John H Armstrong

Do Celebrities Have a Vital Role in Treating Health Issues?

To ask my question is virtually to answer it at the same time. But ask it I must. Do public celebrities, popular for whatever reason, have a role to play in treating disease and illness? Some clearly think so or books and various programs would not have such a huge audience.

Take Suzanne Somers as a case in point. Her new book, Knockout: Interviews with Doctors Who are Curing Cancer and How to Prevent Getting It in the First Place has created rousing interest among many. I have no doubt that it will become a bestseller. Somers is known for her crusade for non-traditional treatments. She is a cancer survivor herself, having undergone a lumpectomy and radiation for breast cancer a decade ago. She declined chemotherapy and believes it is not effective for the most common forms of cancer: lung and breast. 

Somers got her largest response when she appeared on Oprah. Oprah denies that she promotes such "cures" but she said Somers "just might be a pioneer." She added, "Many people write Suzanne off as a quackadoo" but clearly gave her the biggest stage she could to promote her thinking.

The question here is rather simple: Can, or should, people with great fame use their fame to promote medical opinions and promote their own medical advice? Well, it is a free country and freedom of the press allows it for sure. But is it helpful? When Bill Maher makes no secret of his disdain for flu shots when he says "Why should I allow someone to stick a disease into my arm?" (The ignorance of that comment is mind boggling for a liberal talk show host who prides himself on intelligence.) And Don Imus says he's eating habanero peppers and taking Japanese soy supplements to treat prostate cancer. What next? But really, what harm does this stuff really do since these are only celebrities?

The answer is that we really do not know. One thing we do know is that this kind of talk clearly feeds a public perception that traditional medical science should not be trusted. Barron Lerner, a physician who has studied this issue of celebrities influencing the treatment of illness, recalls that many desperately followed Steve McQueen when he turned to unorthodox treatment for his cancer in 1980. McQueen was treated with everything from coffee enemas to laetrile, a now debunked remedy involving apricot pits. While it is difficult to know what to make of McQueen's influence Lerner says, in his book When Illness Goes Public, that traffic to Mexico related to end-of-life cancers did increase.

What was going on with McQueen, says Lerner, is that he embodied a sense of rebellion and individualism that gave voice to a feeling in this country that mainstream medicine is not enough.

As readers know I have struggled for 13 years with an illness that has no cure and, until recently, didn't even gain the respect of the mainstream medical establishment. It took me a few years just to find a physician who had studied the illness enough to trust him as my doctor. And recently we have increasing evidence that my illness is a retro-virus that attacks the immune system, much like the one labeled HIV. A reason the mainstream did not do much research on this illness is because they were not sure they believed the patients who reported to them their symptoms.

So I am in a precarious stance somewhere between Suzanne Somers and Bill Maher and some who act as the gate keepers of mainstream medicine. I believe medical science is not perfect and anyone who thinks that it is has put entirely too much trust in mankind's achievements. Further, it is as natural as day follows night to look for alternative approaches to chronic, long-term illness when mainstream medicine says we have no answers. In a society where information is ubiquitous (especially via the Internet) we should expect people to think and study such issues for themselves. I welcome this and do it myself. But I think there is a real danger here that everyone begins to act as if they understand the type of testing that goes into serious scientific research.

But with most cancers this is not the complete story. We have made huge strides in treating many forms of cancer and with some of them we have an extremely high rate of success by using mainstream treatments. Could non-traditional forms of supplementation help? Maybe, but we are not sure. The problem here is how the scientific method operates and how we thus determine, over much time and testing, what works and what doesn't work. I have learned to respect this process very profoundly.

At the same time I have learned that mainstream medical research follows both protocols and biases like any other procedure. True science will keep exploring and searching, even in places where researchers might at first be not so open to new ideas. The very nature of real science is to follow proven traditions but to also keep searching. 

So, do celebrities help or hurt? My guess is it is a little of the first, since they can help create awareness, and a boat load of the second, since they have tended to promote the conspiratorial aspect of lay suspicions unduly. Several of Suzanne's Somer's stories features doctors who have done some amazing work. Much of it, however, is the result of people like Somers becoming "a celebrity health guru." As one who struggles with real illness I can tell you celebrity health gurus have no appeal to me at all. Somers says, "I don't have an agenda." I actually believe her since she seems to be a person who believers in what she is saying. But, she adds, "I'm just a passionate lay person. And I'm using my celebrity to do something good for people." It is this statement that I doubt quite profoundly.

Should a Christian Use Acupuncture?

In the growth of complimentary medicine over the past few decades acupuncture has become a fairly standard practice that many Christians ask me about. My first exposure to this practice led me to assume that acupuncture might have a lot to do with New Age religion and non-Christian spirituality. I decided to investigate this assumption and eventually came to an entirely different conclusion.

The first Christian question to be asked here is quite pragmatic. “Does acupuncture actually bring relief from pain?” If it does then it can be a good thing. Any procedure that can help a person recover health and well-being is good unless it inherently teaches one to deny the faith. We should avoid superstition and silly practices but acupuncture is neither of these if you carefully study it.

The general medical opinion about acupuncture has changed over the years. It was first opposed in the West because science did not have a way of explaining how it could create any positive benefit for the patient. Today the common opinion seems to be that acupuncture may work in three ways. First, it releases endorphins which are the body’s natural pain-control systems. Second, it stimulates nerves in the spinal cord that release pain-suppressing neurotransmitters. Third, it naturally increases blood flow in the needle-puncture area which in turn removes toxic substances.

Most acupuncture is rooted in Taoism and the concept of the yin and the yang. It is commonly understood in Taoism that we should become one with the forces in the universe through various means of meditation. I reject this simple understanding of acupuncture. Acupuncture itself is not religious. Chinese acupuncture is established on a belief system that is not compatible with Christian teaching but the Christian can use any medical help so long as he receives the help “with prayer and thanksgiving.” I am persuaded that the assumption that every medical contribution that comes from non-Christian systems and practices is false fails to grapple with the doctrine of common grace adequately. I have found that acupuncture helps me with some types of pain management and physical recovery from injury. In other cases it has done me little or no good at all. I think my experience mirrors that of most people I know who have used this method to help their general health.

Alternative Medicine: Real Benefits and Real Problems, Part Two

When the various attacks upon alternative medicine are considered it should be pointed out that mainstream physicians are not trained in alternative medicine. The exception, and these are growing by leaps and bounds, is that regular physicians are increasingly embracing alternative medicine as they learn the benefits it offers to patients. But they come to this view in a way that is outside their actual medical school training. This is, of course, less true for those who were trained outside the United States or in a less mainstream practice of the healing arts, like osteopathy. If you are a fair-minded reporter, and you want good information about anesthesia, who should you ask? Obviously, you would seek information from an anesthesiologist. If you want information about the benefits and problems of alternative medicine then it seems only fair that you would interview physicians who have developed an appreciation of alternative medicine by actually studying it and using it with their patients.

Another problem in this debate is that we, the general public, are done a great disservice when facts are reported out of their context. Herbs and dietary supplements have not cured any disease. There is no solid research saying that they have. But the fact is this: most of the medicines doctors prescribe have not cured specific illnesses either but they are used because there is good evidence that they can and do help. There is also, in almost every case, abundant evidence of many “side effects” (often quite serious) associated with almost every medication used in the West. The fact that people may die, or be made worse, from these side effects is effectively under reported in the media. The one major exception to my statement is antibiotics but even here there are downsides that are increasingly being discovered as our bodies resist these drugs when they are over used. Herbs and dietary supplements can be abused, and often are, but they generally have less serious side effects than prescription drugs.

One of the biggest problems with supplements is in manufacturing. Poor quality control and labeling issues are serious issues but even pharmaceutical companies are now producing supplements. In time this industry will shift and develop accountability as was done with drugs. The FDA does not regulate supplements but it has the authority to do so. Why hasn’t it done this? The answer some suggest is that the FDA is understaffed and overworked. Complete manufacturing standards are slow in developing. When a problem is found it is addressed as quickly as possible. More needs to be done.

Finally, research in alternative and complimentary medicine is a new field. It needs to be given time and be tested and held accountable. The potential here seems apparent, especially for millions who deal with chronic health issues medicine has no answer to at present.

A good example of a commonly recognized benefit of the new medicine is Vitamin D supplementation. I recently had a blood test in which I discovered that I was low in Vitamin D. We now realize the clinical benefits of Vitamin D in preventing heart disease and Alzheimer’s. I expect this will prove to be the tip of an iceberg but time will tell. I do know that cell biology is bigger in medicine than it ever was and this will have its impact over time.

All therapies and approaches to medicine should be scrutinized and studied carefully. The new alternative treatments need to be tested but when mainstream medicine refuses to take these alternatives seriously there can be no serious advance in knowledge. This is not good science, it is bias built on supposition. We need to use all therapies that do no harm and thereby offer people relief wherever possible. We also need to advance meaningful dialogue, with less passion, in an area that presents great potential to the advance of medicine and health.

Alternative Medicine: Real Benefits and Real Problems

In a recent two-part post on this site (June 18 and 19) I wrote about the new physics and the new medicine. I am very aware that this conversation has some strange extremes to be found at both ends of the spectrum. The mere mention of “new” medicine makes some people react with intense passion, pro and con. I am not on the extremes of this debate thus I want to explain how I have come to appreciate alternative medicine without buying into the “hype” that so often surrounds this subject.

One of the first questions people ask when this subject comes up is very basic: “Why are so many competent and good physicians so negative about complimentary, or alternative, medicine?” If this is really beneficial why are so many opposed to it?

If my non-scientific sense of things is accurate the mainstream media presents a lot of negative information about the flaws of alternative medicine and the hype often associated with it. The truth of the matter is that there is a lot of hype in alternative medicine. The media does us a favor by pointing this out routinely. Even if you believe, as I do believe, that there is a lot of good to be discovered in alternative medicine, you should always welcome good criticism. Every gain, in any field of research and study, has positives and negatives.

Some of the criticism provided by mainstream Western medicine reminds us that no complimentary therapies have been found to cure cancer thus we should not rely on such theories in treating it. I agree, but with one caveat. We have no single proven approach to cancer, though great advance has been made and some Western models are proving beneficial in major ways. I would opt for a combination approach to most illnesses, including cancer, for which we have no proven (single) cure. Since I have an illness that the medical world in the West offers no solid cure for I speak from some experience at this point.

However, many of these critical articles and news releases contain some implied facts that are not proven on the opposite side of the debate. For example, bio-energy fields are real and measurable. This study has been going on for more than thirty years. I gave, in my two previous articles, an example of how the new physics and the new medicine had combined in producing a way to break up kidney stones with a totally non-invasive approach based on sound waves. These studies are not based on placebo effects or “self hypnosis.” The mind is powerful and habituated patterns of thought can be changed. There is much more to learn in this field. My appeal is that we become open to learn more and to use all that science reveals to us, including the way the mind works to promote healing and wellness. Surely Christians, who have read so much in the Bible about the mind and human thought, can be open to such an approach to health.

The New Medicine Meets the New Physics, Part Two

I come from a family of physicians and dentists. I believe in the great advances of modern medicine. Heart surgery alone should convince everyone that modern Western medicine has made incredible progress and advanced human health in many ways. Furthermore, I do not reject the role that medication and drugs can have in the healing process. But I do question our almost total reliance upon these accepted patterns of treatment without being open to new science.

Anyone who reads the history of science in general, and the history of medicine in particular, knows that a great deal has been advanced, accepted and then changed over the years. This is the nature of real science and thus a major part of what makes it so exciting for earnest researchers and practitioners.

To site just one example, there was a time when electrotherapy was used extensively in treating various illnesses. Toward the end of the nineteenth century, when batteries, and other similar devices, were being developed to produce energy, medicine tried to produce machines that used energy to heal the human body. Popular magazines touted what was called radioesthesia. By 1894 over 10,000 physicians were using this science. But the ideas proved unsuccessful and were ultimately abandoned based on the evidence that little good was actually being done.

In 1895 D. D. Palmer created a science that we call chiropractic. I grew up hearing that chiropractic treatment was pseudo-science, and thus mostly bogus. I understood next to nothing about chiropractic so, like many Christians who know so little about what they so often pontificate about, I rejected chiropractic as heresy. But D. D. Palmer’s basic ideas have proven, over the past 100-plus years, to be extremely useful, and very popular in the last twenty years. His theory was based on the flow of energy in the body. He focused on the vertebral column as the conduit through which the spinal nerves passed and thus provided information to the body. He developed skills by which he could assess and fine-tune this flow of information by adjusting tensions in the backbone which relieved pressures and allowed the body to heal more naturally.

The medical profession rejected D. D. Palmer, much the same way they rejected homeopathy and radioesthesia. Why? The answer is complex, and thus defies simple answers from either side, but surely we can assume drugless practitioners were threatened by this new science. By 1910 the Carnegie Foundation published a famous report that called for all medical practice to be based on “proven science.” Bruce Lipton, once a professor of mainstream medicine at the University of Wisconsin, is a physician who has changed his thinking about this new medicine. Lipton writes: “Because physicians had not yet discovered the quantum universe, energy medicine was incomprehensible to science (Lipton, The Biology of Belief, page 119). Thus the AMA denounced everything from chiropractic to all other questionable forms of medical practice based on energy-based theories.

But now the medical world is changing, sometimes in ways few of us can keep up with from day-to-day. In 1990 chiropractors won a lengthy court battle with the AMA, proving that the AMA had engaged in illegal attempts to destroy their profession. Since 1990 chiropractic has spread rapidly. Now many insurance companies cover it and an increasing number of hospitals and physicians recommend it. And despite the discredited claims of radioesthesia in the late 1800s neuro-scientists are conducting some pretty amazing new research in the whole area of vibration (energy) therapy. Could it be that the brain, long known to be a mysterious electrical organ, is in fact subject to energy in ways that we do not yet understand? I think the answer is obvious.

While I was reading Dr. Lipton's engaging book I did my own Internet reading and came across a number of attacks upon the man and his work. Some of the criticism is fair and needed. Some of it is predictable and common from the medical community. Lipton is seen by some, if you care to go further with his name on the Web, as a quack. Here is how one mainstream scientist describes him and his work:

"Dr. Lipton claims that illness can be cured by mere belief. This isn't only nonsense; it is incredibly unprofessional and irresponsible. This is the equivalent of a TV Evangelist banging his palm against the foreheads of cancer patients, pushing them back down in their seats and proclaiming them cured, only to then say later to an investigating reporter who mentions that the patients later died that the Lord's magic stopped working because doubt entered into the hearts of the disbelieving patients. What an incredibly cruel sentiment. "

If this critic had read Dr. Lipton then I think this is not what he would have discovered. I read him and do not hear him saying this kind of thing at all. He sells his views with the passion of an evangelist, like so many in his field, but he has discovered some things that excite him. The thing that truly makes him an outsider is not his zeal, or even his mistakes about subjects like water, but his rejection of the "medical model" that is accepted by the establishment as settled fact.

Lipton believes that what is needed is serious interdisciplinary research in this new field of science. But this will not happen over night. Lipton believes this research needs to bring quantum physics to the table, as well as chemistry, biology and electrical engineering. (That doesn't sound like quackery to me.) I think he has to be right about this, at least in general. Such research has the promise of healing our bodies without all the dangerous side-effects of some drugs. Please note: I do not reject the use of drugs. I use them, but with more discernment and care than I once did. I recommend the same to you. Become genuinely proactive in understanding what a drug does and how it can harm you. (Those nasty "side effects.") By the way, use vitamins, minerals and herbs with care since they all have side effects. We are a pill-driven society and many of us have simply replaced pharmaceuticals with vitamins and herbs in pill form.

This all seems rather obvious to me now but this is still not so with many scientists. And this is especially the case with some Christians who have not thought about this deeply enough. We are not simply inert material beings! Lipton says what I feel so powerfully that I can do no better than to quote him: “When I gave up the view that we are inert matter, I realize not only that the science of my chosen career was out of date, but also that I needed to promote more constructive interference in my own life” (Lipton, The Biology of Belief, page 121).

Lipton's sentence literally jumped off the page at me when I first read it. I now realize that I need to promote “more constructive interference in my own life.” I need to address how I use my mind, what kinds of energy I expend it on, and how I can/should take responsibility for my own health in a new, pro-active, way. A physician interviewed me recently for a course I am going to take in July that relates to this whole subject. He asked me a powerful, but very simple, question: “What is the difference between taking a pill and taking a training course on your health?” I answered: “Taking a pill is entirely passive. Taking a course that has action steps is taking personal responsibility.” I then realized that if I had not answered his question in this manner he would not have deemed me ready to learn what he will now teach me.

By the way, I think every minister ought to stop preparing pills for their people who passively listen to them talk. We who care for souls should begin to equip and train people in how to understand and use the great truths given to the people of God by the dynamic power (energy is the Greek word here) of the Holy Spirit. We can all begin by “more constructive interference in [our own] life.” I am trying to do that. I am finding that it forces me to make some hard choices that ultimately have a huge benefit.

The New Medicine Meets the New Physics, Part One

Let me be totally honest at the outset. Science is not my special interest, nor is it a field that I have a great deal of competence in professionally. When I listen to scientists talk I often feel like the amateur I am. If I do serious reading about scientific theory I am an outsider who needs a handy lexicon. But this hasn’t stopped me from seeking to gain a better grasp of the amazing developments in modern science, especially in the new physics, or what was called quantum physics.

Quantum theory, if you wonder, is the idea that energy is not absorbed or radiated continuously but discontinuously, and only in multiples of definite, indivisible units. Physics, of course, is the science that deals with properties, changes, and interactions in matter and energy. In classical physics energy is considered to be continuous while in quantum physics subjects like atomic, nuclear and solid-state physics have challenged some of these older assumptions about continuity. One of the things that makes all this so interesting is that it is still a new frontier. This is where medicine comes into the physics conversation, at least for those willing to question the “orthodoxy” of scientific determinism taught (or assumed) so widely in medicine.

My interest in the new medicine comes out of my life experience. I have battled some baffling illnesses (there are scores of people reading these words who are in the same place) that have prompted me to read and study a great deal on my own.

This whole field sometimes gets called alternative, or complimentary, medicine. There are a host of cutting edge ideas being linked, by complimentary medicine, with the new physics. Some older medical questions are being revisited and a great deal of what is being taught in mainstream medical schools is being debated. This new medicine has created an industry in America that is immense and growing. The media has covered this with great interest but a great deal of what we hear about this type of medicine is generally negative. Crack-pots embrace the new medicine and sane people reject it, so we think. I will say more about this in the future but for now let me remind you that every serious advance in science has always been met with the charge of heresy, religious or biological. It makes little difference.

The new physics talks a great deal about waves and ripples. The behavior of energy is important to bio-medicine because vibrational frequencies can alter the physical and chemical properties of an atom as surely as physical signals like histamine and estrogen can alter our bodies. Atoms are in constant motion, which can be measured by vibration. Atoms create wave patterns that are a lot like the ripples which occur when pebbles are dropped into water. Each atom is unique precisely because the distribution of its negative and positive charges, coupled with its spin rate, generates a specific vibration or frequency pattern (cf. Bruce Lipton, The Biology of Belief: Understanding the Power of Consciousness, Matter & Miracles, page 116).

Scientists have actually found ways to stop an atom by using its own energy waves. They have also discovered specific ways to enhance atomic response by using vibrations that create what is called harmonic response. These vibrations can be either electromagnetic or acoustic in origin. Do you remember the old commercial where Ella Fitzgerald sang and the vibration of her voice shattered a glass? The crystal glass absorbed the sound waves until there was so much energy the glass broke. Even I can understand this observable physical phenomena since I can see it at work in spite of my ignorance of the atomic theory behind it.

Medicine now uses this type of new physics in a variety of ways. This is, to use one example most readers will know about, how doctors can break up kidney stones so they will pass from the body (painlessly) in thousands of small particles. Kidney stones are like crystal whose atoms vibrate at a specific frequency. The doctor non-invasively focus a harmonic frequency on your kidney stone and the results are fact. The parallel with Ell Fitzgerald’s voice shattering the glass is rather obvious.

The new physics implies, and increasingly demonstrates, that the same harmonic resonance mechanism, by which sounds waves break up a kidney stone, can enable similar energy harmonics to influence other functions of our body’s chemistry? I believe this is a key that unlocks a whole new door for medicine. The problem is that biology is not all that interested in giving up its reigning position in the field. Most biologists are simply unready to explore these new mechanisms with the same passion that they use to explore and create new pharmaceuticals. I am not being cynical here but this seems to me to be a matter of simple fact. I am sure economics has a role in this but I am also sure good scientists will someday break out of this box precisely because true science always does.

We know that we can modulate chemical structures with drugs. The whole industry is built on this working premise. (Why do you think your prescription can target a specific problem while at the same time it has a list of so many side-effects, or potential new problems, listed on the same bottle?) Could we use waveform to help in healing our bodies? The new physics says yes. But this is where so many people get very, very nervous. For biologists and physicians this tends to sound like faith and miracles, not hard science. For many Christians it sounds like that dreaded label we use called “The New Age.” I am convinced that we should put aside these labels in the name of real science and seriously explore this field with much more interest. To refuse to do so is to allow human prejudice to stop real science. Faith does not need to fear real science. Faith can explore and study the mystery of creation with real joy and freedom.

The Vatican and the Anniversary of Charles Darwin

For well over a hundred-and-fifty years faith and science have been locked in a struggle that has often been seen as battle to the death by both sides. Those who believe Darwin's theory of evolution proves that Christian faith is dead, thus naturalism reigns supreme in place of faith in the modern world, have miscalculated both the nature and power of Christian faith. And earnest Christians who think that no Darwinist can truly be a faithful Christian are either willfully misled or simply out of touch with the incredible faith contributions of men like Francis Collins, the head of the human genome project. Collins, for those who do not know, is both an ardent Christian and an Darwinian evolutionist.

On both sides of this heated debate are advocates who refuse simply to see the merits and insights of their opponents. The evolutionists often see faith as naive and mindless. They see the foolishness of their Christian opponents, as in the aforementioned Dover School District case I cited earlier this week, as the sum total of serious Christian thought on science. And the Christians who think that evolution is the work of the devil are very often convinced of a young earth, the creation of all species within their present form and related ideas that they believe are mandated by a correct and faithful reading of the book of Genesis.

The sad fact is that many conservative Protestants, without serious regard for the teaching of orthodox faith and modern science, have nowhere else to turn but to the special pleading of so-called creation science or intelligent design. Without a teaching structure that is outside their own minds, and thus how they privately read their Bibles, they are taken in by various popular theories and teachers who can make points that seem so simple and faithful to the words of Scripture. A good exposure to the serious study of biblical hermeneutics would cure a lot of this but then where do such Christians get such training? It is much easier to hear their favorite preacher rail against the Darwinists than to study serious questions about biblical hermeneutics.

But Roman Catholicism has not succumbed to this duality or tension. It has been able to truly respect science in a way that allows for the theory of evolution while at the same time it has denied none of the essential biblical and Christian doctrines that are of the very essence of true faith.

I was reminded of this when I came across an announcement this week about a forthcoming event in which Notre Dame University, Rome's Gregorian University and the Pontifical Council for Culture are teaming up to show that faith and science are really complementary.

A March 3-7 conference in Rome on "Biological Evolution, Facts and Theories" was recently presented by Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, president of that pontifical council. The conference will mark the 200th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin and the 150th anniversary of the publication of his Origin of the Species.

"It's not in the least about a celebration in honor of the English scientist; it's simply about analyzing an event that marked for all time the history of science and that has influenced the way of understanding our very humanity," said Jesuit professor Marc Leclerc at the presentation.

During nine sessions, these Catholic academics propose to contribute to the "idea that science, on the one hand, and theology, on the other, represent different fields of analysis and interpretation, though often they are incorrectly overlapped, causing confusion and ideological controversies." It seems to me that this approach is one that thoughtful Protestants would profit from immensely. Much of the warfare between science and religion is unnecessary. I find many, many young Christians who realize this and have grown completely weary of the older debates. I expect that a growing number of evangelical Christians will follow this course of thought in the years ahead. The older battles have little or no appeal to these very bright young Christians who are completely serious about their faith and their scientific methodology. This war needs to end. I pray that it will, sooner than later. It is an ideological controversy that serves no real good for the faith of Christians or for the preaching of the gospel. If you find that you react to this statement with emotional intensity then I fear that your reaction demonstrates my point all too clearly.

Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial

No subject stirs up more fear and opposition among a lot of conservative and fundamentalist Christians than science and faith. And nothing stirred up passions, at least in recent years, quite like the famous Dover (PA) court case regarding the school board's mandate to teach Intelligent Design (ID) alongside of evolution. In 2004 the school board ordered teachers of science to read a statement to their high school biology students about an ID alternative to Darwin's theory of evolution.

For those who do not know the term Intelligent Design (ID) is the argument that life is too complex to have evolved naturally and thus there must be an intelligent agent behind the forces of nature. In Dover a textbook was donated to the school district, a book that taught ID. This prompted the teachers to sue the school board. The town was deeply and bitterly divided and the rage and emotional tempest reached a boiling point that finally impacted people and school boards all across the nation. The court case played itself out in a place where there was no jury. A lone judge, who was appointed by President Bush and was a man with a conservative judicial philosophy, heard the arguments and wrote the ruling.

The celebrated case of Kitzmiller vs. Dover School District produced arguments advanced by expert lawyers, scientists and witnesses for both sides in the debate. Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial is the television program that just aired on Public Broadcast (PBS), and is now available on DVD. (The link in the previous sentence will take you to the site where the entire presentation is discussed and argued.) This documentary, in my estimation, is both riveting and well done. It is a veritable crash course on questions such as "What is the theory of evolution?" and "Is intelligent design a scientifically valid alternative theory?" These probing questions really provide the meat of the entire presentation. The court case is re-created by enactments which use the actual court transcripts as the basis for the story. Important players in the drama, from both sides, are also interviewed during the course of the entire program.

As "hot" as this issue is the Nova documentary still does an extraordinary job of presenting the debate fairly. One would have to search far and wide to find a better and more complete analysis of the legal and technical arguments of this particular case. As many readers no doubt know the judge in Dover finally ruled against the school board. By the time of the court's ruling the citizens had completely removed the board by a contexted and heated election! The judge's argument is one that will likely continue to be cited in future debates about the "establishment clause" and the teaching of science and religion in public schools.

The fundamental question in Kitzmiller vs. Dover was this: "Is the theory of ID a valid scientific theory and thus can it, or even should it, be taught alongside of Darwinism in the classrooms of public schools?" The judge's decision was that ID was not a scientific theory as much as it was a religious explanation of creation and nature. This case had some unusual twists in it which reveal how this impressive judge reached his decision, one that I happen to agree with having studied the case back in 2004 and again by seeing this engaging video.

Many Christians argue that the "theory of evolution" is just that, a theory. This use of the meaning of theory means that evolution is not good science and to believe in evolution, in any meaningful sense, is ultimately a rejection of faith and Christ. Some would even say that evolution is just a bad guess, thus a bad theory created by evil people, who are being used as tools of the devil. Evolution is seen by such people as a great evil that has destroyed us as a culture and will continue to do so until we drive it out of our schools and nation. This kind of thinking was clearly embraced by the two leading men in the Dover case, as the video shows clearly. The battle became one of conservative local churches vs. public education and educators. To be fair, there are several Christians who do argue for evolution and faith both. These Christians opposed the school board as well. (I wish much more attention had been given to these kinds of voices and this kind of argument, which is the greatest weakness of this presentation that more of this is not included. Brief mention is made of the Catholic stance on this matter, one that is greatly at variance from the fundamentalist Protestant reading of Genesis.)

Whether you agree with ID or not you should see this video. It might do several things:

1. It  will show you the complexity of this debate.

2. It will reveal the way in which serious scientists believe the theory of evolution is not a finished model but one that is much more than a "theory" in the sense that it is an untested and simplistic hypothesis that is believed on faith alone.

3. It will show you how bitter this debate remains in mainstream America.

4. It will also reveal, all too sadly, that the anger of conservative Christians does not accomplish righteousness or Christ's true mission in local communities across America.

5. It shows, very clearly, that serious Christians lied under oath in order to promote their use of ID. Such an approach, that "the ends justify the means" should never be used by serious Christians.
 
6. It will, very likely, convince you that ID is nothing more than a "revised" way to teach the older views of creationism, views which were legally defeated in the public schools debates in Arkansas back in the 1980s.

7. It will force you to ask a lot more questions, whichever view of "how" God made life you hold. Asking questions is always good for serious, intellectually curious Christians.

8. It will cause you to hope for a new day when Christians and scientists are not attacking one another in the courts and schools of our nation. This battle, now about a hundred years old, has yielded no observably good fruit for the kingdom of Christ, at least in my view.

9. It might prompt you to actually question the "wedge theory" proposed and promoted by some Christians and discussed by Phillip Johnson in this film. This approach is intended to "crack open" the consensus of the scientific community regarding evolution so that we can regain the culture for creation and Christ. Johnson sees himself as driving the first blow for others to follow and work to turn our culture around on this issue.

I am persuaded that Christians can do much better than some of them did in Dover (PA). I believe we need to at least see and hear the real story of Kitzmiller vs. Dover School Board if we want to understand the issues in this extremely emotional debate. Orthodox Christians surely do not need to attack other orthodox Christians regarding the question of the "method" of creation. And they surely do not need to lie to attempt to do God's work.

The movie ends with the judge revealing how his own life was threatened by some Dover citizens because he ruled against the ID position in his court decision. Further, Pat Robertson is pictured near the end making one of his many foolish public statements that could fill a book by now. Says the author/minister: "You should not attempt to pray to God for help in Dover since he will not hear your prayers. You have already driven him out of Dover by your votes and your actions." Unbelievable? No, sadly, all too common.

Ethics After Darwin

Last evening I attended a stimulating lecture, and even more stimulating discussion afterward, on the subject of Christian ethics after Darwin. The lecture was presented by Dr. Stephen J. Pope, author of The Evolution of Altruism and the Ordering of Love (1994) and Human Evolution and Christian Ethics (2007). Dr. Pope teaches theology at Boston College, a Jesuit school, and was the chair of the department of theology. He did his Ph.D. at the University of Chicago under James Gustafson, one of the most important ethicists in the second half of the twentieth century. I was invited to attend this lecture, sponsored by the Albertus Magnus Society at Dominican University in River Forest, Illinois, by my good friend, Dr. Keith Berndtson. Keith is my personal physician and serves as an ACT 3 adviser. This subject is of particular interest to Keith and me and I wanted to share this time with my friend.

First, the controversial stuff. Dr. Pope accepts macro evolution without serious question. He believes it is a simple fact and there is no serious debate about the scientific evidence. He spoke of four ways that people can respond to these facts. One is to attack them, an approach taken by those who feel they have to defend a literal reading of Genesis no matter what the evidence says. Another approach is neglect. A third is to embrace evolution and then to embrace scientific naturalism. He rejected all three options and presented a view that regards evolution as a fact but maintains an essentially orthodox view of Christian faith and theology. Genesis, in his reading, is clearly not to be taken as literal history but rather as a story that explains the fact of God and how ancient writers understood God's role in the beginning. While I do not fully agree with Pope I am convinced that the fundamentalist approach to evolution is booby-trapped with false land mines and trip wires that are not necessary for Christian apologists. How we interpret Genesis surely requires a different approach than the one of many fundamentalists who take it as "literal" in the most strict sense. A knowledge of the early church fathers will make you immediately cautious about reading Genesis as a "literal" reporting of historical facts, at least as we think of facts in many conservative circles. The war between science and theology is often a waste of the effective mission of Christians and thus the church is wise to move away from these conflicts as much as possible.

Second, Dr. Pope presented an excellent case for how social Darwinism and ethical relativism are both wrong. He argued strongly that naturalism is not the necessary consequence of accepting scientific Darwinism. He asked, "What does it mean to be human in the light of evolutionary science?" How do Christian ethics reflect the nature of the human person as understood within the modern landscape, one that is obviously very different than the pre-Darwinian age? Pope's specialty is the relationship between ethics and evolutionary theory. His basic argument against the impact of Darwinism on Christian ethics revolved around the idea of radical reductionism. We have too easily reduced to science matters of faith and life. We should embrace the science with what Pope called "emergent complexity." In good sacramental and Catholic fashion he argued that we can embrace the past without being enslaved to it at the present.

Finally, Dr. Pope's primary argument, which I found very helpful, was to explain how ethics can and should work with deep Christian impact in the present world. He argued for "solidarity." By this term he reasoned that we must pursue a justice that is rooted in God's love. We must resist natural self-preferences in favor of solidarity with all other human persons. He cited the famous Charles Taylor who said, "We are the most highly individualistic culture that has ever existed." The answer, said Pope, is a radical (Christian) solidarity with the entire creation, a solidarity that maintains a real creator/creation distinction. Pope wants to make us more conversant with the whole of creation, accepting it sacramentally, while we do not give up the idea that God is the creator and grace is the real answer to our human problem. 

I had the opportunity to converse in private with Dr. Pope at the end of the evening. I listened to him speak to about ten young adults who were his former students. As they talked about justice and compassion for the poor, and how he had taught them to practice Christian ethics in his classes, I felt like I was sitting in the class of a master teacher who understood how to motivate young people to follow Christ in radically faithful ways. It was impressive! Dr. Pope and I spoke about two theologians: Tom Torrance and Jurgen Moltmann. He knew a little about Torrance, the famous Reformed theologian who passed away recently. Torrance wrote a great deal more about the intersection of Christian faith and science, perhaps more than anyone else that some evangelicals read. (Alister McGrath has also made a huge contribution in this area of science and faith and remains a solid evangelical as well.) I mentioned Moltmann because he helps show how "hope" fits into a view of the future that takes scientific progress, and human sin, very seriously.

All in all, it was a fun evening for me. I love attending an event like this one in a context that is very different from my own. Listening to the audience frame questions was an adventure in itself. People ranged from seriously reflective Christian orthodoxy to ideas about native American spirituality that saw creation and God as virtually one and the same. As I drove home I wondered again: "Why are evangelicals so fearful of such dialogue?"

Ben Stein's New Movie Will Clearly Shake the Academic Tree

This year, author and former speech-writer Ben Stein goes for the jugular vein that supplies all the false ideology fueling today's rebellion against God and final truth. He does it in a movie, Expelled, that has already stirred controversy and it is not even out yet. (Click the movie title and you will see the trailer that has been pre-released.) Stein is taking on the establishment's enslavement to Darwinism and exposing not only its improbability, but its dangerous intellectual suicide that refuses to follow the evidence where it leads, and that of course is back to God our Creator. Take a minute and watch the preview of this forthcoming film. It should be interesting whether you completely agree with his conclusions or not.