George Washington: A Worthy Hero?

During my elementary school years, the month of February was one of my favorites.  As winter daylengths grew longer, February brought Valentine’s Day and the excitement of exchanging Valentines with my classmates.  I gave special attention to preparing and then exchanging Valentines with the girls in my class.

On a more serious note, February invited my teachers to offer interesting projects and studies of two of our greatest presidents, Abraham Lincoln and George Washington.  I was always impressed that, unlike my birthday, theirs was honored with red numbers on calendars--February 12 and 22, respectively. 

George Washington (1732-1799) was born in Westmoreland Co., Virginia, south of what would become our nation’s capital, now named for him. His vocations were varied and significant:  Virginia farmer, Ohio valley wilderness land surveyor (1749-1750), commander of the militia in the French and Indian War (1754-1763), commander in chief of the Continental Army during the American Revolutionary War (1775-83), contributor to the drafting of the U.S. Constitution (1787), and first president of the United States (1789-1797). 

Washington’s accomplishments became familiar to me very early in my study of American history—accomplishments that made him one of my most worthy heroes.  Later, I learned to associate George Washington with other titles—Anglican, Deist, Freemason, slaveholder.  More recently, the era of political correctness has labeled Washington as simply “a dead white guy.” 

Peter A. Lillback’s 1,200-page treatise which now rests heavily on my lap is entitled George Washington’s Sacred Fire.  Lillback attempts to portray Washington accurately from his extensive references to the historical records.  I highly recommend this book, and have chosen to include only a few excerpts here in defense of Washington’s integrity and faith in God.

The most frequent attempt to deny that George Washington had placed his faith in Jesus Christ as his Savior and as his hope of Eternal Life claims that he was a Deist.  Many who label Washington as a Deist would align him with the agnostics who claim neutrality on the issue of whether God exists.  If God does exist, He has been so uninvolved in the world that He is unknowable.

The Deist label upon Washington can be soundly dismissed.  In Sacred Fire, Lillback notes that the practice of prayer was gradually abandoned by Deism.  After all, why pray “to a Deity who on principle had abandoned all contract and communication with his creation?”  On the other hand, Washington is documented as having adopted a “lifelong practice of prayer.” Sacred Fire contains references to and excerpts from over 100 prayers that Washington had written out!  In addition, according to Lillback’s research, “There were numerous accounts from family and military associates—too numerous to be dismissed—of people coming across Washington in earnest, private prayer.”

Regarding our first president’s practice of the Christian faith, Lillback writes, “George Washington was not a perfect man. He occasionally lost his temper, he drank wine—maybe too much when he was a young man…he had a revenue producing distillery on his Mount Vernon estate…he owned slaves…which was not uncommon for a Southern gentleman of his day.  Like other human beings, [Washington] struggled with personal challenges such as illness, fatigue, pain, deaths of loved ones, loneliness, financial pressures, and step-parenting challenges, to name but a few.  Yet, as we can see from his writings, he attempted to walk according to the duties of the Christian faith.

George Washington’s Farewell Address (September 19, 1796) near the end of his two terms as president expresses his humble faith in the Almighty, a love for the nation he helped to form, and a hope that his contribution of over forty years would be viewed with good will for many years after he has gone to his eternal rest:

Though in reviewing the incidents of my administration I am unconscious of intentional error, I am nevertheless too sensible of my defects not to think it probable that I may have committed many errors. Whatever they may be, I fervently beseech the Almighty to avert or mitigate the evils to which they may tend. I shall also carry with me the hope that my country will never cease to view them with indulgence and that, after forty-five years of my life dedicated to its service with an upright zeal, the faults of incompetent abilities will be consigned to oblivion, as myself must soon be to the mansions of rest.

I’ve lived through many February’s since I first celebrated Washington’s birthday.  But, having read portions of George Washington’s Sacred Fire, I am pleased to say that he remains one of my heroes.  Any of us who study the history of Washington or any other historical figure ought not to miss the blessed evidence of the hand of Providence in the lives of imperfect men and women.  As for me, I must especially remember that their lives are now history, but my race is still to be run to the finish. 

Lord, may we who fix our eyes on You lay aside the encumbrances and sin that weighs us down, and run with endurance.¹  May we speak and so act, as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty² –the liberty that causes us to live in the Joy of our salvation and to be gracious and merciful to others because of the costly grace and mercy Christ purchased for us and extends to all who will receive.

-----------------------
George Washington:   Monday Evening Prayer:³
Most Gracious Lord God, from whom proceedeth every good and perfect gift, I offer to thy divine majesty my unfeigned praise & thanksgiving for all thy mercies towards me. Thou mad'st me at first and hast ever since sustained the work of thy own hand; thou gav'st thy Son to die for me; and hast given me assurance of salvation, upon my repentance and sincerely endeavoring to conform my life to his holy precepts and example. Thou art pleased to lengthen out to me the time of repentance and to move me to it by thy spirit and by the word, by thy mercies, and by thy judgments; out of a deepness of thy mercies, and by my own unworthiness, I do appear before thee at this time; I have sinned and done very wickedly, be merciful to me, O God, and pardon me for Jesus Christ sake; instruct me in the particulars of my duty, and suffer me not to be tempted above what thou givest me strength to bear. Take care, I pray thee of my affairs and more and more direct me in thy truth, defend me from my enemies, especially my spiritual ones. Suffer me not to be drawn from thee, by the blandishments of the world, carnal desires, the cunning of the devil, or deceitfulness of sin. Work in me thy good will and pleasure, and discharge my mind from all things that are displeasing to thee, of all ill will and discontent, wrath and bitterness, pride & vain conceit of myself, and render me charitable, pure, holy, patient and heavenly minded. be with me at the hour of death; dispose me for it, and deliver me from the slavish fear of it, and make me willing and fit to die whenever thou shalt call me hence. Bless our rulers in church and state. Bless O Lord the whole race of mankind, and let the world be filled with the knowledge of Thee and thy son Jesus Christ. Pity the sick, the poor, the weak, the needy, the widows and fatherless, and all that morn or are borken in heart, and be merciful to them according to their several necessities. Bless my friends and grant me grace to forgive my enemies as heartily as I desire forgiveness of Thee my heavenly Father. I beseech thee to defend me this night from all evil, and do more for me than I can think or ask, for Jesus Christ sake, in whose most holy name & words, I continue to pray, Our Father.

------------------------
¹Hebrews 12: 1    ²James 2: 12  
³From:  George Washington’s Sacred Fire, page 807 (Providence Forum Press, Byrn Mawr, PA)

America’s Open Season: Spiritual Awakening?

During the past few months, America has been engaged in what appears to be an “open season” of accusations and confessions of past indiscretions.  On a national and historic level, men like Robert E. Lee and Thomas Jefferson have been criticized for their racism and bigotry.  Angry reactions have led to the toppling of time-honored statues that have honored these and other American leaders.  

"Search ME O God...see if there be any wicked way in ME."

On the Hollywood scene, disclosure of the sexual improprieties associated with Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey, and others has exposed a whole culture of immorality with a long history that is strewn with ruined lives.  Then, in recent days, the “open season” has spread to Washington where names Roy Moore, Al Franken, and Bill Clinton are making the news.   It is clear that, not unlike the culture of Hollywood, the “swamp” of Washington has been growing and festering for many years.

On the surface, America’s soul searching appears to be driven by political and ideological motivations, and maneuverings.  However, many Christ-followers are viewing this season as a call to pray that something deeper, more fundamental, and lasting may be possible.  Is it possible that America is beginning to realize the heavy price it has to pay for having rejected God’s moral absolutes?  Will America realize that her foundation has been strong because she has respected the Judeo-Christian moral code that includes loving God above all else and loving our neighbor as ourselves (Luke 10: 27)?  These laws were given by a loving God to promote abundant life and blessing, not boredom and pain.  God has been lovingly saying to us through His Word, “thou shall not, because I love you; and if you do, you and others will be hurt!   If you lie, hate, gossip, steal, commit adultery, and covet, it will separate you from my love, and my Life.  I have given you a choice:  life and blessedness, or death and dispair.”

How should Christ-followers respond to the daily news of the “toppling” of statues and the improprieties of personalities representing in many cases people that we held in high esteem?  Many Christ-followers have been praying that God would bring healing of the great political, moral, ethnic, and socioeconomic divisions in America.  Yet this morning, I am struck by the need for the light of God’s truth to be directed into my own heart, first and foremost.  What is being played out in Hollywood, Washington, and in cities across America is not foreign to my own life experience.  I too have sinned.  I sin daily--sometimes in my private thought life, and sometimes outwardly though ill chosen words or actions toward my wife or others.  I am not who I think I am.  I am who God knows me to be.  And, when I open God’s Word, the Bible, I can see as in a mirror the man that I really am.

The Apostle Paul explains in Romans 7: 7, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, “Thou shall not covet.”   He goes on to say that, once he realized the Law against coveting, it produced in me coveting of every kind (v. 8).  Paul admits that nothing good dwells in me  because I do the very thing I do not wish to do (Romans 7: 18, 20).”   I can so clearly relate to Paul’s dilemma.  Can’t you? 

We all share the same “flesh” because we are biological and spiritual descendents of fallen Adam (Genesis 3).  But, Romans 8 explains that

Christ came in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit (Romans 8: 3-4).

Based on this truth, it follows that when we “die to the flesh” (i.e. give up on our own attempts to be righteous before God) and accept the offering of Christ’s perfect life, death, and resurrection, that we can be “born again” to walk in newness of life.  Then, as spiritual reborn individuals, we have the power of God’s Spirit within us to direct us along the morally right path in life and to convict us when we tend to go astray in thought or action (2 Timothy 3: 16).

How should I respond to the apparent “open season” on moral transgressors in America?  I must remember that as far as I am concerned, God’s first love and concern is not about Roy Moore or Kevin Spacey, or even about a spiritual reawakening in America.  Rather, God is concerned about my sensitivity to sin and my willingness to confess and turn from my wicked ways. 

Gordon T. Smith, in The Voice of Jesus, Discernment, Prayer, and the Witness of the Spirit, explains that we must “avoid the temptation to look at others rather than yourself.  We cannot know how God is convicting another; we can only know our own hearts.”  We must first examine our own life.  The Spirit of Christ within us calls us to pray with the psalmist David as he prayed (Psalm 139: 23-24),

Search me of God Search me, O God,
and know my heart;
Try me and know my anxious thoughts;
And see if there be any hurtful way in me,
And lead me in the everlasting way.

As we search our hearts in light of God’s Word (Hebrews 4: 12), we realize that, as Smith further notes,

Sin is not merely bad deeds. 

Rather we are wise to be attentive to…how the Spirit might be convicting us with respect to our speech, the attitude of our hearts, our mental propensities as well as what we have actually done [or]…what we have neglected to do…  But the bottom line remains:  “Lord, where are you calling me to turn—not the person next to me in the pew on Sunday, not my colleagues at the office or family members, not anyone else but me?”  We seek the grace to know the convicting ministry of the Spirit that calls us from death to life; that empowers us to embrace the life of God.

Yes, we are in an “open season” of disclosure of the sins of celebrities and political leaders, and of toppling of historical statues.  But, sadly many don’t know the next step.  We can see “the spot” of individual or national sin.  And, like Shakespeare’s Lady Macbeth, we are beginning to cry, “Out, damn spot!”  But we don’t realize that only by turning to God can the spots be removed through repentance and confession of our sin.  It’s not Bill Clinton or Roy Moore, “It’s me first, Lord!  Open season on my heart!  I must open my heart to your loving search for what is not life and peace, but sin and death.  May I humbly confess and turn from that which dishonors you and separates me from walking with You.  With David (Psalm 51: 12-13) I will pray,

Restore to me the joy of Your salvation
And sustain me with a willing spirit.
Then I will teach transgressors Your ways,
And sinners will be converted to You.

Me first!  Then, what next?   Maybe God will bring another “Great Awakening.”

The Conscience of Science: Part 3 Why March for Science?

Kaytlin Goodwin receives 2017 SFIS award from
Dr. Dennis Flentge, Chair of Dept. of Science and Math

One of the key issues facing the scientific community today is not a lack of knowledge, but rather a lack of communication between scientists and the general population. Although I am only an undergraduate, I have already experienced the frustration of trying to relate exciting scientific information to friends and family who do not understand basic biological processes and the jargon or importance of certain natural phenomena. Research scientists regularly face similar challenges. Although their work has vital implications for both the environment and human well-being, the general public often does not understand the importance of practices that are essential for the health of the environment.  
     – Kaytlin Goodwin, Cedarville University
        Science and Faith Integration Scholarship recipient (2017)

As I write this article, scientists and supporters of science are gathering by the thousands on the Mall in Washington, DC as part of today’s March for Science.   Many of these marchers and those who are likewise participating in one of 500 marches worldwide on this Earth Day are committed to the March for Science Pledge which lists ways supporters can advance science and science-based policies.  

Related to the advancement of science, recently Abby and I were privileged to attend Academic Honor’s Chapel at Cedarville University where Kaytlin Goodwin, a senior Environmental Science major was awarded this year’s Science and Faith Integration Scholarship (SFIS).  The above quote from the integration paper which Kaytlin submitted as part of her application for the SFIS captures some of the concerns held by some of today’s Marchers for Science.  The concerns expressed by Kaytlin and at least some of the Marchers stem from a long history.

American culture has been closely aligned and influenced by the growth of science and technology since the European colonization of the Western hemisphere in the 17^th century. Today, most Americans would be unable to survive without the fruits of the natural sciences--the clean air, potable water, food, health services, transportation, and air conditioning.  Therefore, it is for good reason that Americans tend to be supportive of the sciences.

March for Science--and a march for your favorite cause?

March for Science participants aim to encourage respect for science and to encourage funding of research on issues such as global climate change, energy supply, information technology, and vaccinations.  These issues continue to be highly controversial on the political stage of an increasingly divided America.  Supporters of science who are concerned about one or more of these issues are urging scientists to use their professional prestige to take a more active role in educating and influencing policy makers and the general public.  But, is it appropriate for scientists to lend their reputations to political rallies?

Instead of joining the March for Science I am reading and thinking about the nature of science and the proper role of scientists in political organizations and rallies.  In this article, Part 3 of my “Conscience of Science” series, I want to share some of the considerations and cautions that a scientist or member of the public at large should entertain before joining the March for Science, or other political movements.  When one considers joining in pubic demonstrations in support of science or science-related issues (with some unrelated issues often included), it is essential to understand (1) the nature of science, (2) science in today’s news and entertainment media, (3) the responsibility of scientists in public education, and (4) the importance of the ethical conscience in science.

1.  The Nature of Science
We will assume that most supporters of the March for Science have at least a secondary school understanding of the nature of science.  Do you remember having to memorize a definition of science?  Most definitions include two parts, one that emphasizes the method of science, and the other, the management and communication of scientific information.  Science is a method—a systematic study of something—e.g. the natural world, living organisms, humans, human behavior, and so on.  Each field of science has a name (e.g. natural sciences, biology, psychology, theological sciences) and each has its own methodology or variation of the scientific method. 

When the scientific method is employed, the scientist obtains data that can be analyzed and used to determine the validity of a hypothesis. Repeated experimental testing contributes to the development of a systematic body of knowledge that results in the support for a scientific theory.  Theories provide the basis for understanding the scientific field in question and for continued scientific research.

Defining science is much easier than proper conduct of the process of science.  For example, scientists often find it difficult to gather data without perturbing the natural system being studied. Scientists must also avoid falling victim to error or bias.  Often the resultant theories attempt to account for abstract and complex phenomena that are difficult for the average person to comprehend.  Many of us find it difficult to comprehend the nature of a subatomic particle; or conceive of how matter becomes energy at the speed of light; or understand how scientists determine the temperature of planet Earth and use this data in complex models to predict climate trends. 

Although it is challenging to develop a scientific understanding of complex natural phenomena, it is even more challenging to communicate the resultant theories to students, policy makers, or laypeople.  Numerous studies have examined the growing influence of the internet, cable news, and the entertainment media on scientific literacy and opinions about certain hot button science-related issues like those listed above. 

2.  Science in Today’s News and Entertainment Media
According to a 2016 review entitled Americans' Attitudes about Science and Technology: The Social Context for Public Communication, commissioned by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), …despite intensive efforts at public education, science literacy has remained relatively stable for several decades.  The review cites a survey conducted by the Pew Research Center which used an index of 12 questions to measure basic scientific literacy and understanding of science as a process.  Out of the 12 questions, the mean score among respondents was 7.9.  Twenty-seven percent of respondents answered 8 or 9 out of 12 questions correctly, while 26% answered 10 or 11 correctly, and only 6% received perfect scores.  Respondents with college degrees answered 9 or more correctly, and those without degrees, 8 or fewer (Pew, 2015).

Although science literacy in America is low, it does not stifle interest in science-related news.  A National Science Board (NSB) survey in 2012 reported that the percentage of American respondents interested in news about medical discoveries was 60%, new scientific discoveries, 40%, and new inventions, 43%.  These percentages were comparable to those interested in local school issues (50%) and economic and business conditions (43%).  However, only 16% of Americans said they “very closely” followed news about science and technology, as compared to those who “very closely” follow weather (52%), sports (26%), local government (21%), and political news (17%) (NSB 2014).  Could it be that the increasing trend of Americans using social media as their favored news source has diminished our tendency to follow any topic “very closely?”

According to Brossard (2013), …with the rapid adoption of Facebook, Twitter, and smart phones, the nature of science-related news consumption among the public is changing, becoming more social, participatory, and incidental.  As of 2015, two-thirds of American adults say they use Facebook and 41 percent say they get news via the platform. 

Again, according to the AAAS review (2016), in recent decades …political leaders, activists, and the news media have increasingly packaged almost every major policy debate in terms of clearly defined ideological differences.   Republican and Democrat parties have become brand names, each standing for a distinct set of conservative or liberal positions.  This labeling strategy has apparently contributed to the growing ideological divide between the two major parties as reflected on issues such as sanctity of human life and climate change.  The divide is enhanced and sustained by cable news networks which cover science related topics with a decided conservative (e.g. Fox News) or liberal (e.g. CNN and MSNBC) slant.

According to Tom Nichols, author of The Death of Expertise, who was interviewed on PBS NewsHour, …many Americans have become insufferable know-it-alls, locked in constant conflict with each other, while knowing almost nothing about the subject they are debating. There’s a lot of blame to go around for all of this. The smartphones and tablets that we carry around all day that we think can answer anything are only part of the problem. The American educational system, from grade school to graduate school, encourages students to think of themselves and their views as special.  An A is now a common grade.

3.  The Responsibility of Scientists
In our society characterized by low science literacy, yet blessed with multiple sources of science news and the opinions of many political ideologues, the role of scientists and science educators becomes very important.  Scientists who step beyond their laboratory to address policy makers and the public are taking on at least two additional responsibilities.  First, they must objectively and clearly communicate the content of their findings and implications to policy makers and the public.  Second, they must convey the challenging nature of science as a process--one which is easily threatened by unintended bias and often deliberate “spin” by adherents to conservative or liberal ideologues.

Although sound scientific theories are supported by strong statistical probabilities, scientists must continually emphasize to the layperson that there is no such thing as “settled science.”  It follows that modern science and culture should greatly value and pursue good science, a claim that I have made in a previous article, Conscience of Science: Part 2 Do Museums Make Us Muse?  I have defined good science as the dynamic, self-correcting pursuit of truth that tries to avoid error caused by experimental bias, personal bias, or political influence.

International Prototype Kilogram (IPK)
housed in Sèvres, France

To briefly underscore that science is tentative and not “settled,” let’s consider one aspect of the natural sciences that has been “settled”--the standards of weights and measure. While science may argue about the precise speed of light in meters per second, there should be no argument about the precise length of 1 standard meter.  Because the precise units of distance, mass, temperature, etc. are considered universally “settled,” uncertainties attributable to error in quantitative measurement are minimized as long as measuring devices and statistical sampling are employed properly.  It follows that more attention can then be directed at the hypothesis-testing part of science which is not “settled” because hypotheses can never be “proven.”  Scientific claims are accepted only so long as another experiment does not falsify supporting data.

Because of the complexity of the sciences, the great influence of science upon the American economy and culture, and the controversial nature of our contemporary political arena, it is no surprise that not all scientists accept a role as advocates in the public arena.  This notion brings us to the ethical consideration, the last of my four considerations in deciding whether or not one should join in the March for Science.

4.   The Ethical Conscience of Science
Science must shape policy.  Science is universal.  Science brings out the best in us.  With an informed, optimistic view of the future together, we can (Dare I say it?) SAVE THE WORLD! 
These are the words of Bill Nye, host of the PBS children’s science show, Bill Nye the Science Guy.  Nye spoke this morning at the March for Science gathering in Washington, DC. 

Bill Nye, the Science Guy:  "...we can save the world"

I sharply disagree with Mr. Nye.  Science without ethics would more nearly destroy the world than save it!   Science and technology have given us sharp tools, firearms, atomic energy, and drugs.  Where technology has sought to apply these tools for destructive means, millions have died.

 As I have pointed out in Part 1 of this series, “good science” is conscientious about being objective, cautious, humble, and unbiased in a culture that can easily bring bias and elicit unethical behavior.  In short, “good science” has a conscience ((Latin, conscientia = “knowledge of right and wrong within oneself”).  David Resnick, author of The Ethics of Science: AnIntroduction (Routledge), lists as the first three principles of scientific ethics: honesty, carefulness, and openness.

Is it ethical for scientists to utilize their professional status to support a specific policy or political initiative?  For example, should climatologists agree to an invitation to add their name to a list of signatories in support of limiting human-caused climate change?  John Kotcher and colleagues at George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia attempted to address this question with a randomized survey of 1,235 Americans. Most respondents did not rate a fictitious climate scientist as less credible after hearing the scientist advocate for specific public policies.  The researchers concluded that climate scientists who wish to engage in certain forms of advocacy have considerable latitude to do so without risking harm to their credibility or the credibility of the scientific community.

Robert Lackey, a former senior biologist with the US Environmental Protection Agency, now in ecological policy and natural resource management at Oregon State University, disagrees with Kotcher :  If your day job is science and your night job is policy advocacy, why would I trust your day job?  Having worked in the environmental sciences for 50 years, Lackey has seen a steady erosion of the credibility of scientists. Lackey agrees that scientists have an important role in objectively informing the public of the facts, but the scientist who advocates for a given policy threatens to take public policy from the hands of the people.  He adds, You have to be careful here, because you end up in a debate over a technocracy versus a democracy.

Hastening to conclude this article while it is still Earth Day, I believe I have at least begun to make the case that the role of the scientist is better served by doing what scientists can do best:  striving to conduct his or her research while being honest, objective, careful, and humble; then, publishing conclusions in an objective, clear manner through print and digital platforms that are suited to others with expertise in decision making and formulation of policy. 

Knowing that there are up and coming Christian scholars in science like Kaytlin Goodwin, I have confidence in a future for the sciences when influenced by individuals with godly wisdom and integrity.  As a young advocate for both environmental stewardship and the importance of improved communication between scientists and laypeople, Kaytlin offers a positive way forward as applied to her field, the environmental sciences when she writes, If scientists and environmental educators can find ways to effectively communicate the relevance and importance of environmental issues, lasting change will be possible.  As Christians, we are especially responsible to teach others about the God-given value of the environment.

References:
I realize that this subject undertaken here is beyond the scope of this article and extends beyond my expertise.  However, I hope we have raised some worthwhile points for consideration and provided some references for further reading.

Brossard, D. (2013). New media landscapes and the science information consumer. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110 (Supplement 3), 14096-- 14101.

Nisbet, Matthew C., et al. "Americans' attitudes about science and technology: The social context for public communication." Commissioned Review (2016). To read, click HERE

National Science Board (2014). Science and Engineering Indicators 2014. Arlington VA: National Science Foundation.

Pew Research Center (2015).  A Look at What the Public Knows and Does Not Know About Science. Washington, DC.

“Will a March Help Science?”  The Scientist (Feb. 2, 2017)

The Conscience of Science: Part 1 Ethics & Accountability

In September, I received disappointing news concerning Volkswagen, the manufacturer of the first car I ever owned.  The carmaker admitted that nearly one-half million cars in the U.S. from model years 2009 to 2015 were equipped with software that skewed exhaust emissions toward more favorable test results.  Volkswagen later acknowledged that the same software was on 11 million cars worldwide.

I still remember the blessing it was
to have this 1963 VW "beetle."

Since the days when I drove my 1963 VW beetle to work at Belden Brick Company in Sugarcreek, OH; and, to Malone College, in Canton, OH, automobiles have been transformed through advances in science and technology into amazing driving machines.  Advances in fuel efficiency and emissions control are just two examples of the steady improvements in automobiles.   But, while progress of science seems limitless, the Volkswagen incident suggests that “progress” is hampered without good ethics to govern the development and use of technology.

During the past century, science has emerged as the principal determiner of what is true about the natural world, about human life and behavior, and even about what is “real” and what is not.  Phrases like, “according to science” or “according to scientific findings” have been routinely used for decades to introduce authoritative claims of truth about nearly every subject being debated.  But interestingly, this year as allegations were emerging against Volkswagen for unethical use of technology for economic gain, events were occurring that raised doubts about the ethics and integrity of science itself.

Writing in the New York Times in May, Benedict Carey outlined a flurry of retractions of articles from scientific journals, including one by the American Association for the Advancement of Science journal, Science.  After two graduate students “raised questions” about a published Science report on how political canvassing affects public opinion of same-sex marriage, editors pulled the article; but, not before what Carey called “a frenzy of second-guessing, accusations and commentary from all corners of the Internet: “Retraction” as serial drama, rather than footnote.” 

The blog Retraction Watch was first to report that the Science article had been challenged.   Blog editor Dr. Ivan Oransky noted that “new technology and a push for transparency from younger scientists have…[produced]..more tips (questionable articles) than we can handle.” 

In earlier Oikonomia articles ” (see end of this article), we have emphasized what we call “good science.”  By our definition, “good science” does not overstate its conclusions even under pressure from granting sources or groups with a political agenda.  Nor would “good science” condone publication of statistically altered data.  In short, “good science” has a conscience ((Latin, conscientia = “knowledge of right and wrong within oneself”).  “Good science” is conscientious about being objective, cautious, humble, and unbiased in a culture that can easily bring bias and elicit unethical behavior.

Brian Nosek is professor of psychology at the University of Virginia, and a founder of the Center for Open Science (COS) which promotes inter-laboratory sharing of data and protocols.  He reports that there is a push toward direct replication of research findings.  Nosek coordinated a volunteer effort by 270 research psychologists to reproduce 100 studies published in 3 leading psychology journals.  Their results, published in Science, revealed that more than half of the findings did not hold up when retested, causing many to conclude that the field of research psychology needs a “strong correction.”  Or, we might say, research psychology needs a “reawakening” of conscience.

Looking closer at one of the psychology studies cited above, Nosek et al. flagged the article because authors Vohs and Schooler (2008) overstated the influence of genetic determinism as opposed to free will in the tendency of a person to cheat.  The authors’ conclusion that participant exposure to a deterministic message increased cheating was in turn cited in 241 other articles, suggesting the tremendous scope and rapidity of transmission of either “good” or “bad science.”   Interestingly, a listing of 24 “articles citing this article” accompanying the online link to the Vohs and Schooler article published in Psychological Science gave no indication of the Science article in which Nosek, et al had questioned the finding of Vohs and Schooler.

The questionable credibility of social science studies has led to calls for similar scrutiny in other fields.  Our N.Y. Times columnist, Carey, quotes Stefano Bertuzzi, executive director of the American Society for Cell Biology, as saying,  “the effort was long overdue, given that biology has some of the same publication biases as psychology. ‘I call it cartoon biology, where there’s this pressure to publish cleaner, simpler results that don’t tell the entire story, in all its complexity,’ Dr. Bertuzzi said.”

What message should we get from this depressing litany of reports?  Rather than bemoan the deterioration of scientific enterprise, let’s consider approaches that can encourage “good science” in today’s culture of declining moral standards and lack of integrity.   Here are three considerations that may be useful in restoring and maintaining the integrity of science.

First, I am encouraged that the science community has spotlighted the trend toward publication of results lacking good support and even results based on falsification of data.  As noted above, efforts to limit the publication and spread of such scientific articles are expanding.  For example, Kelly Rae Chi has developed an algorithm to identify papers that have received numerous negative citations.  Such papers could then be red-flagged to discourage their citation and potential “viral spread” of false conclusions into other articles.

Second, and of more fundamental importance is the need to identify the underlying causes and motivations behind the spewing of scientific papers that do not hold up to scrutiny.  Could it be that the increasingly politicized atmosphere around the science laboratory combined with the moral decline in our culture is causing increasing numbers of scientists to cave in to the temptation to cut corners and draw conclusions from scanty data?  Might other scientists succumb to shoddy experimentation in order to increase their publication rate to support tenure or promotion?   

And finally, we must recognize a more subtle temptation— to publish data and conclusions that reflect deeply held philosophical or political biases in controversial areas.  Particular examples include research that relates to the origin of human life, the role of human activities in causing climate change, and the efficacy and potential side-effects of new pharmaceutical drugs.  Controversial topics such as these offer significant threats to the “conscience of science;” and particularly, the ethical consciences of the scientists involved.

Yes, Volkswagen has offered us a new beetle that buzzes with much better technology than the beetles of the past century.  But, science and technology appear to be in great need of a moral and ethical tune-up.  We will discuss factors that contribute toward the decline of “good science” in an upcoming blog article.  Particular emphasis will be upon what many consider as unhealthy political and philosophical influences that threaten the conscience and integrity of science.

Related Articles:
Oikonomia: Halting the Demise of “Liberal” Education
Climate Change Debate Demands “Good Science”
Imagination That Contradicts the Reality of Creation

A Man Who Sweetened and Enlightened the World

Recently, Abby and I traveled with other seniors from West Hill Baptist Church in a group known as “Caleb’s Kin” to visit Root Candles, a family-owned candle-making company in Medina, OH.  Root Candles was founded in 1869 by Amos Ives Root.  Now, after 145 years, Root Candles is under the management of the fifth generation of the Root family.  The company still produces industry-leading candles which testify to the values that marked its founder– a commitment to the virtues of honesty, integrity, and diligent craftsmanship.

Candle display at Root Candles store, Medina, OH

Upon entering the store, we were impressed with the beauty and variety of candles.  According to the company website, many contain the purest beeswax and elegantly designed essential oil fragrances…crafted with passion and perfection…consistently flawless, cleaner burning, [and] longer lasting….  The outstanding quality and consistency has made Root Candles a major supplier of liturgical candles as well as a favorite brand of candle-lovers worldwide.

As a farm boy in northern Ohio, Amos I. Root was an avid reader as well as a lover of God’s creation and the natural sciences.  He was fascinated with electricity and magnetism, and he soon began traveling to give lectures on these subjects.  As a young man, he became an accomplished and wealthy jewelry manufacturer. 

One day when Root was in his twenties, a swarm of bees stole his attention when it darkened his workplace, leading him to take up beekeeping.  Soon, Root’s curiosity and inventive spirit enabled him to develop the world’s first beehive from which honey could be extracted without destroying the hive.  Before long, Root was CEO of a large company in Medina, the A.I.Root Company, which was shipping as much as four railroad freight cars of beekeeping equipment each day.  Although the company eventually transitioned from manufacturing beekeeping equipment to manufacturing beeswax-containing candles, it has continued to publish Gleanings in Bee Culture since 1873.   Gleanings provided a vehicle in which Root shared not only practical suggestions to bee keepers, but also spiritual insights and applications based on his walk with God and his knowledge of the Scriptures.

According to “The Wright Stories” blog,

Religion was important facet of Root’s life. His employees were expected to attend daily prayer meetings on company time. He didn’t believe in drinking alcohol, smoking or working on Sunday. He believed that technological progress was a gift from God and would result in social betterment.

Because of his curious, inventive, and entrepreneurial spirit, A.I. Root, was invited by Wilbur and Orville Wright to observe their progress in development of a flying machine.  Root, at age 64, drove his 1903 Oldsmobile Runabout 200 miles on primitive roads from Medina to Huffman Prairie near Dayton, Ohio.  What would cause an elderly businessman to make such a trip?  The following quote from A.I. Root reveals how the Wright Brothers earned the respect of one they would learn to love and trust:

— These two, perhaps by accident, or maybe as a matter of taste, began studying the flights of birds and insects. From this they turned their attention to what has been done in the way of enabling men to fly. They not only studied nature, but they procured the best books, and I think I may say all the papers, the world contains on this subject.

Amos I. Root rides in the Wright Flyer

A man who had years before observed the working of bees and was inspired by his Creator God to launch both the honey industry and hobby beekeeping to new heights was now fascinated by the two brothers who were developing a flying machine based on their study of God’s amazing flying animals—birds and insects.

On September 20, 1904, Root was thrilled to observe the Wright Brothers’ first complete circle in an airplane.  His enthusiasm is evident in the following description:

When it first turned that circle, and came near the starting-point, I was right in front of it; and I said then, and believe still, it was one of the grandest sights, if not the grandest sight of my life. Imagine a locomotive that has left its track, and is climbing up in the air right toward you – a locomotive without any wheels, we will say, but with white wings instead, we will further say – a locomotive made of aluminum.

A.I. Root transformed his copious Huffman Field notes into a manuscript and the Wright brothers gave him permission to submit it for publication.  Root submitted the article to Scientific American but apparently the editor did not believe it was worthy of publication.  So, in 1905, an enthusiastic Root published what was to be the first account of the Wright brothers’ historic accomplishment in his own periodical, Gleanings in Bee Culture.  

Being a slow learner myself, I didn’t realize until after our trip to Root Candles and my additional reading on the life of A.I. Root just how appropriate it was for a group called “Caleb’s Kin” to become acquainted with this amazing man and his contributions to science, invention, business management, and aesthetic beauty.  Finally, like Caleb of the Old Testament Scriptures (e.g. Deuteronomy 1: 36), Amos I. Root was still ready for a new chapter of contribution when in his 60’s he was able to encourage the scientific efforts of the Wright brothers.

Amos I. Root with an inset photo of his plant in Medina, OH

The testimony of A.I. Root also speaks to what he and many other Christians have learned from Solomon, the great king and natural scientist, who wrote:  It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, But the glory of kings is to discover and invent (Prov. 25:2).   Our great Creator has made us in His image.  As image bearers, we are each given various gifts and the opportunity to develop and exercise them with hard work, discipline, and a perspective of stewardship that helps us use the fruits of our creativity for the good of our neighbor.  It is the role of parents, church, communities, and government to nurture and encourage each person to exercise their particular gifts.  Thus, the light of a lovely Root Candle can be traced back to the loving nurture of young Amos Root by his parents on in a farm family in Ohio; and to a church and community that would further mark this man and his godly values. 

Root became a wealthy man but not at the expense of the prosperity of others.  Instead, his inventive and entrepreneurial spirit multiplied the wealth and prosperity of thousands associated with his science and invention.  Today, the light of Root candles gives testimony to the Light of God’s Truth that burned within Amos Root and kept him from hoarding his gains or abusing others.  Furthermore, his life reminds us that a person unburdened by unwise laws and taxation can prosper his community and world when he or she is disciplined by the law of love for God and neighbor within their heart.  May Root’s example remind us all that God and His Word is the essential source of our freedom and prosperity which in turn depend upon individual integrity, responsibility, and hard work.

But now ask the beasts, and let them teach you;
And the birds of the heavens, and let them tell you.
Or speak to the earth, and let it teach you;
And let the fish of the sea declare to you.
Who among all these does not know
That the hand of the LORD has done this,
In whose hand is the life of every living thing,
And the breath of all mankind?  -- Job 12: 7-10

Reflections on Father’s Day

On this Father's Day, I paused to thank my Heavenly Father for His grace and mercy which He first revealed to me through my earthly father, Bert Silvius.

With Dad and Sister, Margie

One of my earliest memories of Dad was singing with him in our little Methodist Church, in Dundee, Ohio.  Dad made a point of sharing the hymnal with me so that I could see the time-honored words of the great hymns of the faith.  As I sang along with Dad the hymn "This Is My Father's World" and observed his big hands, strong and toughened by the toil of farm work, I remember feeling so safe and glad because my world seemed to be held and controlled by his strong hands.

As I grew into elementary age and could work on the farm, I was glad to work alongside my Dad even though it was more fun to play with my sister or my cousins when they were around.  Our family shared the house with my Dad's parents and my Uncle, Glen Silvius.  There were many happy times for me, but there were also times of strife.   You see, farming had its challenges for my Dad. Working in partnership with two brothers and the watchful eye of his own father who had his own ideas, provided many opinions on how things should be done.  Yet I never heard my Dad show disrespect for his brothers or his father. Instead, he worked hard and was usually the one to whom the others came when advice was needed.

Gradually, I came to know that my earthly father was not in control of the world.  There were people and forces much larger than Dad that appeared to control the course of events.  But, through my Dad's example of responsibility and respect, I learned to know that this big, uncertain world actually belongs to the God of Heaven.  And eventually I came to know this God personally as my Heavenly Father.  This process took many years but it came about in an unusual way.

As I grew into my teens, I faced adolescent challenges of relationships both in our family and at school.  I obeyed my parents who challenged me with the help of regular "disciplinary reminders" over the years.  I came to realize my own tendency to be selfish and mean, often to the chagrin of my sister or our farm cats.  Many times, I was sorry for my behavior, and I knew that it disappointed both my parents and the God of Heaven.

Meanwhile, over the years I had grown used to observing Dad both in public and in private.  I watched him in front of our church reading passages from the Bible, or leading in prayer and sharing ideals that seemed wise but so hard for me to attain.   I watched Dad as I worked with him, my cousin, and my uncles on the farm.  Both uncles had "short fuses" and would verbally abuse my Dad when things didn't go the way they wanted it to go.  Yet, as I noted earlier, I never heard my Dad respond in a disrespectful manner.  He was not perfect but I had to admit that the words he read from the Bible and the prayers he prayed in public were consistent with the way he tried to live outside of church during the week. As a result, Dad showed me enough of what God must be like to prepare my heart for the day when I would confess that I too was a struggling sinner who needed God's grace and mercy to deal with my sin nature and to save me from my own selfish tendencies. For that I say “Thank you, Dad.”

I considered Dad well educated and wise even though he voluntarily ended his formal education in his 8^th grade year in order to help his parents on the farm.  Although his formal education stopped, Dad’s love for learning continued throughout his life.  He read every farm magazine and scientific book he could obtain.  His love for mathematics, botany, and chemistry allowed us to converse about my organic chemistry when I was home from college as he milked the cows and I forked manure.  He and Mom not only helped to pay for my college education, but they both shared their love for learning in a contagious way.  Far from being envious of my "higher education” Dad, and my Uncle Glen who had no sons of his own, were my greatest male encouragers.

And so, on this Father's Day, I can truly say, "Thank you, Dad.  I miss you still.  I trust that one day, you will enjoy a reunion with all of us who are counting on God's grace and the promise of Real Life to come.  Although at this time you may not have the ability or the time to do so, I believe you would enjoy seeing your grandchildren and their spouses, and your great-grandchildren.  Being "mechanically minded" has skipped a generation, you know; and, your grandson, Brad, demonstrates the same versatility in both mental and mechanical skills that you had.  Space does not permit me to go into details here but I have recently written about one of his projects, The Little Leaders Company.  Brad was aided by his gifted wife, Raquel, and other family members and friends in the production of several DVD's that are now teaching biblical values to children. Brad has also taught Abby and I much about ourselves and God's goodness.  Just today, he gave me a call for Father's Day today which was a blessing as always. 

Furthermore, you will remember the little blond granddaughter you used to carry around.   Just wait until you see what a lovely woman Melinda Maetta has become.  She's a nurse and nurse supervisor, and you had a part in igniting that interest in her-- one day, she will love to tell you about it.   She also makes a good pastor's wife.  You haven't personally met our son-in-law, Steve,  but  as a young pastor, he now stands before the members of Northpoint Church of the Nazarene and reads from the Bible, preaches, and prays.  God has done a great work in his life and continues to mold and shape him. You will also enjoy Mindy and Steve's son, Caleb, and two daughters, Kiara Maetta and Della Rose Katherine.   And now Mindy and Steve's three children remind me of myself when I sat in church, listening to you read from the Bible and pray—with at least one exception:  they are already ministering through helping with technology (Caleb) and in music (all three). As was my experience, I pray that their love and respect for their earthly parents will grow in such a way that they will come to know, love, and trust their Heavenly Father with their lives.  

I didn't mean to be this "long winded" but would be amiss, Dad, if I didn't mention the greatest person in my life, the Abby that you admired in both words and actions.   She has been the key to anything good that has come from my family and my work by God's grace.

Dad, your work on Earth is finished, but ours continues.  We pray for the grace from God to continue to love Him and to follow His Word and the principles that make for a godly family. Perhaps the prayer you wrote and prayed nearly fifty years ago this year is a fitting way to end this reflection.  Thanks for praying and applying God's principles as my Dad.”

May all of us come to understand that right living alone exalteth a family,

that only in Thy will can peace and harmony abound.

Help us to live together as people who have been forgiven a great debt.

Help us to be gentle, walking softly with one another.
Help us to be understanding, lest we shall add to the world=s sorrow.

Help us to stand for what is right,

Not because it may yield dividends later,

but because it is right now.

Help us to be as anxious that the rights of others shall be recognized

as we are that our own shall be established.

Help us to be eager to forgive as we are to be forgiven.

God help us all to be ministers of mercy
and ambassadors of kindness for Jesus,

In Whose Name we pray, “Our Father Who are in Heaven…”

 Bert Silvius,   April 19, 1964