Settled Science?

Lately I am noticing more and more people (politicians, media commentators, even scientists) stating that various scientific issues are beyond dispute and therefore are “settled science.” I was encouraged to read an editorial by David Deming (a University of Oklahoma professor) who declared that “settled science” is an oxymoron. If you know anything about the history of science, you know that science is always discovering more and thus challenging previous assumptions and conclusions.

As an example, Professor Deming tells the story of Aristotle and Galileo. “Aristotle, who lived and wrote in the fourth century B.C., was one of the greatest geniuses the world has ever known. . . . Aristotle’s physics were accepted as correct for nearly two thousand years. In 1534, faculty at the University of Paris officially asserted that the works of Aristotle were ‘the standard and basis of all philosophic enquiry.’”

“Aristotle taught that heavy objects fall faster than light ones. Over the centuries, a few unreasonable persons expressed skeptical concerns. But the consensus was that the physics of motion were described by Aristotle’s dicta. The science was settled.”

“Around the year 1591, an irascible young instructor at the University of Pisa demonstrated that Aristotle was wrong. He climbed to the top of the tower of Pisa and dropped cannonballs of unequal weight that hit the ground simultaneously. Aristotelean professors on the faculty were embarrassed. The university administration responded by not renewing Galileo’s contract, thus ridding themselves of a troublemaker who challenged the accepted consensus.”

Four hundred years later, we still seem to be having trouble accepting the fact that scientific assumptions and conclusions may have to change. Challenge Darwinism, climate change, or a handful of other scientific ideas and you will be told that the science is settled. That wasn’t true in the 16th century, and it’s not true in the 21st century. I’m Kerby Anderson, and that’s my point of view.

Vermont

Yesterday I mentioned the American Religious Identification Survey, and I thought I would return to it to make a point about the state of Vermont. Every time I visit the Green Mountain State is reminds me of Oregon. Both are so beautiful and offer great backpacking and fly fishing. Even though they are on opposite sides of the continent, there are so many geographical and cultural similarities.

In terms of religion, they are also similar. Oregon used to be the least religious state. Now Vermont is the least religious state in the country. In fact, between 1990 and 2008, the Green Mountain State had the largest percentage increase of non-religious people. I think you can see the impact.

The Vermont legislature recently voted to legalize same-sex marriage. When the governor vetoed the bill, the legislature had enough votes to override the veto. This was the first state to have its legislature establish same-sex marriage. The other states (Massachusetts, Connecticut, California, and Iowa) had it imposed upon them by judges.

Vermont is also one of the few states to vote down “Jessica’s Law.” This law would put in place tough sentences on child sexual predators. It would take discretion away from judges and impose mandatory minimum sentences.

Recently the Vermont Senate passed a bill decriminalizing consensual “sexting.” I have talked about this in other commentaries. This is when teens send sexual pictures of themselves to others. The bill says that teens can do this, but not to distribute the photos to more than one person or to an adult. While we certainly don’t want to prosecute kids doing stupid things with their cell phones, this bill is sending the wrong message.

These are just a few legislative actions happening in a state that has become the most secular state in America. Sure, there are many Christians in the state, but they are now outnumbered and this is the result. Do Christian values matter in a society? Sure they do. This is what happens when Christians are minimized and marginalized. I’m Kerby Anderson, and that’s my point of view.

Decline of Christian America

Always looking to stir up some controversy, Newsweek magazine proclaimed this month “The Decline and Fall of Christian America.” Why a decline? The latest American Religious Identification Survey found a ten percent decline in the proportion of Americans who consider themselves Christian. While many of us would admit there has been a gradual decline of Christian influence in the country, I think most of us wouldn’t consider a ten percent decline worthy of the cover of a newsmagazine.

The article reminded me of a November essay in Newsweek magazine declaring that we are “A Post-Evangelical America.” It seems Newsweek is looking for any evidence that Christian influence is waning in this country.

In the current article on the decline of Christian America, the writer cites Albert Mohler (president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) to prove his point. Later on in the essay he cites the book, The Search for Christian America, written by Mark Noll, Nathan Hatch, and George Marsden. At this point I thought to myself: “Isn’t interesting how easily a secular journalist can find an evangelical scholar when the evangelical professor agrees with his or her conclusion?” Most of the time, secular journalists treat evangelicals either like backwoods fundamentalists or else like they don’t exist. But if evangelical scholars write something a secular journalist likes, they are given a national platform.

Back in November, the writer predicting a post-evangelical America argued that evangelical faith was being redefined because evangelicals were voting for Barack Obama. She noted, for example, that Darrell Bock (professor at Dallas Theological Seminary) voted for Obama. Again, it is amazing how the secular press can find an evangelical professor when they need one. Many years ago, I was in the newsroom of a Dallas newspaper explaining to an editor that there was a major seminary in Dallas. At the time, he didn’t even know Dallas Seminary existed.

Has there been a decline in the percentage of Americans who call themselves Christians? Yes. Does this portend the decline and fall of Christian America? I think Mark Twain’s quote about rumors of his death being greatly exaggerated might apply here. I’m Kerby Anderson, and that’s my point of view.

Satan & Spiritual Forces

Does Satan exist? Apparently a lot of American Christians don’t think that he does. A recent George Barna survey found that four of ten Christians (40 percent) strongly agreed that Satan “is not a living being but is a symbol of evil.” An additional two of ten Christians (19 percent) said that they “agree somewhat” with the perspective. That means a clear majority of self-described Christians do not believe that Satan is a real person.

It is worth noting that these same Christians seem to have internal contradictions in their worldview. For example, a majority of the Christians surveyed believe that a person can be under the influence of spiritual forces, such a demons or evil spirits. And about half of those Christians who believed that Satan is merely a symbol of evil nevertheless agreed that a person can be under the influence of spiritual forces.

These and other statistics from the latest Barna survey should not be too surprising. As I document in my new book, A Biblical Point of View on Spiritual Warfare, both Christians and non-Christians have some false beliefs about Satan, angels, and demons. Part of the reason for these inaccurate views is due to the media. After all, Hollywood is probably not the best source for biblically accurate views on the supernatural. Another reason is that often we hear wrong comments about God and angels and heaven at funerals. Well-meaning people say some pretty strange things. We don’t correct them, because a funeral is about the last place you want to split theological hairs.

This latest survey illustrates why we need to have good Bible teaching from the pulpit, in our Sunday School classes, and in our homes. A person whose perspective of the spiritual world is primarily influenced by the media is going to have a biblically inaccurate worldview. They may believe that Jesus was the Son of God but not believe that Satan is a real person. We need to show them that if Jesus was indeed the Son of God, then we must also believe that Satan exists because Jesus taught that he exists and was tempted by him in the wilderness.

It is time for us to get back to teaching foundational theology in our churches and in our homes. I’m Kerby Anderson, and that’s my point of view.

Capitalism & Socialism

Are Americans ready to embrace socialism? The latest Rasmussen poll does show that a mere majority (53 percent) say capitalism is better than socialism. And one in five (20 percent) say that socialism is better than capitalism. America may not be ready to reject capitalism for socialism, but this poll does show less enthusiasm than in the past.

If you look at adults under the age of 30 in the poll, you find they are essentially evenly divided. More than a third (37 percent) prefer capitalism, another third (33 percent) embrace socialism, and the rest (30 percent) are undecided.

What are we to make of this? First, the terms capitalism and socialism weren’t defined in the poll. I suspect that if the pollsters made it clear that in socialism all or most of the means of production and distribution were owned by the state and that the economy was centrally planned by the government, the percentages would change. Defining capitalism would also be important since many would not necessarily associate it with a free market but instead might have visions of an evil, greedy capitalist. After all, that is how many businessmen are portrayed in the media.

Second, those under 30 are probably the least likely to associate socialism with Soviet-style repression. Instead, they may have in their minds the current government push toward European socialism and find that more attractive. Also, they are less likely to have “skin in the game.” When you ask investors this same question about capitalism and socialism, they favored capitalism by a 5-to-1 margin.

Still, this poll does illustrate the need to educate adults and young people about economics and the free market system. In my soon-to-be-released book, Making The Most of Your Money in Tough Times, I not only set forth principles about giving, saving, spending, debt and credit, but I also devote chapters to economics and economic systems. For example, what are the moral criticisms of capitalism? What are the economic criticisms of capitalism? What are reasonable answers to those criticisms?

I believe the Rasmussen poll illustrates why we need to devote time and attention to these important issues. I’m Kerby Anderson, and that’s my point of view.

Social Security Trust Fund

Although politicians talk about the Social Security “trust fund,” the reality is that it is neither. There was no “trust” and there is really is no “fund.” Each Congress has spent the surpluses that were supposed to be set aside for when the baby boom generation began to retire.

Economist Kevin Hassett has found something else. The surpluses that once fed this imaginary trust fund are now gone. Due to the current recession, the fund is now negative. Payroll receipts are down because fewer people are working. Essentially, the trust fund has gone into the red about ten years ahead of schedule.

The latest government numbers confirm this. This year, it is estimated that Social Security will take in $654 billion in payroll taxes and pay out $662 billion in benefits and expenses. That is a shortfall of $8 billion.

The response from the Social Security Administration is that even though there is a shortfall, Social Security is not running a deficit. It turns out that the interest the government owes itself for borrowing (and spending) the surpluses will provide an additional revenue stream. So even though there is a shortfall, Social Security isn’t running a deficit . . . yet.

While all of this is true, some members of Congress are starting to object to this accounting sleight-of-hand. And all this does is postpone the inevitable. By the next decade, the bulk of baby boomers will have begun their retirements. The only way to have been able to fund the millions of boomer retirees, would be to have a real trust fund not a fictitious one. Each year Congress spent the money in the trust fund. And now a recession has removed any last pretense of there being money for future retirees.

I don’t think most Americans really care whether the Social Security trust fund is technically broke. They just want to know if their Social Security will be there for them. The reality is that each year, more retirees will be drawing on funds that aren’t there.

For some reason, no one in the administration will tell you the truth. I just did. I’m Kerby Anderson, and that’s my point of view.

Dangers on the Internet

If you are concerned about the negative influence of society on children, then you are not alone. The Institute for American Values’ Motherhood Project found that 95 percent of mothers “wish American culture made it easier to instill positive values in children.” This is just one of hundreds of alarming statistics in Rebecca Hagelin’s new book, 30 Ways in 30 Days to Save Your Family. Her chapters on the Internet were some of the most alarming.

The London School of Economics documents that nine out of ten children who go online (often to do their homework) will view pornography. A 2006 study by the Kaiser Family Foundation shows that seven out of ten view the pornography unintentionally—at least the first time. So it seems that even when kids are acting responsibly and innocently, they still end up seeing pornography. And it seems that pornographers are using all sorts of tricks and gimmicks to get children and adults to go to their porn sites.

Put another way, 90 percent of the kids on the Internet will be seeing images that just a generation ago were only available at adult bookstores on the other side of town. Now they are merely a mouse-click away.

Rebecca also is concerned about the impact of online social networking. Researchers have found the 96 percent of children (ages 9- to 17) who have access to the Internet also have used social networking technologies. In fact, 71 percent of them use these sites on a weekly basis. While there is nothing intrinsically wrong with social networking, there is growing evidence that teens are using them unwisely.

Nearly two-thirds (64 percent) post photos or videos of themselves online. More than half (58 percent) post information about where they live, while nearly one in ten (8 percent) have posted their cell phone number online. More than two-thirds (69 percent) regularly receive personal messages online from people they don’t know. And nearly eight in ten (79 percent) of sexual solicitation incidents happened to youth while they were using their home computer.

What should parents do? Rebecca has 30 chapters of suggestions in her book, including two dealing with the Internet and social networking. It’s time for parents to get busy. I’m Kerby Anderson, and that’s my point of view.

Earth Day

Today is Earth Day. When the first Earth Day was held in 1970, nearly 20 million Americans took to the streets, parks, and auditoriums. Back then there were significant environmental concerns about our air and water. I participated by inviting a leader that I knew at the Sierra Club to come to my high school and speak. Many people believe this celebration launched the modern environmental movement.

Looking back I have noticed two significant changes that are worth noting. First, the environmental movement has embraced the philosophy of pantheism. Many of the leaders have gone from protecting the environment to worshipping the creation. I began to notice this in the 1970s. Now it is visible to anyone to see in many of the celebrations that will be taking place today.

Some leaders even call for the worship of Gaia and Mother Earth. According to this view, human beings have damaged or even destroyed the fragile balance of nature. And they believe we need to embrace this New Age perspective to bring balance back to the earth.

A second change I have noticed is in the complexity of the issues. Back in the 1970s, it was pretty clear what the problems were and what we needed to do. Air pollution and water pollution needed political and technological solutions. The problems were easy to spot, and the solutions were pretty obvious.

Now many of the issues are much more complex. Take global warming, for example. In previous commentaries, I have talked about some of the uncertainties as well as the fundamental questions about what we can and should do to deal with climate change. The answer is not as clear as previous environmental questions.

Another example would be ethanol. At first, it seemed like a way to energy independence. Let’s grow our own fuel. But ethanol doesn’t burn cleaner than gasoline. It is also more expensive. Currently it represents only a few percent of our gasoline consumption but consumes one-fifth of our corn crop.

If we are to be wise stewards of this planet, we are going to need to make wise decisions about complex issues. I’m Kerby Anderson, and that’s my point of view.

Christian Nation?

I have often said that the quickest way to start an argument is to claim that America is or is not a Christian nation, and not explain what you mean by the term “Christian nation.” The key to the answer is tied up in the definition.

President Obama learned this when he said earlier this month: “ We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values.” And a government professor learned the same lesson on my radio show recently when he was asked whether he thought we were a Christian nation.

Those who don’t believe America is a Christian nation will inevitably cite a section of the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli that says that: “the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion.” Those who do believe America is a Christian nation will often cite the 1892 Supreme Court Decision of Holy Trinity v. United States that states: “No purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, State or national, because this is a religious people … This is a Christian nation.”

President Obama may not consider America to be a Christian nation, but a recent Newsweek poll shows that nearly two thirds of Americans (62 percent) do consider America a Christian nation. The key, I believe is in the definition. If by “Christian nation” one means that it was founded as a theocracy, then obviously America is not a Christian nation. If by “Christian nation” one means that is how it is defined in the Constitution, then once again it is not a Christian nation.

But if you mean that Christian principles were important in the founding of this country and even in the framing of our government, then certainly America was influenced by Christianity. Professor John Eidsmoe says: “A majority of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention were professing Christians, many had theological training, and at least one had been a licensed preacher.”

Is America a Christian nation? It depends on how you define the term. I’m Kerby Anderson, and that’s my point of view.

Taxing the Middle Class?

The foundation of President Obama’s economic plans was to tax the rich and spare the middle class from tax increases. But many of the editorial pages of major newspapers seem skeptical. While they acknowledge that he merely wants to end “tax breaks for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans,” there is growing evidence that a much higher percentage will see tax increases in the future.

Back in February, the Wall Street Journal criticized what it called the “The 2% Illusion.” At the time, they pointed out that increasing the top marginal rate from 35 percent to 39.6 percent (plus another two percentage points in hidden deduction phase-outs) would not be enough to fund the Obama spending increases. To illustrate the problem, they suggested the following thought experiment.

Let’s consider what would happen with confiscating 100 percent of “the taxable income of everyone in America earning over $500,000.” Using the latest government figures, that would only have given Congress an extra $1.3 trillion in revenue. That would certainly not be enough to fund the $4 trillion Congress would spend in fiscal 2010. They concluded that: “the only way to pay for Mr. Obama’s ambitions is to reach ever deeper into the pockets of the American middle class.”

Last week, the Washington Post essentially came to the same conclusion. They also ran the numbers and concluded that: “the super-rich can’t plug the budget gap on their own.” They begin by noting that in 2006, the top 20 percent of earners paid 70 percent of all federal taxes. By the way, I have a number of references (from Congress and the National Taxpayers Union) that say that the top 10 percent paid 70 percent of all federal taxes. Isn’t it interesting that we can’t even agree on the percentages?

Anyway, they state the obvious: “taxes will have to go up to help close the government’s gaping fiscal hole.” So they conclude that: “we will have to come to terms with the fact that the middle class will have to face higher tax burdens.”

I congratulate the editorial boards of these two newspapers for stating what many of us suspected all along. The middle class is going to pay more in taxes. I’m Kerby Anderson, and that’s my point of view.


References:
“The 2% Illusion,” Wall Street Journal, 27 February 2009.
“Who Pays Taxes,” Washington Post, 10 April 2009.

America and Rome

Are there parallels between the Roman Empire and America? In his book, Are We Rome?, Cullen Murphy sees many parallels. The first parallel is perspective. It actually involves “the way Americans see America; and more to the point, the way the tiny, elite subset of Americans who live in the nation’s capital see America—and see Washington itself.”

Like the Romans, Americans tend to see themselves as more important than they are. They tend to have an exaggerated sense of their own presence in the world and its ability to act alone.

Another parallel concerns the way Rome and America view the outside world. In a sense, this is merely the flip side of the first parallel. If you believe your country is exceptional, you tend to devalue others. And more importantly, you tend to underestimate another nation’s capabilities.

Privatization is another parallel. “Rome had trouble maintaining a distinction between public and private responsibilities.” America is currently in the midst of privatizing functions that used to be public tasks.

The question of borders is another parallel. The boundary of Rome “was less a fence and more a threshold—not so much a firm line fortified with ‘Keep Out’ signs as a permeable zone of continual interaction.” Compare that description to our border with Mexico, and you can see many similarities.

A final parallel has to do with size and complexity. The Roman Empire got too big physically and too complex to manage effectively. The larger a country or civilization, the more “it touches, and the more susceptible it is to forces beyond its control.” To use a phrase by Murphy: “Bureaucracy is the new geography.”

Cullen Murphy concludes his book by calling for greater citizen engagement and for us to promote a sense of community and mutual obligation. The Roman historian Livy wrote: “An empire remains powerful so long as its subjects rejoice in it.”

America is not beyond repair, but it needs to learn the lessons from the Roman Empire. I’m Kerby Anderson, and that’s my point of view.

Evironmental Doomsayers

Next week is Earth Day which means this weekend we are going to hear a fair amount of doom and gloom about the environment and its future. As an antidote to all of this negativity, it might be worth remembering a famous environmental bet.

Back in 1980 Stanford professor Paul Ehrlich was predicting massive food shortages by 1990. In a previous decade he had predicted “famines of unbelievable proportions” by 1975. He predicted that “hundreds of millions of people starving to death” in the 1970s and 1980s. When he looked to the future, he saw nothing but doom and gloom.

Julian Simon had enough of this environmental Cassandra and so challenged him to put his money where his mouth was. He ignored Ehrlich’s claim that: “If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.” Simon suggested that Ehrlich pick any raw material (copper, tin, whatever) and then select any date in the future (more than a year away). Simon bet that the commodity’s price on that date would be lower than what it was at the time of the wager.

Paul Ehrlich consulted with experts and ended up picking five metals (chromium, copper, nickel, tin, and tungsten). Then they used September 1980 as the index and September 1990 as the payoff date. From 1980 to 1990 the world’s population grew significantly, but the price of the basket of metals fell. Not only did the price of the basket decline, but the price of each of the five metals declined. Simon won. On October 1990, Paul Ehrlich mailed Julian Simon a check to settle the wager.

Oh, I might add one more fact to the story. One of the experts Paul Ehrlich consulted in picking the five metals was John Holdren. Today is President Obama’s science advisor. One wonders if his environmental predictions will be any more accurate than they were in 1980.

Environmentalists today remind me of economists who are known for having predicted 25 of the last 2 recessions. This weekend we will hear a great deal from environmental doomsayers. A little skepticism is warranted. I’m Kerby Anderson, and that’s my point of view.

Tax Day

Today is Tax Day. But a more important date is Tax Freedom Day. That is the day when your tax burden is lifted. It is calculated by dividing the official government tally of all taxes collected in each year by the official government tally of all income earned in each year. Put another way, it is when you are no longer working for the government but are now working for yourself and your family.

This year Tax Freedom Day arrived on April 13. This is eight days earlier than in 2008, and a full two weeks earlier than in 2007. There are two reasons for this. First, the recession reduced tax collections even faster than it reduced income. Second, the stimulus package included large temporary tax cuts for 2009 and 2010.

Due to circumstances, Tax Freedom Day actually arrived before Tax Day. Even so, it is worth noting that Americans will pay more in taxes than they will spend on food, clothing, and housing combined.

But before you declare freedom from government, I need to tell you about another day. It is called Cost of Government Day. This is the date on which the average American has paid his share of the financial burden imposed by the spending and regulation that occurs on the federal, state, and local levels. I haven’t seen the date for 2009, but last year the Cost of Government Day was July 16.

Think about that date for a moment. It takes a little more than half of the year to finally get government off your back so that you can begin to earn a living for you and your family. Recent estimates show that the cost of government is increasing faster than national income. That would suggest that the Cost of Government Day will be later and later each year.

These dates help us realize what is happening around us. There is a cost, but often we don’t see it. Our taxes are withheld from each paycheck, so we often don’t think about what we are paying. And since the cost of most regulations is hidden, we don’t see those costs either. But imagine if we had to pay all our taxes today in one lump sum. You can bet there would be an outcry. I’m Kerby Anderson, and that’s my point of view.

Charitable Deductions

As we get closer to tax day, it has been interesting to see the reaction to the plan floated by President Obama to reduce the charitable deductions for wealthy Americans. He has wants Congress to limit to 28 percent the tax saving from contributions for taxpayers who itemize their deductions. Many believe that the combination of higher tax rates and a 28 percent cap on the value of deductions for charitable contributions will diminish donations to churches and charities.

I am surprised at the amount of misinformation concerning this proposed change. First, it only applies to people in the highest tax bracket. Some of my listeners assumed it applied to every taxpayer. Second, it won’t take place immediately. Third, it will merely reduce the charitable deduction not eliminate it. A donor in the highest tax bracket will still receive a $280 charitable deduction instead of $396 for a donation of $1000.

But even so, there are many in the nonprofit community who are concerned about the impact this change might have. While these wealthy Americans only comprise 3 percent of the tax returns, they account for 44 percent of all charitable deductions. It is estimated that President Obama’s plan will cost them $10 billion in extra taxes they allocated to charitable deductions.

Of course we can hope that people will still give to churches and charities even if they don’t get as much of a tax break. But that might be asking a great deal from those who already provide almost half of the charitable giving in America. Perhaps people will still give to their churches, but will they continue to give as generously to hospitals, universities, homeless shelters, and soup kitchens?

Although the plan is supposed to provide funds for various government programs proposed by President Obama, Dick Morris believes the plan is not about saving money but controlling it. The plan effectively transfers billions from private philanthropy to government spending. The plan “empowers the public sector at the expense of the voluntary one.”

The voluntary sector is funded by charitable contributions and has been the backbone of American compassion. Congress should consider the impact this plan will have on society. I’m Kerby Anderson, and that’s my point of view.

Missile Defense

Should we spend money on missile defense or is this one item of the federal budget that can be cut? Recently I had Representative Todd Akin (R-MO) on my radio program to talk about this issue.

He began by pointing out how much money Congress spent in just the first five weeks of this year. He had some interesting ways of helping us understand what $840 billion looks like. Aircraft carriers are one of the largest and most expensive items in the defense department. Currently we have 11 of them. If you used the money Congress recently spent on a stimulus package and instead bought aircraft carriers, you would have 250 of them in a row.

Another way to look at what Congress spent is to compare it to what has been spent on the Iraq-Afghanistan wars. In the first few weeks of this year Congress spent more money than all the money has been spent so far on these wars. And Representative Akin pointed out that not one penny of what Congress recently spent went to defense.

Representative Akin believes we need to spend money on missile defense. The recent missile test by North Korea is one reason. Iran is another reason. He also points out that North Korea has shown a willingness to sell weapons technology to the highest bidder.

An important development has been the agreement to place ballistic missile interceptors and tracking radar in Eastern Europe. During the Bush Administration, the U.S. signed agreements with Poland to host an interceptor site and with the Czech Republic to host the radar site. President Obama and his administration are less enthusiastic about such a deployment.

There is also talk of an Airborne Laser that would be mounted on a Boeing 747. This laser would be used to shoot down ballistic missiles while they are still over the launching country. The Airborne Laser is expected to take its first test shot while flying late this summer.

We live in a dangerous nuclear age. Spending money on missile defense is one way to make the world safer. I’m Kerby Anderson, and that’s my point of view.