in the universe is not evenly distributed. If the Big Bang had been a perfectly symmetric explosion, the universe could not show, as it now does, vast regions virtually devoid of matter, coexisting with regions of high mass-density. The COBE observations, therefore, not only provide additional confirmation of Big Bang theory, but also harmonize beautifully with the observed asymmetric distribution of matter throughout the known universe. Even before Hubble’s discoveries, Einstein’s original equations in general relativity predicted that the universe should be expanding. Interestingly, however, Einstein later inserted into his equations an arbitrary “cosmological constant” to negate the necessity of cosmic expansion. Einstein later described his “cosmological constant” as “the biggest blunder of my life.” It is incredible to contemplate that, in addition to his other extraordinary contributions to science, Einstein could have provided theoretical evidence for the Big Bang before any experimental or observational evidence suggested its occurrence. Unfortunately, Einstein was influenced by the popular belief of his time that the universe was more or less static. Einstein, like those of us of


223

lesser ability, could hardly display more intellectual independence than his time permitted. A number of science historians speculate that even Isaac Newton, who lived during the 17th century, must have pondered the theoretical necessity of an expanding universe. For if Newton’s own laws of universal gravitation were to be believed, then a non-expanding, static universe would have long since collapsed upon itself. In this first decade of the 21st century, we may therefore conclude, with reasonable and open-minded confidence, that a Big Bang did indeed galvanize the universe into its current expansion.1

Pre-Big-Bang If we proceed under the assumption that Big Bang theory is at least partially descriptive of our cosmic history, then we immediately face a perplexing question. All “bangs” and “explosions” which we observe on Earth and in deep space involve the violent dispersion of physical matter. Bombs, volatile liquids or gases, volcanoes, supernovae, all create explosive reactions; and all are composed of physical materials. So, if the universe, as we know it today, began with a giant bang or explosion, how did the exploding physical matter come into existence? Or, as the contemporary philosopher Mortimer Adler is fond of asking, “Why is there something, rather than nothing?” Regarding this difficult question, many scientists currently take one of two positions: 1) They ignore the question entirely; or 2) They state that such questions are beyond the purview of scientific inquiry and must be left to the philosophers and theologians. Philosophers and theologians are more than happy of course to speculate on such brain-teasing questions. From the time of Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century—and probably long before— many ecclesiastical thinkers endorsed a First Cause explanation of universal origins. Although most of these theologians believed themselves in the Genesis account of Divine, instantaneous creation ex

[1481-MILL]

224

DAVID MILLS

nihilo (i.e., out of nothing), these churchmen nonetheless strove to participate in, and hopefully rebut, secular cosmological discourse. The traditional First Cause argument goes as follows: We observe in the universe a Law of Cause-Effect. Everything requires a cause to account for its existence. Each cause, in turn, is itself an effect which demands a preceding causal antecedent. If, therefore, we regress indefinitely through this chain of causation, we would ultimately arrive at a First Cause, to Whom we give the name “God.” Historically, secular-minded philosophers countered the First Cause argument by asking, “What caused God?” When churchmen responded that “God always existed,” secularists usually offered two points of rebuttal: 1) If we can suppose that God always existed, then why not suppose instead that physical matter always existed? After all, this non-supernatural assumption is far simpler than presupposing a highly complex series of Divine miracles. 2) The ecclesiastical argument—that God always existed—contradicts the original premise of the First Cause argument—that the “Law of Cause-Effect” can be consistently applied. If everything except God is governed by the “Law of Cause-Effect,” then the First Cause argument becomes ad hoc and therefore logically impermissible. These age-old arguments, both for and against a First Cause, are genuinely absorbing, but are mainly philosophical and theological in nature, rather than being strictly scientific. For this reason, many contemporary scientists, as mentioned above, hesitate to engage in such non-scientific speculation, and happily pass the buck to the philosophers and theologians. In this chapter, my goal is to demonstrate that such cosmological buck passing is unnecessary for today’s scientist. Through extrapolating a long-established law of physics, science can successfully describe an elemental pre-Big-Bang universe. My intention, in other words, is to show that the origin of physical matter is a question that science has actually long-since answered.


225

The Laws of Physics Today, creationist writings and lectures abound with references to “physical law.” Creationists adore using technical jargon and hope that such a lofty vocabulary bestows upon them a mantle of academic respectability. Yet, when carefully examining their “scientific” books and pamphlets, two significant facts become clear: 1) Creationists misunderstand, misuse, and rewrite the established laws of numerous scientific disciplines. 2) Creationists, on a more basic level, do not appear to grasp what modern science even means by the term “physical law.” Before proceeding, therefore, I must define what science does, and does not, mean by the term “physical law.” Simply defined, a scientific or physical law is a human description of how the universe consistently behaves. For example, Isaac Newton, after studying the behavior of celestial bodies, proposed his law of universal gravitation, detailing and predicting, with mathematical precision, the orbits of the nearby planets. Gregor Mendel, breeding various species of plant life, established the framework for a law of genetic inheritance, predicting with accuracy the reproductive results of crossbreeding. Both these laws, Newton’s and Mendel’s, were expanded and refined by later scientists, whose experimental observations were more precise and informed. The important point here is that scientific or physical laws are human descriptions, based upon human observation, and are therefore subject to future revision—or even outright rebuttal. Ignoring this definition, creationists often claim that the laws of physics govern the behavior of the universe—that the law of gravity, for example, causes objects to fall earthward, or that the laws of chemistry control molecular interaction. Such a claim—that physical laws govern the physical universe—reflects a fundamental misperception of science among the creationists. Fearnside and Holther, in their book, Fallacy: The Counterfeit of Argument, provide an illuminating and relevant analogy. Suppose that a newspaper reporter is sent to cover a high school football game. The reporter sits in the press box

[1481-MILL]

226

DAVID MILLS

and writes a newspaper article about the game he has just witnessed. It would be absurd to believe that this reporter’s written account of the game’s outcome caused the game’s outcome. Likewise, it is absurd to state that the laws of physics, which are likewise written accounts of human observation, cause the outcome of the observed phenomena. Creationists loathe to admit that physical laws are human in origin. Instead, creationists believe that the laws of physics exist independently from man and therefore require a “Lawgiver,” a Divine Power Who, through these laws, “governs” the behavior of the universe. If the laws of physics are human inventions, then the concept of a Divine “Lawgiver” becomes unnecessary: Man himself is the “lawgiver.” To recognize that mere scientists are the “lawgivers” is not to suggest, however, that the behavior of the physical universe does not have underlying causal antecedents. No true scientist would ever suggest that the universe behaves in a completely arbitrary, unpredictable fashion. Indeed, the entire purpose of science is to discover and understand the regularities and causal relationships at work throughout the universe. But by believing that the laws of physics cause the behavior of the universe, creationists overlook the need for pursuing genuine causal explanations. For example, if I ask why a rock thrown skyward soon falls back to Earth, it would be meaningless to respond, “It’s the law of gravity.” “Gravity” or “the law of gravity” is simply the name and description we assign to the observed phenomenon. The true, underlying reason why all objects in the universe attract each other is, to this day, a baffling enigma. True, Einstein showed that massive objects distort space-time and produce gravitational effects. But why do massive objects distort space-time? Such questions are still unanswered, and are by no means addressed by saying “It’s just the law of gravitation.” A physical law, then, is a man-made description, rather than a causal explanation, of how the universe consistently behaves. The so-called “Law of Cause-Effect,” often employed by creationist


227

writers and speakers, is a philosophical and theological plaything, rather than an established law of the physical sciences. Likewise, the “Law of Cause-Effect” provides no explanation to any scientific problem or question. Suppose, for example, that my car fails to run properly, and I have it towed to a garage for repair. I ask the service technician why my car will not operate. If the service technician replied, “It’s just the law of cause-effect again,” I would certainly feel that he was giving me the run-around, and that his “explanation” was totally empty. A realistic scientific explanation might be that my spark plugs are disconnected; that the gasoline therefore cannot be ignited; that the engine therefore cannot rotate the drive shaft; that the rear axle, attached to the drive shaft, cannot be rotated; and that the wheels, connected to the axle, have no current means of forward propulsion. A genuine scientific explanation, then, incorporates specific mechanistic relationships and interactions. Any argument, thus, which appeals blindly to the “Law of Cause-Effect,” without filling in the blanks, is likewise an argument totally empty of scientific content.

The Conservation of Mass-Energy Now that we have discussed what is, and what is not, meant by the term “physical law,” let me re-state my thesis: that a long-established law of physics may be extrapolated to construct a rudimentary pre-Big-Bang cosmology. The scientific principle to which I refer is the law of the conservation of mass-energy. During the 19 th century, the law of the conservation of mass-energy was still divided into two disparate laws: the law of the conservation of mass, and the law of the conservation of energy. The law of the conservation of mass stated that mass (matter) cannot be created or destroyed, but can be changed from one form of matter into another. For example, a piece of coal has a specific mass—a given amount of material of which it is composed. If this piece of coal is burned, it becomes carbon-dioxide gas, water vapor, and ash. But, according to the law of the conservation of mass, the combined mass of the resulting byproducts—i.e., the total

[1481-MILL]

228

DAVID MILLS

amount of material present after the coal is burned—is precisely the same as the original piece of coal. Mass can be neither created nor destroyed. The law of the conservation of energy was essentially the same, but is more difficult to visualize. There are many different forms of energy: chemical energy, electrical energy, solar energy, heat, energy of motion, electromagnetic radiation, and various other overlapping forms of usable and unusable energy. The energy-conservation law similarly stated that energy cannot be created or destroyed, but can be changed from one form into another. For example, a chemical reaction might occur in which energy appears to be lost. But if careful measurements are made of the resulting heat (a form of energy) or the resulting light or electrical byproducts (likewise forms of energy), the total amount of energy present remains unchanged after the chemical reaction. Energy can be neither created nor destroyed. In the last decade of the 19th century, however, a French scientist named Antoine Henri Becquerel was studying uranium in his laboratory. In the vicinity of this element, energy seemed to appear out of nowhere, while uranium mass seemed to simultaneously disappear into thin air. Becquerel had discovered natural radioactivity (i.e., nuclear energy). Within two decades following Becquerel’s discovery, Albert Einstein proved that mass from radioactive elements does not actually disappear, and that the energy generated therefrom does not arise ex nihilo (out of nothing). Einstein showed that mass and energy are, in reality, the same thing, expressed by nature in two different ways. In his famous equation E=mc2 (i.e., energy equals mass times the velocity of light squared), Einstein fused together the two conservation laws into a single, comprehensive principle: the law of the conservation of mass-energy. This more-inclusive law states that mass may be changed into energy (as in the case of uranium), and that energy may be changed into mass. Mass may change its form; and energy may change its form. But when all factors are considered and combined, mass-energy cannot be created or destroyed: the total amount


229

of mass-energy in the universe always remains constant. Moreover, all material objects—you, I, the earth, the stars, and the smallest atoms—are literally made of mass-energy in its various forms. Since the time Einstein published his theories over 85 years ago, all careful empirical observations have completely confirmed his law of the conservation of mass-energy. Unless or until future evidence reveals this law to be in error, today’s science-minded individual is obligated to accept its description of the universe.

Extrapolation If mass-energy cannot be created or destroyed, and if the universe is entirely composed of mass-energy, then the law of the conservation of mass-energy may be extrapolated to this startling conclusion: the universe, in one form or another, in one density or another, always existed. There was never a time when the mass-energy comprising our universe did not exist. At the Big Bang, the universe was incredibly dense and unimaginably hot. The elementary particles, which now constitute the chemical elements, could not exist under such extreme conditions. Immediately following the Big Bang, therefore, the rapidly-expanding universe is believed to have been composed solely of energy, with matter condensing later, after further expansion allowed for cooler temperatures. Regardless of its form, however, the universe—which is the sum of all mass-energy—could not, according to the mass-energy conservation law, come into existence ex nihilo as creationism requires. According to this well-confirmed scientific principle, our universe of mass-energy was never created, and cannot be annihilated. To believe in “scientific” creationism, therefore, is to overlook or dismiss the law of the conservation of mass-energy. If creationists possess empirical evidence to contradict the law of the conservation of mass-energy, let them share such information with the general scientific community. Otherwise, the fundamental doctrine of creationism—that the universe was

[1481-MILL]

230

DAVID MILLS

created out of nothing—must be recognized as theological rather than scientific. The term “Creation Science” is therefore a self-contained paradox.

Objections But what about Mortimer Adler’s question: “Why is there something, rather than nothing?” I hesitate to criticize Adler because I admire his writings and respect his outstanding contributions to education and to contemporary philosophy. So, in Adler’s defense, let me point out that he has always claimed to speak as a philosopher, never as a scientist. Adler’s question, however—“Why is there something, rather than nothing?”—assumes that there is supposed to be nothing: that the “natural” state of the universe is nonexistence. The fact that there obviously is something, then, is viewed by Adler as a miracle requiring a supernatural explanation. The perceived “mystery” of Adler’s question lies, not in a supernatural answer, but in his presumptive formulation of the question itself. Adler’s question is similar to presuming that grass is supposed to be red, then claiming that its undeniably green color is evidence that a Divine miracle has occurred. From a scientific perspective, though, the question is: Why shouldn’t there be something rather than nothing? What law of science claims that the universe is not supposed to exist, or that nonexistence is the “natural” condition of the universe? There is no such law. On the contrary, the law of the conservation of mass-energy leads to a radically different conclusion: that the mass-energy comprising our universe always existed. There was never nothing. Stated in terms of the First Cause argument: For something to exercise a causal influence within or upon the universe, this causal agent must itself already exist. In other words, something nonexistent cannot possibly serve as any type of causal agent within or upon the universe. The entire concept of causation, therefore, assumes previous existence. But instead of recognizing that causation


231

assumes existence, creationists espouse a bizarre backward “logic” that existence (of the universe) assumes causation—i.e., that the universe was created out of nothing and thus requires a supernatural causal explanation. No scientist argues, of course, that a universe created out of nothing would not require a supernatural explanation. Creationists miss entirely the relevant questions, which are: 1) What evidence is there that the universe emerged ex nihilo? 2) What evidence is there that mass-energy—which constitutes the universe—always existed? Answer: We have no evidence that mass-energy appeared ex nihilo; and we have well-confirmed empirical observations that mass-energy cannot appear ex nihilo. If we adhere rigorously to the scientific method, therefore, we are led to one conclusion: our universe of mass-energy, in one form or another, always existed. The only way creationism could qualify as a scientific explanation for the existence of the universe would be for creationists to detail the precise mechanism or the means by which nothing was created into something. Absent such an explanation, creationism ceases to be science and reverts to being religious dogma. Proclaiming that “Creation is a Divine mystery” or that creation resulted from the “Law of Cause-Effect,” is decidedly not a scientific explanation.

Psychological Roadblocks That the universe always existed is, for most of us, a difficult and mind-boggling idea to accept. In our day-to-day affairs, all material objects certainly seem to have a beginning and ending to their existence. The new car we purchased today did not exist before the auto manufacturer designed and built the car last autumn. The vegetables we eat today did not exist a few short months ago, before the planting season. A human being appears to be created inside the mother’s womb. The embryo begins as a single cell, yet, at birth, the child’s body consists of billions of cells, all of which seem to have come into existence for a carefully designed purpose. It is no wonder, therefore, that our “common sense” tells us

[1481-MILL]

232

DAVID MILLS

that the universe itself must have had a beginning, and so must have been created. Our “common sense” is formulated by our observations of locally-occurring events; and virtually everything we observe on Earth does indeed seem, at one point, to come into existence and, later, to disappear forever into nothingness. Yet, when considering the existence of the universe, let us recall two relevant facts: 1) Our observation of locally-occurring events does not necessarily establish within our minds a “common-sense” judgment that can be applied to the universe as a whole. 2) A careful observation of locally-occurring events will show that terrestrial objects do not truly emerge ex nihilo as “common sense” tells us. Science, by its very definition, disregards “common-sense” notions and relies solely upon experimental data to construct scientific law. It is wholly irrelevant whether we feel comfortable with the results of our experiments. These experimental results, if repeatable and independently verifiable, must be accepted, regardless of our cherished “common-sense” theories to the contrary. Suppose, for example, that a man is standing in the middle of a vast plain. Six feet above the ground, at eye-level, he points a handgun in a perfectly horizontal attitude across the plain—not angled up, not angled down, but perfectly horizontal in aim. In his other hand, likewise at eye-level, the man holds a 15-pound bowling ball. Suppose now that, at the same precise instant, the man both fires a bullet horizontally across the plain and drops the bowling ball straight down to the ground. According to your common-sense judgment, which object will touch ground first: the bullet or the bowling ball? Do you predict that the bowling ball touches ground before the bullet does? Most people are surprised to learn what Galileo discovered centuries ago: that all objects accelerate to Earth at the same rate, regardless of their differing weights or their simultaneous propulsion toward the horizontal. In other words, if there are no external intervening factors, the bullet and the bowling ball will touch ground at the same instant. Whether our “common sense” feels comfortable with this conclusion is of no concern to science. The experimental


233

results must be accepted. Likewise, a science-minded attitude requires us to accept the cosmological implications of the mass-energy conservation law whether or not we feel comfortable with those conclusions. Very often, our “common sense” will lead us astray if it is utilized to formulate scientific law. Many pre-renaissance scholars thought it was common sense that the Earth was flat and motionless. If Einstein’s special and general theories of relativity had been tested by common sense, Einstein would have been committed to a psychiatric hospital. Where, may I ask, is the common sense in Einstein’s time dilation or in his proposition that empty space can be bent? Ideas based only upon “common sense” are of little use to science. Moreover, as we have discussed throughout this chapter, the law of the conservation of mass-energy shows that, upon careful observation, locally- and universally-occurring events do not and cannot produce matter or energy ex nihilo. Strictly speaking, it is scientifically incorrect to say that the Ford Motor Company creates automobiles; for, clearly, pre-existing raw materials go into the manufacturing process. We may state, more accurately, that the Ford Motor Company assembles automobiles from component parts, which themselves were refined from raw materials already existing on Earth. Science teaches us, further, that the higher elements which now compose our bodies were built up from primordial hydrogen in the internal nuclear reactions of stars. In the words of Carl Sagan, you and I are made of “star stuff.” In a very real sense, then, you and I, like our universe, always existed, though in a strikingly different form.

Summary What may we summarize, then, about a pre-Big-Bang universe? According to the current laws of physics, mass-energy, which began its current expansion at the Big Bang, existed prior to the Big Bang. NASA’s COBE satellite has collected data which tend to support a so-called “inflationary model” of the Big Bang. Among other theoretical implications, the inflationary model suggests that the

[1481-MILL]

234

DAVID MILLS

mass-density of the universe—that is, the amount of matter scattered throughout space—may be sufficient to eventually stop, through gravitational attraction, the current expansion of the universe. The universe would then begin to collapse upon itself, also due to gravitational gathering. Eventually, all mass-energy would return to a single, contiguous point, in a backward rerun of the Big Bang. Scientists have dubbed this massive collision the Big Crunch. At the moment of the Big Crunch, many scientists speculate that our universe of mass-energy would rebound and explode in the form of another Big Bang. This theory—that a tightly-squeezed universe would rebound—is partially based upon our understanding of supernovae, which, after collapsing upon themselves, do indeed “bounce back” and explode violently. Whether supernovae provide a good analogy for the universe as a whole is of course uncertain. Other recent theoretical models seem to indicate that the universe may continue expanding forever and never collapse. My own opinion, for what it’s worth, is that until cosmologists provide more satisfying descriptions of the nature and quantity of the so-called “dark matter”—which may constitute up to 90 percent of all matter in the universe—no scientist has the right to arrogantly boast that he knows the “final” answer to this riddle. At present, the universe may be experiencing its first period of expansion, or it may have expanded and collapsed billions of times before. At the dawn of the 21st century, we do not yet know. But we may conclude, based upon our current laws of physics, that our universe of mass-energy is infinitely older than its current period of expansion.

Notes on Chapter 9 1. A broad, generally-accepted estimate is that the Big Bang occurred 12 to 15 billion years ago.

CHAPTER 10 God of the Gaps Does the Universe Show Evidence of Design? From nowhere, a magician appears on stage in a puff of smoke. A child in the audience cheers excitedly. The magician recruits a female volunteer, then slices her in half before the child’s startled eyes. Next, a parakeet is pulled from a top hat and placed in a large, cloth-covered box. Presto, the bird reappears as a man-eating tiger. A magic wand then transforms itself into a dozen roses. The child is amazed, dumbfounded, flabbergasted. What miracles this magician performs! What supernatural powers he possesses! Magic tricks, when skillfully performed, do appear to be miraculous, supernatural acts. The child believes these “miracles” because he doesn’t see and understand all that is actually occurring on stage (and back stage). He doesn’t notice the hidden door, the trick prop, or the two-way mirror. The “miracle” is created within the child’s mind by his own failure to comprehend how the trick is performed. There are gaps in his understanding of the illusion’s cause-effect. When the miracle-believing child learns the mechanical nuts-and-bolts of how a magic trick is performed, the miracle dies instantly in his mind. He is disappointed by the simple mechanics of the illusion. The magic is gone. He preferred the previous gaps in his cause-effect understanding, because those gaps created the “miracles” he enjoyed so much.

[0000-XXXX]

236

DAVID MILLS

*** Creationists, by definition, believe in the “miracle of creation.” Citing their “First Cause” argument, creationists posit that the mere existence of physical matter proves supernatural intervention at the Big Bang. “Matter cannot create itself,” say creationists. “Therefore the universe must have been created by a supernatural Power, unconstrained by the limitations of physical law.” In the preceding chapter, we enumerated the unstated, false assumptions and inaccurate “scientific” conclusions of the “First Cause” argument. The most charitable comment available is that the “First Cause” argument begs the question (i.e., If God created the universe, then who created God? If God always existed, then why couldn’t the mass-energy of the universe have always existed?). A less charitable comment might be that the “First Cause” argument reflects ignorance of the scientific method, in that theological philosophizing is offered as a substitute for independent, empirical verification of one’s scientific conclusions. Creationists do not surrender their beliefs, however, after unsuccessfully postulating a “First Cause.” More “evidence” of the supernatural is brought forth. According to creationists, the universe is governed by physical laws—laws which they believe were purposefully designed and engineered by a miracle-working God. Creationists claim that these physical laws reveal an underlying order and regularity of the universe. The universe, they say, is like the intricate mechanism of a highly accurate pocket watch: Just as the watch requires a skilled watchmaker to account for its design and reliable function, so too the intricacy and predictability of the universe, as revealed by the laws of physics, require a “Divine Watchmaker.” Surely the exquisite heavenly clockwork of planetary motion does not result from blind chance or from the mindless chaos of “brute” matter. The universe is magnificently organized, we are told, and this order can flow only from God. Are creationists right? Does our universe show evidence of supernatural design and governance?


237

The unequivocal answer to this question is no, the universe shows no evidence at all of miraculous design or supernatural management. In the chapters that follow, we shall explore why creationists routinely perceive miracles where none exist. We shall see how creationists, like children at a magic show, create their own miracles by failing to observe and understand scientific cause-effect relationships. One of the most important skills a magician tries to perfect is his ability to misdirect the audience’ attention. While he directs the audience’ eyes toward a flashing red light, the magician secretly removes a scarf from his sleeve. While a leggy blonde struts by in a bikini, the magician lifts a rabbit into his top hat. No one notices how the trick is performed. Attention was focused elsewhere by the illusionist—and another bit of “magic” appears to have occurred onstage. If we selectively observe only part of the scene, miracles seem to abound. Like the magician, creationists try to focus our attention on flashy distractions, while ignoring any scientific cause-effect interactions that expose the “miracle” as the mundane. Because of their misunderstanding, misuse, and frequent ignorance of many well-established scientific laws, creationists perceive a universe overflowing with miracles, almost all of which fall into three broad categories: (1) The Miracle of Heavenly Clockwork (which refers to the regularity of planetary and celestial motion); (2) The Miracle of Life on Earth (which invokes the complexity of human anatomy and that of other biological systems); and (3) Miracles of Personal Experience (which refer to highly positive, statistically improbable events occurring in one’s own life).

Historical Background Historically, whenever primitive man lacked scientific understanding of an observed event, he created a “God of the Gaps” to fill the intellectual vacuum. A sailor who knew nothing of astronomy would interpret an eclipse of the sun as a sign from the Almighty. A mother,

[1481-MILL]

238

DAVID MILLS

unaware of the existence of viruses and microorganisms, would ascribe her daughter’s illness to the wrath of God (or perhaps the devil). A 14th-century farmer, knowing nothing of soil chemistry, would attribute crop failures to the sins of his family. Unaware of biological evolution, medieval man considered the complexity of his own anatomy to be evidence of Divine creation. The wider the gaps in scientific understanding, the greater the historical need for a miracle-working “God of the Gaps.” Why does it rain? God makes it rain. Why does the wind blow? God makes the wind blow. Why is the sky blue? God made the sky blue. Why does the sun shine? God makes the sun shine. All of these questions have precise scientific answers. But pre-renaissance man lived during a period when superstition overshadowed rational thought, and when those who proposed scientific explanations were often tortured to death by religious authorities. Galileo narrowly escaped a death sentence imposed by the Catholic Church for his telescopic observation that Jupiter’s moons orbited Jupiter instead of Earth, birthplace of Jesus and presumed orbital hub of the universe. Throughout most of recorded history, God was seen as an omnipresent force, intimately involved in the smallest detail of human affairs. During the past 50 years, however, creationists have abandoned their historical position that God is a hands-on participant in all cosmic and earthly events. God is now portrayed as more passive in His supervision of Nature—often watching from the sidelines as Nature operates on Her own. Earthquakes and hurricanes, for example, are now seen by creationists as natural, rather than supernatural, disasters. It has become offensive to call such catastrophes “Acts of God,” since thousands of innocent people, including many children, may have perished horribly. Even though creationists believe that God retains power to forestall such natural disasters, God can never be criticized or blamed for allowing these tragedies to happen. “God works in mysterious ways.” Initially, we may applaud modern creationism for finally


239

accepting the occurrence of natural phenomena. Unfortunately, this revision in creationist doctrine was motivated, not by a newfound acceptance of science, but by an attempt, within an increasingly educated society, to reconcile (A) natural catastrophes, with (B) a God of “infinite love and mercy.” By accepting natural phenomena, creationists absolve God from direct responsibility for anything disorderly or tragic which Nature inflicts upon humanity. “It isn’t God’s fault.” If, however, Nature is more agreeable—providing a beautiful Spring day, instead of a killer earthquake—then God still gets the credit! As a general historical observation, each step forward taken by science has further distanced the hand of God from perceived intervention into natural events. As humanity’s gaps of knowledge were slowly replaced by scientific understanding, a “God of the Gaps” found fewer caverns of intellectual darkness in which to live. It is no coincidence that creationism altered its position on natural phenomena at the precise historical moment that science began to provide concrete, verifiable explanations of these same phenomena.

[1481-MILL]

CHAPTER 11 The “Miracle” of Heavenly Clockwork In Ancient Greece, a hunter draws his bow and launches an arrow toward his prey. The arrow speedily and mercilessly traverses the distance to the doomed animal, providing dinner for the hunter’s family. Citizens of Ancient Greece were quite perplexed by the observed flight of such an arrow. Which god, they wondered, kept the arrow moving toward the target? The bow obviously provided the initial propulsion; but once out of direct, physical contact with the bow, why didn’t the arrow instantly fall to earth? Which god, they pondered, kept the arrow aloft, at least temporarily? Which supernatural Being was responsible for the arrow’s continued forward motion? The true answer to this Greek riddle was to be found centuries later in Newton’s familiar first law of motion (also called the Law of Inertia): “An object in motion has a tendency to remain in motion, in a straight line, at a constant speed, unless acted upon by an outside force.” Newton showed that, once the arrow was set into motion by the bow, no Greek god need be posited to explain the arrow’s continued motion. Inertia keeps the arrow going, until an outside force—such as the intended target, or the pull of gravity—stops the arrow’s forward progress. Newton’s first law of motion is best demonstrated in deep space, where outside forces are nonexistent—i.e., no gravity, no wind resistance, no objects to collide with. In such an undisturbed environment, an arrow shot from a bow (perhaps by a spacewalker)


241

will literally travel forever without slowing down or altering trajectory. If the arrow leaves the bow traveling 100 miles per hour, the arrow travels eternally at that speed (or until the universe itself collapses.) No eternally perpetuating force, however, is required to sustain the arrow’s continued motion. The arrow’s own inertia does the job. As you read these words, the Voyager 2 spacecraft is speeding over 25,000 miles per hour through interstellar space. Voyager is not followed by a contrail of fire and smoke belching from the spacecraft’s engine nozzles. Voyager is coasting “in a straight line, at a constant speed” and will do so forever. No propulsive force is needed to maintain Voyager’s regularity and constancy of motion. It is essential to recognize that inertia itself is not a force; inertia represents the absence of a force, in much the same way that the numeral zero (0), when used alone, represents the absence of something, rather than the presence. Newton defined a force as anything that speeds up, slows down, or changes the direction of an object’s motion. If an object travels “in a straight line, at a constant speed,” then there are no forces acting upon it, according to Newton’s first law. Regularity or constancy of motion therefore denotes the absence of an external force.

*** It is easy to ridicule the Ancients for believing that Greek gods perpetuated flying arrows. Yet the Greeks, unlike the Romans and Byzantines who followed, were at least curious about these questions and spent considerable time in philosophical contemplation of nature’s behavior. The main shortcoming of Greek science was that it was almost entirely philosophical, virtually devoid of real-world experimentation. All experiments were “thought experiments”—exercises in mental imagery—rather than “laboratory tests.” But thought experiments are often instructive; so let’s go

[0000-XXXX]

242

DAVID MILLS

back to Ancient Greece, and perform a thought experiment of our own: When the Greek hunter shoots an arrow toward an animal, the arrow does not travel “in a straight line, at a constant speed.” Instead, the arrow is “acted upon by an outside force”—Earth’s gravity, which causes the arrow to curve downward in a parabolic arc. The shape of this arc is determined by the speed of the arrow. A slow-moving arrow produces a rounder arc than a fast-moving arrow. But the fast-moving arrow travels a greater distance from the bow before touching ground, when compared to the slow-moving arrow. The faster the arrow travels, the farther from the bow it lands. Suppose, as part of our thought experiment, that we have a particularly energetic hunter using a particularly powerful bow. Arrows shot from this bow travel 17,500 miles per hour. Question: If the hunter launches an arrow directly toward the horizon at 17,500 miles per hour, how far will the arrow travel before touching ground? The answer is that the arrow will never touch ground. Why not? Because the Earth is round, not flat, and curves away from the arrow as the arrow curves toward the Earth. In other words, the arc of the arrow’s flight path matches the arc of the Earth’s surface, thus placing the arrow into low Earth orbit. The arrow continually drops toward Earth as Earth continually drops out from under the arrow. The above scenario may sound fanciful,1 but we have precisely described how the Space Shuttle maintains its Earth orbit. After a powered assent through and above most of Earth’s atmosphere, the Shuttle terminates all thrust and coasts around the planet at 17,500 miles per hour. Thereafter, the Shuttle, and the astronauts aboard, are in a continual state of free fall—falling toward Earth’s horizon as Earth’s horizon continually falls away from the Shuttle. Many television and print journalists, when reporting news of Space Shuttle flights, erroneously state that “the astronauts are orbiting beyond Earth’s gravity and are therefore weightless aboard


243

the Shuttle.” To these journalists, I pose the following question: If the moon, 239,000 miles from Earth, is held in orbit by Earth’s gravitational field, then how can the Shuttle, orbiting 100 to 300 miles in altitude, be “beyond Earth’s gravity”? The answer of course is that the Space Shuttle and its astronauts are not beyond Earth’s gravity. In fact, there is relatively little difference between the gravitational attraction at, say, 200 miles in altitude, and the gravitational attraction exerted on an object at Earth’s surface. The force of gravitation, as Newton calculated, is equal to the product of the masses (of the two objects, such as Earth and Shuttle) divided by the square of the distance separating them. If you want to know what “weightlessness” feels like, then imagine yourself being on a runaway elevator as it falls freely down the elevator shaft. If you are standing on a bathroom scale inside the elevator as it falls, you will literally weigh nothing by the scale’s measure. In fact, you may find yourself floating in mid air above the scale as if you were an astronaut in orbit! Einstein himself pointed out that an object in free fall is immune from the effects of a gravitational field in the sense that the object becomes weightless. So if you’re interested in learning the exact weight of the entire massive Earth as it orbits the sun, the correct answer is 0 pounds, 0 ounces. All objects in orbit—Shuttles orbiting Earth, moons orbiting planets, and planets orbiting suns—are in a state of continuous free fall. The degree of orbital arc is simply a compromise between the orbiting object’s inertia and the gravitational field to which it is exposed. Returning to our imaginary friend, the Greek hunter: I suspect that many of the animals that he pursues are annoyed by having to dodge arrows all day. Let’s suppose that these disgruntled animals stampede, and butt the meddlesome hunter over a cliff. The hunter falls 1000 feet to his death. Now, conferencing at the bottom of the cliff is a group of Greek theologians, hotly debating which god transported the hunter from the top of the cliff to the bottom. Sure, the animals knocked the hunter over the cliff ’s edge.

[1481-MILL]

244

DAVID MILLS

But only an atheist would suggest that no Greek god was involved in the hunter’s subsequent downward spiral. It couldn’t be—could it?—that simple gravity, unaided by supernatural Beings, transported the hunter to the bottom of the cliff. So, what’s the moral of this story? And how does it relate to modern creationism and the alleged “Miracle of Heavenly Clockwork”?

*** Creationists argue that the regularity and predictability of planetary orbits are evidence of supernatural governance of the universe. In other words, creationists believe, in direct opposition to Newton’s first law, that constancy and regularity of motion are evidence, not only of an external force, but of a supernatural external force. I submit that this creationist claim—of a miraculous Power’s guiding the planets—is identical in every sense to the Ancient Greek belief in god-propelled arrows or god-assisted plunges to the bottom of a cliff. Let us recall that “regularity or constancy of motion denotes the absence of an external force.” If gods are unnecessary to explain the continued motion of a hunter’s arrow, then the gods are unnecessary to explain the continued motion of celestial objects. If gods are unnecessary to explain the hunter’s downward plunge off a cliff, then they are unnecessary to explain other gravitational fields as well. For, as Isaac Newton discovered, the same gravity that pulls an apple (or a hunter) to the ground is the same gravity that holds the moon and planets in their orbits. There is no difference—except perhaps to those who, for emotional reasons, strive to see miraculous visions and omens in the night sky.


245

*** Creationists of Fundamentalist persuasion disagree vehemently that planetary motion is a wholly natural phenomenon. It’s far more intriguing and emotionally inspiring for them to believe in “Divine Watchmakers” than to accept the mundane, mathematical explanations of science. A minority of creationists, however, raise few, if any, objections to the conclusions drawn thus far in this chapter. This minority will readily accept that inertia and gravitation are not supernatural forces, and that routine planetary motion is simply the merging of gravity with inertia. Put another way, a small group of creationists do accept (in this instance at least) the scientific principle known as Ockham’s Razor, which states that the simplest reasonable explanation is usually the most accurate. Ockham’s Razor further requires us to “slice off ” any unnecessary assumptions built into our scientific explanations. For example, if planetary behavior can be explained thoroughly and provably by simple gravity and inertia, then Ockham’s Razor prohibits us from arbitrarily inventing highly complex, miracle-working gods. The needless addition of supernatural forces to our cause-effect explanations is fat which must be trimmed—creationist fat which must be liposuctioned from all scientific and rational discourse. A minority of creationists, as noted, do not believe that God is currently hand-shepherding the planets around the solar system. Instead, they believe that a Supreme Being initially set the planets into motion, and thereafter stepped aside, allowing the laws of physics to govern the universe without further supernatural aid. Such a philosophy is called Deism.2 All creationists—both Fundamentalist and Deist—believe that only a miracle-working God could have originally designed the solar system and started the planets along their initial orbital paths. Indeed, if we use the Space Shuttle as an analogy, the spacecraft’s orbital path must be carefully engineered by highly skilled scientists. The Shuttle does not stumble accidentally into the proper orbit. Obviously, there is conscious

[1481-MILL]

246

DAVID MILLS

design and thoughtful planning to each flight; nothing is left to “blind chance.” If the Shuttle flies too slowly, it crashes to Earth. If it flies too quickly, it escapes Earth orbit and drifts, lost forever, into interplanetary space. Achieving a stable orbit, therefore, reveals intelligent design and conscious planning on the part of NASA scientists. Why, then, doesn’t the solar system itself reveal evidence of intelligent design? After all, the nine planets all follow stable orbits. Was this a lucky accident? An incredibly fortunate coincidence? Wouldn’t the odds be astronomical (no pun intended) against blind chance’ establishing one—much less nine—stable orbits around our sun? To answer these questions competently and satisfyingly, we must achieve a clear understanding of how our solar system formed. Our solar system, like hundreds of billions of others, was originally an amorphous cloud of dust and gas called a nebula.3 Because we possess, within our solar system, the heavier elements— such as iron, gold, and uranium—we know that this nebula was the remnant of a preceding supernova explosion. A supernova is the grand finale of a dying star, whose supply of nuclear fuel has been exhausted. After literally running out of gas, a supernova collapses upon itself, then rebounds in an unimaginably powerful explosion. During this explosion, the heavier elements are formed and blown randomly back into space, forming another nebula of gas and dust. The fact that our solar system contains samples of these heavy elements means that at least one generation of stars— and perhaps two—preceded the formation of our own solar system 4.5 billion years ago. Following this supernova explosion, the remnant cloud of dust and gas began to condense or pull together, due to simple gravitational attraction. As this gravitational gathering occurred, the dust and gas began to spin rapidly around a central orbital hub. This same effect is observed when you pull the stopper out of your kitchen sink. Because of gravity, water is attracted to the center of the sink, but spins rapidly before disappearing down the drain.


247

Within this spinning cloud of dust and gas are randomly scattered regions of high mass-density and low mass-density. The regions of high mass-density possess a stronger gravitational field than the regions of low mass-density. This stronger gravitational field thus attracts still more material which, in turn, produces an even more powerful gravitational attraction. Over millions of years, original areas of high mass-density become runaway successes at collecting matter, while original areas of low mass-density are eventually swallowed up by the more powerful gravitational fields of high-density regions. These circling lumps of dense, accumulated matter are what we see today as the planets. The central orbital hub of this system possesses much more material—and thus a much stronger gravitational field—than any of the fledgling planets which circle it. Most of the would-be planets eventually succumb to the powerful attraction of the central region and themselves become part of the central hub. (In our own solar system, the sun contains more than 99 percent of all material in the system.) When the central hub finally collects enough material, its growing mass produces the extreme pressures and temperatures needed to start and sustain hydrogen fusion. This nuclear fusion releases incredible amounts of energy in the form of heat and light. A star—or sun—is thus born in the center of the planetary system, which then becomes a “solar system.” Material orbiting the sun “too slowly” eventually collides with the sun, adding to the solar mass. Material orbiting “too quickly” escapes the sun’s gravitational field and leaves the solar system forever. Material orbiting at an “in-between” speed establishes a stable orbit, which creationists perceive to be miraculous. “Logically,” therefore, creationists posit a “God of the Gaps” to “explain” these orbiting “miracles.” These planetary “miracles,” like all miracles, are faulty perceptions based upon gaps in cause-effect understanding. In this case, the creationist gap in understanding takes the form of a crude statistical miscalculation: Creationists imagine that only a tiny number of orbital-speed-orbital-distance combinations result in a

[1481-MILL]

248

DAVID MILLS

stable planetary orbit around the sun. Supernatural Powers must be responsible, we are told, for successfully establishing these statistically-improbable orbits. This “planetary-miracle” argument falls apart quickly in two ways: First, mathematical calculations—first performed by Johannes Kepler in the early 1600’s4—reveal that the number of successful orbital-speed-orbital-distance combinations is virtually unlimited, rather than minuscule. Second, a telescopic examination of the night sky allows us to directly observe, with our own eyes, celestial motion which flatly contradicts the creationist position. In other words, creationists cannot reasonably argue that the number of successful orbital-speed-orbital-distance combinations is tiny, when we directly observe, throughout the universe, orbital-speed-orbital-distance combinations in the hundreds of millions! Here, briefly, are a few other examples of creationist error on the subject of astronomy. These summary examples were gleaned from creationist books, audio tapes, and speeches, and from my personal correspondence and conversation with numerous creationists over the years. I do not mean to suggest that all creationists hold the following erroneous views. But many creationists do often incorporate these mistakes into the premises of their “miracle-proving” arguments. Needless to say, if an argument’s premises are flawed, then the argument’s conclusion—i.e., that the universe is miraculous in design—is flawed as well. Creationist belief: Earth and the other planets travel in perfectly circular orbits around the sun. Scientific fact: No planet travels in a perfectly circular orbit. Each planet’s orbit has a different shape from all the other planets’, and no planet even maintains a constant distance from the sun. Moreover, the sun is not at the center of any planet’s orbit.


249

*** Creationist belief: Earth and the other planets travel around the sun at a constant speed. Scientific fact: No planet travels around the sun at a constant speed. All planets vary their orbital speeds, sometimes dramatically, during their revolutions around the sun.

*** Creationist belief: Earth and the other planets retrace their identical orbit around the sun each year. Scientific fact: No planet repeats the same orbit twice in a row.

*** Creationist belief: Earth must be precisely situated in its current orbit to support life. Scientific fact: Earth could support life (as we know it terrestrially) from an orbital position halfway to Venus all the way to the orbit of Mars.5 It is not miraculous that life flourishes where the environment supports it. (God overlooked the best opportunity to demonstrate a true miracle: He could have established life on Venus, where surface temperatures are hot enough to melt lead. Was that impossible for Him to accomplish?) The Earth is not situated in its current orbit because life exists; rather, life exists because Earth’s orbit lies within a vast region known as the Zone of Habitability.6 Mars also lies within this region and, very likely, once supported life too, as NASA scientists have found. Did God also create Martian microorganisms? If so, why did He allow them to die so prematurely and uselessly?

[1481-MILL]

250

DAVID MILLS

Creationism maintains that God created Earth primarily as a home for mankind. For what purpose, then, did God create the other planets and stars? Creationists sometimes respond that God created the heavens to attest His majesty and to provide man with a beautiful night sky. Such an argument—already highly dubious—disintegrates further when we consider that all planets and stars visible to the naked eye are located within our own Milky Way galaxy. Of what benefit to mankind are the other hundred-billion galaxies?

*** Creationist belief: If one of the planets were eliminated from our solar system, then the entire arrangement would collapse. Scientific fact: Newton’s laws of universal gravitation disagree that a “missing planet” would collapse our solar system.

*** Creationist belief: The regular, predictable cycles of Earth— such as day and night, and the four seasons—reveal supernatural design. Scientific fact: Day and night cycle because of Earth’s rotation, which is continually slowing down, due to the tidal drag of the oceans against the continents. Billions of years ago, a day was less than 13 hours in duration. The seasons cycle because of the tilt of the Earth’s axis. The current tilt of 23.5 degrees is temporary and variable, and will shift our planet into a new Ice Age within a few millennia. The seasons, as we know them today, will be unrecognizable, as during the last Ice Age, which ended 11,500 years ago. Surprisingly, even the Earth’s magnetic field is shifting and changeable. Sea-floor spreading at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean


251

has locked into volcanic rock a history of Earth’s ever-changing magnetic field. This underwater geologic record reveals that only a few thousand years ago, your compass would have pointed South! Our planet’s magnetic field—like all of Earth’s other properties—has undergone constant and radical change during the past 4.5 billion years. What seems, during a human lifetime, to be immutable and eternal, soon disappears or changes into something vastly different on the geologic timescale. The “regularity” of nature, cited by creationists, is usually a false premise based upon short-term, short-sighted data.

*** Creationist belief: Scientists’ theories about how our solar system formed are blind speculation and completely untestable. Scientific fact: Using the Hubble Space Telescope and Earth-based observatories, scientists now have photographic evidence documenting each stage in the formation of a solar system: (1) photographs of gas-and-dust nebulae, (2) photographs of nebulae condensing into hydrogen-burning stars, (3) photographs of stars surrounded by their own orbiting, planetary systems like our own, and (4) photographs of supernovae explosions, which destroy solar systems and provide raw material for the formation of new systems. Modern telescopes allow us to actually witness the births (and deaths) of other solar systems in our region of the Milky Way. Science, moreover, has a very clear understanding of how these solar systems naturally develop. Why, then, should we arrogantly presume that our own solar system arose in a radically different and miraculous way?

*** Because I have written in past decades on the subject of creationism, I have received considerable feedback over the years from the Christian community. One of the most common rebuttals they

[1481-MILL]

252

DAVID MILLS

pose is a famous quotation from Albert Einstein: “God does not play dice with the universe.” Creationists interpret this quotation to mean: (1) Einstein believed in the biblical God, (2) Einstein believed that the universe was orderly, and (3) Einstein believed that God was responsible for this order. Einstein made his famous statement during a bitter dispute with Niels Bohr, a Danish physicist who fathered the study of quantum mechanics. Bohr claimed that the behavior of subatomic particles was often chaotic and unpredictable. Bohr argued that our everyday notions of structure, order and cause-effect do not apply at the atomic level. Einstein refused to accept such a whimsical view of nature, claiming instead that “God does not play dice with the universe.” The Bohr-Einstein debate raged for over a decade. Ultimately, Bohr emerged victorious in this dispute, his evidence prevailing. Einstein was admittedly wrong. So, on the atomic level at least, God does indeed play dice with the universe. Subatomic particles do in fact behave at times in random, unpredictable ways—thwarting completely our common-sense expectations, and even those of Albert Einstein! The question of whether Einstein believed in God depends on your definition of “God.” If you define “God”—as the creationists do—as a supernatural Being Who created the universe, Who hears your prayers, and Who decides whether you go to heaven or hell, then the answer is no. By the traditional definition of God, Einstein was an atheist. Einstein said, “I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own—a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotism.” 7 Einstein’s statement that “God does not play dice with the universe” was a reference to the philosophy of pantheism. Rather than proposing a miracle-working, personal Deity, pantheism accepts the supremacy of the laws of physics. Thus interpreted,


253

Einstein’s statement would read “The laws of physics do not permit nature to behave randomly or chaotically.” As we noted, however, even this “translated,” non-mystical expression of Einstein’s statement turns out to be false, as Niels Bohr demonstrated. Another famous scientist frequently cited by creationists is Stephen Hawking, often called the greatest scientific genius since Einstein. In 1988 Hawking published a fascinating book, A Brief History of Time. This outstanding bestseller explains the current, popular theories describing the Big-Bang origin of our universe. Quite open-mindedly, Hawking also analyzes the creationist claim that supernatural Powers are necessary to explain the existence of the universe. Hawking concludes that no such Powers are required, and that our universe was and is entirely natural in operation. Inexplicably, however, creationists—and, to an even greater extent, the news media—have portrayed Hawking’s book as endorsing creationism because he uses the word “God” throughout the text! Never mind that the entire thesis of Hawking’s book flatly rejects creationism. Never mind that Hawking is openly atheistic. Never mind that Hawking divorced his wife, Jane, primarily because she became a creationist! Hawking used the word “God” in his book, so he must be a creationist. The ABC newsmagazine 20/20 ran an over-hyped, ratings-boosting special proclaiming that a newly-published book (i.e., Hawking’s) provided a scientific basis for religious faith. Television and radio evangelists often cite Hawking as proving that God created the universe. This vulgar misrepresentation—often deliberate—of A Brief History of Time reflects a very sad, profoundly disturbing aspect of American society: Science illiteracy is so ubiquitous, and religious dogma so firmly ingrained, that legions cannot read a well-written science book without hallucinating the supernatural on every page.

[1481-MILL]

254

DAVID MILLS

*** Two facts provide overwhelming evidence that our solar system formed through natural, rather than supernatural, means. If you forget everything else we’ve discussed in this chapter, remember the following two facts: (1) All nine planets in our solar system travel the same direction around the sun; and (2) All nine planets travel on the same orbital plane, which also corresponds to the plane of the sun’s equator. Why do I find these obscure facts so convincing? Because these are the facts that we would expect to observe if the solar system formed naturally. Recalling our previous analogy of water’s being sucked down an open drain: All the water naturally spins in the same direction as it is drawn toward the center. None of the water revolves in an opposing direction. Likewise, all newly-forming planets, as they are drawn in by the central hub’s massive gravitational field, naturally begin orbiting in the same direction. The fact that all nine planets orbit in the same direction, on the same plane— and over the sun’s equatorial plane—is powerful, convincing evidence of the planets’ natural formation. By contrast, a miracle-working Creator could have kick-started the planets in numerous directions and orbital inclinations around the sun. Some planets could have been assigned West-to-East orbits, while others received opposing, East-to-West assignments from the Creator. Still other planets could have been assigned polar orbits, traveling around the sun from North to South and back again. The Creator could also have established orbits with a middle-of-the-road 45-degree inclination, or any combination in-between. An almost unlimited array of orbital trajectories was available to the Creator. Why, then, was the Creator so strikingly uncreative in His choice of planetary orbits? Why did the Creator so camouflage his miraculous orbital designs as to precisely mimic naturally-occurring orbits?


255

*** Without appealing to the supernatural, let us suppose momentarily that the laws of physics by themselves are sufficient to explain the formation and operation of our solar system and the universe. Question: Even though the universe, let us assume, behaves entirely naturally, rather than miraculously, couldn’t the Creator be using the physical laws He invented to govern the universe? On the surface, this question appears to be quite reasonable, suggesting a possible reconciliation between science and creationism. Yet the very posing of the question is a concession of absolute defeat for creationism. Why? Because if one concedes that the universe shows no evidence of the miraculous, then one has conceded that no evidence supports creationism! Let us recall that the entire thrust of the creationist argument is that the universe reveals evidence of the supernatural. If that evidence is conceded to be absent, then creationism is left with no argument at all. If the laws of physics alone do the job and perform all the work within our universe, then a Miracle Worker is left with nothing to do. Ockham’s Razor thus demands that this idle Power be eliminated from our scientific explanations. Returning for a final visit to Ancient Greece: Suppose that the citizens finally concede that no Greek gods are perpetuating the arrow’s motion, and that no gods are transporting the hunter to the bottom of the cliff. The citizens concede, in other words, that physical laws fully explain nature’s behavior. Suppose, however, that the citizens, instead of proposing direct, miraculous intervention by their gods, now insist that their gods are simply using the laws of nature: the Greek gods are using inertia (to keep the arrow moving) and using gravity (to bring the hunter to the ground). After conceding that physical laws sufficiently explain nature’s behavior, we may wonder why the citizens continue to insist so dogmatically that the Greek gods exist at all. What evidence is left to substantiate the gods’ existence? None. We may wonder whether psychological or emotional attachment to the gods may be clouding the

[1481-MILL]

256

DAVID MILLS

citizens’ scientific judgment. Likewise, modern creationism, in the end, has little to do with science, and everything to do with human psychology and emotion.

*** Addendum: Deism and the Founding of America Deism is the belief that a supernatural Power originally created the universe but does not currently manage its day-to-day operation or intervene personally into human affairs. Deism was a popular system of thought in the 18th century among America’s Founding Fathers. Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Paine, among many others, held Deist, rather than Christian, religious beliefs. Today, many Fundamentalist ministers and right-wing political conservatives speak endlessly of “America’s being founded on Christian principles.” If one dismisses all preconceived historical inaccuracies and Christian propaganda, then a telling fact emerges: The two documents upon which our country was actually founded—i.e., the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States—contain not a single word about Christianity, Christian principles, the Bible, or Jesus Christ. Neither is there any mention at all of the Ten Commandments, heaven, hell, or being saved. The phrase “they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights” was a reference to the Deist Creator, rather than the God of Christianity. The Christian clergy of the time tried again and again to get Christianity inserted into the Constitution, but they were refused every time by the Founders. It is no accident therefore that there is no reference at all to Christianity in the two most important documents founding the United States of America. It is historically incorrect, thus, to claim that America was “founded upon Christianity.”


257

During the Presidential contest of 1800, Jefferson was labeled “a howling atheist” by his political opponents. Thomas Paine— author of the Revolution-inspiring pamphlet Common Sense and craftsman of the immortal phrase “These are the times that try men’s souls”—wrote an entire book, The Age of Reason, which directly attacked and rejected the Bible as being the Word of God. Two “Christian principles” may indeed have influenced the Founding Fathers as they wrote the Declaration and Constitution. One “Christian principle” all-too-fresh in mind was the Puritan practice of burning witches. Jefferson wrote in Autobiography that “Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, or imprisoned.” The second “Christian” influence over the Founding Fathers was King George III’s absolute mandate that his subjects worship in a manner approved by the Church of England. Witch burning and mandatory church affiliation, among other factors, led the Founding Fathers to establish a “wall of separation between church and state,” allowing, at each citizen’s discretion, freedom of religion or freedom from religion. In 1797 the United States ratified the Treaty of Tripoli, which was negotiated by George Washington himself and signed by his successor, John Adams. The treaty declared in part that “the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.” Congress unanimously approved the text of this treaty. The National Motto was not changed to “In God We Trust” until 1956, 180 years after the founding of our nation. Likewise, the phrase “under God” was not added to the Pledge of Allegiance until 1954.

Notes on Chapter 11 1. Atmospheric gases near Earth’s surface would actually burn up an arrow through friction if it were traveling 17,500 miles per hour.

[1481-MILL]

258

DAVID MILLS

2. See the addendum to this chapter: Deism and the Founding of America. 3. The origin of this “raw material” is discussed in Chapter 9: Origin of the Universe: Natural or Supernatural? 4. Kepler was a deeply religious man, striving for years to prove his theory of “Divine Geometry” in which the planets moved in perfect circles around the sun. Finally, Kepler was forced to abandon his theory, because the observed motion of the planets contradicted the theory’s predictions. Three-hundred years later, “modern” creationism maintains that the solar system obeys Divine Geometry! 5. This calculation was published by John Gribbin in Genesis: The Origins of Man and the Universe. New York: Delacorte Press / Eleanor Friede, 1981. 6. In 1997, NASA’s Galileo spacecraft discovered that Europa, one of Jupiter’s four largest moons, is covered with an ocean of water, frozen on the top layers and, almost certainly, liquid beneath due to the warming effects of Europa’s gravitational stresses. Because liquid water is essential to the formation of life, the Zone of Habitability may now extend all the way to Jupiter! 7. Einstein quotation published in The New York Times April 19, 1955.

CHAPTER 12 The “Miracle” of Life on Earth Creationists believe devoutly that the presence of life on Earth— and the beauty and complexity of that life—are incontrovertible evidence of conscious, purposeful design by the Creator. Regarding the scientific theory of evolution, creationists hold two contradictory and tormented views: Creationist View #1: Evolution is a total myth. Animals may adapt slightly to their environments but never evolve beyond their “kind.” Millions of fossils which supposedly document large-scale evolutionary progress are either fakes or have been fraudulently misrepresented by science. There is a mass conspiracy among scientists—inspired originally by the devil—to cover-up the Truth of Creation by spreading the Lie of Evolution. Creationist View #2: Major evolutionary progress may have occurred in many species. But there is no necessary conflict between the Bible and the theory of evolution. Let’s thoughtfully and open-mindedly examine both creationist views of evolution. First we’ll ask, “Is Evolution a Myth?” Later, we’ll debate the question, “Can Genesis be Reconciled with Modern Science?”

[0000-XXXX]

260

DAVID MILLS

Is Evolution a Myth? My father often plays the state lottery, hoping against all odds to match six numbers out of forty to become an instant millionaire. You won’t be surprised to learn that he’s never hit the jackpot. He’s never come close. About half the time, Dad matches only one of the six winning numbers. Occasionally he’ll match two—and, just once, he matched three. Many weeks, however, Dad matches no numbers at all. Personal experience tells us that lotteries are practically impossible to win, because the odds are stacked against us, millions-to-one. The reason why the winning jackpot is so elusive is that you must simultaneously match all the numbers. You can’t play “carry-over” from one lottery card to another, or from one week’s contest to the next. Dad once joked that if he could only accumulate six winning numbers, then he’d be a jackpot winner for sure. Suppose Dad’s wish came true. This week, let’s say, he matches one number. Next week, he matches another, for a total of two. A month later, he matches two numbers on the same card, for a running total of four. Within a few months at most, Dad would accumulate six winning numbers and collect the jackpot. And so would everyone else!

*** Creationists have thoroughly and effectively portrayed the theory of evolution as a “lottery of life”—a random biological lottery in which blind chance and mindless circumstance allegedly produce highly-developed organisms. We know in a lottery that the odds are against us. We know that it’s almost impossible to win. So creationists want us to believe that the odds are similarly stacked against evolution, millions-to-one. To believe in evolution is to believe the impossible, according to creationist doctrine. Creationists often cite the human eye as evidence of God’s design. We are told (quite accurately) that the human eye is more


261

complex and advanced than the most modern digital camera. Rhetorically we are asked, “If the camera requires a designer, then how could the human eye, which is far more sophisticated, arise by random accident?” The answer of course is that the human eye did not “arise by random accident.” Nor did any evolutionary biologist ever make such a laughable claim. Creationism, you see, thrives by setting up and knocking down evolutionary Strawmen—i.e., self-evidently ridiculous assertions about evolution which no scientist proposed in the first place! It’s easy to topple an argument erected specifically for demolition. Producing an eye by “random accident” is even less likely than winning the lottery jackpot.1 But is this an accurate analogy? Does evolution more closely resemble a simultaneous matching of lottery numbers, or an accumulation of them over an extended period, as Dad wished to do? Evolution, by definition, is a gradual accumulation of functional adaptations. Evolution has only three essentials for success: (1) time, (2) genetic variety among offspring, and (3) a mechanism for preserving only beneficial variation. Such a mechanism is called Natural or Cumulative Selection, and was first proposed by Charles Darwin in 1859. First, let’s repair a creationist misunderstanding of the phrase “theory of evolution.” Creationists would have you believe that evolution is called a “theory” because scientists are unsure whether it’s a fact. Such a misunderstanding of the term “theory” reflects creationism’s total estrangement from the scientific community. Scientists use the term “theory” to mean “explanation.” We have Cell Theory, which explains the structure and function of living cells. Yet no scientist doubts that cells exist. We have Atomic Theory, which explains the behavior of atoms. Yet no scientist doubts that atoms exist. We have Gravitational Theory, which explains how celestial objects are attracted to each other. Yet no scientist doubts that gravitation is real. Evolutionary Theory, therefore, explains evolution—its subtleties and processes. As we shall

[1481-MILL]

262

DAVID MILLS

see, science considers evolution as undeniable as cells or atoms or gravitation. And the evidence for evolution is just as solid. What, then, is the evidence for evolution? And what do creationists have to say about it?

*** Many people think of evolution as something that may have occurred millions of years ago. “Evolution” brings to mind a dusty museum filled with rickety old bones of animals long since extinct. Yet the theory of evolution need not look to the distant past for confirmation. We may observe its mechanisms operating today, literally evolving new plant and animal characteristics before our eyes. Farmers, for example, fight a never-ending battle against the rapid evolution of insects, which feed off their crops. To combat the insect infestation, farmers routinely apply insecticides to their fields. Most of the insects are killed by this insecticide, and so never produce another generation of offspring. But because of wide genetic variation among insects, a few withstand the insecticide and live to produce further offspring. These offspring will thus inherit their parents’ tolerance of insecticide. If the farmer then reapplies the same insecticide to his crops, more insects will survive the second application than survived the first. In turn, this growing number of survivors will produce an even larger generation of offspring, which likewise inherit a tolerance of the farmer’s insecticide. Soon, the insecticide does little or nothing to protect the farmer’s crops. He must switch to a different poison, because insect evolution has rendered his insecticide useless. When isolated from creationist propaganda and distortion, the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is easy to understand and easy to accept. In many ways, evolutionary theory is a case of stating the obvious. Moreover, it is not hypothetical speculation that insects evolve rapidly. It is a fact. In the real world, farmers do


263

regularly change their insecticides for just this reason. Companies marketing insecticides must often reformulate their products to keep pace with insect evolution. Although insect evolution is bad news for farmers, let’s consider for a moment the insects’ point of view. Suppose that you are among the 10th generation of grasshoppers to live in a farmer’s field. You have inherited an almost total immunity to the farmer’s brand of poison. Knowing nothing of your species’ recent evolution, or the near extermination of your forefathers, you marvel that the complex chemistry of your body is perfectly suited to resist insecticide. You ponder the unlikelihood that “random accident” designed your chemistry so precisely and efficaciously. You conclude that the only reasonable explanation for your highly developed state is the existence of a supernatural Creator. You scoff at, or even despise, your fellow grasshoppers that propose evolutionary theories explaining your immunity to insecticide. You consider the evolutionists to be immoral, lacking any basis for a system of ethics or grasshopper family values. You may even quote Scripture, “The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God.” When we, like the grasshopper, suffer gaps in our understanding of events, we summon our “God of the Gaps” to fill the void. The fast pace of modern evolution is often frightening. Many of our most powerful antibiotic weapons against disease are now wholly ineffective against evolving microorganisms. Whenever you read on a medicine bottle to “Finish Taking All of this Prescription,” you are being warned against the very real danger of bacterial evolution. If you stop taking your antibiotic before all the bacteria are killed, then you permit the reproduction of the remaining, most-resistant organisms. When these most-resistant organisms start to multiply, you may become sicker than ever. Because of bacterial evolution, doctors sometimes encounter infections that actually thrive on the antibiotics designed to kill them. Treatment in these cases consists of simply withdrawing the antibiotic. We tend to view bacterial evolution as irrelevant and divorced

[1481-MILL]

264

DAVID MILLS

from the debate between creationism and evolution. Yet even today, the vast majority of life on Earth is too small to be seen without a microscope. Bacteria were the dominant lifeform on Earth for three billion years. And, like it or not, many of your direct ancestors were simple colonies of bacteria! Let’s look at one more quick example of modern evolution at work. In the early 1800’s, light-colored lichens covered many of the trees in the English countryside. The peppered moth was a light-colored insect which blended in unnoticeably with the lichens. Predators had great difficulty distinguishing the peppered moth from its background environment, so the moths easily survived and reproduced. Then the Industrial Revolution came to the English countryside. Coal-burning plants turned the lichens a sooty black. The light-colored peppered moth became clearly visible. Most of them were eaten. But because of genetic variation and mutation, a few peppered moths displayed a slightly darker color. These darker moths were better able to blend in with the sooty lichens, and so lived to produce other darker-colored moths. In little over a hundred years, successive generations of peppered moths evolved from almost completely white to completely black. Natural Selection, rather than “random accident,” guided the moth’s evolutionary progress. Many creationists grudgingly admit that Evolution by Natural Selection—or “survival of the fittest”—is clearly evident in the reproduction of bacteria or farm insects or peppered moths. But creationists rarely concede that Evolution by Natural Selection also applies to human beings. Again, we are asked, “How could evolution account for the human eye?” To explain such complexity in nature, Charles Darwin observed that virtually all species exhibit a strong tendency toward overpopulation. Competition is therefore extremely intense within the species for limited nutrients and for other scarce essentials of life. Any members of the species which possess even the slightest advantage in competing for these essentials will likely survive to produce offspring, which inherit this tiny advantage.


265

Any awareness of the environment provides a tremendous competitive advantage. If light, for example, could be sensed by skin cells, a lifeform could: (1) orient itself vertically, (2) be aware when a possible source of nutrition eclipsed the light source, and (3) be aware when predators cast a shadow. A lifeform without eyes produces offspring without eyes. But suppose that a few of the offspring possess a small number of light-sensitive skin cells. (Human skin cells vary widely in their sensitivity to light.) These offspring would enjoy a competitive advantage and would perpetuate this characteristic throughout the species. Suppose now that a few offspring begin concentrating these light-sensitive cells into a single location, thus amplifying their sensitivity. Again, this competitive edge would quickly spread throughout the species. Offspring which did not display this characteristic would die without contributing to the gene pool. Next, let us suppose that a tiny percentage of offspring are produced with a slightly concave shape to their light-sensitive regions. This rounder shape would allow the lifeform to better discern the direction from which light was emanating, again providing a reproductive advantage. Finally, let’s recall that cells are filled with semi-transparent liquids. So it wouldn’t be too surprising if this liquid occasionally found itself within the concave surface of the light-sensitive region. The liquid would thus serve as a very primitive lens, helping to focus light. In this manner, step-by-step, millennia-after-millennia, Natural Selection accumulates beneficial adaptations, while discarding the remainder. “What is impossible in a hundred years, may be inevitable in a billion,” said Carl Sagan. The human eye required almost four billion years to evolve! Regarding the evolution of bodily organs and appendages, creationists often ask, “What good is half an eye?” or “What good is half a wing?” In other words, until such body parts are fully functional, they produce no survival advantages. Natural Selection therefore would not perpetuate an eye or wing that was “under construction” or “on the verge of working.” Creationists believe

[1481-MILL]

266

DAVID MILLS

thus that conscious, end-result planning and design were necessary to produce functional organs and appendages. Nature herself, however, flatly contradicts the creationists’ all-or-nothing argument. For within nature, we find eyes in all stages of development. We find lifeforms with: (1) no eyes at all, (2) eyes that sense only the presence or absence of light, (3) eyes that focus light extremely poorly, such as the mole’s, (4) eyes that cannot see more than a few feet, (5) eyes that cannot see color, such as most dog breeds, (6) eyes that are humanlike, and (7) eyes that are far superior to human eyes, such as the bald eagle’s. Within nature, we find a smooth and unbroken continuum of visual capabilities among the various animal species. What good is 50 percent of an eye? It enjoys a decided advantage over 49 percent or 37 percent or 8 percent in the struggle for survival. The creationist argument—that partially-developed anatomical structures produce no survival advantage—ignores the real-world diversity of nature. Moreover, the terms “fully developed” and “partially developed” are relative. Bald eagles may pity human beings for their “partially developed” eyesight and wonder how Natural Selection perpetuated such “unfinished” organs. Likewise we find winged animals ranging from the falcon (a superb flier) to the pigeon (an average flier) to the chicken (a poor flier) to the flying squirrel (a down-hill-only glider) to the ostrich and penguin (which cannot fly at all). Natural Selection evolves traits and bodily structures to fit the species’ own particular environment. Virtually all animal species continue to be “under construction” because environmental pressures continue to be exerted. But what if genetic variation or mutation does not produce the beneficial adaptations upon which Natural Selection may act? In such a case, the species would show no evolutionary progress, and would likely become extinct. Extinction is as much a part of evolution as Natural Selection. Looking back over Earth’s geological history, over 99 percent of all animal species have failed to adapt successfully to their environments—and have therefore fallen victim to extinction. If creationists want to believe that all lifeforms


267

were carefully and purposefully designed by a Creator, then they must accept the Creator’s abysmal 99 percent failure rate. Any watchmaker whose product similarly failed would be dismissed as incompetent. Because we humans currently live outside the environment in which we evolved, we sometimes feel psychologically disinclined to accept Evolutionary Theory. The circumstances under which human beings emerged and developed bore no resemblance to today’s modern industrial society. Today, the “struggle for survival” usually means paying the mortgage on time, or saving enough money to send your children to college. Most of us, fortunately, have no firsthand experience in true life-or-death combat. And it is precisely because of our total estrangement from “survival of the fittest” that, psychologically and emotionally, we are highly skeptical whether human beings evolved at all. Moreover, because of technological advances which overcome human genetic imperfections, human evolution is now moving backward rather than forward. My own eyesight, for example, is extremely poor, requiring a -5.75 correction in each eye. If I had been born one-million years ago, I would never have survived to father children. Today I simply wear contact lenses or glasses, and enjoy no less opportunity to reproduce than a person with naturally perfect vision. My daughter, however, may inherit my poor vision, and so may her children. A technologically advanced society therefore may largely neutralize the progress of Natural Selection—thereby creating the illusion that Natural Selection was never operative in the evolution of the species.

*** Thus far, we have cited a few instances of evolution in action. I hope that these examples have illustrated both the simplicity and the elegance of Darwin’s theory of Natural Selection. But suppose that you’re the kind of person who isn’t impressed much by theories or philosophical discussion. After all, the history of science is

[1481-MILL]

268

DAVID MILLS

replete with grand theories which turned out to be nonsense. Suppose that you’re the kind of person who, before accepting a scientific claim, requires direct, clear, visible evidence. Fortunately, evolution quite literally gave us rock-solid evidence to attest its progress—from single-celled organisms all the way to human beings. This rock-solid evidence is known as the geologic column. The geologic column refers to our planet’s accumulated layers of sedimentary rock. The geologic column amassed its layers from bottom to top, just as water collects in a pail from bottom to top. The oldest layers of the geologic column therefore lie at the bottom, whereas the newest layers are uppermost. A freshly-painted lawnchair provides a good analogy to the geologic column. If you observe wet orange paint covering the entire surface of a lawnchair, you may be confident that the orange layer was also the most recent layer of paint applied. If you scrape off the outer layer of orange, you may discover a weather-worn layer of green paint underneath. You may safely conclude that the green layer is older than the orange layer. Likewise a red layer found under the green would indicate that red paint was applied first, followed by green, and finally orange. New layers of paint may be applied over old layers, but never under old layers. Similarly, sedimentary rocks which compose the geologic column are layered on top of each other. This stacking of sediments, layer upon layer, means that the oldest rocks are lowest on the column, while the newest rocks are highest. Simple logic precludes any other conclusion. In order for the lower-lying rock layers to be younger than the higher rock layers, nature would have to somehow: (1) lift up an entire mountain, (2) remove the lowest, underlying layer of ancient rock, (3) replace the ancient rock with modern rock, (4) place the ancient rock on top of the modern rock, and (5) set the mountain back down on top of the newly-arranged stack. Such a scenario is beyond the absurd. More realistically, erosion may weather-away the geologic column’s top layer of rock, which may later be replaced by new sedimentary deposits. The result is that contiguous layers of the


269

column do not always represent uninterrupted time periods. But the point to remember is that the column always amasses from bottom to top—from oldest to newest. Radiometric dating techniques also confirm the chronological order of the geologic column. Radioactive elements such as uranium, potassium, and rubidium decay at precise and constant rates. Uranium decays to lead; potassium decays to argon; and rubidium decays to strontium. By measuring the ratio of parent-to-daughter isotopes, geologists can establish the age of rocks containing these radioactive elements. Without being told where a particular rock was discovered within the geologic column, a scientist may independently ascertain the answer using radiometric dating. The chronology of the column may therefore be established both by logical and radiometric methods—both of which confirm and reinforce each other. Why is the geologic column important to evolutionary theory? Because the oldest fossil-bearing layers of rock—3.5 billion years old—contain fossils only of simple, one-cell organisms, which lived in the oceans. Layers slightly higher on the column hold the remains of tiny multi-cellular organisms. Moving upward, these multi-cellular lifeforms evolve into soft-bodied creatures, such as corals, sponges, and worms. Continuing our assent, we first encounter primitive fish in layers dating back 600 million years. A few species of fish then evolved into amphibians, capable of surviving both in water and on land. Amphibians first appear in the geologic column in layers 405 million years old. Climbing higher, we discover that amphibious creatures evolved into reptiles approximately 310 million years ago. Reptiles, as all children know, grew in size and became the mighty dinosaurs. The first dinosaurs appear in rock layers dating back 225 million years. Small mammals also appear in these layers. Dinosaurs suddenly disappear from the column in layers younger than 65 million years. The small mammals, however, continue to develop, both in size and complexity. A very primitive form of ape first appears in rock layers dating 40 million years.

[1481-MILL]

270

DAVID MILLS

Ape evolution progresses to Australopithecus (southern ape) still higher on the column. Australopithecus was our species’ direct ancestor. We’re now approaching the uppermost sedimentary layers of the geologic column. Australopithecus is followed first by homo habilis, then by homo erectus. Finally, at the very top of the column—and only at the top—homo erectus evolves into homo sapiens, our own species. The oldest known fossils of homo sapiens are found in rock layers only 275,000 years old. Leaving aside for a moment the findings of radiometric dating, the geologic column establishes the chronological order in which various lifeforms first appeared on Earth: (1) single-celled, (2) multi-celled, (3) soft-bodied, (4) fish, (5) amphibians, (6) reptiles, (7) mammals, (8) apes, (9) australopithecus, (10) homo habilis, (11) homo erectus, (12) homo sapiens.

*** Creationism’s most-sacred doctrine is that God created all lifeforms, including man, during a single, brief period known as “Creation Week.” Dinosaurs and human beings walked the earth simultaneously, as did gorillas and trilobites. All animal “kinds” are the same age, give or take a few days. If this biblical doctrine were true, then all “kinds” of animal fossils would appear simultaneously, side-by-side, in the same layers of the geologic column. Rather than a gradual progression from simple to complex lifeforms, the column would reveal an instantaneous appearance of all animal “kinds.” But the scientific facts simply do not support the creationist position. Creationism is therefore unscientific at its core, and should be viewed appropriately as a religious dogma.


271

Notes on Chapter 12 1. Despite the overwhelming odds, someone wins the lottery almost every week. A theory may not be dismissed, therefore, solely because it is statistically improbable.

[1481-MILL]

CHAPTER 13 Answering Creationist Objections to Evolution Creationists staunchly defend their beliefs as science-based, rather than solely Bible-based. Christian Fundamentalists work feverishly to persuade local school boards to include creationism as part of the science curriculum. Below, then, let’s examine creationist objections to evolutionary science. In doing so, let’s continually ask ourselves one question: Is the objection to evolution based upon issues of science or passages of Scripture? Creationist objection: The geologic column reveals the Cambrian Explosion, a sudden appearance of many diverse lifeforms. Response: Apparently, creationists want to believe that the Cambrian Explosion actually represents Creation Week, as depicted in Genesis. Such an interpretation of Earth’s geology is flawed for the following reasons: (1) Cambrian rock layers do indeed reveal the sudden appearance of many lifeforms. However, when geologists and paleontologists use the word “sudden” in describing the Cambrian Explosion, they are referring to a timespan of tens of millions of years, which, on the geologic scale, is a very brief period. Creationists read the word “sudden” in the scientific literature and misinterpret it to mean “instantaneous.” (2) The reason why Cambrian rock layers show a dramatic increase in fossil remains is that soft-bodied, pre-Cambrian lifeforms


273

did not easily fossilize. It was not until hard shells, bones, and teeth evolved that fossilization could readily occur. The Cambrian Explosion actually represents the evolution of fossilizable body parts. (3) Despite the difficulty and rarity of soft-body fossilization, the geologic column nonetheless contains many pre-Cambrian fossils, which antedate the Cambrian Explosion by billions of years. If the Cambrian Explosion is supposed to represent Creation Week, how do we explain the previously existing lifeforms? Since the Christian God was preceded historically by the Greek gods, did they create the preexisting lifeforms? (4) The Cambrian Explosion occurred 570 million years ago, rather than 6000 years ago as creationism demands. (5) Cambrian rock layers contain neither mammals nor reptiles. Again, this disproves the notion that all lifeforms appeared simultaneously.

*** Creationist objection: The fossil record contains many gaps, which contradict evolutionary theory. Response: Here again we encounter the now-familiar “God of the Gaps.” This time, He becomes “God of the Fossil Gaps,” Whose existence is asserted to “explain” any absentee fossils within the geologic column. A few comments: (1) The Theory of Evolution does not predict the fossilization of any species. Fossilization occurs for wholly independent reasons of geochemistry—not because of evolutionary theory. So fossil gaps in no way contradict evolutionary science. The geologic column is a fortunate coincidence of nature that attests biological evolution. (2) Even under ideal circumstances, fossilization is an extraordinarily rare occurrence. Until the early 1900’s, for example, tens of millions of Passenger Pigeons flew throughout North America. Their past existence is documented both by photographic evidence

[0000-XXXX]

274

DAVID MILLS

and by millions of eyewitnesses. Yet, to date, scientists have discovered no fossilized Passenger Pigeons—none! We shouldn’t be surprised therefore if many other species likewise left no fossilized remains. (3) Gaps found within the fossil record do not relate to the direct evolution of homo sapiens. Because our species is found only at the top of the geologic column, and because scientists devote more effort to finding our own ancestors than those of other species, the fossil record of recent human ancestry is rich and incontrovertible. The difficulty of chronicling the evolution of homo sapiens is, not fossil gaps, but fossils so closely related that it is difficult to classify where one ancestral species ends and another begins. (4) When scientists present intermediate fossils documenting the transition of one species into another, creationists are never satisfied. For example, if Fossil #1 is argued by science to be a close ancestor of Fossil #2, creationists invariably claim that a gap exists. “What we need,” say creationists, “is an intermediate specimen” (let’s call it Fossil #1.5). If scientists possess, or later discover, Fossil #1.5, creationists then lament that two gaps now exist—one gap between Fossils #1 and #1.5, and other gap between #1.5 and #2. As paleontologists unearth each new intermediate lifeform, creationists find two newly-created gaps to be filled! (5) I have received many letters from Christian Fundamentalists who refer to a so-called “missing link.” Most of these letters allege that this “missing link” is a fossil gap separating human beings and modern apes. I am told that, since the missing link is missing, there is no evidence that humans evolved from apes. A “missing link” of course will always exist between humans and modern apes because they are not our ancestors, having evolved on a separate branch of the primate tree. Scientists are currently searching for a distant ancestor common to both humans and modern apes—and this research seems to be the source of much


275

confusion among creationists and the general public. But there is no “missing link” raising doubts about the evolution of homo sapiens from homo erectus.

*** Creationist objection: Scientists have proposed contradictory theories of evolution. Since both sides of a contradiction cannot be true, evolutionary theory must be partially or completely wrong. Response: Creationists love to point out that various scientists espouse differing theories on how biological evolution has progressed throughout geologic history. Charles Darwin initially proposed that species evolve gradually to fit their environments. This position is known as gradualism. More recently, some scientists— led by Harvard’s Stephen Jay Gould—have posited that evolution sometimes progresses in fits and starts: long periods of little or no evolution are interrupted by quick evolutionary bursts. This theory is called punctuated equilibrium. A few thoughts as to whether these diverse theories lend credence to creationism: (1) Here again, creationists are failing to clearly differentiate the “theories” of evolution from the “facts” of evolution. By analogy, when Einstein published his Theory of General Relativity in 1915, it conflicted slightly with the established gravitational theory previously set forth by Isaac Newton. Would creationists propose that conflicting theories of gravitation mean that gravitation is a myth? The current debate is how—not whether—evolution occurred. Stephen Jay Gould, by the way, is one of the leading scientists fighting to keep creationism out of the public schools. (2) Gradualism and punctuated equilibrium are complementary, rather than contradictory. The geologic column reveals that some species evolved in a steady but gradual manner; whereas others evolved more rapidly and erratically. The speed of evolution is closely tied to external pressure exerted by the environment. During periods of swift

[1481-MILL]

276

DAVID MILLS

ecological change, species either evolve rapidly or become extinct. By contrast, sharks, which thrive in a stable ocean environment, have shown almost no evolutionary change in millions of years. (3) When scientists openly discuss and debate gradualism verses punctuated equilibrium, all members of the scientific community view such discourse as beneficial, challenging, invigorating, and as a great strength of the scientific method. Creationists, however, view scientific debate and disagreement as signs of weakness. Creationism therefore ridicules open-mindedness and scoffs at the free exchange of ideas so essential to a democratic society and to the scientific method itself. To question one’s own opinion is sinful for the creationist, who is not permitted the luxury of healthy skepticism. All contrary opinion is instantly dismissed as foolishness, because the Lord Thy God has spoken. (4) Creationists have demonstrated themselves to be, not scientists, but literary critics. They carefully scan the scientific literature for any hint of disagreement among paleontologists studying human origins. When they inevitably find a diversity of opinion on various aspects of human origins, creationists leap to the non sequitur that such diversity substantiates creationism! I know of very few instances in which a team of creationists actually sponsored or participated themselves in an archeological dig. They are too busy writing literary reviews.

*** Creationist objection: Even if one believes that all life evolved from a single cell or cells, a Creator is still necessary to explain the origin and complexity of cellular life. Response: Earlier, we discussed how creationists point to highly evolved organs, such as the human eye, and claim that the organ’s complexity reveals supernatural design. The fallacy of this argument, as we noted, is to assume that “blind chance” or “random accident” guides evolutionary progress. Moreover, the argument


277

falsely demands a lottery-like instant winner, rather than a gradual accumulation of adaptations through Natural Selection. Never tiring of repeating the same mistakes, creationists trot out their “random accident” strawman to preach the unlikelihood of cell evolution. Creationists detail the complex structure and inner workings of a single cell—with its DNA, RNA, and various organelles that perform so efficiently their complicated tasks. Then creationists pose a question: “Since the first cell, or group of cells, could not benefit from the accumulated advantages of previous Natural Selection, how could such intricate structures originate without God’s intervention?” The answer is that ancient cellular life did not contain the complex nucleic acids and organelles found within modern cells. As with the human eye, creationists cite a modern example—the result of four billion years of cellular evolution—then ask, “How could such an elaborate structure randomly pop into existence?” The answer is that it couldn’t—and no scientist claimed that it could. The first cells contained no nucleus at all, and were bare structures consisting mainly of an exterior membrane. Biological membranes form easily and spontaneously from a mixture of water and simple lipids. Hundreds of books have detailed at length the now-legendary Miller-Urey experiment performed at the University of Chicago in 1953. As a brief summary: Stanley Miller and Harold Urey found that amino acids—the building blocks of cell proteins—form readily from a mixture of ammonia, methane, water, and hydrogen gas, all of which were present in abundance on the primordial Earth. In other words, Miller and Urey discovered that the molecules of life naturally assemble themselves from a few basic, widely-available ingredients. The origin of life required only organic molecules, water and, most importantly, millions of years to develop. Moreover, in the late 1990’s, scientists discovered that life can occur and thrive in conditions previously thought to be completely inhospitable to biological systems—such as in near-boiling hydrothermal vents on the ocean floor, or in poison methane ice.

[1481-MILL]

278

DAVID MILLS

*** Creationist objection: Small-scale evolutionary change may occur for some animals. But large-scale evolution is not possible, because lifeforms cannot progress beyond their own “kind.” Response: Several problems here: (1) Despite loud and angry insistence that creationism is science-based, rather than Bible-based, the above objection feigns no pretense to a scientific argument. The belief that lifeforms cannot evolve beyond their “kind” is based directly and solely upon the Book of Genesis, which uses the term “kind” in the Story of Creation. The scientifically-recognized method of taxonomical classification is the familiar Linnean system: kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species. Each step of the Linnean ladder represents a meaningful, clearly-defined differentiation among anatomical structures. The notion of “kind” (sic) is a biblical doctrine and represents no legitimate scientific distinction among lifeforms. (2) The above “creationist objection” is also a textbook illustration of logical error. The conclusion—that large-scale evolution cannot occur—is built into the “supporting” premise—that lifeforms cannot progress beyond their “kind.” Such a premise assumes the conclusion that it supposedly proves, and therefore proves nothing at all. (3) Creationists use the term “kind” in a wildly inconsistent way. For example, most creationists think of birds as a “kind.” Fish are viewed as another “kind.” So by this definition, a bird or fish may evolve adaptive traits, under the restriction that a bird remains a bird and a fish remains a fish. If birds and fish are examples of “kinds,” however, then the term is quite inclusive and corresponds roughly to the Linnean grouping of class: all birds are grouped within the class Aves, while


279

fish are divided into two superclasses, Agnatha and Gnathostomata. The problem this poses for creationists is that their definition of “kind” permits more evolution than would be necessary for homo erectus to evolve into homo sapiens, since homo erectus and homo sapiens are already the same genus (homo). How do creationists escape this predicament? By abruptly changing their definition of “kind” so that, in the case of homo sapiens, the term “kind” is specific down to the level of species! (4) The only scientific principle truly restricting the degree of evolutionary change is time. Suppose, for example, that during a period of one-hundred years, scientists clearly observe that a modern lifeform, such as the peppered moth, has evolved X degree. In one-thousand years, the degree of evolution, on average, would be 10X. In one-million years, a 10,000X change would be possible. And in one-billion years, a 10,000,000X change could occur. (The genetic codes of human beings and chimpanzees differ by less than 1 percent!) The actual degree of evolution depends partially upon the duration and intensity of environmental pressure brought against the lifeform. Generally speaking, if micro-evolution occurs on a micro-timescale, then macro-evolution can occur on a macro-timescale. If there is a scientific mechanism limiting evolutionary progress, then what is it? How does this mechanism operate? What tests can be performed to detect its presence and operation? What evidence supports such a belief? To these questions, the creationists respond with Scripture, not science. (5) The fossil record unequivocally attests macro-evolutionary transition. The lobe-finned fish, which lived in water but had lungs and leg-like fins, was an intermediate between fish and amphibians. Amphibians themselves provided a macro-evolutionary transition from aquatic to land-dwelling reptilian life. Cynodonts bridged the gap between reptiles and mammals, possessing combined traits of both. On a separate branch of the evolutionary tree, Archaeopteryx, half reptile and half bird, is the perfect example of macro-evolution in action. Archaeopteryx was first unearthed in Bavaria in 1860.

[1481-MILL]

280

DAVID MILLS

When paleontologists later realized what they had discovered, creationists became so distraught that they accused the paleontologists of gluing feathers on a reptile fossil. After several additional fossils of Archaeopteryx were recovered, creationists refrained from embarrassing themselves again. (6) The Linnean system of classification has the effect of masking intermediate fossils. Regardless of its intermediate anatomical structure, a newly-discovered species is assigned to only one kingdom, one phylum, one class, one order, one family, one genus, and one species. Within the Linnean system, there is no special provision for transitional fossils or intermediate forms. Librarians sometimes face a similar dilemma when cataloguing a new book. Suppose the library purchases a book called The Historical Impact of Scientific Discovery. Does this book belong in the history section or the science section? The answer is unclear. Since the book must be cataloged as either “history” or “science” and shelved in only one section of the library, the half-and-half nature of its subject matter is obscured. Likewise for the intermediate lifeforms classified by the Linnean system.

*** Creationist objection: Even if a random mutation produced a slightly-more-adaptive trait, the new characteristic could not be propagated without two identical mutants—one male and one female. The odds are millions-to-one against the simultaneous appearance and mating of two identical mutations. Response: The necessity of both a male and female mutation has become a celebrated and often-repeated argument within creationist folklore. Many of the newer creationist books omit this argument (for good reason). But my mail indicates that the Fundamentalist community is still convinced of evolution’s need for two identical mutations, whose simultaneous appearance defies all credibility.


281

In reality—as every freshman biology student learns—only one parent usually need possess a particular gene in order to pass the characteristic to the offspring. The exception is a mutation that affects a recessive allele. In such an exceptional case, the creationist objection would be valid: two identical mutants would be necessary to propagate the altered genetic instructions—and such a scenario would indeed be practically impossible. Most of the time, however, one dominant allele may be passed to the offspring, whether or not the other parent possesses the same mutant allele. Creationists are attempting to change the exception into the rule, and the rule into the “impossible” exception.

*** Creationist objection: The second law of thermodynamics proves that disorder within the universe is increasing. Evolution teaches that lifeforms have become more organized, not less. Evolution, therefore, contradicts the second law of thermodynamics. Response: Creationists like to attach a deep philosophical meaning to the principle of thermodynamics, which simply means “heat movement.” Quite characteristically, creationists have distorted and misapplied this scientific principle. The second law actually states that “disorder in a closed system tends to increase.” By “closed system” scientists mean a system receiving no energy from an outside source. The universe as a whole is considered a “closed system” since the total amount of energy within the universe remains constant. The universe as a whole thus reveals an ever-increasing disorder. Within the universe, however, local regions may receive an energy input, and are therefore considered “open systems.” Our own planet is an open system because Earth receives energy from an outside source: the sun. Without the sun’s energy, life on Earth would be impossible.

[1481-MILL]

282

DAVID MILLS

If we think of the Earth and sun together as a closed system— receiving no external input of energy—then the Earth-sun combination will always suffer an increase in disorder. Yet, amid the increasing disorder, pockets of greater complexity and organization arise. On the sun, for instance, the nuclear fusion reactions that produce the sun’s heat and light also transform solar hydrogen into helium and other, more complex elements. An upward progression or “evolution of elements” occurs within the sun’s core. Overall, however, the sun is becoming more disorderly, its mass being converted “downward” (for the most part) into heat and other radiant energy. Because Earth is an open system, receiving the sun’s radiant energy, disorder on Earth may decrease in localized spheres. Over millions of years, lifeforms may increase in complexity, as long as a constant energy source is maintained. For biological systems, the necessary energy supply consists, not only of the sun’s heat and light, but also of abundant sources of food and water. The second law of thermodynamics does not, in any sense, contradict evolutionary theory. I find it ironic that creationists argue for a Creator by citing the second law of thermodynamics, which describes the universe as drifting further and further into chaos! It seems to me that a universe of ever-increasing disorder argues against a miracle-working sustainer of the cosmos.1

*** Creationist objection: The geologic column was formed, not by millions of years of sedimentary deposits, but by the sudden worldwide deluge recorded in the Book of Genesis. Response: We noted previously that, if God had simultaneously created all lifeforms, then we should see a simultaneous appearance of these lifeforms in the geologic column. Instead, we find that primitive, single-celled life appears first, followed later by simple multicellular creatures. Next we observe fish, followed mil-


283

lions of years later by amphibians. Higher on the column, reptiles begin to appear—and, later, small mammals. Primates are found only in the uppermost layers, while fossils of homo sapiens appear only at the very top. The Theory of Evolution is completely consistent with the progression of life observed in the geologic column. But for the creationist, the geologic column is very difficult to explain. Why are the fossils arranged from bottom to top in an order of gradually increasing complexity? Creationists know why! It’s because Noah’s flood killed—then meticulously sorted—the fossilized lifeforms we find today in the geologic column. When God caused forty days of torrential rainfall, the most primitive organisms supposedly sank to the bottom of the ocean, where they were preserved in the geologic column. More complicated, multicellular life sank slower and was fossilized in higher layers. Reptiles living on land tried to outrun the rising flood waters. But mammals ran faster, beating reptiles to upper layers of mountain tops. Man, being the most intelligent, knew to sit on the very peaks of mountains to escape the deluge as long as possible. And what about animals living on flat plains, where there were no mountains to climb? How did their fossils become systematically arranged into layers of ever-increasing complexity? Creationists again boast the answer: Different “kinds” of animals possessed differing abilities to float. The same “kinds” of animals shared similar properties of buoyancy, and therefore drowned at similar depths of flood water—reptiles with reptiles, birds with birds, mammals with mammals, etc.2 A few comments: (1) It is lunacy to suggest that a flood can sort and organize fossils, or anything else. I would ask the creationists to cite one example of a modern flood which left behind such systematic morphology. All people who have actually experienced a flood

[1481-MILL]

284

DAVID MILLS

understand that the waters leave in their wake absolute disarray, rather than absolute order. (2) Even more bizarre is the claim that complex lifeforms float better than primitive ones. Human beings are among the least buoyant of all species. Using creationist “logic,” humans should be near the bottom of the geologic column instead of the top. There is, in actuality, no relationship at all between a lifeform’s complexity and its buoyancy. (3) How did Noah’s flood kill and fossilize fish, then place them on the bottom of the column beneath reptiles and mammals? Did fish drowned in the flood before reptiles and mammals? (4) Can we realistically believe that, at the onset of the Genesis flood, not one human being on Earth was trapped in a low-lying valley? Not one human was at sea-level and swept into the ocean? Not one human died beneath the level of the most-elevated dinosaur on Earth? Shouldn’t we find at least a few human fossils in lower layers of the geologic column? Why are there absolutely no exceptions to this rule? (5) If Noah’s flood rapidly created the geologic column and quickly fossilized most of Earth’s animals, then why do radiometric dating techniques return older ages for the most primitive fossils and younger ages for the most complex? Creationists sometimes respond that the Genesis flood somehow “reset Earth’s radioactive time clock.” If so, then why do the oldest lunar and Martian rocks also test at 4.5 billion years (the same age as Earth)? Did Noah’s flood “reset the radioactive time clocks” on the moon and Mars too? (6) At the time the Old Testament was written—around 500 BC—primitive man did not realize that plants and vegetation were also forms of life. The Old Testament God therefore neglected to make provisions aboard the Ark for preserving plant life, which, like the Animal Kingdom, would have been totally and forever eradicated under thousands of feet of seawater. (7) The story of Noah’s Ark was adapted by the Hebrews from an earlier Babylonian myth called the Epic of Gilgamesh. In many


285

respects, the Babylonian flood story—which is older than the biblical tale—is virtually identical to the biblical clone, but describes different gods and ark-building characters. Greek mythology also has a flood story. When Zeus decided to flood the Earth to punish an evil human race, Prometheus instructed Deucalion and his wife, Pyrrha, to build a wooden ark. After the flood waters receded, they were the only surviving creatures on Earth. As Robert Ingersoll has noted, “There is nothing new or original in Christianity. Its maxims, miracles, and mistakes, its doctrines, sacraments, and ceremonies, were all borrowed.”

*** Creationist objection: Scientists recently discovered that all human beings descended from a woman named Eve. This finding confirms the Genesis account of creation. Response: In recent years, scientists have developed exciting new techniques for tracing our evolutionary ancestry. One such innovation attempts to study the mutation rate and history of human mitochondrial DNA. Unlike an individual’s “regular” DNA, which represents the union of both parents’ genetic structures, mitochondrial DNA is passed from mother to child unaltered by the father’s genes. My daughter’s mitochondrial DNA is identical to her mother’s. Through additional research, geneticists hope to aid paleontologists in determining precisely when and where homo erectus first evolved into homo sapiens. Very preliminary results indicate an African origin of our mitochondrial DNA approximately 200,000 years ago. Many paleontologists, however, challenge these tentative findings, arguing that humans appeared earlier. Theoretically, if we could retrace the history and mutational alterations of our mitochondrial DNA, then we could pinpoint the first group of women who possessed homo sapiens’

[1481-MILL]

286

DAVID MILLS

modern DNA structure. Such a discovery would allow scientists to understand more precisely the chronology and geography of human evolution. To denote their search for human origins, geneticists have dubbed their efforts the “Eve Hypothesis.” Because of this title, however, some creationists have misinterpreted the research as being confirmation of the Genesis story of Adam and Eve. Here, my primary criticism is directed, not against creationists, but against some members of the scientific community itself. With a name like “Eve Hypothesis,” I find it easy to forgive those who misunderstand the nature of the genetics research. Some scientists—though a small minority—seem to enjoy using religious terminology in their writings. They title their books The Moment of Creation or Reading the Mind of God. Others speak of “seeing God face to face.” The initial impression conveyed is that these scientists are devout creationists. Such a conclusion, though understandable, is nonetheless completely erroneous. James Trefil, who wrote The Moment of Creation and Reading the Mind of God is very much anti-creationism. When astronomer George Smoot spoke of “seeing God face-to-face,” he was referring to his discovery of small asymmetries in cosmic microwave background radiation—hardly a literal face-to-face chat with Jehovah. I enthusiastically defend the right of these scientists to articulate their views metaphorically. But I believe that, unless science writers intend to convey a belief in the supernatural, they should omit such metaphorical expressions from their writings. Perhaps these scientists and their academic colleagues easily differentiate the metaphorical from the literal. But many other intelligent people are undeniably misled by the empty use of these religious expressions. These scientists then complain loudly that their writings are “misinterpreted” by creationists! I realize that, to some, my position may appear extremist. Some readers may think that I’m just as rigid and literal-minded as the


287

creationists—though on the opposite end of the philosophical spectrum. Nonetheless I believe that clarity should be the highest goal of science writing. Moreover, I believe that, if the subject about which a scientist is writing is non-supernatural, then it’s best to avoid language which is indistinguishable from a Billy Graham sermon. What is the purpose of using theological language in a science book? To sell more books? To appeal to a general public disinterested in purely secular science? It seems that some science writers are willing to “sell their souls.” Often, however, science writers are not to blame for their misleading book titles. Nor are writers usually responsible for jacket blurbs which routinely grovel that “the author is sympathetic to all religious viewpoints.” The publishing industry is (and should be) a money-making endeavor—and editors change book titles and write jacket blurbs to appeal to as wide an audience as possible. Books that are openly atheistic do not always become runaway bestsellers. Trust me!

Notes on Chapter 13 1. I once heard a local minister preach to his flock that the first law of thermodynamics—i.e., the conservation of energy—contradicts the second law—i.e., the “running down” of the universe. “Therefore,” said the preacher, “scientists are actually confused about these issues and shouldn’t be trusted.” To clarify: the first law states that, in a closed system, total energy remains constant. The second law states that, in a closed system, useable energy decreases. The difference between the total energy and the useable energy is found in the generation of heat, which is the “lowest” and least-useable form of energy. 2. Those of you unfamiliar with creationist literature may wonder whether their books really propose such zany explanations. I refer you to The Genesis Flood by Henry Morris and John G.

[1481-MILL]

288

DAVID MILLS

Whitcomb, Jr. (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1961). Other than the Bible, this book is probably the most sacred text of the creationist movement. The Genesis Flood is one of the books proposed by creationists for inclusion in your child’s high school science curriculum!

CHAPTER 14 Can Genesis be Reconciled with Modern Science? Here’s a riddle: When my daughter, Sophia, was born, I was 36 years-old. When I was born, my father, Harry, was 35 years-old. When my father was born, his father, Shelby, was 28 years-old. If my daughter is 5 years-old in the year 2000, then in what year was my grandfather, Shelby, born? As riddles go, this one is straightforward. The answer is determined simply by adding the ages (36+35+28+5), then subtracting the sum (104) from a fixed date: 2000-104=1896. So my grandfather, Shelby, was born in 1896. Your interest in the Mills Family tree is probably nonexistent. But I felt that my “riddle” was more palatable and illustrative than quoting endless passages of Scripture. For it is through identical reckoning that creationists calculate the number of years since Creation, and thus the age of Planet Earth. According to Genesis, God made Adam and Eve on the sixth day of Creation Week. The Genesis genealogies then detail the exact ages at which Adam and his male descendants “begat” their own male offspring. The Old Testament chronology traces the generations from Adam to Noah—from Noah to Abraham—and from Abraham to David. The New Testament books of Matthew and Luke then continue the genealogy from David to Jesus, again specifying the age at which each male descendant “begat” the next generation. Since we have a fixed “historical” time period for Jesus’ birth, creationists thereby calculate that the heavens and Earth

[0000-XXXX]

290

DAVID MILLS

were created by God in the year 4004 BC.1 Earth, therefore, is only 6000 years-old by the biblical chronology. Despite widely divergent viewpoints, creationists and evolutionary biologists agree on a crucial fact: 6000 years is insufficient time for evolution to have produced the complex lifeforms we observe on Earth today. Homo sapiens could evolve only if given hundreds of millions of years to accumulate selective advantages. A 6000-year-old Earth means therefore that Genesis and the Theory of Evolution are forever irreconcilable. Creationists frequently point to this timescale conflict as proof that evolution is a fraud. They echo the sentiments of St. Thomas Aquinas, who believed that any discord between science and Scripture was due to errors of science, rather than errors of Scripture. Henry Morris, whose revered books founded “scientific” creationism, writes that “It is impossible to devise a legitimate means of harmonizing the Bible with evolution.” The findings of modern astronomy further spotlight the irrevocable divorce between Genesis and the scientific method. Using a powerful array of ground-and space-based telescopes, astronomers can detect galaxies billions of light-years from Earth. Because light requires one year of time to travel one light-year of distance, our detection of these galaxies proves incontrovertibly that they existed billions of years ago. Otherwise the electromagnetic radiation emitted by these galaxies could not yet have traversed the billion-light-year distance to Earth. What do creationists say about these distant galaxies? Most creationist books ignore the subject completely, pretending, as in the case of evolution, that modern science is a fraud. One book, however, tackles the issue directly. A widely-used and highly popular textbook, The Creation-Evolution Controversy, by creationist writer R. L. Wysong, asserts without explanation that “the time required (for light) to reach us from the most distant stars is only 15 years.”2 Imagine those naive dupes at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics—they gullibly swallow the myth that light requires a full year to travel one-light-year’s distance. Pity those


291

hapless dullards at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory—they’re suckers for the same nonsense. Oh how misguided they all were— Hubble, Einstein, Feynman, Hawking, Asimov, Sagan. How fortunate we are today that R. L. Wysong, a veterinarian, has finally straightened us out. Apparently, Wysong believes that light can travel faster than the speed of light (sic)—and so Creation of the heavens and Earth occurred 6000 years ago after all! Yet another irreconcilable conflict between science and the Genesis genealogies involves the story of Noah’s Ark. By a literal interpretation of the Bible, the worldwide deluge occurred in the year 2348 BC. Supposedly, the only humans to survive the flood were members of Noah’s own family, who rode in the ark with Noah and the animals. Difficult for creationists to explain, however, is the fact that the Tigris-Euphrates Valley Civilization (in the Middle East), the Nile Valley Civilization (in Egypt), and the Aegean Civilization (in Greece) maintained uninterrupted written historical records extending before, throughout, and following the year 2348 BC. Their written chains of history were unbroken by the flood. Peoples of these vast civilizations failed to notice their own “destruction.” Creationists occasionally admit that the heavens and the Earth appear to be billions of years old. But this “appearance of age” is a “deceptive illusion.” Writes Henry Clarence Thiessen in Lectures in Systematic Theology, “The fact that Adam was created full-grown seems obvious from Genesis, Chapter 2. Therefore, in at least the creation of Adam, we have the appearance of age. Is it not also conceivable that the whole creation of God had the appearance of age, perhaps even including the fossils?” Several responses to Thiessen: 1. The entire “appearance-of-age” contrivance is another sorry example of creationists’ illogically incorporating their argument’s conclusion into the “supporting” premise. To “prove” their conclusion that the Genesis genealogies are correct—and that Earth is actually young—creationists assume as factual the Genesis account

[1481-MILL]

292

DAVID MILLS

of Adam’s being created with the “appearance of age.” In other words, we can “prove” Genesis reliable if we first assume that Genesis is reliable. Such “logic” is analogous to claiming “proof ” of Rudolph’s red nose by Dasher’s eyewitness testimony. What creationists are really saying is that they know the Bible is true because it’s the Bible. 2. For what conceivable reason would God salt the geologic column with fossils of animals that never existed? To create the “appearance of age”? Why? 3. If our planet is only 6000 years-old, how could Earth’s plate-tectonic activity separate North America from Europe, and South America from Africa, with spreading rates of only 4 inches per year? The separation of these continents took at least 200 million years. 4. Why do river and ocean sedimentary deposits consist of hundreds of thousands of annual layers, all of which lie above much older rock? Creationists truly suffer a schizophrenic mindset on the issue of radiometric dating techniques, which point to a 4.5 billion-year-old Earth. First, creationists scoff at these dating methods, claiming that they are highly unreliable. Then, in the next breath, creationists say that they expected radiometric dating to reveal an ancient Earth, since Earth was created by God with the “appearance of age.” Creationists assert that radiometric dating is based upon the “fallacy” of uniformitarianism. Uniformitarianism holds that the laws of physics operate today as they have in past centuries and in ancient times. Earlier in this book, we noted that the constancy of physical law is cited by creationists as evidence of God’s existence. Regarding the physical laws governing radioactive decay, however, creationists sing a different tune. Here, creationists assume that the laws of nature were completely different only a few thousand years ago—so that any geologist who assumes a constant rate of radioactive decay will conclude “erroneously” that Earth is much older than 6000 years.


293

What evidence is offered by creationists to substantiate a recent reversal of the rates of radioactive decay? None. Their only “evidence” is that the Book of Genesis disagrees with the radiometric test results. So while masquerading as scientists, creationists choose Scripture over science every time. Creationists commonly argue that external forces may have affected radioactive decay rates and that uniformitarianism is therefore a blind assumption. But such an argument reveals the creationists’ embarrassing unfamiliarity with atomic structure. For all chemical reactions to which the radioactive elements may have been exposed would involve only the electron shells—never the nucleus. And it is precisely for this reason that atomic nuclei are so thoroughly isolated from any external influences. An element’s rate of nuclear decay is independent of the element’s chemical reactions and interactions. As part of basic research, various science laboratories have attempted to deliberately alter the decay rates of several radioactive elements.3 Using all possible means—fair and foul—to induce a decay-rate variance, the greatest variance ever observed has been roughly two percent. Compare this two percent discrepancy with the hundred-million-percent discrepancy between these radiometric tests and Earth’s age as calculated by Genesis! If uniformitarianism is an “assumption,” then it is an “assumption” based upon sound theory and voluminous empirical data. Creationism, by contrast, is an assumption contradicted by all empirical data. If Earth’s history began with Creation Week, and if Genesis provides an accurate historical record, then Earth had no prehistoric eras, no prehistoric peoples and no prehistoric animals. Dinosaurs walked the Earth only a few thousand years ago, side-by-side with modern man. The Flintstones had it right all along! But what about archeological discoveries of primitive peoples living hundreds of thousands of years ago? What about the innumerable findings of primitive Stone Age tools and artifacts? Creationist R. L. Wysong once again provides the answer: “Primitive civilizations are

[1481-MILL]

294

DAVID MILLS

simply wreckages of more highly developed societies forced through various circumstances to lead a much simpler, less-developed life.”4 Creation “science” thus proposes, not only the “appearance of age” for a young Earth, but also the “appearance of squalor” for highly developed civilizations. Perhaps people of the “Stone Age” were forced into their primitive condition by a collapse of their stock portfolios in the crash of 1929! If we believe in a 6000-year-old Earth, then we must believe that God conspired with Nature to perpetrate the grandest and most elaborate fraud imaginable. Light from distant stars is a fraud: it didn’t really take billions of years to reach Earth. The geologic column is a fraud: it quickly washed together during Noah’s flood. River beds and ocean floors—showing hundreds of thousands of annual sedimentary layers—are a fraud, placed there to “test our faith.” Earth’s plate tectonic activity (or continental drift) is a fraud for reasons never clearly specified by creationists. The whole of Nature—in the sky, on land, and in the sea—is one big joke. Nothing is as it appears. The heavens and the Earth are playing devilish tricks on us, cleverly camouflaging their youth with the “appearance of age.” The laws of Nature are likewise a joke, since they recently rewrote themselves to fool radiometric dating techniques. It is therefore the ultimate hypocrisy for creationism to simultaneously assert (1) that Nature attests God’s existence, and (2) that Nature is a deceptive contrivance, not to be accepted at face value.

*** Today, some creationists are abandoning their long-held belief in a 6000-year-old Earth. Why this abrupt reversal of opinion? Were startling new chapters suddenly discovered in the Book of Genesis? Did Moses appear in a miraculous vision, revising his previous chronology, and teaching the geological history of an ancient Earth? No. The change of heart among some creationists is due to the fact that modern scientific research has shown the Genesis chronology to be nothing short of ridiculous.


295

Earlier in this book, we noted that creationism is divided into two conflicting camps. The biblical literalists (or Fundamentalists), which we have been discussing, believe that Earth is only a few thousand years old, and that evolution is essentially a myth. The literalists concede that small-scale evolutionary adaptations may occur, but deny that animals may evolve beyond their “kind.” More-liberal-minded creationists, however, strive mightily to disassociate themselves from the conservative Fundamentalists. These non-literalists often refuse to call themselves “creationists,” even though they believe in God as the Almighty Creator of the heavens and the Earth. This non-literalist group believes in an ancient Earth and in macro (large-scale) evolution. They believe that Genesis and modern science may be successfully reconciled. The primary difference between the literalists and the non-literalists is this: The literalists distort science to make it harmonize with Genesis. The non-literalists distort Genesis to make it harmonize with science. The possibility of a reconciliation between science and religion is rapidly gaining popularity, not only among those who call themselves “creationists” but also among the general public. Millions yearn to believe that science and the Bible are ultimately compatible, perhaps even complementary. Religious individuals like to think of themselves as science-minded. And science-minded individuals like to think of themselves as maintaining some kind of religious belief. But is agreement genuinely possible between science and the Book of Genesis? No. Genesis and the scientific method are mutually exclusive. They cannot be reconciled. How, then, do we explain the wildly popular belief that the Bible and science are, in the end, harmonious? Generally speaking, religious-minded individuals know little about science. And science-minded individuals know even less about

[1481-MILL]

296

DAVID MILLS

the Bible. With each camp sadly uninformed about the other, reconciliation seems possible and desirable to both sides. In reality, agreement is possible only by (1) perverting science, as the Fundamentalists do, or by (2) perverting the Book of Genesis, as the non-literalists do.

Non-literalists The British philosopher Bertrand Russell once remarked that “the Bible is known for many things, but clarity is not among them.” Even the most devout Fundamentalist has to agree that some passages of Scripture are difficult to comprehend and do require skilled interpretation. The Old Testament prophets, for example, and the Book of Revelation in the New Testament use obscure language that can be interpreted to mean just about anything. Many churchgoers believe that these cryptic Bible prophecies correctly predicted historical events that actually transpired in the 20th century. Because of the extreme ambiguity of many scriptural passages, however, it is easy to prejudicially incorporate recent historical events into one’s interpretations of these vague prophecies. Whatever happens in the world, someone always finds a Bible verse—or an astrologer or psychic—that supposedly predicted the event beforehand. The Bible is highly accurate at predicting the past. But foretelling the future brings us back to the maddening and hopeless question of how to interpret Scripture. Since interpreting Scripture is simply one person’s opinion against another’s, why do I harshly call a non-literal interpretation of Genesis a “perversion” rather than a “reinterpretation” of Scripture? And who am I, a dedicated atheist, to defend a Fundamentalist, literal-minded reading of Genesis?5 The perversion of Genesis is to be found in the “explanations” articulated by non-literalists to resolve conflicts between science and Scripture. For example:


297

1. The non-literalists believe that Earth is much older than 6000 years. To rationalize their belief in an ancient Earth, non-literalists claim that the Genesis genealogies contain “errors of omission.” In other words, the genealogies are only partial lists, overlooking many intermediate generations between Adam and Jesus. When Scripture says, for example, that “Salah lived thirty years, and begat Eber,” that really means that Salah lived thirty years and begat Eber’s grandfather or great, great, great, grandfather. When the “missing” generations are added to the chronology, the date of Creation drifts further into the past. To me, such a position is absolutely mind-boggling. How can we believe (A) that Genesis is the Inspired, Perfect, Holy, Infallible Word of God, while simultaneously believing (B) that the Genesis genealogies should be disregarded because they contain “errors of omission”? Was God in a forgetful mood when He “inspired” Genesis? Creationist Henry Clarence Thiessen, suggesting that the Genesis genealogies may be overlooked, writes that “a study of the various [other] biblical genealogies indicates that they are incomplete and contain omissions.”6 Thiessen is almost certainly referring here to the fouled up genealogical records in Matthew (chapter 1) and Luke (chapter 3). Both of these genealogies claim to record the ancestral lineage from David to Jesus, yet the two lists present conflicting information. (Check it out for yourself.) So the non-literalist argument goes like this: We believe that the Genesis genealogies may be unreliable since other biblical genealogies are also unreliable. Personally, I agree that the genealogies are unreliable. But it is a mockery for the non-literalists to maintain that their “errors-of-omission” argument does not challenge the Bible’s integrity and infallibility. I am reminded here of the 1960’s anti-war slogan that “the United States must destroy Vietnam in order to save it.” The non-literalists must destroy Genesis in order to save it from scientific error on Earth’s antiquity. In order to reconcile the Genesis genealogies with a 4.5 billion-year-old Earth, we must believe that the “errors of omission”

[1481-MILL]

298

DAVID MILLS

number in the tens of millions. For what purpose would God include such fragmented and misleading genealogies in His infallible Word? Was He attempting to create an “appearance of youth” for an ancient Earth, while His Fundamentalist worshipers were busy concocting an “appearance of age”? 2. Another means by which non-literalists attempt to pervert Genesis is by claiming that the genealogies were not meant to be interpreted literally—i.e., that the genealogies are in fact metaphors. But how could a dry and colorless list of names and numbers be a metaphor? A metaphor for what? Let’s review a mercifully brief sampling of the Genesis chronology from Chapter 11: Peleg lived thirty years, and begat Reu. And Reu lived two and thirty years, and begat Serug. And Serug lived thirty years, and begat Nahor. And Nahor lived nine and twenty years, and begat Terah. Honestly now, did the author of the above genealogy intend a literal or a metaphorical interpretation of his data? If we are to interpret these names and numbers metaphorically, then I suppose that the telephone book—which is also a list of names and numbers—is also a collection of deeply profound metaphors. And anyone who can’t appreciate this “fact” is a narrow-minded literalist incapable of elevated, metaphorical abstraction. When viewed in isolation, the Genesis genealogies themselves posit no miraculous events or supernatural Beings. If we cannot interpret these mundane genealogies literally, then we cannot interpret anything in the Bible literally. These same creationists, however, demand that we interpret literally the existence of God, Jesus, the Holy Ghost, the Devil, Angels, Heaven and Hell. All miraculous events portrayed in the Bible are likewise to be interpreted in a strictly literal sense: Jesus literally turned water into wine—literally cast out demons—literally walked on the Sea of Galilee— literally placed a magic curse on a fig tree—literally rose from the dead. Apparently, it’s only the Genesis genealogies that we are supposed to interpret metaphorically! The only reason of course why some creationists now propose


299

a metaphorical interpretation of Genesis is that science has shown that a literal interpretation is absurd: Earth is not a mere 6000 years-old. Let us remember that a young Earth was always posited by religious leaders throughout the entire history of Christianity. No medieval priest ever asserted that Genesis described a 4.5 billion-year-old Earth. No ancient church document ever claimed that Adam and Eve lived hundreds of millions of years ago. And no pre-Renaissance missionary ever preached a sermon about “omissions” or “time gaps” in the Genesis genealogies. If creationists now wish to abandon their historical position and acquiesce to an ancient Earth, then I applaud their progress. But it is a farce to maintain that Genesis never really demanded a young Earth since the genealogies were always intended as metaphors. 3. Perhaps the easiest and most popular way for “science-minded” individuals to deal with the Genesis genealogies is simply to ignore them. Of the 94 percent of Americans who profess a belief in God, I suspect that fewer than 1 percent have actually read the genealogies or have devoted any serious thought to the accuracy of the Genesis time frame. When did you last hear these genealogies mentioned during a Sunday School lesson? Who preached the last sermon you attended on the Genesis genealogies? The subject is avoided deliberately, because many religious adherents take comfort in the masquerade that science and the Bible harmonize completely. No religious leader wants to raise doubt among his flock by overtly pointing out the Bible’s scientific errors. These individuals who try to ignore or sidestep the issue of Earth’s age, I label “The Great Pretenders,”7 for they attempt to resolve the conflict between science and Scripture by pretending that no conflict exists. The Great Pretenders also ignore completely many other biblical absurdities, such as:

[1481-MILL]

300

DAVID MILLS

The existence of unicorns “Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib? Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee?”—Job 39:9-10. “Save me from the lion’s mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns.”—Psalm 22:21. Unicorns are likewise presented as truly existent in Numbers 23:22; Numbers 24:8; Psalm 29:6; Psalm 92:10; Deuteronomy 33:17; and Isaiah 34:7.

The existence of witches “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.”—Exodus 22:18.

Witches and wizards are also mentioned in 1 Samuel 15:23; 2 Kings 21:6; and Leviticus 19:31. These verses, among others, were cited by Christians for centuries to justify the burning of “witches.” Hundreds of thousands of innocent women—including female children as young as two years of age—were tortured to death by devout believers obeying these biblical injunctions to take the life of any “witch.”8

The existence of dragons “ . . . it shall be an habitation of dragons, and a court for owls.”—Isaiah 34:13. “ . . . the young lion and the dragon shalt thou trample under feet.”—Psalm 91:13.


301

The mythical dragon is described as a reality in over a dozen additional Bible verses, including Psalm 74:13; Deuteronomy 32:33 and Micah 1:8. The Bible contains innumerable other references to fanciful creatures, such as the Cockatrice—a serpent hatched from the egg of a cock whose mere glance could kill its enemies (Isaiah 11:8); Satyrs—creatures that were half man, half goat or horse (Isaiah 13:21); Fiery serpents (Deuteronomy 8:15); and Flying serpents (Isaiah 30:6). Just once, I’d like to hear a sermon preached on the following verses: “And owls shall dwell there, and satyrs shall dance there. And the wild beasts of the islands shall cry in their desolate houses, and dragons in their pleasant palaces.”— Isaiah 13:21-22. “Out of the serpent’s root shall come forth a cockatrice, and his fruit shall be a fiery flying serpent.”—Isaiah 14:29.

At this point, creationists of the non-literalist variety will respond that “dragon” doesn’t really mean “dragon,” that “cockatrice” couldn’t possibly mean “cockatrice,” that “satyr” absolutely doesn’t mean “satyr,” that “fiery serpent” wasn’t intended to denote a real “fiery serpent,” that “witch” doesn’t actually mean “witch,” and that “unicorn” most certainly doesn’t mean “unicorn.” The Great Pretenders simply dismiss all Bible absurdities as metaphors and pretend that nothing in Scripture really conflicts with science. 4. This brings us to the grand finale—the most “elevated” and “profound” argument used by non-literalists to defend the Bible’s scientific credibility: The Day-Age theory. The Day-Age theory asserts that the seven days of Creation Week do not refer to literal 24-hour days. Rather, Genesis uses the word “day” as a metaphor to denote vast geological eras. The Day-Age theory is usually postulated by liberal theologians and college professors who, for the most part, are genuinely

[1481-MILL]

302

DAVID MILLS

science-minded individuals. Proponents of the Day-Age theory reject the literal “truth” and Divine inspiration of Scripture, yet want to avoid the dreaded “A” label. To openly declare oneself an atheist is, in our society, morally offensive to most people and is therefore socially stigmatizing. Citing the Day-Age theory, these Great Pretenders make believe that Genesis actually describes an ancient Earth. The purpose of this pompous intellectual charade is to allow the Great Pretenders to “have it both ways”—imagining themselves to be both religious and scientific. In seeming anticipation and preemptive rebuttal of the Day-Age theory, however, the Book of Genesis itself provides a clear and specific definition of “day” as used in the account of Creation Week: “And the evening and the morning were the first day.”— Genesis 1:5

In case we missed the point, Genesis reiterates in verse 8 that “the evening and the morning were the second day.” Again in verse 13, “the evening and the morning were the third day.” And so forth until the seven days of Creation Week are concluded. It is interesting why Genesis describes a day as evening followed by morning, rather than morning followed by evening as we do today. The Hebrews adopted many customs and myths from their Babylonian captors. Among the plagiarized myths were Creation Story (i.e., the Babylonian “Adam and Eve”) and the Epic of Gilgamesh (i.e., the Babylonian “Noah”). Among the adopted customs was the tradition that each day began, not at sunrise, but at sunset, and lasted until sunset the following day. Thus the Hebrews emulated the Babylonian custom that “the evening and the morning” were a day. I suppose that non-literalists could argue that, in the Creation Story, “evening” doesn’t literally mean “evening,” and “morning” doesn’t literally mean “morning.” But if the Bible is all metaphorical, how then does it differ from Aesop’s Fables or Grimm’s Fairy Tales? If the


303

Bible’s literal truths are scant, how then does Scripture differ from The National Enquirer, which, like the Bible, is a collection of supernatural claims, half-truths, and unscientific nonsense? Why was the Day-Age theory proposed only after scientists discovered independently the ancient history of our planet? Why was no Day-Age theory articulated during the early years of Christianity or during the Middle Ages? Isn’t it disingenuous to now claim that Genesis always portrayed an ancient Earth? If the Bible’s alleged depiction of an ancient Earth can be correctly interpreted only after modern science arrives at the same conclusion, isn’t the Bible useless as a scientific guide? Should scientists now undertake a detailed study of the Bible to learn the mass-density of black holes, or perhaps to reveal the energy source powering distant quasars? For when, after years of painstaking work, scientists resolve these cosmic puzzles, creationists will doubtlessly cite metaphors of Scripture to prove that the scientific answers were to be found in the Bible all along.

*** A few pages back, we asked the question: “Can Genesis be reconciled with modern science?” What possible answers, now, may we summarize? The overwhelming majority of American people envision themselves as both scientific in attitude and religious in nature. Such a dual and contradictory self-perception is derived from one of two psychological ploys: (1) For those who interpret the Bible literally, the findings of science are wholly dismissed or absurdly distorted. (2) For those who recognize the empirical discoveries of modern science, the Bible is conveniently ignored or painfully reinterpreted in a manner contrary to Christianity’s historical interpretation. This latter group is extremely reluctant to overtly renounce all religious belief because of social ostracism and because of the alleged inextricable link between religion and moral virtue. A person without religious belief is perceived in our culture as bankrupt in character.

[1481-MILL]

304

DAVID MILLS

Recalling the principle of Ockham’s Razor—i.e., that the simplest explanation is usually the most accurate—we must conclude that the Bible is simply wrong about Earth’s age and about human origins. Any other conclusion requires either: (1) the postulation of tortuous ad hoc “reasoning” (to allegedly discredit the findings of modern science), or (2) the postulation of wildly-far-fetched rationalizations (to allegedly reestablish the Bible’s scientific credibility through last-minute reinterpretation). Perhaps it is time for citizens of the Scientific Age to grow up, to swallow hard, and to forgo the religious superstitions of their childhood. It’s time, moreover, for Americans to forgo the bigoted notion that ethical behavior flows only from religious belief. Such religious bigotry—ubiquitous but indiscernible to the God-fearing majority—is no less vulgar than asserting that only Caucasians are ethical, or that only males possess the strength of character to be President of the United States. In the end, much religious belief is sustained by tarring the non-believer as a literal demon.

*** If the Bible is unequivocally wrong about a 6000-year-old Earth, why then would the Hebrew authors of Scripture assert that our planet is so young? When the authors of Scripture attempted to reconstruct Earth’s history and origins, their only source of knowledge was a chain of written history dating back to the Sumerian Civilization. The Sumerians were the first to invent writing—cuneiform—approximately 4000 BC or shortly thereafter. Before 4000 BC, all written history ceases. Instead of recognizing, as we do today, that writing was invented around 4000 BC, the Hebrews apparently concluded that Earth and mankind were “invented” at that time, since written history fell abruptly silent before that period. The Hebrew and Babylonian civilizations—out of which the Old Testament arose—were literate cultures, advanced for their


305

time. But the authors of Scripture lived millennia before the Era of Enlightenment and, through no fault of their own, knew nothing of geology, paleontology, or biology. Even such scientific geniuses as Johannes Kepler, Copernicus, Galileo, and Isaac Newton—who lived two-thousand years after the Old Testament was written— knew nothing of Earth’s ancient history, nor even of the past existence of dinosaurs, which were not discovered and understood until the early 1800’s. The Bible, therefore, could not, and did not, transcend the unscientific barriers imposed by the unenlightened era in which it was written. The Bible, in other words, was all-too-human in origin.

*** Throughout this chapter, I sought to address specific issues related to the conflict between science and religion. In closing, let me outline a few general observations about the philosophical differences separating religion from science: 1. Any religion worthy of the name must, by definition, include some form of belief in the supernatural (e.g., gods, devils, holy ghosts, angels, heaven, hell). Science, however, addresses only naturally-occurring phenomena and thus, by definition, excludes consideration of the supernatural. 2. Religion derives its belief system from “Divine Revelation” and from “inner conviction.” Science, by contrast, derives its laws from real-world experimentation and through mathematical and logical reasoning. 3. The religious adherent believes that “all things are possible to them that love God.” If asked whether Jesus could throw a rock faster than the speed of light, the religious believer would unhesitatingly say “yes.” Science, however, establishes laws restricting Nature’s behavior. Science says, for example, that Jesus could not throw a rock faster than light. 4. Because religious doctrines are supposedly ordained of God,

[1481-MILL]

306

DAVID MILLS

the religious adherent cannot easily question the teachings of his chosen church, even when those teachings are provably false. The scientist, on the other hand, is most rewarded when he proves the conventional wisdom wrong and revolutionizes our understanding of the universe. 5. The religious individual strives to behave “morally” in order to please God and to gain heavenly reward. The science-minded individual derives his ethical system from the real-world consequences of his actions upon others and upon himself. 6. The religious individual tends to hold his beliefs rigidly, fanatically, and with a closed mind—never seriously questioning the accuracy of his Church’s teachings. The scientist, however, is eagerly and open-mindedly searching for new theories and for evidence to topple old theories.

Notes on Chapter 14 1. James Ussher (1581-1656), an archbishop of the Church of Ireland, is generally credited with publishing the first and most authoritative “proof ” of the specific year of Creation. Although Ussher’s precise date of Creation was not published until the 1650’s, the Church had always believed that Earth was only a few-thousand years-old. 2. Page 156 of the soft-cover edition. 3. See Science and Creationism. New York: Oxford University Press, 1984. 4. Page 164 of The Creation-Evolution Controversy. 5. Eric Hoffer wrote in The True Believer that the opposite of the fundamentalist Christian is not the fundamentalist atheist. The opposite of both the fundamentalist Christian and the fundamentalist atheist is someone who is disinterested in questions of theology. I agree with Hoffer’s observation. 6. Page 117 of Lectures in Systematic Theology.


307

7. After a song by the Platters. 8. For a detailed and chilling historical account of Christian witch-burning, read Carl Sagan’s superb book The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark.

[1481-MILL]

CHAPTER 15 “Miracles” of Personal Experience If you have read, even casually, the six preceding chapters of this book, then you have become somewhat of an expert on the arguments for, and against, the Bible’s reliability and Divine inspiration. You are therefore better informed than most Christians on these issues of science and theology. You are also more knowledgeable than 90 percent of the professional clergy in America, who know a lot about preaching the Gospel, but little about proving the Gospel. The unadorned fact is that most religious believers are not particularly interested in technical discussions about evolution or cosmology, because their religious faith is not rooted in such esoteric minutia. For the average Christian, his faith is adequately confirmed by what he observes in daily life—by “miracles of personal experience.” Foremost among these daily “miracles” is the “comforting presence of the Holy Ghost.” Christians claim that external or scientific proof of God’s existence is for them unnecessary, because the Holy Ghost bears witness in their hearts that He is real and that the Bible is God’s Word. Christians pity the “fools” and “lost souls” who reject religious dogma, because these skeptics fail to appreciate and to experience for themselves the self-evident proof that God provides through His “Inner Comforter.” Christians claim that the Holy Ghost may instill either serenity or disquiet within an individual’s emotional constitution. If a Christian believes that he is pleasing the Lord and striving to obey


309

God’s commandments, then the Holy Ghost brings peace to his heart and strength to his soul. If, instead, a person believes that he is straying outside God’s will and is thus displeasing God, then the Holy Ghost “convicts him of his sins” and troubles his conscience in an effort to motivate repentance. So whether soothed or distressed by their religious beliefs, Christian Fundamentalists view their own emotions as miraculous confirmation of God’s imminent presence. In reality, emotions derived from religious belief prove only that Christians do hold certain beliefs—intense beliefs to which they generate intense emotional responses. The more deeply held the beliefs, the more deeply felt are the resulting emotions. Religion-inspired emotions do not prove, however, that the religious beliefs themselves are true. Take, for example, a friend of mine who received a telephone call one evening from the State Lottery Commission. She learned that her entry had been selected at random from the drawing barrel and that she had won a spot on the televised final guaranteeing $2,500, with potential winnings of up to $50,000! Needless to say, my friend was elated, telephoning everyone in the neighborhood about her unexpected good fortune. Her emotions were intense because her beliefs were intense: she was going to be on TV and might even win a small fortune! Sadly, though, my friend’s feelings of euphoria proved nothing about good fortune because, as she soon learned, the phone call from the Lottery Commission had been a tasteless hoax, perpetrated by a bored teenager. My friend had not been selected for the TV finals; she had won nothing. Her initial feelings of euphoria, therefore, proved only that she believed she had won. Even though intense and overwhelming, her internal emotions proved literally nothing about external reality. If my friend had concluded that her emotions proved that she was a lottery winner, then she would have been wrong. Christians fall victim to this identical error of logic when they perceive their own emotions to be proof of God’s existence. Emotions derived from religious belief prove merely that individuals

[0000-XXXX]

310

DAVID MILLS

do hold their beliefs religiously. However dramatic, comforting or disturbing they may be, our religion-inspired emotions do not prove that the doctrines of the religion are true, any more than my friend’s euphoria proved that she was a lottery winner. Nonetheless, most Christians egoistically imagine that their own inner feelings are somehow more authentic and more God-inspired than are the feelings of people who hold different religious beliefs. Meanwhile, adherents of these other religions similarly maintain that their inner feelings prove their religious beliefs to be true. And who is right? A skeptic once observed that “In Holy War, God is always on the side of the biggest battalion.”

Selective Observation Religious followers generally find it irksome to confess that their belief in God is rooted principally in raw emotion and blind faith. Finding God through the rumblings of your own gut doesn’t sound too scientific, even to the Fundamentalists. Publicly at least, believers often maintain the facade that their faith is confirmed by external proof—i.e., evidence apart from their Holy-Ghost-instilled emotions. Many believers, these days, consider themselves too sophisticated even to use the term “Holy Ghost,” preferring instead “Holy Spirit,” which to them sounds more dignified and less subject to ridicule from those who cynically question the existence of ghosts. 1 Aside from feeling God’s presence, the most common “miracle of personal experience” is having one’s prayers answered by God, or otherwise witnessing God’s direct intervention into the natural course of human events. For example, church congregations often pray for the swift recovery of a sick or hospitalized individual. If this bedfast individual later recuperates, the church boastfully attributes his recovery to their miracle-working God. If, instead, the afflicted person dies, this sad outcome is literally never counted as evidence against God’s existence or against God’s ability to answer prayer. The disappointment is stoically accepted as “God’s will” or


311

as a purely natural event irrelevant to theological debate. “It was simply his time to go.” In other words, believers create the illusion of answered prayer by systematically employing the fallacy known as “Selective Observation,” a perceptual error also referred to as “Counting the hits and ignoring the misses.” To illustrate, let’s suppose that for two decades, the tobacco industry sponsors fifty different studies to determine whether smoking is actually harmful to your health. Forty-seven of these studies, let’s assume, reveal a link between smoking and lung cancer. The remaining three studies, however, find no such correlation. The tobacco industry then issues a press release boasting that three valid scientific studies have determined that smoking does not cause lung cancer as was previously believed. Such a press release might be perfectly accurate in its characterization of the three studies cited. But by hand-picking the results that support their position, and by deliberately weeding out and suppressing contrary evidence, the tobacco industry is guilty of “counting the hits and ignoring the misses.” The important point to remember here is that any conclusion drawn from these prejudicially chosen premises is wholly meaningless, such as the conclusion that smoking is harmless to your health or the conviction that God has healed a sick person. If there are plenty of contrary case histories, then we cannot legitimately propose causal links only where it suits our purpose. Even from my own life, I can cite similar examples of biased or selective observation. In 1993 my father suffered a heart attack, went into a coma, and spent two months in the intensive care unit. No one, including me, thought he would survive. His liver, lungs, and kidneys all stopped functioning, and he was kept alive— barely—through artificial life support. Dad then startled everyone by making a sudden and complete recovery! Many people told me that they had been praying for Dad and that God had miraculously healed him. Whatever the reason, I was delighted that Dad came home alive and well. The very next month, my energetic, always-optimistic mother

[1481-MILL]

312

DAVID MILLS

checked into the hospital for a relatively minor, long-postponed knee reparation. Shortly after the routine procedure, Mom unexpectedly dropped dead in her hospital room—cause a mystery. Nobody said to me then that Mom’s unforeseen death proved that God was a myth. Yet everyone had said to me, only weeks before, that Dad’s unforeseen recovery proved that God was a reality. Why? Because God is presumed to be “good” and is therefore given credit for statistically-unlikely positive occurrences, such as Dad’s recovery. But statistically-unlikely negative events, such as Mom’s death, are brushed aside as bad luck or as incompetence on the part of the hospital staff. Again, if the premises of your theological argument are chosen in a biased or ad hoc manner, then the conclusions you draw are meaningless. Moreover, in order to protect themselves from malpractice lawsuits, doctors frequently lowball the stated odds of a patient’s recovery from a serious operation or illness. The patient (and his next of kin) are then less inclined to blame the doctor if tragedy does strike. After all, “the odds were against him all along.” If, on the other hand, the patient recuperates successfully, he will appear to have “beaten the odds.” The doctor will then be a hero for having presided over a “medical miracle.” I personally know of several individuals alive today who were given a “1 percent chance of survival”! During John Glenn’s second trip into space—aboard the Space Shuttle—he looked down at the Earth and said that the beauty he witnessed proved God’s existence. “There must truly be a Creator,” said Glenn, as he gazed out the window at the blue, cloud-covered planet below. At that time, many Christians sent email to me quoting Glenn’s words affirming God’s governance of Nature. “Isn’t John Glenn an intelligent man of science?” asked one Christian. “I hope you see now that everyone who believes in God is not some kind of wimpish moron.” The writer of that email was indisputably correct: John Glenn is certainly no coward or halfwit. And, clearly, there are millions of other highly intelligent, competent, talented, courageous and admirable


313

people who, like Glenn, believe in God. Let’s make no mistake about that. And, for the most part, the evidence cited by these believers is real, rather than imagined. The Earth is remarkably beautiful from space. Nature does show a degree of underlying order. But I also recall vividly that, at the very moment Glenn uttered his oft-repeated words about a Creator, the Shuttle was flying over Central America, where Hurricane Mitch had just destroyed the infrastructures of five entire nations. Thousands of people had just been killed and hundreds of thousands left homeless. Government officials calculated that it would take 30 years to rebuild. But none of my Christian email correspondents said a thing to me about the carnage and catastrophic damage wrought by the storm, which was raging only two-hundred miles beneath Glenn and the Shuttle. I hesitate to emphasize the negative. But, here again, Glenn’s “vision of God” was based on selective observation. If Glenn’s family had just been wiped out by the storm, I doubt that he would have voiced such an idyllic view of Mother Nature. So whenever Christians point out to me that many intelligent people believe in God, I agree wholeheartedly. But I, in turn, point out that the empirical observations made by these intelligent individuals, though usually accurate, are frequently selectively employed. The fact is that Nature displays some degree of beauty and organization. But all-too-often, Nature also mindlessly slaughters scores of perfectly innocent men, women and children through natural disasters: hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, floods, drought, lightning, fires, starvation and epidemic disease. Nature is obviously a mixture of order and disorder, the appealing and the loathsome, the purposeful and the arbitrary. Such an undeniably mixed bag would lead an objective observer to conclude that Nature is governed neither by benevolent gods nor by evil demons. Nature simply exists and, irrespective of our desires or best interests, operates through natural law, rather than through mystical or purposeful legerdemain. For every person “miraculously” healed against the odds, there is another who, against the odds, died a premature and

[1481-MILL]

314

DAVID MILLS

meaningless death. For every magnificent sunset to behold, there is another child stricken with leukemia. For every breathtaking night sky filled with radiant stars, an unexpected heart attack turns a happy wife into a grieving widow. The universe in which we live is located equidistant between absolute order and absolute chaos—a neutral position which we should expect from a universe impervious to our wishes.2 In criticizing the fallacy of selective observation, I find myself in the peculiar position of criticizing individuals who consistently emphasize the positive! As a character trait, it is highly desirable if we focus only on the positive aspects of our planet and the universe in which we live. Nobody likes negative people, always pointing out what’s wrong with everything. I like to think that I myself am ordinarily quite optimistic in attitude. Nonetheless, the scientific method demands that we include all relevant observations— not just the agreeable ones—when constructing our logical arguments for, and against, God’s existence. Moreover, the scientific method obligates us to discern whether positive occurrences are truly miraculous or whether less extravagant explanations may adequately suffice. A true miracle is, by definition, impossible through natural means—or at least highly improbable. The chances are always greater therefore that the report of the miracle is mistaken in its account of what actually occurred or why it occurred. For example, if I read a tabloid headline claiming that John Kennedy has risen from the dead, then I must assess which probability is greater: (1) that John Kennedy truly rose from the grave, or (2) that the story of his resurrection is inaccurate. Virtually everyone would conclude immediately that the latter alternative is by far the more probable: that the story is false. Suppose that I were standing near Kennedy’s grave at Arlington National Cemetery, and the ground suddenly opened up revealing a coffin. I see the casket opening; and a man who looks


315

exactly like John Kennedy sits up and walks away. Even under these bizarre circumstances, it is still more probable that: (a) I am misperceiving what is occurring, or (b) that someone is playing an ingenious trick, or (c) that I am witnessing the filming of a movie, or (d) that I am dreaming, or (e) that the man I saw was not actually John Kennedy, or (f ) that someone has slipped me an hallucinogenic drug, or (g) that I have fallen victim to psychosis, or (h) that I am completely fabricating this story. Any of these explanations is infinitely more plausible than the assertion that John Kennedy genuinely rose from the dead. These explanations are more plausible even when I claim to be an eyewitness to the event. Whenever miraculous tales are secondhand or, like Scripture, are handed down from generation to generation, the veracity of the original stories is forever untestable and is thus unworthy of serious consideration. A naturalistic explanation—however farfetched it seems—is invariably more likely to be accurate than a supernatural explanation. Not only do we create “miracles” through our selective and inconsistent employment of biased premises, but our very definition of “miracle” is itself evidence of our irrational prejudices. For we reserve our use of the term “miracle” to describe only those events that we personally consider positive. If, for instance, you alone were seriously injured by a one-in-a-million freak accident, then you would be less inclined to label your experience as “miraculous” than if you walked away unscathed from a 70mph head-on collision. If we like the outcome, it’s much easier to see the event as a miracle, even though our personal desires are, objectively speaking, irrelevant in determining whether the causal factors were natural or supernatural. We are therefore highly biased in favor of seeing miracles. Moreover, the “miraculous” event, even though positive, will lose its holy luster if the event is perceived to conflict with “God’s will” or with the Ten Commandments. When I was a teenager, for example, I

[1481-MILL]

316

DAVID MILLS

frequently rode my bicycle around the neighborhood. One evening, I rode past the home of a girl with whom I went to high school. All of the boys at school, including me, thought that this girl was exceptionally attractive. As I peddled past, I glanced over for a split second at the girl’s house. And at that precise instant, she walked by her bedroom window topless, wearing only her panties! As you might imagine, I, as a teenage boy, regarded this event as more historically significant than World War II and the Moon Landing put together! I couldn’t believe my incredible good luck! “What were the odds,” I kept asking myself, “that I would glance in her window at the exact moment that she scurried past topless?” My titillating peek defied all laws of probability. As I peddled back home, I said aloud “There must be a God. There must be a God.” When I boasted to the boys at school about my delightful voyeuristic experience, few of them believed me. It all sounded so unlikely and just “too good to be true.” I’m willing to bet that, under absolutely no circumstances, would the Vatican ever declare my cheap, teenage thrill to be an officially recognized miracle of the Catholic Church. No religious pilgrims will ever retrace my bicycle journey in hope of being blessed by the same miraculous vision that I beheld years earlier. Even though my prurient glimpse, like a miracle, was highly unlikely statistically and, like a miracle, was quite positive (in my opinion), no religious leader would consider the event miraculous because God is allegedly opposed to ogling our neighbors’ breasts. In other words, our perception of what is, and what is not, a Divine “miracle” is prejudicially determined by what we already believe about God’s nature. Witnessing “miracles” therefore does not evoke belief in God. Rather, belief in God evokes the witnessing of “miracles.”

Miracles and the Media As the 21st century begins, it seems that the individuals most inclined to see miracles are, not necessarily religious adherents, but members of the news media. Almost every day, television network


317

news and local newspapers run stories about people who “miraculously” survived a gruesome accident, illness, or natural disaster. Regardless of how many innocent people were killed senselessly, the calamity is invariably twisted into a tale of Divine benevolence. I have dubbed this media tendency The Rule of Inverse Entropy, because natural disasters which least attest an “orderly universe” are portrayed as the greatest evidence of God’s existence. The more tragic the event—and the higher the body count—the more inclined are the media to feature “Miracle Survivors” on the six o’clock news. Let’s say that a powerful tornado rips through a mobile home park in Iowa. If no one is killed by the storm, then the news headline will be “All Residents Miraculously Survive Tornado.” Witnesses will say that “God wrapped His protective arms around our Christian community.” But since everyone survived the twister, townspeople may reason that “the storm wasn’t all that bad.” If a few residents are killed, the tornado is then appropriately viewed as having been quite ominous. The majority who survived the ordeal will believe thereafter that only through supernatural intervention could their lives have been spared throughout the deadly storm. Some will claim to have seen “angels of mercy” shielding their homes and families from destruction. If, by contrast, the tornado kills most of the residents of the mobile home park, then the news media focus intently on the few “Miracle Survivors” and rhetorically ask “Why were these few spared when so many others died?” The implication, of course, is that God (for reasons unknown) chose to save these few, while the majority perished. If, in particular, there is only one survivor of the storm—or of an airplane crash—then the news media reverentially characterize this lone individual as the veritable personification of the miraculous. His or her photo will be published worldwide, along with a tear-jerking story of “God’s Deliverance.” So regardless of how many—or how few—die in the incident, God has always performed a miracle. The more deadly the disaster,

[1481-MILL]

318

DAVID MILLS

the more credit God is given for sparing the survivors. When, however, everyone dies in a catastrophe, such as a Jumbo Jet crash, the newspaper headline never reads “Jehovah Out to Lunch During Doomed Flight.” The accident is realistically seen as having occurred for natural or manmade reasons. Because of our tendency toward selective observation, the dead multitudes are never counted as evidence of disorder; whereas the few survivors are seen as evidence of an orderly, miracle-working God. We “count the hits, but ignore the misses.” It never seems to occur to anyone that a God powerful enough to miraculously deliver the survivors could just as easily have forestalled the disaster altogether and spared the innocent victims. Actually, many people do think of this obvious point, but never say so out loud because such a statement is considered blasphemous. Little credit is ever given to courageous rescue workers or to highly-trained doctors performing emergency surgery on disaster victims. It was God—the Christian God, of course—Who saved the survivors. Zeus and Allah are continually being shortchanged in the American media. Surely Allah and Zeus perform their share of miraculous rescues and healings from time to time. Yet the local Christian God always steals the headlines! Whenever disaster strikes—be it a tornado, hurricane, earthquake or airline accident—scientists often face extreme difficulty in tracking down and retracing the chain of causation leading to the event. Despite their sophisticated equipment for making predictions, meteorologists and seismologists are sometimes completely baffled when killer storms or earthquakes strike without warning. Even when commercial airliners are equipped with flight-data recorders—specifically designed to reveal the cause of any accident— skilled investigators often struggle for months or years to ascertain the details of why the plane actually crashed. Occasionally, the cause is never isolated.


319

If scientists face such an uphill battle in determining why a disaster occurred, then we should not be surprised that investigators usually find it impossible to specify individually why Disaster Victims A, B and C died, while Victims D, E and F survived. The physics involved in such a determination are so unimaginably complex that no supercomputer in operation today could perform the necessary calculations. Moreover, how could scientists possibly record the billions of pieces of relevant data upon which to perform these calculations? Few disasters occur within a controlled, laboratory setting. In plain English, we usually don’t know why specific individuals live or die in disasters. We know that Christians are no more likely to survive than non-Christians; and the virtuous are just as likely to perish as the corrupt. In a very general sense, we may speculate that the survivors suffered less of a physical impact during the crash or the storm than did the deceased; but this explanation is not particularly satisfying. There remain significant gaps in our cause-effect understanding of the event. Thus, we end this section of the book where we began several chapters ago—with a “God of the Gaps.” For whenever human knowledge is incomplete, God is hastily recruited to fill the vacuum. We crave a deeper and more philosophical reason for someone’s death than merely that “a tree fell on her head” or that “he had a car wreck.” These appear to be such flippant and shallow excuses to account for such heart-wrenching losses. A piece of the puzzle seems to be missing. Likewise, when our circumstances are unexpectedly favorable, we seek a more substantive explanation than simply that “we were lucky” or that “we were at the right place at the right time.” That’s just too much of a coincidence to accept. We search for a “higher purpose.” But what is that “higher purpose”? The answer is ever elusive. So we invent, within our minds, a God of the Gaps to fill the void in our cause-effect understanding of a universe indifferent to human preference.

[1481-MILL]

320

DAVID MILLS

Notes on Chapter 15 1. Despite innumerable Biblical references to “the devil,” contemporary Christians likewise view themselves as too elevated to use the term publicly. “Satan” has linguistically replaced “the devil” just as “Holy Spirit” has superceded “Holy Ghost.” Do these semantic changes indicate that Fundamentalists are becoming slightly embarrassed by the content of their own Bible? 2. Our world is probably tilted slightly more toward order than disorder, both because man himself has artificially created order through shaping the landscape and because Natural Selection itself provides a built-in mechanism of preserving efficient lifeforms while eliminating the inefficient. In purely philosophical terms, however, Ayn Rand pointed out that our entire notion of “order” is derived from, and shaped by, what we observe. To claim therefore that what we observe is “orderly” is a tautological error.

CHAPTER 16 The Myth of Hell The alleged existence of God has always been a fascinating topic of debate among theologians and secularists. Churchmen say that only a supernatural Power could have brought the universe into being. These religious-minded individuals accept no scientific theory which relies solely upon a naturalistic explanation of universal origins. Creationists say that man himself is too complex an organism to have evolved from non-living, inert matter. And where, creationists ask, did this inert matter come from? Supernaturalism quickly comes under attack, however, from scientists who propose that man resulted from an evolutionary process. Presenting their position, secularists say that no evidence supports the existence of gods, devils, leprechauns, fairies, angels, elves, or anything else we label “supernatural.” Scientists remind us that recent fossil discoveries and new DNA technology provide overwhelming evidence that man did indeed evolve from a lower form of life. Finally, religious skeptics posit that senseless tragedies such as hurricanes, earthquakes, floods, starvation, drought, birth defects, and disease demonstrate that our world was not created and governed by an omnipotent, loving god. The purpose of this chapter, however, is not to debate the existence of God. We shall assume, for the purpose of discussion, that a god does exist. The goal of this chapter, rather, is to forcefully rebut the alleged existence of Hell, which millions believe that God created to punish “sin.” The question at hand, then, is

[0000-XXXX]

322

DAVID MILLS

not “Does God exist?” The question posed and, I believe, answered in this chapter is “Would God create a hell?” Common sense tells us that God would create Hell only if He had a reason to inflict this punishment. In other words, God would not have decided arbitrarily that He would enjoy torturing humans (and fallen angels) and have created a hell on that basis; for this scenario would imply that God behaved sadistically and brought this lake of fire into existence to satisfy his sick desires to perceive suffering and to hear screams of pain. We have no proof that God could not behave sadistically. But this idea, I’m sure you will agree, appears to make little sense. It makes more sense to believe that a god intelligent enough to create the universe and the life therein would not have a deranged mind—and certainly would not be so cruel as to enjoy the suffering of His creation. It seems logical to conclude, then, that a Deity would punish individuals in Hell only if He had a reason for this action. So concerning punishment in Hell, implemented by God, we have the following possibilities: (1) God had a reason to create Hell and therefore did so. (2) God had no reason to create Hell, but did so anyway—He just enjoys torturing others. (3) God had no reason to create Hell and therefore did not. We shall now attempt to differentiate punishment implemented without reason from punishment implemented for good cause. We shall first discuss various punishments with which we in American society are familiar, along with the reasons for these social penalties. We discuss these social penalties, not because they have direct relevance to the biblical doctrine of Hell, but rather to lay an analogical foundation upon which to construct our differentiation of the rational from the ridiculous. What reasons, then, motivate punishment? Why are lawbreakers sent to prison? Why are unruly students expelled from school?


323

Generally speaking, there are three main reasons why an individual may suffer punishment: (1) To establish a precedent which will benefit society, by serving as a deterrent to future offenses; (2) To separate the offender from those individuals whose rights he would violate; (3) To correct the offender for his and others’ benefit. Let’s now flesh out, briefly, each of these reasons for punishment:

Deterrence All of us strive to live as happily as possible. We work to obtain those tangibles and intangibles which we consider desirable and to rid ourselves of unnecessary burdens. Virtually everyone goes about this practice in such a way as not to interfere with the personal rights of other individuals. Unfortunately, however, some people do not exhibit such consideration for their neighbors. A very small minority of people strive for happiness in ways which seriously violate the rights of others in society. For example, someone may steal money from another individual. Because such unethical behavior is condemned by the majority, laws exist for the protection of the “general welfare.” One law states of course that stealing money shall bring forth a specific punishment. The existence of jails and prisons will hopefully deter those individuals who contemplate violating the rights of others. Society will benefit in that this deterrent potentially reduces the crime rate. Those of us over forty can remember in elementary school when the teacher pulled the paddle from her desk and said that the class-brat would surely “get it” the next time he opened his mouth. Instantly, the class-brat was transformed into a quiet young man absorbed into his schoolwork. The class-brat’s fear of a paddling usually forestalled further shenanigans. Punishing the mi-

[1481-MILL]

324

DAVID MILLS

nority who misbehaved produced an orderly class, wherein all could receive an education. To deter potential law- or rule-breakers, then, in order to make conditions better for the majority, is one reason for the use of punishment.

Separation In a society, there invariably remain a minority of people who, if allowed to roam free, would waste little time before resuming a lifestyle detrimental to other individuals. Charles Manson, for example, by ordering his followers to commit wholesale murder, has unarguably violated the rights of his fellow citizens. Authorities consider Manson an extremely dangerous threat to society in that releasing this famous butcher would almost certainly result in the murder of additional individuals. Because the majority of individuals in society have a strong desire not to be murdered, Manson has been “exiled.” Although he could not possibly kill the majority of society, any member of that society might fall victim to his angry knife if police released Manson from custody. Punishment—to accomplish separation—is also used in the public schools. Mischievous classroom behavior, destruction of school property, or physically threatening or abusing others, may lead to a student’s being suspended or expelled. The school, desiring to carry on the educational process, punishes troublemakers in this manner to eliminate their opportunity to hinder other students or to vandalize school property. Separation, then, to prevent future infringement upon the rights of others, constitutes an additional reason for punishment.

Rehabilitation Individuals found guilty of a criminal offense frequently find themselves behind bars. Society hopes that these offenders—who were not deterred from crime by the threat of punishment—will be deterred in the future by their unpleasant incarceration.


325

Moreover, many prisons attempt to rehabilitate offenders by teaching them a skill or trade. Although most penal institutions lack the necessary facilities, a few offer classes to the inmates in such fields as electronics, plumbing, and carpentry. Some correctional institutions even make psychotherapy available. Society hopes that the offenders’ learning different modes of thought and behavior will result in their refraining from criminal activity upon their future release; hence society will benefit. To correct or rehabilitate offenders is therefore a reason for punishment. These, then, comprise the three possible reasons why an individual may be punished. We must recognize, however, that deterrence, separation, and rehabilitation are reasons for punishment, because (and only because) they produce beneficial results. Thus, the punishment of an individual—or the promulgation of the possibility thereof (i.e., deterrence)—which produces a better social environment than the absence of punishment would produce has a reason for implementation. We must now differentiate punishment implemented for good cause from punishment enacted solely for vengeance or sadistic pleasure. Let’s read a brief, illustrative story: Mrs. Jones felt startled one afternoon by a violent knocking on her front door. She rose hurriedly to greet her unknown visitor. “What can I do for you?” said Mrs. Jones to the neighbor standing on her doorstep. She wondered what her neighbor wanted. “Forget the pleasantries,” said the neighbor. “Your son, Johnny, picked up a rock a minute ago and threw it deliberately through my livingroom window. I saw him with my own eyes!”

Mrs. Jones apologized profusely for her son’s destructive behavior

[1481-MILL]

326

DAVID MILLS

and promised to pay for a new window. Mrs. Jones also told her neighbor that Johnny will be punished when he returns home. Now, here’s a question for you: What reason would motivate Johnny’s punishment? Which of the following two statements presents that reason? (1) Johnny will be punished because he deliberately broke the neighbor’s window. (2) Johnny will be punished to hopefully deter him from repeating destructive behavior in the future. Number 2, which presents the beneficial end of the punishment, presents the reason: Johnny will be deterred from repeating destructive behavior. Number 1 merely states the fact that Johnny broke the window. Number 1 does not, however, present a reason (i.e., purpose or motivation) for the punishment. To state that a broken window is the “reason” for Johnny’s punishment is to state that we can go backward in time and prevent the window from being broken, or that we can somehow repair the window by spanking Johnny. But will spanking Johnny accomplish these goals? Obviously not. While it is clearly possible to change the direction of future events— in that punishment may deter Johnny from repeating destructive actions—punishing Johnny cannot and will not change the fact that he broke a window in the past. The important point to remember here is that “teaching Johnny a lesson” is indeed a justifiable reason for punishment. But hot-headed revenge—directed only at unalterable past events—is not, in itself, a justifiable reason for punishment, because nothing beneficial is thereby achieved.

*** The Christian Church, whether Protestant or Catholic, preaches that God had reason to punish “sinful souls” and “fallen angels”


327

and, consequently, created Hell for that purpose. We shall now explore the logic, credibility, and morality of this teaching:

Deterrence Because the beneficial end of creating a deterrent is to prevent undesirable, antisocial acts, and because these acts have to be undesirable to someone (or to some group) in order for deterrence to have value, we can divide this section into two possibilities: (1) Hell, created as a deterrent to antisocial sin,1 for the benefit of humanity; (2) Hell, created as a deterrent to sin, for the benefit of God. The first question at hand, then, reads as follows: Did God create Hell to benefit humanity, by using the threat of punishment therein as a deterrent to sin? To investigate the hypothetical creation of Hell—to allegedly benefit humanity—we must attain a good understanding of what the Christian Church preaches about humanity: the Church proclaims that the majority of human beings on Earth will suffer punishment after death in Hell’s lake of fire. When asked for evidence to support their doctrine, Church leaders refer primarily to Matthew 7:13,14— “Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: “Because strait is the gate and narrow is the way, which leadeth into life, and few there be that find it.”2

The Christian Church wholeheartedly believes this “Divine” biblical prophecy, which announces that the majority of humanity will follow the wrong road in life and will, as a result, end up in Hell instead of Heaven. We cannot possibly, then, accept the hypothesis that Hell’s creation could have sought to benefit humanity; for a God—in His infinite wisdom—would have known in

[1481-MILL]

328

DAVID MILLS

advance that the majority of humanity would fall victim to the gruesome torture chamber supposedly created for humanity’s own benefit! If we assume that a prevailing fear of Hell would benefit humanity by operating as a deterrent to crime or “sin,” then we face the question: Would the good attained from the deterrent outweigh the price of going to Hell forever? The answer: an obvious no. As an analogy, let’s suppose that someone invites you to dinner at the finest restaurant in town. He promises to pick you up in his limousine, wine you and dine you at his expense, and return you home. But in exchange for his generosity, this man insists upon satisfying his pyromaniacal desires to burn down your home. Your choice: (A) accept the dinner invitation and, as a consequence, see your home incinerated; or (B) decline the invitation in order to save your home from destruction. Literally everyone would decline the dinner invitation, to avoid suffering a tremendous loss (i.e., your home). If, however, you selectively viewed only the fact that this individual offered you a lavish dinner, then you could say that an acceptance of his invitation would be beneficial. But viewing the entire situation, you would have to conclude that accepting the invitation would not be beneficial overall, because the loss (i.e., your home) would far overshadow the gain (i.e., a free meal). Humanity, as in our analogy, would of course prefer (B) forfeiting the deterrence of antisocial sin, over (A) receiving the deterrence of antisocial sin and receiving the accompanying, subsequent torture in Hell’s fiery dungeon. Should the torture in Hell feel even modestly uncomfortable, it would, because of its duration throughout eternity, negate even the greatest of good that it would allegedly bring (as a deterrent to antisocial sin) in the comparatively short period of time that it could serve humanity in this capacity. In simple terms, the good of having a hell would be overshadowed by the bad. Hell’s creation would therefore be a net loss for humanity. There is additional evidence that Hell’s creation was not to


329

benefit humanity by means of deterring antisocial sin. First, hell-fearing people often abstain from many enjoyable activities condemned by their church, but condoned by their society. Unfortunately, these religiously-tormented individuals have been frightened into foregoing many pleasurable activities which would infringe upon the rights of no one. Such self-imposed masochism is not beneficial. Second, even when a religious-minded individual does “risk” one of these “unholy” acts, such as premarital sex, he frequently believes that he will be roasted eternally for his “sin.” He therefore suffers needless and “unbeneficial” guilt and anxiety. Third, God, because of His omniscience, would have known in advance that humanity would establish its own penal system as a deterrent to behavior which does infringe upon the rights of others. Fourth, God would also have recognized that many individuals would not believe in Hell at all, and thus would in no way be deterred from sin by the threat of eternal damnation. So to the question: “Did God create Hell to benefit humanity, by using the threat of punishment therein as a deterrent to sin?” we must answer: No. At this point, another question comes to mind: Did God create Hell to benefit humanity, not necessarily by deterring crime or sin, but by motivating humanity to repent and be saved by Jesus? In addressing this question, we must recall that the essential purpose and result of an individual’s repentance is to escape Hell and go to Heaven. Because no one could burn in Hell if it had never been created in the first place, and because more of humanity will supposedly fall victim to Hell’s inferno than will repent because of Hell’s existence, we must conclude that Hell’s purpose was not to benefit humanity. Therefore, we must answer No to the question. If the creation of Hell would not benefit humans, could its creation have sought to benefit God, through causing humans, out

[1481-MILL]

330

DAVID MILLS

of fear, to abstain from activities which He found objectionable? In other words, was God literally trying to scare the hell out of people to pressure them into worshiping Him? Accepting this hypothesis as an accurate portrayal of God’s nature would, in my view, constitute a highly blasphemous assertion, in that this scenario would imply that God behaved far more fiendishly than Stalin or Hitler at the height of their World War II atrocities. For Stalin and Hitler had certain goals which they wanted to achieve also. In order to get what they wanted, Stalin and Hitler likewise thought that it was necessary to torture and kill millions of people. As the men in charge of their nations, Stalin and Hitler likewise held in their power the choice of either torturing and killing human beings or simply leaving them alone. Stalin and Hitler likewise chose to take cruel and barbaric action because their desires to behave humanely were likewise overshadowed and subordinated to their own selfish agendas. Just as Stalin and Hitler had the choice to kill, or not to kill, citizens of their own and neighboring countries, God, if existent, would have the choice to transport, or not to transport, literally billions of individuals to Hell. History justifiably regards Stalin and Hitler as evil and sadistic madmen because of their inhumane tyranny against nations and peoples who allegedly stood in the way of their goals. If we conclude, then, that God would create Hell to deter human behavior which He disliked—knowing beforehand that the majority of humanity would, as a result, suffer eternal torture—then we would be forced to label this god as evil and sadistic also, because He likewise would have inhumanely tortured individuals in order to accomplish His goals. Needless to say, devout churchgoers are morally outraged by this unflattering characterization of their “loving God.” They invariably retort that God gave each person a “free will”3 to decide his own eternal destiny by accepting or rejecting Jesus as Savior. Church leaders invalidate their own argument, however, by simultaneously asserting that God is omniscient: He possesses total knowledge of the past, present, and future. Thus, the fact—that


331

the majority of humanity would “forsake Jesus” (and would therefore suffer an eternal roasting)—was recognized by God before He chose to create Hell, before He chose to create man, before He chose to give man an eternal soul, before He chose to make the eternal destinies of human souls contingent upon “accepting Jesus,” and before He chose to create a devil to deceive man into forsaking Jesus! Stated otherwise: if God is truly omniscient, as Christians believe, then He would have foreseen that His “Master Plan” would be disastrous for humanity. Yet, according to biblical doctrine, He crafted His plan of contingent salvation, so that billions of individuals, whom He brought into existence, would be consigned to an eternal chamber of torture. He, therefore, would bear direct responsibility for any suffering brought upon humanity. The Christian Church maintains that “Jesus is God,” the loving and benevolent Savior, Who died on the cross to save mankind from eternal torment. But who, may I ask, is threatening to impose this eternal torment? The answer, of course, is the very same God! So Jesus, in effect, became a victim of His own judgment when dying on the cross as a substitutionary sacrifice—a blood ritual which Jesus offered to Himself so that He could forgive “sin.” The entire biblical plan of salvation is therefore a bogus tautology (i.e., a needless redundancy). A truly benevolent and omnipotent God could simply let bygones be bygones and forgive “sinners” even though they adopted mistaken religious beliefs. If this universal and unconditional forgiveness is impossible for God to bestow, then He is not omnipotent; He is controlled and tossed about by circumstances superceding His authority. If He could forgive all “sinners” unconditionally, but refused, then He is not benevolent. Suppose, by analogy, that a stranger pulls a gun on you and says, “Your money or your life.” You refuse to surrender your money, and the robber kills you. Do you believe that a jury would acquit the gunman because he had offered you a “free choice”? Would this gunman deserve praise and worship if, after putting a gun to your head, he decided to spare your life? No, because he was merely removing the threat that he himself had imposed upon you

[1481-MILL]

332

DAVID MILLS

unasked and unwanted. Yet the biblical God is viewed as “merciful” because He “saves” a minority of human beings from His own hideous tortures, imposed upon humanity unasked and unwanted. “But,” Christians respond, “without the shedding of blood, there can be no forgiveness of sin. And God asks only that we accept the blood sacrifice that Jesus offered for us on the cross.” And who, may I ask, established this rule that “without the shedding of blood, there can be no forgiveness of sin”? The answer, again, is “God.” If truly omnipotent, God could have proclaimed that “without the drinking of apple cider, there can be no forgiveness of sin,” or “without the expulsion of farts, there can be no forgiveness of sin.” God, if omnipotent, could do anything He wanted, including forgiving all “sinners” unconditionally. The fact that God supposedly demands blood before He offers forgiveness is indicative of the bestial mindset of the primitive cultures extant when the Bible was written. The biblical God was created in man’s own vengeful, bloodletting image. If my family or friends “do me wrong,” I soon forgive them and hold no long-term grudge. And I’m willing to bet that you’re equally forgiving. There is no rational purpose in fuming and fussing in childish anger or—even more childishly—seeking savage and pointless revenge. Moreover, I certainly do not demand that “blood be shed” to compensate for my friends’ or family’s “improper” conduct. Such “blood payment” is usually demanded only by Mafia bosses, rather than Beings of “infinite mercy.” Even we lowly humans find it ethically repugnant to penalize individuals for their religious beliefs, regardless of how mistaken we consider their beliefs to be. It is against the law, for example, to refuse employment or housing to a person simply because his or her religious beliefs differ from our own version of “the truth.” Surely a god of “infinite love and mercy” would be more merciful and more forgiving, rather than less merciful and less forgiving, than mere humans. Yet according to Church teaching, God Himself is the Supreme Bigot, in that He allegedly plans to gruesomely and eternally torture people if they hold divergent religious beliefs.


333

Finally, Christians argue that God is forced to torture sinners because He is so holy. Leaving aside the question of how an omnipotent god can be “forced” to do anything, and leaving aside the contradictory nature of “holy torture,” the entire notion that “God is holy” is itself philosophically empty. Labeling God as “holy” has no more meaning than labeling the Pope as a good Catholic; for each controls the definition of the concept he fulfills. The Pope, to a large extent, has the power to establish Catholic doctrine and to set forth official Catholic teaching. To label the Pope himself as a “good Catholic” is therefore practically meaningless—though the phrase may carry some substance in that a Pope may fulfill historical or traditional definitions of “good Catholic” as established by his predecessors. However, to label God Himself as “holy” is absolutely meaningless, since God presumably has absolute control over the definition of “holy.” The statement that “God is holy” is thus another example of tautological error. Yet Christians unhesitatingly cite this logical error as “justification” for God’s plan to torture billions of human beings! God and Hitler therefore share the abominable belief that it is morally permissible to torture human beings if they belong to the “wrong” religion. Let us, now, restate the original question at hand: “Could Hell’s creation have sought to benefit God, by deterring human activities which He disliked?” There appear to be two possible answers to this question: (1) Yes, if we conclude also that this Stalinistic-Hitlerian god (a) prefers fulfilling his own whims—to frighten others into a life of “purity”—over behaving humanely, (b) does not give an omnipotent damn that His creation of Hell directly caused the eternal torture of humans whom He Himself also created, (c) behaves hypocritically when warning others to “forgive and forget,” while

[1481-MILL]

334

DAVID MILLS

He Himself engages in contingent forgiveness only, and (d) acts, therefore, like a true horse’s ass! (2) No, if we conclude that God would not deliberately inflict cruel and purposeless torture.

Separation Did God create Hell to separate the “lost souls” from the “saved”? A fundamental belief of the Christian faith is that no “sinful soul” may pass through Heaven’s pearly gates. Christians believe, moreover, that individuals who reject Jesus as Savior are “sinners” in God’s sight. Christians “logically” conclude, therefore, that individuals who reject Jesus cannot be admitted to Heaven, and must instead go to Hell. The Church tells us that God doesn’t want to sentence “souls” to damnation in Hell, but, because of His perfect “holiness,” He is “forced” to keep sin out of His sinless city. If we pretend that a god does exist and that He presides over a city into which sin cannot enter, then we must recognize that two rational, non-hellish alternatives could separate the “lost souls” from the “saved.” (1) God, after a “sinner’s” death, could return the “sinner’s soul” to a state of nonexistence, as before his birth. (2) God, after a “sinner’s” death, could transport the “sinner’s soul” to a location away from Heaven, wherein he would not undergo pointless torture. Even though an omnipotent God is “forced” to block from entering Heaven those “souls” who “forsook Jesus,” either of the above alternatives would achieve this goal. Sadistic and barbaric torture is not required to separate the “lost souls” from the “saved.” Let’s say, by analogy, that you are sitting at home, talking with some friends about the gift you bought your 5-year-old son for his upcoming birthday. In the midst of your conversation, your son walks


335

into the room. Since you obviously don’t want your son to hear the topic of discussion, you courteously ask your daughter, who is older, to play with her brother elsewhere. Perhaps your daughter and son could go to another part of the house to watch television, or maybe next door to visit a friend. It would be an overreaction indeed for your daughter, in attempting to separate her brother from the conversation, to take him behind the house and throw him into the barrel in which the trash is burning! The Church’s “separation” argument is no better—logically or ethically—than this ghastly illustration. So to the question: “Did God create Hell to separate the ‘lost souls’ from the ‘saved?’” we must reply “No” because this goal could have been achieved through more humane alternatives.

Rehabilitation Did God create Hell to rehabilitate those individuals who, during their lives, failed to obey biblical commandments? The idea that Hell’s purpose is to rehabilitate “sinners” may be dismissed immediately, because the Church tells us that Hell’s tortures continue forever. No one is ever paroled. Even if we assume humorously that Hell does transform “sinners” into “saints,” this torture chamber would still serve no beneficial purpose, since the rehabilitated sinners would never return to society to benefit from their correction. Nor, obviously, would society itself benefit— nor would any other conceivable natural or supernatural entity benefit—from the eternal, hard-boiled roasting of human beings.

*** To summarize this chapter: We have proposed that punishment has a reason for implementation only when it produces some kind of real or potential benefit for someone or for some larger group. Otherwise, the use of punishment degenerates into primitive and pointless revenge,

[1481-MILL]

336

DAVID MILLS

whose sole and sadistic purpose is to inflict human suffering. Moreover, we have speculated what reason, if any, might have motivated God to create a hell. We have discovered no such reason. In fairness, however, we should emphasize that the Christian Church never claimed that Hell was created for rehabilitation of “souls.” And although Christian theologians do occasionally ponder whether “deterrence of sin” and “segregation of souls” were partial motivations for God to create Hell, these (flawed) arguments are never offered as the sole or primary reason for Hell’s existence. What, then, is the reason offered by the Church for punishment in Hell? Historically, the Christian Church, whether Catholic or Protestant, has consistently maintained that human beings are punished in Hell “because they lived in sin and rejected Jesus as their Savior.” Did you notice the words “lived” and “rejected”? They refer, as you can clearly see, to the past tense. In other words, this fiery punishment is directed, even according to the Church, exclusively at the offenders’ past, and is not intended to have future beneficial effects. Punishment in Hell is therefore an end in itself, admittedly implemented for no beneficial purpose. To put it simply, when Christianity’s defenders say that God punishes “sinners” in Hell “because they lived in sin and rejected Jesus,” these defenders of the faith are saying nothing. Their arguments do not present a good reason for Hell’s existence. Nor do they present a bad reason. Christian defenders have presented no reason or purpose whatever for God’s torturing human beings. The unavoidable conclusion is that the “reason” for Hell’s torture is simply to torture—as a purposeless, vengeful end in itself. To claim that God is “forced” unwillingly to torture humanity is to deny God’s omnipotence and ultimate authority. To claim that God wants to torture humanity is to deny God’s benevolence. In either case, there is an irreconcilable doctrinal conflict. As a last-straw argument, religious leaders claim that we humans


337

are foolish to question God’s Master Plan. “The fool hath said in his heart, ‘There is no God.’” The Bible is the perfect and infallible Word of God and, although we may not comprehend all of God’s mysteries, we know that God always behaves fairly and consistently. Just as a child may not understand why he is being disciplined by a loving parent, we too may be ignorant of God’s ultimate purposes. If God created Hell to punish humans and fallen angels, then He definitely had a good reason to do so. The obvious fallacy in this “logic” is that it blindly assumes the conclusion that it sets out to prove. If you begin your argument by assuming (1) that God exists, (2) that He is the God of the Christian Bible (rather than the God of Islam or a Greek god), (3) that He always behaves fairly, (4) that He is omnipotent and omniscient, (5) that He created the universe, Earth, mankind, Heaven and Hell, (6) and that all of His actions are purposeful, then of course your subsequent, “logically-deduced” conclusions will identically parrot these premises, which you have already accepted uncritically by blind faith. Such “logic” is identical to “proving” Batman’s existence by citing the eyewitness testimony of Robin, The Boy Wonder. One’s conclusions are meaningless if the “supporting” premises are themselves articles of faith or figments of the imagination. Finally, the Church totally overlooks the crucial question of proportionality of punishment: Does the punishment fit the crime? The US Constitution specifically prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, regardless of how grotesque the criminal offense. This means that even serial murderers and child molesters cannot be tortured or physically abused while incarcerated. For God, however, no amount of torture seems sufficient to satisfy His lust for vengeance. “Sinners” will be fiendishly roasted forever, not merely a thousand years, or a million years, or a billion years; but eternally. Think about that. Let’s suppose that, during a person’s particularly mischievous lifetime, he commits a sum total of 100,000 sins, each of which God avenges singularly through fiery torture.

[1481-MILL]

338

DAVID MILLS

If a “sinner” were sentenced to one year of uninterrupted torture for each sin he committed—an unimaginably sadistic judgment— then his punishment would be over in 100,000 years. But, according to Christian doctrine, the torture continues longer than 100,000 years; so the penalty must be more than one year of uninterrupted torture per offense. If God tortured a “sinner” 100 years for each “sin” he committed, then the punishment would be over in 10,000,000 years; but Hell continues longer. A mere 100 years of torture per sin is therefore insufficient punishment. Even a million years of torture per offense would be a light sentence compared to everlasting torture. So if you’d prefer to watch football on Sunday, instead of going to church, then you will be tortured more than a million years for this single offense. If you scream out “shit” when you drop a heavy suitcase on your ankle, then you will be tortured more than a million years for this one “sin.” If you stare too long at that girl in the bikini— or that rock musician—then you will be tortured more than a million years for this single ungodly act. If you were reared by Muslim parents, and adopted their religion instead of Christianity, then you will be tortured more than a million years for your theological error. Although God, if existent, would undeniably transcend US Constitutional authority, Hell’s torture would, by any sane analysis, violate our Constitutional prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment. Jefferson, Madison, and the other framers of our Constitution therefore showed far more compassion and mercy than the “loving Heavenly Father” of the Christian Bible. Would you, as a loving father or mother, torture and burn your children at the stake for misbehaving? Christians may argue that “unsaved” individuals are not “children of God.” But is it morally permissible, then, to torture children unrelated to you? I hope and trust that your answer is no. What, then, is our conclusion?


339

Hell Exists This conclusion means that God would rather torture humanity than to forgive humanity unconditionally. This conclusion carries the charge that God created Hell for no reason other than to inflict suffering. In this case, as Thomas Paine noted, the Bible could more accurately be called The Word of a Demon than The Word of God. If we proceed under the assumption that God does exist, then I firmly believe that He would be insulted by the blasphemous assertion that He created a hell.

Hell Does Not Exist This conclusion means that God chose not to inflict sadistic and pointless torture upon the souls He created. This conclusion carries the charge that man, not God, created Hell. In my estimation, this conclusion is the more probable; for, as Robert Ingersoll stated, the myth of hell represents “all the meanness, all the revenge, all the selfishness, all the cruelty, all the hatred, all the infamy of which the heart of man is capable.” God was indeed created in man’s own image.

Notes on Chapter 16 1. I define “antisocial sin” as any act condemned in the Bible as “sinful” which also infringes deliberately and needlessly upon the rights of others in society. Examples of “antisocial sin” are murder, rape, robbery, assault and battery, etc. 2. To support their contention that the majority of humanity will go to Hell, Church leaders also cite Matthew 22:13,14 and Luke 13:23,24, which follow respectively: “There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. For many are called, but few are chosen.”

[1481-MILL]

340

DAVID MILLS “Then said one unto him, Lord, are there few that be saved? And he said unto them, Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able.”

3. The term “free will,” as employed by Christian theologians, is a blatantly unscientific concept, since an individual’s genetic composition, upbringing, and subsequent environment supposedly have no relevant or exculpatory influence on the formation of his religious character. In overt contradiction of their own doctrine of free will, however, theologians religiously employ the so-called Law of Cause-Effect to allegedly prove God’s existence by deducing that everything (including the universe itself ) must have a cause to account for its existence and behavior. Need I remark that theologians cite laws of causation on a strikingly ad hoc basis? I personally find it self-evident and incontrovertible that all human characteristics, decisions, and behavior are rooted either in genetic predisposition, environmental influence, or, in most instances, a combination of the two. The only reason that you’re not a grasshopper is that your mother and father were not grasshoppers. If they had been grasshoppers, then your appearance, behavior, character, and beliefs would differ radically from those you currently hold.

CHAPTER 17 Interview with an Atheist Note: This chapter is a compilation of transcripts from three separate interviews conducted with the author over a several-year period. Redundant material has been excised. Interviewer: You openly refer to yourself as an “atheist.” What exactly does that mean? Mills: Essentially, an atheist is a person who believes there is no god. The word “atheist” is derived from the Greek word theos, which means “god” or “gods.” The word theology, for example, refers to the “study of god.” When the negative prefix a is added to theos, the derivative form becomes atheist and simply means “without god,” just as asexual reproduction means reproduction without sex. Interviewer: But doesn’t the word “atheist” really mean a lot more than that? You don’t believe in life-after-death either, do you? Mills: No, I don’t. And I think you’re quite correct that the word “atheist” can be extrapolated to mean a rejection of all supernatural beings and phenomena that are normally associated with the idea of god. Atheists, for example, do not believe in Heaven, Hell, devils, angels, miracles, holy ghosts, or rising from the dead.

[0000-XXXX]

342

DAVID MILLS

Interviewer: So when you die, you’re dead like a dog? Mills: That’s hardly an attractive or appetizing way to phrase it; but, yes, that is what I believe. Interviewer: What’s the difference between an atheist and agnostic? Mills: The words atheist and agnostic have totally disparate origins. But the real answer to your question is guts. It is more socially acceptable to be an agnostic than an atheist. While the two philosophies overlap to a considerable degree, atheism, it seems to me, represents a more specific and firmly-held position than agnosticism, which, in current usage, can mean a hundred different things. Interviewer: I’m sure that you’re familiar with public opinion polls which consistently show that 94 to 96 percent of all Americans believe in God. Is everybody else wrong but you? Mills: No. If the United States has a current population of approximately 280 million people, and if, let’s say, 5 percent are atheists, then that’s 14 million atheists in the US alone. So, like it or not, there are plenty of us out there. Most atheists, however, tend to be less vocal in espousing their beliefs than are members of various evangelical religious denominations. It’s easy therefore to underestimate the number of atheists. I am somewhat dismayed when people tell me that I’m the only atheist they ever met. That’s nonsense of course—they’ve certainly met hundreds. But few atheists ever speak up to be counted. Interviewer: Does that indicate that atheists might be ashamed of themselves? Mills: Not at all. There’s an old saying that “If you want to keep your friends, then you should never discuss politics or reli-


343

gion.” Atheists recognize that their philosophical position is misunderstood by many people. Most atheists see no reason therefore to deliberately piss off their friends and to bring upon themselves an unwanted and very unfair social ostracism. If some atheists fear to speak up, it’s more of an indictment against the religious bigotry they encounter than it is an indication of “shame” in affirming the atheist position. Interviewer: In looking at all the wonders of the universe, how can you possibly say there’s no God? Even the Bible says, “The fool hath said in his heart ‘There is no God.’” Mills: Whenever someone quotes that Bible verse to me, I usually recite to them another Bible verse, Matthew 5:22—“But whosoever shall say ‘Thou fool’ shall be in danger of hell fire.” Interviewer: And what do Christians think of an atheist quoting the Bible? Mills: They’re unprepared. Christians imagine that I, and other atheists, know nothing about the Bible or its history. When you respond in kind, they tend to be taken aback. I was on a talk show in the late 1970’s and a woman stood up in the audience and quoted the verse “The fool hath said in his heart ‘There is no God.’” When I humorously quoted Matthew 5:22, which threatens eternal damnation for calling someone a fool, she angrily retorted that “Even the devil can quote the Bible, and I think you are the devil.” The fact is that most Christians know next to nothing about the Bible which they carry proudly to church every Sunday. I would be happy and confident to take a standard Bible-knowledge test against any churchgoer you might arbitrarily pluck from a pew next Sunday morning. Interviewer: But let’s get back to my fundamental question. Why don’t you believe in God?

[1481-MILL]

344

DAVID MILLS

Mills: Clarence Darrow, the famous trial attorney, once remarked that “I don’t believe in God because I don’t believe in Mother Goose.” Until about ten years ago, I was of the opinion that, in order to qualify as an “official” atheist, a person had to intimately familiarize himself with the multitude of specific arguments for and against God’s existence. Indeed I’ve written two full-length books devoted to thrashing out these arguments myself in great detail. But I now believe that it is a perfectly acceptable philosophical position to dismiss the god idea as being self-evidently ridiculous as Darrow quipped. Christians instantly disregard the Greek gods as being figments of an overactive imagination, and so I view the Christian God in the same way that the Christians view the Greek gods. Remember that when the Romans threw Christians to the lions, the Romans shouted “Away with these atheists” because the Christians did not accept the local Roman gods. But to answer your question directly, I am an atheist because no more evidence supports the Christian god than supports the Greek or Roman gods. There is no evidence that God— as portrayed by any religion—exists. Interviewer: But can you prove God doesn’t exist? Mills: “Prove” is a very strong word. I will say that it is fairly easy to demonstrably prove that the Genesis accounts of Adam and Eve, and Noah’s worldwide deluge, are fables. It is easier to prove these stories false because, unlike the notion of God, the Creation account and Noah’s flood are scientifically testable. Science may explore human origins and the geologic history of Earth. In this regard, science has incontrovertibly proven that the Book of Genesis is utter mythology. So while I hesitate to claim proof of God’s nonexistence, I will claim proof that the Bible is not “The Word of God” because much of it has been shown by science to be false. Again, there is no more reason to believe in the Christian god than to believe in the Greek or Roman gods. Can I absolutely


345

prove Zeus nonexistent? No. Do I believe that Zeus exists? No. Remember that the rules of logic dictate that the burden of proof falls upon the affirmative position: that a god does exist. Atheists have no obligation to prove or disprove anything. Interviewer: Then why do so many people believe in God? Mills: Because they were taught to believe as small children and because almost everybody they know believes in God also. We should recognize that all children are born as atheists. There is no child born with a religious belief. The Jesuits used to have a saying: “Give us a child until he’s 5 years-old and we’ll have him for life.” In a similar mode of thought, Bertrand Russell once observed that “A man’s religion, almost without exception, is the religion of his community.” Few adults—and literally no children— have the independence of mind to dismiss the prevailing majority opinion as being absolute nonsense. I certainly believe that democracy is the best form of government ever devised. But, on matters of religion or philosophy or even science, truth is not discerned through democratic means. Interviewer: How could the universe have been created without there being a God? Mills: Leaving aside your presumptuous use of the word “created”—that line of reasoning is known as the Aquinas cosmological argument. Thomas Aquinas, who lived during the 13th century, argued that everything needs a cause to account for its existence. Aquinas believed that if we regress backward in time through an unbroken chain of causation, then we would eventually arrive at the cause of the universe itself. Aquinas argued that this “First Cause” could be nothing other than God Himself. This so-called “First Cause” argument, however, is a textbook illustration of ad hoc reasoning. For if “everything needs a cause to account for its existence,” then we are forced to address the question

[1481-MILL]

346

DAVID MILLS

of who or what created God? If God always existed—and therefore needs no causal explanation—then the original premise of the cosmological argument—i.e., that everything needs a cause—has been shown to be erroneous: something can exist without a cause. If everything except God requires a cause, then the “First Cause” argument becomes ad hoc (i.e., inconsistent and prejudicially applied) and is thus logically impermissible. If we can suppose that God always existed—and thus requires no causal explanation—then we can suppose instead that the mass-energy comprising our universe always existed and thus requires no causal explanation. Many people, including some atheists and agnostics, misinterpret Big Bang theory as proposing that mass-energy popped into existence ex nihilo (i.e., out of nothing) before the universe began its current expansion. This something-from-nothing belief is not only false, but flagrantly violates the law of the conservation of mass-energy. I recently published a scientific paper on this very subject, titled Why is there Something, Rather than Nothing?1 The subject is complicated and technical. But let me summarize by saying that the “First Cause” argument not only begs the question logically and is scientifically bankrupt, it also fails to address which god is supposedly proven existent by the argument! In other words, Zeus or Allah has just as much claim to being the “First Cause” as does Jehovah or Jesus. Interviewer: How, then, do you explain Nature’s beauty and order? Mills: There is some degree of beauty and order within Nature. But each year, Nature also cruelly victimizes millions of perfectly innocent men, women and children through natural disasters: earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, lightning, fires, drought, starvation and epidemic disease. Cancer is, for the most part, a naturally-occurring disorder, which all-too-frequently afflicts, and prematurely kills, innumerable animal and plant lifeforms. (Did you


347

know that plants suffer cancer too?) So while Nature is at times beautiful and purposeful, it is just as often vicious and chaotic. For every new baby “miraculously” born in the maternity ward, there is, down the hall, a lonely old man dying a torturous death in the cancer ward. Christians are masters of selective observation—or “counting the hits and ignoring the misses.” Anything Christians perceive as attractive or orderly is counted as evidence for God’s existence. But anything Nature offers that is grotesque or in disarray is never counted against God’s existence. Any theological conclusions based upon such selective observation are therefore meaningless. Moreover, science has provided richly satisfying explanations for the portions of Nature that do display true organization, such as the human body. There is nothing difficult to understand or to accept about biological evolution. The reason why Christians view evolution as such an absurdity is that their only exposure to evolutionary theory has been through absurd caricatures and harebrained misrepresentations offered by pulpit-pounding evangelists. For example, most Christians continue to believe that evolutionary theory teaches that man evolved from modern apes (sic).2 Interviewer: Don’t you think that religion offers great comfort to people? Mills: Occasionally it does. But more often, religion is a source of overweening guilt and anxiety. You have this unbelievably nosey voyeur in the sky, allegedly watching your every move and monitoring all your private thoughts. If God detects any “sin” in your life, then He threatens to roast you eternally in a fiery torture chamber. This belief is hardly comforting. Moreover, religious believers mistakenly view their own guilt and anxiety as proof of the Holy Ghost’s existence. They believe that, through instilling these emotions, the Holy Ghost is “convicting them of their sins” in an effort to motivate repentance. Likewise, when a religious follower does, as you say, feel comforted by his beliefs—such as when he imagines that he will someday be

[1481-MILL]

348

DAVID MILLS

reunited with his beloved dead mother—then he perceives his own internal emotions to be “the Holy Ghost’s bringing peace to his soul.” So regardless of whether a person is comforted or anxiety-stricken as a result of his religious beliefs, he invariably views these emotions as proof of the Holy Ghost’s actual existence. I dubbed this psychological tendency as “Holy Hypnosis” in a book of that title, which I authored in the late 1970’s. Interviewer: If you don’t believe in God or life-after-death, what, then, is the meaning of life? Mills: I think that we make a serious error to speak of the singular meaning of life. From a purely biological frame of reference, the purpose of life appears to be reproduction and survival. But I believe that your question seeks a more philosophical response. The only realistic answer to meaning-of-life questions is that 500 different people will have 500 different meanings to their lives. What I personally find deeply meaningful and satisfying may be of little interest to you. Similarly, the things you cherish most in life may bore me to tears. Generally speaking, however, I would say that most people, including myself, find family relationships to be among life’s most meaningful aspects. But I respect others who might disagree with my opinion and believe that sculpting magnificent statues or racing automobiles is more meaningful. The error in searching for one meaning of life is to assume that every human being holds identical values. In reality, every individual is different, and has a perfect right to be different. Interviewer: Let’s assume for a moment that you’re correct in your beliefs: there’s no God, no Heaven, and no Hell. If you’re right about that, then you have nothing to gain. But if you’re wrong, then you’ve lost your soul for eternity. On the other hand, if a person believes in God, then he has everything to gain and nothing to lose. If he’s right in his beliefs, then he’ll go to Heaven.


349

If he’s wrong about there being a God, then he’ll at least have looked forward to going to Heaven even if he merely rots in the ground beside you. Mills: That argument is known as Pascal’s Wager, because it was first articulated by Blaise Pascal, a 17th-century French philosopher. There are several fallacies in the argument. But the most obvious is that the same argument can be applied to any religion— not just to Christianity. For example, I could say that, since we have everything to gain and nothing to lose by converting to Islam, we should all become Muslims. Or since we have everything to gain and nothing to lose by being Hindu, we should all adopt Hinduism. Christians never stop to consider that they are in just as much danger of going to the Muslim hell as I, an atheist, am in danger of going to the Christian hell. Pascal’s Wager is also flawed in its premise that a person has everything to gain, and nothing to lose, by converting to a religion. The fact is that, whether we like it or not, our earthly life is the only life we’re ever going to experience. If we sacrifice this one life in doormat subservience to a nonexistent god, then we have lost everything! Interviewer: Could we both agree at least that, whether you view Him as God or man, Jesus Christ was an admirable figure? Mills: No, I disagree completely. Jesus ordered the cold-blooded murder of anyone who refused to worship Him. Moreover, Jesus specifically requested that He be allowed to witness the murders. Interviewer: Oh come on! Where in the Bible does it say that? Mills: Luke 19:27— “But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.” These were the “loving” words of Jesus Himself.

[1481-MILL]

350

DAVID MILLS

The Bible—both Old and New Testaments—is filled with instances in which God, in various incarnations, supposedly orders people to be murdered, or to commit murder. Jesus also squandered His alleged supernatural powers on frivolous nonsense. Instead of bringing mankind a cure for heart disease and cancer, He used His magic to curse a fig tree. Instead of ending birth defects and infant mortality, He filled pigs with demons. Instead of ending world hunger and illiteracy, He conjured up a jug of wine. What an incredible waste of omnipotence! Interviewer: Even though you don’t believe that He was God, do you believe that Jesus Christ, the man, lived on Earth? Mills: Probably not. If He did actually live, then He was almost certainly illiterate, since He left no writings of his own—at least none that we know about. At the time that He supposedly lived, however, most people were illiterate, so I don’t mean to be critical of Him on this point. I too would have been illiterate. But it is curious to ponder an illiterate God. Interviewer: But aren’t there secular historical references to Christ? Even if you totally disregard the Bible, how do you explain the fact that writers and historians of the time—nonchristian writers—detailed the life of Jesus? Mills: You’re correct that there are secular historical references to Jesus. For example, Josephus, Tacitus, Lucian, Seutonius, Pliny, and Justin Martyr all make reference to “Christ” or “Jesus Christ” in their historical accounts. But there is one monumental flaw in this argument: Not one of these secular writers was born until decades after Jesus’ alleged crucifixion. Thus, none of these writers could possibly provide firsthand knowledge of anything having to do with the life of Jesus. Their historical references to Jesus do provide evidence that the Christ legend was extant during the period in which they wrote. But that’s about it.


351

Interviewer: What about secular writers who lived as Christ’s contemporaries? Mills: There is not a single reference to a “Jesus” or to “Jesus Christ” written by any secular source who lived during the years in which Christ supposedly walked the Earth. To me, this fact is very revealing, since these years represent one of the most thoroughly documented periods of antiquity. Wouldn’t Jesus’ miracles have drawn the attention of hundreds of contemporary writers and record-keepers? Why is there no mention at all of Jesus’ existence? To summarize my position on the “historical” Jesus, I once wrote a poem: Today some say that Jesus died, And still remains quite dead. But these who speak have surely lied. The real truth is, instead, That Jesus Christ, Whose blood was spilled, Is no corpse, I insist! For how could someone have been killed, Who never did exist?

Interviewer: (Groans) . . . Here I don’t think you’re being objective. I’m sure you believe that George Washington was the first President of the United States. You believe that he existed, even though you have no firsthand knowledge of that fact. You accept, without question, the word of others regarding the life of George Washington; whereas you immediately dismiss the word of others regarding the life of Jesus. You’re revealing your anti-religious prejudice! Mills: Not at all. Here are the distinctions: The life of George Washington was documented by innumerable dispassionate observers who lived during Washington’s own lifetime. This was decidedly not the case with Jesus, Whose existence was attested by

[1481-MILL]

352

DAVID MILLS

no secular writer of His time. Moreover, Washington himself left us a wealth of his own writings. Jesus left no writings—period. But there is a third distinction which, to me, is the most significant: Although Washington certainly led an unusually eventful and productive life, there is no historical claim that Washington stood the laws of physics on their head. For example, no one ever claimed that Washington rose from the dead or walked on water. “Extraordinary claims,” said Carl Sagan, “require extraordinary evidence.” So while I might accept someone’s word that George Washington was born in Virginia, I would not believe someone’s assertion that Washington was born of a virgin. The more farfetched the claim, the more overwhelming and irrefutable the evidence must be. Since none of Christ’s contemporaries even bothered to mention His name in their historical accounts, the level of proof necessary to document His “miracles” is woefully inadequate. In fact, it’s absolutely nonexistent. Finally, I’m willing to bet that many of the “facts” we know— or think we know—about George Washington are likewise mythology. The cherry tree story, and “I cannot tell a lie,” and Washington’s throwing a silver dollar across the Potomac River are probably as factual as Christ’s placing a curse on a fig tree. Interviewer: So how was the stone rolled away in front of Jesus’ tomb? Wouldn’t such a feat require supernatural power, especially with Roman guards on duty to thwart such an effort? Mills: This is precisely the type of argument that Christian apologists so adore and that so dazzles the naive Fundamentalists. The obvious flaw is that the argument begins by presupposing that 99 percent of the Bible is true. It isn’t difficult therefore to logically “prove” the remaining 1 percent. If you assume (1) that Jesus existed, (2) that He lived under Roman jurisdiction, (3) that He was crucified, (4) that His body was laid in a tomb, (5) that a large stone was placed before the tomb’s entrance, (6) that Roman guards were stationed outside the tomb, (7) that the stone was later dislodged, and (8) that


353

the body was absent after the third day, then, perhaps, one may construct a possible scenario in which supernatural forces were at work— although hundreds of other explanations would continue to be more plausible. But to blindly accept on religious faith that these eight biblical “facts” are true is to assume a priori the accuracy of the very book whose veracity is being debated. Then Christian apologists have the gall to claim that this “proof” of Jesus’ resurrection is deduced through logic, rather than based upon Scripture! By analogy, let’s say that I believe in four bad witches: Witch 1, Witch 2, Witch 3 and Witch 4. I am wondering which of the four witches cast an evil spell on my dying vegetable garden. An enchanted gremlin informs me that Witches 1, 2 and 4 were out of town when the spell was cast. I therefore claim “proof ” that Witch 3 cursed my vegetables. Now, there is not a person on Earth who would believe that such logic proves anything, except that I had taken leave of my senses. I have not proven that Witch 3 cursed my garden because all of the premises of my argument are entirely fictitious. Yet equally vacuous “logic” is routinely proffered by Christian apologists, and is gullibly swallowed by millions, who are comforted that their religious beliefs have been “proven” to be so logical. Interviewer: A few minutes ago, you mentioned Carl Sagan. He believed that intelligent life might exist elsewhere in the universe. Do atheists acknowledge that possibility? Do you personally believe in UFO’s? Mills: Yes and no. I definitely believe that life—and probably intelligent life—is fairly common throughout the universe. But, no, I don’t believe that our planet has ever been visited by alien spacecraft. The flying saucer stories are total nonsense because a spacecraft traversing vast interstellar distances could not be physically designed in the shape of a small, flat saucer. The lunar module, by the way, looked nothing like a flying saucer, because the design necessary to accomplish an extraterrestrial landing would

[1481-MILL]

354

DAVID MILLS

not permit such a configuration. While I personally don’t believe in UFO’s, atheism is not necessarily incompatible with a belief in flying saucers, since our alien visitors are alleged to be highly advanced beings, who better harness the laws of physics, rather than supernatural gods, who violate the laws of physics. Interviewer: But don’t you think that, whether it’s UFO’s or God or something else, people need to believe in something in order to be happy? Mills: I think that people generally need interests or hobbies outside of themselves to be maximally happy. But there’s no reason that such outside pursuits must take the form of a crackpot religion. A person may become creatively absorbed into literally millions of different activities, pastimes, relationships, arts, or sciences— any one of which may provide deep fulfillment and happiness for the particular individual. Religious leaders, though, very cleverly try to recruit converts by preaching that you need their brand of religion in order to be contented. Without Jesus or Allah or Buddha, you’ll supposedly lead a wretched and calamitous existence. Advertisers use this identical psychological ploy to sell their products: Convince you (1) that you have a problem, (2) that you need their product, and (3) that their product will solve your problem. Ironically, if you truly believe that your happiness requires a particular religion—or a chocolate sundae or a sports car or a certain bed partner—then you’ll obviously create a self-fulfilling prophecy, making yourself unnecessarily miserable until your so-called “needs” are satisfied. As Eric Hoffer noted, “the aim of a religious movement is to inflict a malady in society, then offer the religion as a cure.” Because of this religious propaganda—i.e., “no religion, no happiness”—most Christians imagine that non-believers lead meaningless, empty lives wallowing in depression. In reality, virtually all of the atheists I’ve known have been dynamic, highly optimistic men and women who enjoyed life to the hilt, partially because they were liberated from the morbid, guilt-ridden, religious ball-and-chain around their necks.


355

By contrast, I’ve known scores of Christians who led very unfulfilling lives, praying endlessly for “miracles” that never occurred or waiting pitifully for Jesus’ oft-delayed second coming. Interviewer: In 1963 Madalyn Murray O’Hair persuaded the US Supreme Court to remove prayer from America’s public schools. I’m sure you supported that Court decision. But don’t you think that it’s unfair in a democratic society for the majority who want to pray in school to be denied the opportunity by a tiny minority who object? Mills: As long as there are algebra tests, students will continue to pray effusively in the public schools. The 1963 decision prohibited mandatory prayer, in which students of diverse religious backgrounds were forced, under penalty of expulsion, to mumble a prayer reflecting the religious beliefs of the local schoolboard. There is no law in any state that prohibits voluntary prayer in America’s public schools. Let’s remember that Jesus warned the Pharisees not to pray publicly, because such prayers were usually pretentious, insincere efforts to showboat. Interviewer: Because of her part in that Supreme Court decision, Madalyn O’Hair was often called “the most hated woman in America.” Did you ever meet her? Mills: Yes, three times. We also exchanged letters occasionally, and I spoke with her by phone perhaps half a dozen times over the years. We’re also pictured together on the dust jacket of my first book, Holy Hypnosis. Interviewer: What was your impression of her? Mills: People don’t like to hear this; but she truly was a woman of extraordinary intelligence and ability. She obviously held her beliefs unwaveringly, and didn’t hesitate to correct you in front of

[1481-MILL]

356

DAVID MILLS

others if she thought you were mistaken about a particular point or way of doing something. My own observation was that she was ordinarily very gentle and pleasant to be around, despite her ogre-like image. Even some atheists say that she sometimes exhibited a hard edge to her personality. But let’s remember that she received literally hundreds of death threats during her lifetime and, in the end, was in fact kidnaped, robbed and murdered in cold blood. All movements—be they religious, anti-religious, political, military, or whatever—are led by men and women with extremist views and extremist personalities. That’s why they’re the leaders. That’s also why the Democratic nominee for President is usually more liberal than the general public, while the Republican nominee is more conservative than the average voter. Interviewer: Didn’t Madalyn’s son become a born-again Christian? Mills: Bill Murray (Madalyn Murray O’Hair’s son) is suffering from Stockholm Syndrome, the psychological malady in which hostages become emotionally attached and sympathetic to their terrorist captors, who, in Bill’s case, were the mean-spirited Christians he encountered throughout his life. Like Madalyn, Bill Murray received many death threats from Christian fanatics across the United States. He eventually snapped from this pressure, became an alcoholic, a drug abuser, then a notorious fugitive. After thoroughly destroying his marriage and family, he suddenly announced that he was becoming a traveling Christian evangelist (sic). I’m not saying that Bill Murray is insincere in his embrace of Christianity. But he is traveling the country making factually inaccurate statements about his own family history. Because of his unique background, he understands better than most preachers how to press the buttons of Christian Fundamentalists when passing the collection plate. Religion is infinitely more profitable than atheism, and nobody knows this


357

fact better than Bill Murray. While I never met Bill Murray, I assure you that Madalyn’s other children, Jon and Robin, whom I have met, were strongly atheistic. Interviewer: You have a young daughter of your own. Are you going to force atheism on her? Mills: Of course not. But if I were inclined to force atheism on her, here’s what I would do: I would absolutely insist that she attend church several times a week, whether she wanted to or not. I would force her to read the Bible for two hours a day; and I would demand that she pray every night for at least another hour. I would remind her often that she might burn in hell for disobeying Jesus. And I would absolutely forbid her to date or wear cosmetics until she is 18 years-old. By using all these techniques of Christian parenting, I would certainly lead her to look favorably upon atheism. Interviewer: But if she really wanted to go to church, would you try to discourage her? Mills: No. I would be happy to take her to church, or to attend church with her myself if that’s what she wanted. But I wouldn’t hypocritically pretend to believe in the religion myself. And I would occasionally express my thoughts to her that science, rather than mysticism, is the key to understanding the universe and ourselves. I realize, of course, that despite my willingness to aid my daughter in whatever path she chooses in life, many Christians nonetheless consider me an “unfit” parent for exposing her to a healthy diversity of opinion. It is the Christians, not the atheists, who routinely pressure their preschool-age children into adopting a belief system. It is the Christians who punish their children for deviating from the parents’ religious ideals. Interviewer: How do you respond to the charge that atheism is just another religion?

[1481-MILL]

358

DAVID MILLS

Mills: It seems to me that any religion worthy of the name must include some form of belief in a god or gods and some type of belief in the supernatural. Otherwise, the “religion” would be indistinguishable from atheism. Atheism is the opposite of religion in that a belief in God and the supernatural is rejected. If, however, you define “religion” to mean any form of philosophical belief, then I suppose you could label atheism a religion. But such all-inclusive, watered-down definitions soon become altogether meaningless and only lead to confusion. By such a loose definition, for example, I, a devout atheist, could be called a devoutly religious man. On the other hand, I do agree that the devoted Christian and the devoted atheist share more in common psychologically than a person who doesn’t give a damn one way or another. I’ve always found it intriguing, though, that Christians attempt to slander atheism by calling it a “religion.” Christians seem to be saying, “Look, you atheists are just as irrational as we are!” Interviewer: Isn’t it true that some famous atheists have recanted on their deathbeds? Mills: No. There are lots of bogus stories to that effect circulated by dishonest TV evangelists. But none of these accounts is rooted in fact. Let me provide one clear example of how absurd these recantation stories are. Thomas Paine, who played an integral role in the American Revolution, wrote a famous attack on Christianity titled The Age of Reason. Despite his being a true American hero, the Christian community of the time despised Paine because of his anti-religious sentiment. Following Paine’s death, Puritans started a rumor that he had suddenly recanted on his deathbed, renouncing all of his anti-religious writings. This fabricated tale of Paine’s recantation was simply an effort by the Puritans to dissuade people from reading his influential writings. If Paine himself disavowed The Age of Reason, then you should too, went the story. The reality, however, was that Paine had written The Age of Reason while awaiting


359

the guillotine! He had been falsely imprisoned and believed that he was going to be beheaded. During what he thought to be his last days, Paine wrote The Age of Reason. So, far from turning to religion as death approached, Paine wanted to create a lasting testimony to his unbelief. Fortunately, Paine was later released from prison. But shameless Puritans nevertheless spread the tale (years later) that Paine, fearing death, recanted his anti-religious beliefs at death’s door. Most Christians find it utterly inconceivable that someone could genuinely disbelieve their holy doctrines. Christians imagine that atheists and agnostics harbor a latent belief in God and in life-after-death—an underlying belief that supposedly springs to the surface in times of crisis or impending death. “There are no atheists in foxholes.” But the only individuals who sincerely turn to religion during such times of crisis are individuals who sincerely believe in an afterlife. Atheists, by definition, are excluded from this group. My own observation is that those most terrified of death are, not atheists, but believers, uncertain whether they are going to Heaven or Hell. Interviewer: Are you afraid to die? Mills: I’m afraid to die in that I want to continue living. I don’t want my life terminated. I’m also afraid to die in that I don’t want my wife to become a widow and my daughter to be fatherless. And I certainly don’t want to suffer an agonizing or slow and painful death. But I’m not afraid of death in the sense of roasting in some kind of hell. That’s mythology. Interviewer: You obviously believe that all religions were human inventions. But you haven’t presented any kind of explanation as to why people would deliberately invent and promulgate myths which they themselves knew to be false. Mills: I don’t believe that ancient man suddenly decided one

[1481-MILL]

360

DAVID MILLS

day to cook up a false religion. That’s not how it happened. Primitive man comprehended very little about himself and the world around him. He didn’t understand why it rained, why his crops failed, why his children fell sick and died, why the seasons changed. So the idea of there being superhuman gods in charge of these various elements seemed the only plausible explanation. Moreover, I think that religious worship and ritualism probably evolved as man sought to persuade these gods to treat him kindly. A person might have thought, for example, that if he abstained from sexual pleasures and asked the Potato God to improve his crop, then his sexual abstinence would somehow galvanize the Potato God into action as a compensatory reward. In other words, by controlling a small part of his own private life, primitive man hoped to indirectly gain control over larger areas, such as managing the weather or curing illness through imploring the gods. The specifics of these rituals and self-sacrifices varied enormously among the diverse primitive cultures. But all religions share one commonality: someone must suffer before God will forgive “sin” and bless mankind. To a considerable degree, therefore, religion is a form of masochism: pain must be inflicted before one may guiltlessly enjoy life. Interviewer: Do you believe that religion encourages moral conduct? Mills: To the extent that a religion strives to promote ethical conduct, I support those efforts wholeheartedly. But too often, religions define morality in terms of whether a person belongs to the “correct” religion, rather than in terms of whether an individual treats others fairly and compassionately. Protestant Fundamentalists believe, moreover, that non-Christians are necessarily ethically inferior to Christians. Such “thinking” leads inevitably to bigotry, prejudice, and Holy War. The bloody history of Christianity would lead any objective person to conclude that religion—and the Christian religion in


361

particular—have been a moral abomination to mankind. The Crusades, the Inquisition, the witch burnings, the torture of “infidels” were all carried out in the name of the Christian God. While it is unfair to hold Christianity responsible for perversions of its teachings, it is nonetheless indisputable that, historically, more people have been slaughtered in the name of the Christian religion than for any reason connected to atheism. For 1500 years, the Christian Church systematically operated torture chambers throughout Europe. Torture was the rule, not the exception. Next to the Bible, the most influential and venerated book in Christian history was the Malleus Maleficarum (Hammer of Witches), which was a step-by-step tutorial in how to torture “witches” and “sorcerers.” Each year, the Christian Church in Europe tortured to death tens of thousands of people, including children as young as two years of age. The only restriction was that the instruments of torment had to be blessed by a priest before their initial use. Most Americans think of witch burning as having occurred only during a brief period in Colonial New England. The fact is, however, that witch burning ended in Colonial America after a gruesome 1500-year reign of terror throughout Europe. Today, the average Christian goes to church every week or so— shakes hands with a few Christian friends and says “God bless you”—listens to a gentle sermon and a few quiet hymns—then goes home feeling the “peace of God” in his heart. Because the Christian Church now conducts itself in a relatively civilized manner, a false perception is created that religion has always been a tranquil force for good. That is not the case. Aside from the wholesale extermination of “witches,” the Christian Church fought bitterly throughout its history—and is still fighting today—to impede scientific progress. Galileo, remember, was nearly put to death by the Church for constructing his telescope and discovering the moons of Jupiter. For centuries, moreover, the Church forbade the dissection of a human cadaver, calling it “a desecration of the temple of the Holy Ghost.” Medical research was thereby stalled for almost a thousand years. It is no coincidence, therefore, that

[1481-MILL]

362

DAVID MILLS

Christianity’s longest period of sustained growth and influence occurred during what historians refer to as The Dark Ages. I’m genuinely afraid that, unless we start teaching some real science in our miserable public schools, we may find that 21st-century America suffers an intellectual climate resembling that of the Dark Ages. We tend to believe that, once knowledge has been acquired and technology developed by man, the future will only build upon these past achievements. But history argues forcefully against such an optimistic assumption. The ancient Greeks and Egyptians, for example, made amazing scientific discoveries and wrote detailed scientific analyses that the Christian Church destroyed and suppressed for centuries. A mob of religious zealots deliberately burned the greatest library of the ancient world, at Alexandria, Egypt. And it was not until Renaissance scholars emancipated Europe from religious shackles that these scientific principles were rediscovered 1500 years later. Fifteen-hundred years of progress were therefore stifled by the Christian Church. Were it not for religious persecution and oppression of science, mankind might have landed on the moon in the year 650. Cancer may have been eradicated forever by the year 800. And heart disease may, today, be unknown. But Christianity put into deep hibernation Greek and Egyptian scientific gains of the past. Historically, the Church fought venomously against each new scientific advance. But after fruitlessly criticizing each new scientific achievement, the Church soon flip-flopped its position and embraced the new discovery as a “gift from God to mankind.” The Catholic hierarchy even opposed the invention of the printing press because copies of Scripture could be easily mass produced and placed in the hands of those who might misinterpret or criticize “God’s Word.” Before the printing press, Scripture had been read and deciphered only by Catholic priests. The Church angrily denounced the introduction of medicines, antibiotics, anesthesia, surgery, blood transfusions, birth control, transplants, in vitro fertilization, and most forms of pain killers.


363

Supposedly, these scientific tools interfered with nature and were therefore against God’s will. Today, the Church is fighting cloning technology and genetic engineering. But when cloning laboratories provide an unlimited supply of transplant tissue for dying children, and when genetic engineering cures all forms of cancer, Church leaders will once again forget their initial opposition and hail these achievements as evidence of God’s love for mankind. Today, science is prevailing, but throughout most of recorded history, religion strangled scientific inquiry and often tortured and executed those who advocated the scientific method. Unless we drastically improve our educational system, it is not inconceivable that scientific ignorance will once again become so ubiquitous that ultra-conservative Fundamentalists seize control of our government and resurrect book burning and witch burning. Five-hundred years from now, the hot topic of debate in scientific circles may be whether the Earth is round or flat. This frightening scenario is not likely, but it is far from impossible. Interviewer: Has anyone ever threatened you because of your religious views? Mills: Only the local police. Interviewer: Are you serious? Mills: Yes. Back in the late 1970’s, I organized a protest demonstration against a charlatan faith healer whose Miracle Crusade rolled through town once a year. While I absolutely supported his Constitutional right to promulgate his religious beliefs, I did feel that our local community needed to exercise caution. This “man of God” frequently told diabetics to throw away their insulin; and he often instructed cancer patients to forgo their chemotherapy and trust God for a miracle. Several months before the faith healer’s next scheduled visit to

[1481-MILL]

364

DAVID MILLS

our city, a child was born in a local hospital with an enlarged opening between the chambers of his heart. Normally, this birth defect is fairly easy to repair, and the child can lead a normal, healthy life. The mother in this case, however, refused surgery for the child, waiting instead for the faith healer’s return. Tragically, the child died of complications from the unrepaired birth defect while waiting to be miraculously cured. Since none of the local news media reported this sad story, I decided to speak out myself by organizing a protest against the faith healer’s next Miracle Rally. Along with a few like-minded friends, I painted some placards imploring the community to “Donate money to medical research, not to medical fraud.” We planned to carry these signs near the tent meeting in hope of discouraging financial contributions to the faith healer’s bulging coffers. (He routinely asked that the thousands of people in attendance donate $100 per person, per night, “to show God how much we trust Him.”) I was worried, however, about two potential dangers of staging a protest. First of all, the followers of this traveling faith healer were not the most sophisticated people in the world. And I was concerned that they might physically assault my friends and me as we peacefully carried our signs near the Miracle Rally. Second, I wanted to be extremely careful that our protest did not violate any technicality of the law, such as trespassing or blocking entrance to a public facility, for which the police might break up our demonstration. Because of these two fears, I did an incredibly stupid thing: I drove to the local police station to ask law-enforcement authorities for information and for police protection against potential threats from religious zealots during our protest march. The first police official with whom I spoke asked, “Is you gonna protest fir him or ‘gin him (i.e., the faith healer)?” When I responded “Against him,” the official said that he himself planned to attend the Miracle Rally and would not hesitate to spit directly in my face as he walked past our demonstration.


365

I thought, perhaps, I’d better speak with someone else. The next police official I encountered at the station said that if any trouble broke out during our protest, he would arrest me. I replied that I was not a person inclined to physical violence since I had never been in a fight in my entire life. The policeman said that he didn’t care who started any fight. If any of the faith healer’s people confronted us violently, then the police would be delighted to arrest me, since I was trying to interfere with God’s work. He said that he personally “would love to throw my ass in the county jail.” Disgusted, I went home and telephoned the police station in hope of speaking to men of greater rationality than those I had encountered face to face. I was finally connected to a police sergeant who said, “To hell with you, Buddy. No policeman wants to protect a goddamned atheist. I hope somebody bloodies you up good.” In total that day, I spoke with about seven or eight police officials, either in person or by telephone. None of them was helpful, and most of them threatened me, directly or indirectly, with violent reprisals of their own if we conducted our perfectly legal protest. These were unquestionably the most intellectually challenged “professionals” I’ve ever dealt with. Interviewer: Did you go ahead with the protest? Mills: Yes, and there was no trouble at all. Not even the police were unruly. Most importantly, we got significant television coverage airing our position that this faith healer was collecting money under fraudulent pretenses and endangering public health through his bogus medical advice. But I’m certain that he collected a fortune in donations anyway. This Sunday morning, I invite you to spend about four hours watching your local TV preachers and faith healers. Then ask yourself this question: Would an omnipotent God truly select and permit these men to be His spokesmen?

[1481-MILL]

366

DAVID MILLS

Interviewer: (Laughs) . . . Has being an atheist affected your social life? Mills: Not especially. Although I’ve written quite a lot about religion and atheism, I almost never bring up the subjects in conversation unless someone asks me a specific question about my beliefs. I do feel, however, that I have a thorough appreciation of what it’s like to be black or Hispanic or gay in America. You do face bigotry sometimes from unsophisticated people who misunderstand you and who believe that you are immoral just because you are a minority of some kind. It’s sad that, whenever I’ve engaged in give-and-take dialogue on radio call-in shows, the phone-in questions frequently force me to offer responses such as “No, I don’t believe that murder is okay.” Interviewer: How do atheists define morality then? Since you don’t believe in God, do you believe in a right and wrong? Mills: Of course. I’m willing to bet that if you seated beside me the most ultra-conservative preacher in town, he and I would probably agree 95 percent of the time on whether certain behavior is “right” or “wrong.” I do believe, though, that the terms “right” and “wrong” usually lack a clear, unbiased definition when employed by most speakers. Personally, I prefer to label behavior as either “considerate” or “inconsiderate” of someone else’s rights. Those terms, I feel, tend to clarify the issues, rather than to obscure them. If an act deliberately and needlessly impinges upon someone else’s rights, then I abstain from that activity. Murder, robbery, assault and battery—and almost all crimes—would fit into this category. Lawyers call these activities malum in se (i.e., bad in themselves). Again, a Baptist minister and I would have few, if any, disagreements over what behaviors qualify as malum in se. The minister and I would undoubtedly have ethical disputes, however, over behavior that is malum prohibitum (i.e., bad because


367

it is prohibited). An example of a malum prohibitum violation would be inadvertently leaving your car parked until 5:30PM in a space that was supposed to be vacated by 5:00PM. Here, there is nothing intrinsically evil or necessarily injurious about your actions; but you did foolishly violate a statute. Ethical disputes between atheists and Christians almost invariably center around malum prohibitum conduct—usually sexual conduct. The atheist would argue that two consenting, unmarried adults who used proper disease and pregnancy prevention could engage in sexual intercourse without being “unethical” or “immoral.” The Christian, however, would necessarily label this sexual tryst as “wrong” because it was prohibited (supposedly) by God. Masturbation is another example. If a teenage male enjoys fantasizing about his female classmates, and privately and harmlessly masturbates himself to orgasm, then the atheist would probably say “enjoy yourself.” The Christian, by contrast, would view such activity as “wrong” because Jesus (supposedly) never masturbated and has prohibited such “disgraceful” conduct. To summarize, then, I consider a behavior “wrong” when it genuinely harms someone, rather than because “The Lord Thy God has spoken.” Merely because I’m an atheist, I’ve been criticized on issues of “family values” by Christians whose own family lives were a complete disaster. I’ve never been divorced, never cheated on my wife, never raised my voice to my daughter, never smoked a cigarette, never written a bad check, never gotten a speeding ticket, never been in a fight, and never lied on an income tax form. Except for the tiny fact that I’m an atheist, I lead a good “Christian” life! (Laughs) Interviewer: But doesn’t the fact that everyone agrees that murder is “wrong” indicate that we all share a common conscience guided by one God? Mills: I frequently hear this statement from Christians; but the argument is entirely definitional rather than substantive. Murder, by

[1481-MILL]

368

DAVID MILLS

definition, is an unjustified killing. Of course everyone agrees that an unjustified killing is wrong. We’re simply agreeing that an unjustified killing is unjustified. But what constitutes an unjustified killing? Here, we’ll face heated debate. Is abortion murder or a sometimes-prudent medical procedure? Is euthanasia murder or a humane and compassionate way to end pointless suffering? Is the death penalty a state-sponsored murder, or justice served? Like many Americans, I’m pro-choice, pro-euthanasia and anti-death-penalty; but few Christians agree with these positions. So where’s our “common conscience”? It exists only by wordplay. Interviewer: How do you explain that many of the Bible’s prophecies have been fulfilled? Mills: The same way I explain that your daily newspaper horoscope is always “fulfilled” and that millions of Americans swear by the predictions of The Psychic Friends’ Network. In all these instances, the prophecies are so incredibly vague as to mean practically anything. Bertrand Russell once remarked that “the Bible is known for many things; but clarity is not among them.” When I was a devout believer back in the early 1970’s, I was absolutely convinced that Jesus’ second coming was at hand. I read all of Hal Lindsey’s doomsday books foretelling the end of the world based on Old and New Testament prophecies. It wasn’t until years later that I studied Church history and realized that every generation for 2000 years has believed that Jesus’ second coming was imminent, because Bible prophecies allegedly foretold events of their generations also. I always like to state that, in my opinion, the individuals who wrote the Bible had a non-prophet organization! Interviewer: So you used to believe in God? Mills: Yes. I was “saved” and baptized when I was 9 years-old. For the first 15 years of my life, I regularly attended church and


369

Sunday school and was a typical believer in the Baptist faith. Then, during my first year of high school, I began associating with some friends who were highly charismatic and exuberant about their “relationship with the Lord.” Their enthusiasm soon rubbed off on me. I myself became a glassy-eyed religious fanatic, parading around high school distributing pamphlets titled What Must I Do to be Saved? I preached the Gospel to any lost soul who would listen; and I felt deep satisfaction whenever someone called me a “Jesus freak,” since I considered that label to be a badge of high honor. Interviewer: So what happened that turned you against God? Mills: It’s amazing how many people believe that atheists must have suffered some horrible trauma in their lives that shocked them into rebellion against God. Actually, I had an exceptionally happy childhood, and have enjoyed a remarkably carefree and pleasurable adult life as well, thanks largely to having marvelous parents and a wonderful family of my own. The most traumatic thing that ever happened to me was probably having my tonsils out while in elementary school. That’s it. I think what you’re really asking is “Why did I become an atheist?” Interviewer: Yes. Mills: Again, I refer to my high school days as a proselytizing born-again Christian. Whenever I shared the Gospel or read Scripture to an “unsaved” student, he or she would ordinarily listen politely and say little. But occasionally I would confront someone who asked for proof that my religious beliefs were true. I recall in particular a friend of mine named Doug, who was Jewish by family heritage but was, in practice, a religious skeptic. So Doug was not about to blindly accept my every assertion about Jesus, the miracle-working Messiah. Doug said that he would happily become a Christian if I could only prove the Christian faith true. I told Doug that Jesus bore witness in

[1481-MILL]

370

DAVID MILLS

my heart that He was real, but Doug sought proof of a more scientific nature. So in order to better serve the Lord and to become a more effective witness to others, I began studying Christian apologetics. Apologetics is the branch of Christian theology that strives to defend the Bible through logic or science, rather than relying solely on blind faith. But the more I learned about Creation “Science” and Christian “logic,” the more disenchanted I became. At first, Christian apologetics seemed impressive and highly sophisticated to me. The language used by Christian-apologist writers is deliberately obscure and jargon-filled to create the facade of intellectual respectability. But I soon realized that their lofty theological arguments all boiled down to this: “We know the Bible is true because it’s the Bible.” In other words, despite Christian pretensions and insistence to the contrary, there was quite literally nothing in logic or science to confirm Christian dogma. Christianity is instead embraced by the masses for emotional reasons: because Christians “feel the Holy Ghost in their hearts.” After making these discoveries, I did not immediately turn to atheism, however. I still felt that Christianity was supposed to be accepted by faith, rather than because of scientific proof. So the absence of evidence to support Christianity had little effect on my beliefs. What finally turned me toward atheism was my realization that science not only could not confirm Christian teachings, but offered powerful evidence against the Bible as well. For example, the Genesis accounts of Creation, Noah’s flood, and the age of the Earth are provably false, as are numerous other Old and New Testament fables. Interviewer: So how do you explain the Shroud of Turin? Mills: You have cited a perfect illustration of how religious belief absolutely paralyzes the critical reasoning of Christian apologists and creation “scientists.” Back in 1988, the Shroud was tested in three separate laboratories using radiocarbon dating techniques.


371

All three laboratories (in Arizona, Oxford and Zurich) reported independently that the Shroud dates back only to the Middle Ages. This radiometric timeframe for the Shroud’s origin coincides precisely with the first historical references to the Shroud, which likewise first appear during the Middle Ages. Any rational person would therefore conclude that the Shroud had its origins during the Middle Ages, not during the time of Christ. But no. Defenders of Christianity abandon all rationality in their zeal to offer the Shroud as evidence of Jesus’ existence. For example, a team of creation “scientists” in Colorado Springs, Colorado,3 claims that all of the radiocarbon tests performed on the Shroud were inaccurate because the Shroud was once in close proximity to a neighborhood fire! The fire, they say, must have altered the nuclear structure of the Shroud’s atoms, thus skewing the test results. Notice that whenever scientific tests contradict their religious beliefs, creation “scientists” never concede that their religious beliefs may be erroneous. It’s always the scientific tests that are wrong. Despite their haughty charade, creation “scientists” are thus religionists to the core, blindly dismissing any science which “grieves the Holy Ghost.” So here we have genuinely intelligent, learned individuals deluding themselves that a common house fire can generate sufficient energy to produce a nuclear reaction within the Shroud of Turin—a nuclear reaction necessary to upset the results of radiometric dating techniques! Any “scientist” who seriously proposes such slapstick buffoonery should be fired from any academic position he holds, because he has obviously relinquished all scientific objectivity and is governed slavishly by religious dogma and raw emotion. Christians sometimes try to defend their beliefs through “appeals to authority”: claiming that “highly intelligent people often believe in God.” But highly intelligent people, like the rest of us, are frequently guided by their emotions, personal biases and family traditions, particularly in areas of personal religious affiliation. Debate surrounding the Shroud of Turin is a prime example of

[1481-MILL]

372

DAVID MILLS

intelligent people who fail to use their intelligence, relying instead on “gut feelings.” Another such example is the alleged discovery of Noah’s Ark atop Mount Ararat in eastern Turkey. Wood fragments, supposedly broken off the Ark, have been tested repeatedly in various labs around the world, including the University of California at Los Angeles, Riverside and La Jolla. The wood has been proven to be slightly over 1200 years-old—or 3500 years too young to have composed part of Noah’s Ark. Yet many creationists continue to believe that the Ark is, today, poised high on Mount Ararat “just beyond view.” Again, emotion usually overrides logic and lab reports even among Christians of high intelligence. Interviewer: But hasn’t science occasionally labeled ideas as false that, later, turned out to be true? Mills: Only rarely. What happens far more often is that ideas popularly believed to be true are shown by science to be false. Interviewer: Do you celebrate Christmas? Mills: Atheists celebrate the Winter Solstice, which has been recognized since ancient times as the shortest day of the year (December 25th by the Julian calendar). The ancients celebrated this day because they realized that they had “rounded the corner” and, soon, the days would grow longer and longer, and their crops would once again provide sustenance. During the early days of Christianity, believers tried to persuade the ruling authorities to establish a legal holiday to commemorate Jesus’ birth. But the governing authorities refused. So the Christians decided that “if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em” and thereafter celebrated Jesus’ birth on an already-established holiday: the Winter Solstice (December 25th). Pope Gregory XIII later revised the ancient Julian calendar; and so the calendar we use today—the Gregorian calendar—moves the Winter Solstice back a


373

few days to December 21st (for astronomical reasons), whereas Christmas continues to be celebrated on the 25th. Every Christmas season, I hear ministers preaching sermons about how we have forgotten the “true” meaning of December 25th. I agree! We have forgotten that December 25th had nothing to do with Jesus’ birth. It was an ancient celebration of the Winter Solstice. Easter is likewise a Christian hijacking of an ancient pagan holiday, the Vernal Equinox, a day when darkness and light are equally divided. Even today, the date of Easter is set each year by calculating the first Sunday after the first full moon after March 21st (the Vernal Equinox). To answer your question on a more practical level, though, our family does erect a tree and does happily exchange gifts. But again, these customs originated from pagan celebrations, not from the birth of Jesus, lest anyone think I’m being hypocritical. Our daughter, like all children, loves the sights and sounds of the season, and looks forward to receiving an overabundance of presents. Interviewer: One of the most rudimentary laws of physics is that matter and energy cannot be destroyed. Since we’re all composed of matter and energy, doesn’t that scientific principle lend credibility to a belief in eternal life? Mills: In an extremely esoteric sense, yes it does; but not in the Christian sense that your “soul” will live forever in Heaven or Hell. It’s quite accurate to say that the atoms composing your body will survive your death and may someday be incorporated into other lifeforms or inanimate objects. In that sense, you might live forever. But when most people use the phrase “eternal life,” they generally mean “eternal consciousness”—i.e., that your current “self ” or “ego” or “soul” will exist forever intact and will be conscious of its existence. Such a transcendental belief is in no way bolstered by the law of the conservation of mass-energy. The reason why humans and other animals experience consciousness is that they possess sense organs and, more importantly,

[1481-MILL]

374

DAVID MILLS

brains to process these inflowing nervous impulses. When an organism dies, the cells that constituted its sense organs and brain die also, though the individual atoms within the cells remain essentially unaltered. If the brain and the sense organs die, and therefore cease to function entirely, then it is difficult to see, from a scientific point of reference, how “consciousness” can be maintained by this dead organism. A good analogy is that of a computer, which is “conscious” of a few external events, such as which key you’re pressing on the keyboard or whether you’re clicking the mouse button. The computer thinks very rapidly, but in a relatively primitive way when compared to human beings. Now, if you take a sledgehammer and smash this computer into a thousand little pieces, all of the individual atoms within the computer will indeed survive the ordeal. But the computer will no longer function, and will no longer be conscious of keyboard activity or mouse clicks. The point here is that a change in structure invariably brings a change in function. If human consciousness is a function of the brain and sense organs, then the death of the brain and sense organs will obviously bring a cessation of consciousness. We lose consciousness when we sleep. We lose consciousness after a blow to the head. Is it really so difficult to accept that we lose consciousness after our brains and bodies are totally destroyed? Moreover, the law of the conservation of mass-energy states that mass-energy can be neither destroyed nor created. If life-after-death—or “consciousness after death”—is allegedly supported by this law, then so is “consciousness before conception” since the mass-energy conservation law would prohibit creation of consciousness (at birth or conception) as well as forbid its annihilation after death. Yet the same people who believe that they will be conscious 20 years after their deaths do not simultaneously believe that they had consciousness 20 years prior to their births. Their application of the mass-energy conservation law is therefore ad hoc. Belief in eternal life is thus unfailingly rooted in religious doctrine, rather than scientific law.


375

If we believe that eternal life is proven by the mass-energy conservation law, then logic forces us to believe that every cockroach, every gerbil, and every mosquito will also “inherit the Kingdom of Heaven” because they are, like humans, composed of mass-energy. Interviewer: Does it make you uncomfortable that communist nations espouse atheism, whereas capitalist, freedom-loving nations encourage religious belief? Mills: Christian Fundamentalists have been devilishly successful in their propaganda campaign that all communists are atheists, and all atheists are communists. But these “facts” are altogether erroneous. First, I strongly challenge the assumption that communism is a truly atheistic philosophy. It seems to me that the omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent god of Christianity is simply replaced by the omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent god of the State. Under the communist system, the State is supposedly all-wise, all-good and all-powerful. Communism is therefore just as nutty as religion in its unrealistic, utopian fantasies and pie-in-the-sky promises. Undeniably, some communist nations, such as Stalinist Russia and Maoist China, have been guilty of horrible human rights abuses. No atheist I ever met defends such political repression! Not even the current leaders of Russia and China defend the barbaric actions of their predecessors. But these past human rights abuses invariably stemmed from the leadership’s power-mad political ambitions, rather than from an academic or philosophical conviction that religion contradicted the laws of physics. Atheists believe in both freedom of religion and freedom from religion, as each individual chooses. If atheism is hypothetically responsible for political repression in China, then Christianity is certainly responsible for the atrocities of the Inquisition, the Crusades, and witch burnings. Is it really fair to condemn a school of thought for perversions and abuses of its teachings?

[1481-MILL]

376

DAVID MILLS

Most of the criticism you hear regarding “communist suppression of religion” is voiced by politically conservative Christians who never set foot in a communist nation. These Christians have been duped by the shameless fund-raising scams of television evangelists, who endlessly beg for money to supposedly “send Bibles to Russia.” As someone who actually lived in communist Poland for a time during the height of the Cold War and martial law authoritarianism, I will tell you firsthand that there was absolutely no religious repression of any kind. My wife’s mother is a devoutly religious woman, and I happily accompanied the family to church dozens of times. Not once did the “secret police” trail us or threaten to ship us to Siberia for going to church. The Pope himself, a Polish native, expressed grief that, since Eastern Europe emancipated itself from communist rule, church attendance has fallen drastically, probably because the Church is no longer needed or used as a rallying point for government opposition. Interviewer: Finally, let’s suppose that you’re dead wrong. There is a God and you’re brought before Him on Judgment Day. What would you say? Mills: I would probably point out that, during my lifetime, I read the Bible more than most of His followers. I studied Church history; I thought more, read more and wrote more about religion than most Christians. And I didn’t even believe in Him! Therefore, I should get double credit! (Laughs)

Notes on Chapter 17 1. Chapter 9 of this book contains the full text of this paper under the title, Origin of the Universe: Natural or Supernatural? 2. A more detailed and comprehensive discussion of evolution and the alleged “order of the universe” is presented in Chapters 10-15 of this book.


377

3. Colorado Springs is quickly becoming the World Capital of Pseudoscience, since every Fundamentalist organization in the country seems to be moving its headquarters there. So if you hear about some new “scientific” discovery coming out of Colorado Springs, beware!

[1481-MILL]

EMAIL THE AUTHOR [email protected]

BIBLIOGRAPHY The following books and articles either aided in the preparation of this volume or are suggested for further study. Adler, Mortimer J. How to Think About God. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1980. Allen, Steve. Meeting of Minds. Los Angeles: Hubris House, 1978. Aquinas, Thomas. Basic Writings of Saint Thomas Aquinas. New York: Random House, 1945. Asimov, Isaac. In the Beginning. South Yarmouth, Massachusetts: J. Curley & Associates, 1982. Asimov, Isaac. Understanding Physics. New York: Barnes & Noble Books, 1993. Bronowski, Jacob. The Ascent of Man. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1973. Carnegie, Dale. How to Develop Self-Confidence and Influence People by Public Speaking. New York: Pocket Books, 1956. Carnegie, Dale. How to Win Friends and Influence People. New York: Pocket Books, 1940. Carter, Jimmy. Keeping Faith. New York: Bantam Books, 1982. Carter, Lee. Lucifer’s Handbook. Academic Associates, 1977. Colfax, David and Micki. Homeschooling for Excellence. New York: Warner Books, 1988. Dawkins, Richard. The Blind Watchmaker. New York: Norton, 1985. Doman, Glenn. How to Teach Your Baby to Read. Philadelphia, PA: The Better Baby Press, 1990. Doman, Glenn, and Janet Doman. How to Multiply Your Baby’s

[1481-MILL]

Intelligence. Garden City Park, NY: Avery Publishing Group, 1994. Doman, Glenn, and Janet Doman. How to Teach Your Baby Math. Garden City Park, NY: Avery Publishing Group, 1994. Doman, Glenn, and Janet Doman, and Susan Aisen. How to Give Your Baby Encyclopedic Knowledge. Garden City Park, NY: Avery Publishing Group, 1994. Eisenberg, Arlene, and Heidi E. Murkoff, and Sandee E. Hathaway. What to Expect the First Year. New York: Workman Publishing, 1989. Eisenberg, Arlene, and Heidi E. Murkoff, and Sandee E. Hathaway. What to Expect the Toddler Years. New York: Workman Publishing, 1994. Ellis, Albert, and Robert A. Harper. A Guide to Rational Living. North Hollywood, CA: Wilshire Book Company, 1998. Ellis, Albert. Is Objectivism A Religion? New York: Lyle Stuart, 1968. Entzminger, Robert L. Divine Word. Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne University Press, 1985. Fearnside, W. Ward, and William B. Holther. Fallacy: The Counterfeit of Argument. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1959. Foote, G.W., and W.P. Ball. The Bible Handbook for Atheists. Austin, Texas: American Atheist Press, 1977. Frye, Roland Mushat. Is God a Creationist? New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1983. Gilbert, Michael A., How to Win an Argument. New York: McGrawHill, 1979. Godfrey, Laurie R. Scientists Confront Creationism. New York: W.W. Norton, 1983. Gribbin, John R. Genesis: The Origins of Man and the Universe. New York: Delacorte Press / Eleanor Friede, 1981. Hawking, Stephen W. A Brief History of Time. New York: Bantam Books, 1988.

Hazen, Robert M., and James Trefil. Science Matters. New York: Anchor Books, 1992. Hoffer, Eric. The True Believer. New York: Harper & Row, 1951. Little, Paul E. Know Why You Believe. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1968. Llewellyn, Grace. The Teenage Liberation Handbook. Eugene, Oregon: Lowry House, 1998. Mills, David A. Overcoming Religion. Secaucus, New Jersey: Citadel Press, 1981. Montagu, Ashley. Science and Creationism. New York: Oxford University Press, 1984. Morris, Henry M. and Gary E. Parker. What is Creation Science? San Francisco: Creation-Life, 1982. Morris, Henry M. and John G. Whitcomb, Jr. The Genesis Flood. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1961. Nixon, Richard. RN: The Memoirs of Richard Nixon. New York: Grosset & Dunlap, 1978. Nourse, Alan E. Universe, Earth and Atom: The Story of Physics. New York: Harper & Row, 1969. O’Hair, Madalyn Murray. An Atheist Epic: Bill Murray, The Bible and the Baltimore Board of Education. Austin, Texas: American Atheist Press, 1970. O’Hair, Madalyn Murray. What on Earth is an Atheist? Austin, Texas: American Atheist Press, 1969. Russell, Bertrand. Why I Am Not a Christian. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1957. Sagan, Carl. Cosmos. New York: Random House, 1980. Sagan, Carl. The Demon-Haunted World. New York: Random House, 1995. Sagan, Carl. The Dragons of Eden. New York: Ballantine Books, 1977. Schramka, Gregory D. Changes in the Marital Relationship Accompanying the Birth of the First Child. Butler, WI: Gregory Schramka, 1997.

[1481-MILL]

Smith, George H. Atheism: The Case Against God. Prometheus Books, 1979. Smith, Ralph Lee. At Your Own Risk: The Case Against Chiropractic. New York: Pocket Books, 1969. Thiessen, Henry C. Lectures in Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans, 1979. Tucker, Wallace H. and Karen Tucker. The Dark Matter. New York: Morrow, 1988. Wysong, R.L. The Creation-Evolution Controversy. Midland, Michigan: Inquiry Press, 1976. Young, Howard S. A Rational Counseling Primer. New York: Institute for Rational Living, 1974.

[1481-MILL]

ª|xHSKHNIy82 815zv*:+!:+!@

Science Shams & Bible Bloopers

Shams

Science & Fiction

Science Skills & Thrills

Foundations Of Science - Science & Hypothesis, Value Of Science, Science & Method - Science & Education Series, Volume I

Logics & Experimental Science

The Bible, The Quran and Science

The Ultimate Bible Fact & Quiz Book

Romans: Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary

Berean Study Bible (Old & New Testaments)

Trapper's Bible Traps, Snares & Pathguards

The Ultimate Bible Fact & Quiz Book

Hebrews-James: Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary

Expanded Bible: Old & New Testament

Ezekiel (The Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary)

Mark: Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary

Oracle8i DBA: Architecture & Administration Certification Bible

Ezra, Nehemiah & Esther (The Expositor's Bible)

Proverbs-Ecclesiastes (Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary)

Microsoft PowerShell, VBScript & JScript Bible

OpenSolaris Bible (Bible (Wiley))

bible

Modern Science, Metaphysics & Mathematics

Writing Fantasy & Science Fiction

Intensive Science & Virtual Philosophy

MySQL Administrator's Bible (Bible (Wiley))

Bible Mystery and Bible Meaning

Linux Database Bible (Bible (Wiley))

Words, Science & Learning (Developing Science and Technology Education Series)

Philosophy, Science, Education and Culture (Science & Technology Education Library)

Science Shams & Bible Bloopers

Shams

Science & Fiction

Science Skills & Thrills

Foundations Of Science - Science & Hypothesis, Value Of Science, Science & Method - Science & Education Series, Volume I

Logics & Experimental Science

The Bible, The Quran and Science

The Ultimate Bible Fact & Quiz Book

Romans: Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary

Berean Study Bible (Old & New Testaments)

Trapper's Bible Traps, Snares & Pathguards

The Ultimate Bible Fact & Quiz Book

Hebrews-James: Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary

Expanded Bible: Old & New Testament

Ezekiel (The Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary)

Mark: Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary

Oracle8i DBA: Architecture & Administration Certification Bible

Ezra, Nehemiah & Esther (The Expositor's Bible)

Proverbs-Ecclesiastes (Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary)

Microsoft PowerShell, VBScript & JScript Bible

OpenSolaris Bible (Bible (Wiley))

bible

Modern Science, Metaphysics & Mathematics

Writing Fantasy & Science Fiction

Intensive Science & Virtual Philosophy

MySQL Administrator's Bible (Bible (Wiley))

Bible Mystery and Bible Meaning

Linux Database Bible (Bible (Wiley))

Words, Science & Learning (Developing Science and Technology Education Series)

Philosophy, Science, Education and Culture (Science & Technology Education Library)

Recommend Documents