Tag Archives: science

Nazism, Democracy, and the Murder of Reason

Prof. Paul Eidelberg

According to one study, 97 percent of all teachers in Nazi Germany were members of the Nazi party. Many of these teachers taught the humanities­—philosophy, literature, the fine arts. Many others taught the social sciences—sociology, political science, psychology, anthropology.

Clearly, the study and teaching of the humanities and the social sciences do not make people virtuous. We should not be surprised. For the prevailing doctrine in the humanities and the social sciences is moral relativism, which claims that reason cannot provide objective standards of good and bad, right and wrong. This is the prevailing doctrine in American and Israeli universities.

As for the exact sciences, physics and chemistry, they are ethically neutral. How did German scientists respond to Nazism? In his book on the great theoretical physicist Erwin Schrodinger, Walter Moore’s says: “There is no known instance in which a professor of physics or chemistry without any Jewish family ever made any open protest against Nazi activities. Even among the German intellectual elite, the scientists were conspicuously unanimous in this respect, since a few protests can be found among scholars in other fields.”

Science can serve dictators as well as democrats—witness Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. This means that science does not make scientists or their societies humane. But much the same may be said of the secular democratic state in which moral relativism permeates every level of education. Witness the moral decay in America and Europe.

By the way: there are approximately 200 divergent schools of psychology, hence 200 different conceptions of human nature; and virtually all purvey the doctrine of moral relativism.

Because secular education is ethically neutral, it undermines reverence, awareness of what is noble, and this cannot but corrupt youth. Whatever decency we experience today we owe primarily to the waning influence of Torah values and classical Greek philosophy exemplified in Plato and Aristotle. During America’s constitution-forming period, Hebrew and the study of the Hebrew Bible constituted an essential part of the curriculum at Harvard, Yale, Princeton and other universities. And so too were the classics.

A silent and insidious revolution has occurred in America. Not only have the classics been replaced by multiculturalism, but a reversion to paganism is evident on university campuses, where gays and lesbians feel at home, and they have similar types or indifferent representatives in Congress. They and their academic defenders would have us believe that homosexuality is “progressive.” In fact, homosexuality is reactionary, a throwback to paganism.

To sexual perversion add the nudity, pornography, and obscene violence purveyed by the entertainment media, which some half-educated psychologists justify as providing an “escape valve” for repressed instincts. Has it ever occurred to these secular educators of our youth that the nudity now commonplace in the cinema and television is indicative of superficiality? Has it ever occurred to them that pornography, by reducing love to lust, generates vulgarity? Has it ever occurred to their adolescent minds that media violence undermines kindness and compassion?

Thanks very much to utterly secularized education and to those who profit from the commercial exploitation of sex and violence, people are more concerned about the quality of things that goes into their stomachs than the quality of things that goes into their minds—or into the minds of their children. But this is the inevitable consequence of contemporary democracy, whose supreme principle is unfettered freedom of expression. Do not expect the high priests of the secular democratic state to reverse the ethically neutral principles of democracy, the religion of our times. But bear in mind that Weimar Germany, a democracy steeped in moral relativism, spawned tyranny.

Democracy is usually associated with reason. But reason takes a holiday from democracy when its two great principles, freedom and equality, have no moral constraints. This is more than a political issue: it’s a theological issue, and it underlies the conflict between the West and Islam.

The West boasts of its rationality. And yes, reason may be effective in the social and political dealings of democrats. But these democrats, whether secular or not, are living on borrowed time, having been influenced by a now waning Judeo-Christian culture based on the idea that man is created in the image of God. This idea is rejected by Islamic theology, and contrary to Daniel Pipes, this makes Islam incompatible with democracy; it also makes abiding peace with Islamic regimes impossible so long as they deem the Quran as sacred and immutable.

Utter indifference to Islamic theology led Jewish prime ministers into the Oslo covenant of death. This is the result of a morally neutral or secularized system of education. These half-educated Jewish democrats really believed that reason and mutual understanding would resolve Israel’s conflict with her Islamic foes.

Not all democrats, not even all social democrats, betray such ignorance or stupidity. Contrast the 19th century social democrat Ferdinand Lassalle, a Jew. In his drama Franz von Sickengen, there occurs a dialogue between a Lutheran chaplain, a pacifist, and Ulrick von Hutten, the great 16th century humanist. To the pacifist’s contention that reason as opposed to force is the driving principle of history, von Hutten replies: “My worthy Sir! You are ill-acquainted with history. Reason is its content, but its form is ever force.”

Recalling that it was the sword that saved Greece from Xerxes, and liberated Jerusalem from the Saracens; that it was the sword that David, Samson, and Gideon labored with, von Hutten concludes: “Thus, long ago as well as since, the sword achieved the glories told by history; and all that is great, as yet to be achieved, owes, in the end, its triumph to the sword.”

The sword saved Europe from the tyranny of Nazi Germany. But did reason emerge triumphant? Is it not the case that democratic Europe sides with the Palestinian Authority, a kleptocratic tyranny? Are Europe’s political and intellectual elites oblivious of the fact that the PA trains Arab children to emulate homicide bombers?

Decadent Europe aside, what are we to say of Israeli prime ministers who believe that reciprocity, or the give-and-take of conventional politics, will solve Israel’s conflict with Muslims. Don’t these Jewish politician know that Islamic theology regards as blasphemous the idea that man is created in the image of God, that Muslims reject the primacy of free will and reason, since both contradict Allah’s omnipotence?

Purdue University political scientist Louis Rene Beres says that “All politics is delinquency, challenging and besmirching life with the eternally smug babble of criminals, fools and … above all, the gibberish of the ordinary.” Beres regards Israeli politics, as “infantile.” For evidence, it’s enough to point out that Israeli prime ministers have released, armed, and paid thousands of Arab Jew-killers to provide for Israel’s security! Can such “useful idiots” take Islam seriously?

But if you want to laugh or cry about such idiocy, here’s a story from multicultural America, where relativism and secularized education thrive. In 1985, the U.S. Supreme Court declared unconstitutional an Alabama law which authorized teachers to set aside one minute at the start of each day for a moment of “silent meditation or voluntary prayer.” Soon thereafter the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit replaced its anti-Christian agenda by enforcing a pro-Islamic agenda! As one commentator noted, this same court, which has jurisdiction over nine states and fifty-nine million Americans, ruled that it was not constitutional for public school students to say “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance but that it was constitutional for public schools to require a three-week general indoctrination to the Islamic faith in which junior high-school students—even those who are not Muslims—must pretend they are Muslims and must offer prayers to Allah; they are further urged to take Islamic names, call each other by those names, wear Islamic garb, participate in Islamic games, and read the Koran during those three weeks. Significantly, the federal court of appeals did not think that requiring Islamic religious activities violated the so-called “separation of church and state” [doctrine] but that voluntarily saying “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance did.

Of course this is an attack on America’s Judeo-Christian foundations and a kowtowing to Islam.

This should worry Jews in Israel. Perhaps they should revive and update the ideas of the Hebraic Republic of antiquity? Back in the 17th and 18th centuries, Protestant and Catholic Hebraists in England, Holland, and Italy regarded the Hebraic Republic as the wisest and most just in history. John Shelden proposed that Britain replace its Parliament with the Sanhedrin! I have just finished a book which shows that the ideas underlying the original American Constitution are fundamentally Hebraic. Perhaps reviving aspects of that Republic should be the goal of those who deplore Israel’s dysfunctional political system?

This would require radical change in what is called “higher education.” In the end, however, the sword will also determine Israel’s future.

Relativism: From Israel to Einstein

By Paul Eidelberg

One can only wonder how a Jewish state, surrounded by hostile Arab-Islamic regimes, can survive when the educators of its political and military elites do not believe in the absolute justice of Israel’s cause. Professor Harkabi, who once served as head of the Israel Army Staff and Command College, concludes Arab Attitudes to Israel with this demoralizing remark: “The study of the [Arab-Israel] conflict reveals the relativity of the attitudes of the parties.” Influenced by such relativism, former General Ehud Barak, during his campaign for Israel’s premiership, was quoted as saying (in the United States) that had he been born an Arab, he would have been a terrorist!

Raised and educated in this decadent atmosphere, Tel Aviv University professor of philosophy Asa Kasher, under the authority of the late Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, and with the acquiescence of then Chief of Staff Barak, erased the words “Judaism” and “Zionism” as well as “Eretz Israel” from the Soldiers Code of Ethics! Who but minds afflicted by demophrenia would want to transform the Jewish state into a multicultural “state of its citizens”?

Israel is not multicultural America, the most powerful nation on earth. There relativism can permeate every level of education without immediately endangering that democracy’s existence—especially with benign Canada and feeble Mexico on its borders. But minuscule Israel, with Arab-Islamic dictatorships as neighbors, can hardly afford a diet of moral relativism. Yet this has been the fare of countless Israeli students.

Thus, in his book The Middle East, Israeli political scientist Yair Evron teaches: “Only by avoiding questions of right and wrong and also by limiting oneself to an analysis of patterns of behavior and strategies in conflict, can we approach this complex [Arab-Israel] conflict not in any emotional or apologetic way but scientifically and analytically.” We see here a tension between the apparent needs of “science” and the needs of society. To persevere in the Arab-Israel conflict, the people of Israel require steadfast belief in the justice of Israel’s cause. But for academics to preserve their “scientific,” i.e., academic credentials, they must adopt a morally neutral attitude toward that conflict. But wait! Evron’s book was published in 1973. To appreciate the pernicious impact of his relativism, come with me to the year 2003, and let us see what has happened to students attending Israeli universities.

Caroline B. Glick, an editor and gifted writer of The Jerusalem Post</em., addressed some 150 political science students at Tel Aviv University, where she spoke of her experience as an embedded reporter with the U.S. Army’s Third Infantry Division during the Iraq war. Any person not corrupted by moral relativism would favor, as she did, the U.S. over the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein. Yet the general attitude of her audience was expressed by a student who asked, “Who are you to make moral judgments?” Now ponder this exchange between Ms. Glick and a student who spoke with a heavy Russian accent:

Student: “How can you say that democracy is better than dictatorial rule?”
Glick: “Because it is better to be free than to be a slave.”
Student: “How can you support America when the U.S. is a totalitarian state?”
Glick: “Did you learn that in Russia?”
Student: “No, here.”
Glick: “Here at Tel Aviv University?”
Student: “Yes, that is what my professors say.”

Ms. Glick spoke at five liberal Israeli universities. She learned that all are dominated by moral relativists who indoctrinate their students and ban “politically incorrect” publications. The deadly consequences are clear: “A survey carried out by the left-wing Israel Democracy Institute on Israeli attitudes toward the state [indicates that] … a mere 58% of Israelis are proud of being Israeli, while 97% of Americans and Poles are proud of their national identity.” Ms. Glick concludes: “Is it possible that our academic tyrants have something to do with the inability of 42% of Israelis to take pride in who they are?”

One might think that moral relativists would adopt a neutral attitude in the conflict between Jews and the Palestinian Arabs—as political scientists like Yair Evron might have done back in 1973. To the contrary, today’s relativists have demonized Israel. Never mind the well-known fact that Arabs use their own women and children as human bombs. Because moral relativists—typically liberals—cannot acknowledge the enormity of evil, they not only ignore the genocidal intentions of Israel’s enemies, but they identify Jews as the cause of the conflict! Moral relativism has thus produced moral reversal!

Moral Relativism and Relativity

The relativism of the physicist differs profoundly from that of the moral relativist or pluralist. The theory of relativity denies the classical notions of absolute space, absolute time, and absolute motion; it does not deny the absolute. Far from excusing an easygoing pluralism, it appeals to scientists by virtue of what Einstein calls its comprehensive simplicity. The theory would explain “all events in nature by structure laws valid always and everywhere.” Indeed, “Without the belief that it is possible to grasp reality with our theoretical constructions, without the belief in the inner harmony of our world, there would be no science.”

As for Einstein himself, one may find in his philosophical ruminations expressions of moral relativism, but not in his sober and somber moments. In Out of My Later Years, first published in 1950, he writes:

I am firmly convinced that the passionate will for justice and truth has dome more to improve man’s condition than calculating political shrewdness which in the long run breeds general mistrust. Who can doubt that Moses was a better leader of mankind than Machiavelli?

But two pages later one reads:

I know that it is a hopeless undertaking to debate about fundamental value judgments. For instance, if someone approves, as a goal, the extirpation of the human race from the earth, one cannot refute such a viewpoint on rational grounds.

Evident here is the influence of logical positivism on Einstein, who wrote those words only five years after Hitler and his followers had murdered six million Jews and almost six million non-Jews. It was as if positivism had erased everything in the vastness of his rational mind with which to condemn this evil. And yet he did condemn this evil, moreover, in words the government of Israel should heed in dealing with Hitler’s successors! Thus, in a message honoring the heroes of the Warsaw ghetto, Einstein declared:

The Germans as an entire people are responsible for the mass murders and must be punished as a people if there is justice in the world and if the consciousness of collective responsibility in the nations is not to perish from the earth entirely. Behind the Nazi party stands the German people, who elected Hitler after he had in his book [Mein Kampf] and in his speeches made his shameful [genocidal] intentions clear beyond the possibility of misunderstanding.

Why Darwin’s propagandists oppose the book The Mystery of Life’s Origin

Propagandists for Darwin’s theory often claim their opponents are unscientific. They claim their opponents never offer science an alternative theory. They criticize their critics for their continual criticism. This is true of Eugenie Scott, PZ Meyer, Richard Dawkins, and the like.

I have noticed one so-called creationist work often mentioned and criticized by Darwinian propagandists. That work is The Mystery of Life Origins: Reassessing Current Theories by Charles B. Thaxton, Walter L. Bradley, and Roger L. Olson. Therefore, I bought that book and have been reading it.

While reading the first chapter, I began to realize why this book is a problem to Darwin’s propagandists. First, a better sub-title for the book would be Reassessing the Current Theories of Chemical Evolution. That is the actual subject of the book and for good reason: its authors are all professional chemists, evangelists or philosophers. Second, these authors identify the scientific community’s problems with chemical evolution, the statistical improbability of the evolution of cellular life by random chance, the lack of evidence for evolutionary predestination based on finding life on other planets, and the most troubling problem is with the nature of information available to and present by origin science theories.

Quoting preeminent scientists like George Gaylord Simpson, philosophers of science like Karl Pooper, and the prestigious scientific journal like Nature, the authors demonstrates the evolutionary theory of origins is mere speculation, which is exactly the claim made by Darwin’s propagandists against Intelligent Design. If you have watched the documentary Expelled, then you know they also admit they do not know how life actually began.

Consequently, the theories of Creation Science and Intelligent Design are as scientific as is the theory of Evolution to the extent the scientific community (meaning academia, big business, and government) produces and allows observational research by which to verify various theories. To test the plausibility of any theory and its inferences, real scientific research and publication of findings is required; but if it is prevented by the status quo in academia and society, academic and intellectual freedom is denied.

That is the underlying issue of the Evolution v Creation debate. It’s about philosophical views and the suppression of intellectual freedom. It’s bad politics as the many court cases hindering academic and freedom. According to Darwinian propagandists like Eugenie Scott, these cases presumably prove that the Creation Science and Intelligent Design theories are just religious theologies pretending to be science. Decisions of judges are not scientific judgments either.

The belief in a Creator of the material world and that the Creator intervenes in nature to direct or repair it is not illogical. To the members the Continental Congress of this nation, it was self-evidently rational. For a magnificently complex universe and life in it to come about by random accidents was self-evidently irrational. The proposition of Darwinian evolution that life developed by random chance mutations is still illogical as well as unproven. Complex machines do not just assemble themselves by accident. They are purposefully made according to a predetermined design according to ability and knowledge (information).

I have also noticed that all Origin theories, even the Genesis account, always assume preexisting material, organism, or universe from which our world and life in it came into existence. Both name elements and components, describe processes, identify sources, and employ reason and observation. Prior to Darwin and the rise of atheistic secularism, scientific discoveries were expected to give scientists and society a greater understanding of the Creator and his purpose(s) for creation. That is why religion is not a hindrance to science. On the contrary, it is only a hindrance to unethical scientific agendas.

If as David Bohm theorizes, the entire blueprint of the universe and all forms of life exist in every part of nature. Then, its source must have been very intelligent and skillful. Evolutionists like Richard Dawkins speculate that an intelligent being or being could have been the source. Others called that being God. For still others, their personal experience of God verifies their belief. Seeing that millions of people around the world for two millenniums have repeatedly have experienced the same verification, should not God then be regarded as an empirical fact?

Sources: Eugenie C. Scott, “American Antievolutionism: Retrospect and Prospect” in Evolution: The First Four Billion Years, Michael Ruse and Joseph Travis, eds., Cambridge, MA: Belnap Press, 2009): pp. 370-399; Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed, DVD, directed by Nathan Frankowski (Universal City, CA: Vivendi Entertainment, 2008); The Mystery of Life’s Origin (Dallas, TX: Lewis & Stanley,: 1984): pp. 1-7.

Note: I found “Evolution” at the Xenia Library but I could not find “Mystery,” but I did find it at the downtown Montgomery County Library. Other Greene County Libraries have “Expelled,” but the Xenia Library seems to prefer to spend tax dollars on Evolution.

Genesis One Literally Speaking

The first chapter of Genesis has been a source of religious and scientific disagreement for centuries. In the 20th Century, Darwinian evolution became a foundational dogma of both secularism and science. Because it lends its weighty influence to atheism, many regarded Darwinian evolution as being antagonistic to the faith.

According to faithful adherents, Darwinian evolution is undeniable scientific fact, but a number of its key doctrines such as natural selection have been questioned with much skepticism by hundreds biologists, geneticists, chemists, evolutionists, and other scientists.

The most recent public contention has been between establishment Darwinists and intelligent design (ID) scientists. Darwinists call IDers names like religious fanatic, evangelists, and other words not worthy of mention. Yet, most leading IDers are either educated practitioners in scientific fields or science educators. IDers infer an intelligent designer from both their own scientific research (that apologists of Darwinism claim don’t exist) and from the research of other scientists. Darwinists see the inference as a religious threat to evolution science and many of them oppose ID based on their atheistic views.

Earlier in the 20th Century, the debate was between Creation science and Darwinian evolution. Today, many leaders in the scientific community regard ID as a renewed form of Creation Science, which means scientific findings biblically interpreted.

One of the hotly contested interpretations has been a literal seven day creation of the heavens and/or earth. It has been contested because the results of scientific dating techniques refute its claim. Carbon dating show the earth is billions of years old. Yet, evidence also exist that shows humans lived contemporaneously with dinosaurs–an evolutionary impossibility. There even exists a fossilized human sandal embedded in pre-dinosaur sediment, which raises a legitimate but unanswered question as to whether carbon dating is correct or whether human have been around throughout most of earth history.

If the Hebrew word for day in Genesis 1 is literally interpret as a 24 hour period, then Genesis 2 presents a terrible problem. In that chapter, the universe was created in one day. Overcoming this dilemma is not that difficult because the text also says that on the 7th day God rested. It is logical to infer that here is a summary reference to chapter one.

Nevertheless, literalists are not out of the deep waters. For covering the scriptures are the waves made by the prophets who said that a day (24 hrs.) is as a thousand years and a thousand years is as one day to God. Punching a few more holes in the literal boat are scientific scholars like Gerald Schroeder who claim that time being relative as proven by Einstein allows for a day being thousands if not billions of years, while at the same time, being merely 24 hours viewed from an earthly perspective. Schroeder is a proponent of the Big Bang theory of the origins of the universe.

The Big Bang theory lends itself to a triune God creating the universe out of nothing as explained by mathematical physicists Frank Tipler as well as to an evolutionary view such as quantum physicist David Bohm’s Implicate and Explicate Order.

A more important question concerning the Creation account than whether God created it in 7 days, 7 millenniums or 7 other periods is how and what did God create? Yet, science specializes in answering how questions. The author of Genesis only informs us that God made the power of His information the source of the Creation. Oddly enough, Bohm also believes that information guiding energy is the source of all matter and life in the universe.

Genesis gives us some additional clues as to how God created. One of those clues is the absence of any mention of God making or creating plant life. God’s involvement is mentioned in all other aspects of creation except plant life. The clue suggests self-organization and replication. Bohm’s theory is particularly useful on the third day.

Not only did plant come forth out of the ground on the third day but so did Jesus of Nazareth. His roots may have been earthly but his destiny extended to the heavens, which leads us to another clue.

In verse one, God began creating the heavens and the earth. A careful reading of the rest of Genesis reveals a clear distinction between heavens and heaven. This distinction refers to all planets, suns and stars beyond the living environment of the earth and its heaven–the airy atmosphere and its upper canopy of water–that God created on the second day.

On each day, God intervenes to form each part of our living environment and each group of species except for plants and humans. That’s right; humans are not a completely separate and distinct specie in the Genesis account. That is inferred by the lack of a new division, either a new day or a distinct body type from those animals of the earth. The uniqueness of humans is their likeness to God. It is true the human body has unique features enabling humans to reflect the nature of God or its opposite. Nonetheless, humans continue to bear a resemblance to other mammals that were also created on the sixth day.

The answer to the question about what God created would not be complete–if it can ever be completely answered–without the following observation:

The first chapter of Genesis is not primarily about God creating the universe; that is limited to the first verse. The focus of Genesis 1 is about God creating a planet capable of sustaining all forms of life. Most importantly, the one eternal creature that God created from the dust–whether by modifying a prior specie or by a special creation–is the only creature that resembles the Creator. The human body resembles the form of God as revealed to Moses, the elders of Israel, the prophets, the apostles as well as by the only perfect human representation–the only begotten son of God, Jesus Messiah. Most importantly, humans resemble the moral, intelligent, aesthetic, and creative being of God.

Literally, Genesis 1 (and 2) is the goal to which the history of corrupted humanity and the history God’s redemption of we humans is destined to attain. The end time is not a bleak account of God’s arbitrary cruelty but rather a judicial account of the final achievement of history’s goal for those who choose the path of God’s redemptive justice. That is also the meaning of chapter 21 of Revelation.

Secular Education

by Prof. Paul Eidelberg

According to one study, 97 percent of all teachers in Nazi Germany were members of the Nazi party. Many of these teachers taught the humanities, for example philosophy, literature, the fine arts. Many others taught various social sciences, such as sociology, political science, psychology, anthropology, history.

Clearly, the study and teaching of the humanities and the social sciences do not make people virtuous. We should not be surprised. For the prevailing doctrine in the humanities and the social sciences in our time is moral relativism, which holds that there are no objective standards of good and bad, right and wrong.

As for the exact sciences, such as physics and chemistry, they are more obviously “value-free” or ethically neutral. Still, how did German scientists respond to Nazism?

In Walter Moore’s Schrodinger: Life and Thought, we read: “There is no known instance in which a professor of physics or chemistry without any Jewish family ever made any open protest against Nazi activities. Even among the German intellectual elite, the scientists were conspicuously unanimous in this respect, since a few protests can be found among scholars in other fields.”

“It is true that after 1934 open opposition would have been dangerous … In the early years if Nazi power, however, opposition was not yet suicidal, and it was during 1933 and 1934 that the scientific establishment, led by Max Planck and Walter Nernst, washed its hands of the growing terror and concentrated on defending its own special privileges.”

Planck, the father of quantum physics, even sent a telegram to Hitler thanking him for his “benevolent protection of German science.” German science nonetheless suffered greatly from the expulsion of Jewish scientists from German universities and research institutes. This expulsion was welcomed by many German scientists, for it paved the way to their own personal advancement.

Science and technology can serve dictators as well as democrats. (Suffice to mention Iran’s nuclear weapons program.) Clearly, science does not make scientists or their societies decent, no more than teaching the humanities makes people humane.

Because secular education is morally free or ethically neutral, it cannot but corrupt youth. Whatever decency we experience today we owe to the influence of the Torah.

Unfortunately, the influence of the Torah in the non-Torah world is waning. The reversion to paganism is evident on American university campuses, where homosexuals feel quite at home. They and their academic defenders would have us believe that homosexuality is “progressive.” The truth is that tolerance of homosexuality is reactionary, a throwback to the paganism condemned by the Torah.

To sexual perversion add the nudity, pornography, and bloody violence purveyed by the entertainment media, which some semi-educated secular psychologists justify as providing an “escape valve” for repressed instincts.

Has it ever occurred to these educators of our youth that the nudity now commonplace in the cinema or on television is indicative of superficiality? Has it ever occurred to them that pornography, which reduces love to lust, generates vulgarity? Has it ever occurred to them that media violence undermines kindness and compassion?

Thanks very much to secular education and of course to those who profit from the commercial exploitation of sex and violence, people are more concerned about the quality of things that goes into their stomachs than the quality of things that goes into their minds — or into the minds of their children. But this is the inevitable consequence of contemporary democracy, whose supreme principle is unfettered freedom of expression.

Do not expect the high priests of democracy to reverse the logic of democracy, the religion of our times. Yesterday, Weimar Germany, a liberal democracy steeped in moral relativism spawned an unmitigated tyranny. Today, another liberal democracy steeped in moral relativism may make Barack Obama the President of the United States.

Source: Email commentary by Prof. Paul Eidelberg, president of the Foundation for Constituitional Democracy. His other writings are found at the Foundation website.

Prof. Eidelberg became professor of political science at Bar Ilan University in 1976 after writing a trilogy on America’s founding fathers: The Philosophy of the American Constitution, On the Silence of the Declaration of Independence, and a Discourse on Statesmanship. He also designed the electronic equipment for the first brain scanner at the Argonne Cancer Research Hospital.

What the Chemical Industry Doesn’t Want You to Know about Everyday Products

A September 18, 2008 article published on AlterNet reports that the chemical industry has enlisted its lobbyists, scientists, and “yes we can” legislators in their efforts to discredit scientific and medical evidence showing bisphenol A (BPA) is destructive to animal and human lives. This research has been growing for decades. Yet, the federal government still panders to the big chemical companies and their big dollar lobbies.

The chemical industry is a $3 trillion dollar business and BPA is a billion dollar concern. What Dow Chemical and other businesses are concerned about is not the health of society but the potential loss a product that makes them $6 billion a year. The value of BPA-based manufactured goods, from cell phones and computers to epoxy coatings and dental bindings, is probably incalculable.

University of Missouri-Columbia scientists Frederick Vom Saal and Wade Welshons are credited are the first scientists to discover that miniscule amounts of bisphenol A (BPA), an artificial sex hormone and integral component of a vast array of plastic products, caused irreversible changes in the prostates of fetal mice.

Their findings has touched off a steady drumbeat that has led to a ban on BPA-laden baby bottles in Canada, mounting support for a similar ban in the U.S., major retailers pulling plastic products off their shelves, a consumer run on glass baby bottles and a blizzard of scientific reports raising increasingly disturbing questions about the chemical’s dangers at the trace levels to which people are routinely exposed.

Washington State University reproductive scientist Patricia Hunt found that low-levels of BPA scrambled chromosomal alignment of eggs in mice.

A Yale University medical school research team discovered that after injecting African green monkeys for 28 days with BPA at the level the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says is safe for people, the researchers found the chemical causes destruction of synapses in brain cells. In humans, these losses could lead to memory and learning problems and depression.

In April, a study published in Environmental Health Perspectives reveals scientific evidence that low-levels of BPA also damage the human immune system.

Could BPA be the root problem of the growing number of people with the Alzheimer and other degenerative diseases?

Another major problem with BPA is the ease with which the chemical can leach into our food, air, and skin cells. Plastics made with BPA break down easily when heated, microwaved, washed with strong detergents or wrapped around acidic foods like tomatoes, trace amounts of the potent hormone leach into food from epoxy lacquer can linings, polycarbonate bottles and other plastic food packaging. According to Dr. Mercola, cans of infant formula have been shown to be some of the worst offenders; just one to three servings can contain BPA levels that have caused serious adverse effects in animal tests.

The Chemical Industry and corporations like Dow Chemical are using every means possible to hinder any responsible action against their cash cow, bisphenol A. Earlier this year, the industry spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to defeat a California legislative proposal to ban BPA in food packaging. The Chemistry Council and allied companies and industry groups hired an army of lobbyists, including Navigators LLC, the Washington firm that ran Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s 2003 campaign and his 2004 budget reform drive. Tactics included an industry email to food banks charging that a BPA ban would mean the end of distributions of canned goods for the poor.

And more recently, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) forced Mary Gade to quit her job as head of the EPA’s Midwest office after her interactions with Dow Chemical. Gade had been locked in a heated dispute with Dow about long-delayed plans to clean up dioxin-saturated soil that extends 50 miles beyond its Midland, Michigan plant. The company had been dumping the highly toxic and persistent chemical into local rivers for most of the last century.

In an interview on May 1, 2008, Gade said of her forced resignation: “There’s no question this is about Dow. I stand behind what I did and what my staff did. I’m proud of what we did.”

The FDA recently evaluated these claims backed by over 100 studies, by health and consumer advocates, by lawmakers, and by scientists. The typical response of the FDA was to favor big dollar industry science.

According to Dr. Mercola, the FDA upheld their decision that BPA is safe and can remain in food packaging, including infant formula containers and baby bottles, despite the more than 100 independent studies linking the chemical to serious disorders in humans, including:

    * Prostate cancer
    * Breast cancer
    * Diabetes
    * Early puberty
    * Obesity, and
    * Learning and behavioral problems

There are several things you can do about this issue. You can ontact your state and federal representatives encouraging them to create and support legislation that will eliminate the manufacture and sale of products containing BPA. You can also buy products from a growing number of manufacturers that offer products without BPA. A list of BPA free resources may be found on Dr. Mercola’s website.


Alternet September 15, 2008

Current Natural Health Newsletter October 11, 2008