303 Great Ideas For Families

Book Description

Loss Forgiveness and Restoration.The Face of Christ illustration and the accompanying story that has changed lives all around the globe.First it is a truelife story of an advertising executive an artist and a pastor Joe Castillo and the way God changed him. It also tells of the many lives touched by this simple illustration.Done before a live audience the very first time it had a powerful impact on those who watched. This motivated the artist to reproduce it in pen ink prints. As an artist Joes struggle to make a living was suddenly compounded by having his wife diagnosed with cancer. They had no insurance to cover the mounting debt but at an opportune time a friend offered to reproduce the artwork on marble plaques and pay royalties. The sales of the plaques were amazing surely this was the answer to all their financial problems But the story seems to grind to a halt. The friend refuses to pay royalties on the artwork that is selling world wide and Joe loses his wife to cancer. It becomes a daily struggle to forgive the man who was profiting from his artwork and overcome the bitterness at the loss of his wife. The plaques seem to show up everywhere compounding his anger and resentment. For Joe it became a bitter symbol of everything that had gone wrong.If you have ever struggled with forgiveness. If some events in your life just dont make sense God can use this artwork and the story that goes with it to help you put the pieces together.

Book Description

The battle for the southern slope of Little Round Top at Gettysburg on July 2, 1863, remains one of the most studied small unit military actions in American history. Maine historian Tom Desjardin has focused his attention on the story of the 20th Maine Regiment since his first visit to Gettysburg at age 10. This stirring work is the culmination of years of detailed research on the experiences of the soldiers in that regiment, telling the complete story of the unit in the Gettysburg Campaign, from June 21 through July 10, 1863. Desjardin uses more than seventy first-hand accounts of the battle for Vincent's Spur to tell the story of that fight in critical detail. He brings the personal experiences of the soldiers to life, relating the story from both sides and revealing the actions and feelings of the men from Alabama who tried, in vain, to seize the important position. From the lowest ranking private to the highest officers, this book explores the terrible experiences of war and their tragic effect. Following the regiment through the campaign enables readers to understand fully the soldiers' feelings towards the enemy, towards citizens of both North and South, and towards the commanders of the two armies. In addition, this book traces the development of a legend, as veterans of the fight struggle to remember, grasp, and memorialize their part in the largest battle ever fought on the continent.

Customer Reviews:

Bayonets!.......2007-09-21

The defense of Little Round Top by the 20th Maine Regiment on the far left of the Union lines on the second day of the Battle of Gettysburg, July 2, 1863, is perhaps one of the most famous small unit actions in American military history, right up there with Custer's Last Stand - except the latter lost. As the author of STAND FIRM YE BOYS FROM MAINE (SFYBFM) points out, the U.S. Army still uses the actions of the 20th Maine's commander, Col. Joshua Chamberlain, as a model of leadership under hostile fire.

Author Thomas Desjardin picks up the story of the 20th Maine in the aftermath of Chancellorsville on or about June 21 as the regiment marched north along the east slope of the Blue Ridge Mountains while Lee marched his Confederates on the west slope towards Maryland through the Shenandoah Valley. After some skirmishing at Ashby's Gap, the unit arrived in the vicinity of Gettysburg at the end of the battle's first day. Desjardin's focus is, of course, on the 20th Maine's resistance against the assaults of the15th and 47th Alabama regiments against Vincent's Spur on Little Round Top, followed by the 20th's relatively uneventful occupation of Big Round Top before being relieved. Chamberlain's command spent the third day, during Pickett's Charge, in reserve behind the front lines. The next day was spent maneuvering across the Gettysburg battlefield until, after it became apparent that the Army of Northern Virginia had decamped and was headed homeward, a pursuit was mounted through rain and mud to a final skirmish with the Rebels on Sharpsburg Pike on July 10, an event that marked the end of the Gettysburg Campaign for the boys from Maine.

Having finished with the battle itself, Desjardin examines the post-war period, during which, Little Round Top having receded in time but not in the participants' memories, bickering broke out among the survivors as various accounts of that fateful day in July, 1863 had to be reconciled with each other (or not).

I saw the film Gettysburg (Widescreen Edition) on the Big Screen when it was released, and was greatly impressed with the leadership qualities of the Joshua Chamberlain character under fire (as portrayed by Jeff Daniels). Subsequently, I visited the Gettysburg National Military Park and stood in reverence before the monument to the 20th Maine set in the trees now covering Vincent's Spur. Therefore, the final chapter of SFYBFM, "American Legend, American Shrine", in which Desjardin puts the regiment's defense in perspective and deflates some of the mythology surrounding the action, poured a certain amount of cool water upon my adulation. As the author points out, as evidenced by Chamberlain's recollection of the event, the colonel never actually ordered "forward", but only that his men fix bayonets. With that, the Maine troops charged off down the slope on their own and the famous "right wheel" by the 20th's left was more of a ragtag pursuit after already fleeing Rebels instead of the textbook maneuver of mythology. Moreover, the entire Army of the Potomac's line, from left to right of the famous "fish hook", was never in danger of being rolled up. Had the 15th Alabama actually been able to capture and hold Vincent's Spur, it would've had to face the 83rd Pennsylvania, the regiment next to Chamberlain's, as well as the 140th New York that had just come up. Furthermore, there was only room on Little Round Top for perhaps eight artillery pieces to be aimed at the rest of General Meade's army. If all of Longstreet's cannons couldn't dislodge the Federals on Day 3 of the confrontation, eight weren't going to do it on Day 2.

The strength of SFYBFM is in the comprehensiveness of Desjardine's research, which encompassed examination of close to eighty accounts of the battle by survivors on both sides. There are twenty-two pages of Notes and a six-page Bibliography. There's a complete roster of the 20th Maine soldiers at Gettysburg, which includes each man's rank, company, hometown, age, marriage status, civilian occupation, height, and post-battle status as applicable (killed, wounded, mortally wounded, captured). In addition, Appendix One enumerates the number of combatants in the three regiments involved. Appendix Three, Four and Five list in greater detail the nature of each casualty for the 20th Maine, 15th Alabama, and 47th Alabama respectively. For example, Private Mansfield Ham of the 20th Maine is noted as having been:

"Wounded severely in side, thumb shot off."

SFYBFM includes a serviceable assortment of photos sprinkled throughout as well as a number of maps, the most useful of which depict the evolving positions of the 20th Maine and 15th Alabama as they engaged.

STAND FIRM YE BOYS FROM MAINE is an exemplary battle history. While it may refute some of the more outlandish claims of the legend, e.g. that the survival of the Union hinged on the 20th Maine's victory, it puts the supreme efforts of both sides on a human scale and not on pedestals, especially as the personalities and civilian lives, both pre- and post-war, of combatants from both sides are described. From this vantage point, the Civil War student, whether casual or serious, can better appreciate the command style of the regimental officers and the heroic fighting qualities of their men. The volume deserves prominent place on any bookshelf dedicated to the American Civil War.

Research pays off!.......2007-03-04

Thomas Desjardin has done something I would have thought impossible. He wrote a history book that I found hard to put down! His expanded research included many eye witness accounts of the battle of Little Round Top which serve to give us a clearer picture of what happeded that day. No one or even couple of people can give an accurate accounting. We all have a limited range of vision. When gathering all accounts it may seem that one contradicts the other, but it's really only a matter of perspective. We all see things differenly plus & understand it differently. This book takes nothing away from Chamberlain. It only shows he was not alone up there. I found the book fascinating & well worth reading.

Informative.......2005-08-21

Interesting book, good subject. Some people, with a degree of justification, bemoan the attention given to the 20th Maine, but I'm not one of them. What I would like to see is that same attention given to other deserving regiments as well.

This book has the advantage of being well-documented and, as far as I can tell, accurate. It has the disadvantage of being somewhat superficial in that the regiment is never put into any larger context. There are anecdotes galore, and of course there is a thorough reconstruction of the 20th Maine at Little Round Top. But the substance of the battle around them is lacking; to be fair, this is not supposed to be a book about the battle as a whole.

In short, this is a good supplementary book if you have already read a thorough account of the battle (I recommend Coddington, personally), and it's good for bits of information about the 20th Maine, so it fulfills its purpose. Subjectively, I found it a rather dry account; interesting, informative, clearly written, but somehow lacking flavor.

An excellent companion piece to The Killer Angels.......2004-11-13

I initially read this book after participating in a staff ride of the Gettysburg battlefield. My knowledge of the battle at that time came largely from Shaara's "The Killer Angels", and the subsequent film "Gettysburg". As both were meant to inspire and entertain rather than inform, I had an unrealistic understanding of the 20th Maine and its place in the struggle at Gettysburg. Thomas Desjardin's book changed that.

Well written and fast moving, "Stand Firm Ye Boys From Maine" provides excellent background information on the 20th Maine, identifies members of the Regiment beyond Chamberlain and his brother Tom, and reminds the reader that the 20th Maine's opponents at Little Round Top weren't a nameless mass of rebels, but members of a proud regiment with a strong leader all their own.

Desjardin explains the fight between the 20th Maine and the 15th Alabama in tremendous detail, with accompanying maps that enhance the narrative. More importantly, he describes the post-war growth of the Chamberlain legend, and explains the difference between Chamberlain the Man, and Chamberlain the myth. Desjardin's Chamberlain is not the battlefield intellectual who conceived an unorthodox maneuver in the face of the enemy to win the day, but an ordinary man who led from the front under extraordinary circumstances. I prefer the latter.

Students of Gettysburg will be interested in Desjardin's perspective on familiar events, and those unfamiliar with the battle will find it a great introduction to the subject. While not a history of the overall campaign, it is definitely a great starting place to learning what took place in PA over 140 years ago.

Excellent Start.......2004-08-16

This is a well worked area of the ACW but Thomas A. Desjardin brings a fresh look to the subject. He is an excellent author and scholar, both show in his books. The book contains very good maps, photos and current status of Little Round Top, roster of the 20th Maine, 5 Appendix, notes and index. This is a very well done book that can be used as an introduction or reference.

The Stand of the U.S. Army at Gettysburg

Average customer rating:

Fine edition to the literature on Gettysburg
More of the same
An concise account of the Battle of Gettysburg

The Stand of the U.S. Army at Gettysburg
Jeffrey C. Hall
Manufacturer: Indiana University Press
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Hardcover

General | Americas | History | Subjects | Books

General | Military | History | Subjects | Books

General | World | History | Subjects | Books

All Titles | Qualifying Textbooks - Fall 2007 | Stores | Books
Similar Items:

ASIN: 0253342589

Customer Reviews:

Fine edition to the literature on Gettysburg.......2006-01-17

In sports parlance, Jeffrey Hall is a "fan" of the Battle of Gettysburg. He is a biologist by occupation who has fallen in love with this one particular event of the Civil War and through study has made himself an "expert" on it. Like most fans of anything he carries a prejudice with him, that being that Mr. Hall is a Union man, pure and simple. He announces this loudly in the Introduction: "Gettysburg was a battle that was not sitting there for the Confederates to win or lose. ... The Army of the Potomac was much more than a passive participant that benefited solely from Confederate errors . . . the Southerners did not flounder at Gettysburg; they were outfought." What follows in the text is a detailed and well-argued account of the battle and events immediately surrounding it that attempts to make good Mr. Hall's premise.

Beginning with the cavalry engagement at Brandy Station on June 9, Hall traces the movement of Lee's army up the Shenandoah Valley and across the Mason-Dixon Line and Meade's accompanying moves to the east. He discusses Stuart's well-known raid that brought him many miles north of Gettysburg at Carlisle on July 1 and is very critical of it. At Gettysburg proper he discounts a Southern "victory" on the First Day since the Union forces gained the best ground for the fighting that would take place the next two days. Through the use of many (literally hundreds) of excellent maps, Hall explains what precisely occurred on the battlefield throughout the battle. Hall believes that only a small fraction of the advancing Southern forces in "Pickett's charge" ever made it to the Union lines, thanks largely to the actions of the 8th Ohio which was positioned west of the Emmitsburg Road on the Southern left. Hall also writes about the Southern retreat and, in appendices, about other (mainly cavalry) battles.

Again in the Introduction Hall says he did not want to go into "excruciating detail" about the battle, and one might want to dispute him there. Though "excruciating" is one of those relative terms, Hall is about as detailed as one could be while still being relevant. He is also prone to draw comparisons with specifics from other world battles; it was a bit disconcerting at first to suddenly find a detailed map of part of Crete from 1941, for example, placed there to explain some of the action on Little Round Top. Once again, though, I found the superb maps to be the highlight of the book. Hall's annotations are also thorough and interesting. It's an excellent book for serious students of the Battle of Gettysburg. Highly recommended.

More of the same.......2003-08-22

This is an average book on Gettysburg with most of the "historical revisions" added. The author agrees with all of the revisions with out presenting any of the things that made them impossible at the time. Did/did not Chamberlain order the charge, probley not, but his actions that day inspired it and he did hold the line. Longstreet was late, yes, but it had as much to do or more to do with Lee's actions than anything else. Pickett's Charge was a bad idea and nothing Longstreet could do would change that. Mlavern Hill and Fredicksburg had already proven this to everyone but Lee.

Sears' book is much better and if you want a large format book look at David J. Eicher's "Gettysburg Battlefield".

An concise account of the Battle of Gettysburg.......2003-07-03

This is a clear and concise account of the Battle of Gettysburg that has several interesting views about the personalities involved in the battle. Hall believes that Sickles flawed position in the Peach Orchard actually helped the Union cause because it slowed the Confederate advance. Hall praises General Warren for moving his forces to the southern end of the battlefield and repelling the Confederate attacks, but Hall states that the famous charge on Little Round Top was not organized by Chamberlain, but rather it was an spontaneous act by the Union soldiers. Hall is very critical of Longstreet in this book and thinks that if Longstreet attacked earlier on the second day of the battle that the Union army coud have been defeated. According to Hall, Longstreet also failed on the third day of the battle because he did not give enough forces to General Pickett and this allowed the Confederate force to be surrounded by Union forces since it did not have enough flank protection. I would reccomend this book to anyone interested in a new perspective of Gettysburg. .

Average customer rating:

The Stand of the U.S. Army at Gettysburg
Jeffrey C. Hall
Manufacturer: Indiana University Press
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback
ASIN: B000OQ9R9A

Average customer rating:

The Stand of the U.S. Army at Gettysburg
Jeffrey C. Hall
Manufacturer: NY
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Hardcover
ASIN: B000MUBQEC

Book Description

The age-old war between religion and science has taken a new twist. Once the dedicated scientist-martyr fought heroically against rigid religionists. But now the tables have turned, and it is established science crusading against religion, pushing atheistic agendas in the classroom, in textbooks, and in the media. This book shows how science has now become a religion of its own-an often fanatical one at that-furiously preaching atheism, punishing dissenters, dictating how and what we should think, and subtly inserting its worldviews in everything from education to entertainment. And, with stunning clarity, it proves that, with billions of dollars up for grabs in the race for stem cell research, intellectual integrity has been replaced with good old-fashioned greed. With sharp insight and completely original reporting, this book defiantly shows the extent to which science is beating down religion and how this systematic tyranny is unmistakably weakening culture and society.

Customer Reviews:

Fallacious Reasoning at its Worst.......2006-11-24

What this book demonstrates to its readers is that Pamela Winnick has several strawmen she has erected about science and evolution, and she enjoys beating them regularly. One wonders if she was not subject to abuse with a science textbook at some point in her life, so obvious is her vitriol toward anything scientific.

She has made no effort to check her sources or to even document them; I've Googled several of her unattributed quotes and have found no record of who might have said the things she quotes. For all I can figure out, Ms. Winnick might have made up those quotes herself to support her cause. The editing and proofreading of the book are atrocious enough that I've had to read several sentences more than once to try to ascertain her meaning. As another reader has noted, she never attempts to address to whom she might actually be speaking. Is she upset at science as a method, at scientists in general, or only at those she considers "leftist"? The reader is left to wonder for himself what her motive might be.

It's obvious that she understands very little about evolution, a subject about which she seems very upset. She refers to neo-Darwinism as "the only acceptable scientific explanation for the origin and evolution of life" and neglects to note that evolution says absolutely nothing about the origin of life. She implies that such ongoing social problems as racism are the fault of science. I wondered while I read this book if Ms. Winnick had ever cracked open a science book or if she was capable of using a non-pejorative word to describe a scientist. She makes rather unprofessional and silly remarks about people with whom she disagrees, commenting on their appearances and on their personal lives with the obvious glee of a Kitty Kelley tell-all.

if you'd enjoy reading a book that is an honest discussion of either politics or science, _A Jealous God_ is not for you. If, however, you enjoy being preached to in unprofessional and underhanded ways about the distaste all religious people should have for scientists, then by all means, pick up this book. If you enjoy poorly edited and non-annotated books written by laymen about the problems with science, then this book's for you. It's certainly not an honest portrayal of anything within the real world or outside of Ms. Winnick's worldview in which scientists are a terrible evil.

An awful book.......2006-10-28

Is it too much to expect this Columbia Law School Graduate to clearly state her proposition at the outset and then back it up with evidence? Should she not have started out by clarifying what she meant by the book's title, which includes the words: "Science's Crusade Against Religion"? What does she mean by science? Individual scientists? The "scientific establishment" (whatever that might mean)? The scientific method? What or who, exactly, is launching this crusade? And then what about crusade? Let's forget where this word originates for a moment, and ask what the author might mean. A concerted effort? Again, by whom or by what? Finally, what does Ms. Winnick mean by religion? Religion as such? Particular religions? The so-called judeo-christian value system?

I'm sorry to be picky, but if you can neither agree nor disagree with Ms. Winnick's position if she doesn't set it out. And she doesn't. Instead, she presents a selection of anecdotes from the culture wars, most of which bear on science and religion, but in none of which she even tries to demonstrate a concerted attack by science/the scientific method/scientists against religion/religions/religious beliefs. To confuse matters, in one of her chapters (Monkey Business, on creationism), she even describes a religious attack against science.

If science really is launching a crusade against religion, then how does Ms. Winnick explain vaccines, drugs, and medical procedures that save lives and allow doctors to bring comfort to millions? How does she explain new food technologies that allow people to grow food under harsh conditions and thus to live? How does she explain communications technologies that increasingly allow institutions to get their message out to countless people? The list goes on, but all these advances, which science has provided, allow religions to flourish. Sure, science has had its dark days and its charlatans, but on balance, science has been overwhelmingly beneficial to religions. It's just ungenerous to suggest otherwise.

There are really many things wrong with this book. Errors abound. A gamete is not organic? Carl Sagan's third wife is Ann Dunyan? How about this: "The word "theory" when used in science is different from its ordinary use. A scientific theory is considered virtually the same as fact." Huh?

Many quotes go unattributed: "as one member later recalled"; "so-called "humanists" complained"; "observed two law professors at the University of California at Los Angeles." It matters who said things. The reader needs to be able to be able to verify the quote if necessary, and to place it in its context. Does attribution bring needless detail not central to the argument? How about a detail like this description of Richard Dawkins (here Winnick quotes John Horgan): "an icily handsome man, with predatory eyes, a knife-thin nose, and incongruously rosy cheeks." We're also told Dawkins is "meticulously dressed in tailored European suits" and is "married to an actress". If we can have this level of detail about Professor Dawkins (Stephen Jay Gould, by the way, is "affable, chubby...a regular guy"), can we at least know who made the statements in quotation marks? (By the way, would Ms. Winnick mind if I included information about her physical appearance in this review? Could she imagine why that might not be useful or relevant?)

I leave this book feeling disappointed and frustrated. Disappointed because I find it to be poorly written, badly edited, full or error and misconception about science, and lacking in any serious discussion of her opponents' positions. Frustrated because it fails to present any kind of case, let alone try to demonstrate one. There is plenty of anecdote but it fails to add up to a case that science is involved in a crusade against religion. Too bad that I spent the last few days reading it.

A judge would surely throw this one out. And you should too.

Brave new science.......2006-08-18

With a title like this, one would imagine this to be a book about the conflict between evolution and creation, or something similar. In fact the book, despite its somewhat misleading title, is actually a good look at some of the abuses and misuses of science. Science is not so much taking on God, but demeaning personhood and human integrity.

Thus this book is really about the nature of science, the place of ethics in science, the relationship between science and values, the need for regulation, and the role of religion in tempering science. Winnick is well placed to handle these issue, having been a medical reporter for many years, and having written extensively on the intersection between law, religion and science.

As such this book deals with such topics as eugenics, stem cell research, population control, genetic engineering and the new reproductive technologies. And yes, there are several chapters on the evolution debate, but specifically on the Scopes Trial of 1925, Intelligent Design, and the way science is taught in the classroom.

Winnick begins her book by examining how the very notion of the sacredness of human life has been undermined in the past few decades, often by scientists and those in the medical community. Indeed, it goes back even further, with the eugenics movement of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.

The degree to which science and medicine have been bedfellows with the eugenics movement is testimony to the fact that science is not above corruption and deception. We all know of Hitler's use of science and medicine to promote his program of extermination. But American politicians made use of their expertise in the twenties and thirties to make a better human race. Forced birth control, sterilizations, and selective breeding were all part of their program.

The now infamous Tuskegee, Alabama case, beginning in 1932, it but one example of this. Four hundred mainly poor black men were afflicted with syphilis by the US Public Health Service to see what the disease does to the body. Such lab-rat treatment of humans has happened frequently, and many scientists have been happy to conduct such experiments.

Progressive, leftist political causes, social utopianism, and secular science have often combined, ostensibly to create a "better" human race, but the actual results have been nightmarish. Many of these deliberate attempts at eugenics are highlighted in this book.

And Winnick documents how leaders in the eugenics movement realised that religion, particularly the Judeo-Christian religion, had to be countered and neutralised if their dehumanised agenda could proceed.

She also examines more recent examples of unethical science. The stem cell debate is one such case. Miracles cures just days away are among the many over-hyped claims of Big Biotech. Demand for embryonic stem cell research is paraded daily in the media, despite the fact that only adult stem cells to date have led to any human therapies.

Because so much big money is tied up with these sorts of endeavours, mercenary motivations of science are often indistinguishable from more nobler ones. A person wearing a white lab coat can be just as greedy and subject to corruption as anyone else. Scientists are not immune from selling their soul to the highest bidder.

Winnick documents how science and technology is often motivated as much by financial gain as by humanitarian concerns. And the attempts by the scientific community to reject any regulation and accountability ensures that a Frankenstein's monster will continue to emerge.

The lust for power, the chase after profits, and the dangers of arrogance are all reasons for keeping science in close check, ethically and socially. An unbridled science will only be more tempted to go down the path of eugenics and dehumanisation.

Winnick concludes with a warning about encroaching scientism: it will "grow in political and economic stature, its own set of constitutional `rights' to both research and funding, arrogating to itself alone the power to make morally troublesome decisions." This will result in speculative funding which harms the poor, the commoditisation of the body, and the subjugation of the unborn to those already born. Brave new world prospects, in other words, which we have already witnessed enough of.

Don't judge it by its title.......2006-08-13

Despite it's strong title and the title of the last chapter ("The Road to Hell"), this book is actually very mild and straightforward. It does not portray "Science" as historically and actively seeking to overthrow religion. It merely illustrates a few of the modern areas in which the goals (especially monetary) of certain researchers run roughshod over practically any ethical or moral considerations, not just religious views. What may be most surprising to most readers is that the most recent and most vital cases involve demands for research to be publicly funded but totally free of regulation or even public scrutiny, through means (and perhaps even to ends) that are abhorrent to people from both left and right wings of politics and religion.

A few good points, but many problems.......2006-07-12

Is science a religion? Well, of course, that depends on what you mean by religion. I think that science is important. Science certainly has its problems, as any human activity does. Science is also all we have in the struggle against irrationality. If you think that makes science my religion, so be it. Winnick criticizes scientists such as Sagan, Dawkins, and Gould because they want to promote science. I don't see how it is a bad thing for them to be enthusiastic about science, given that they believe is vital to humanity's future.

Winnick says some things about science that are simply silly. Darwinism has its roots partly in the politics of its time--so what? The important thing is whether the evidence supports it. It does. Creationism has dozens of questions which it has never answered: Why do animals have rudimentary organs like the appendix, or the leg bones found in some whales? Why do some animals go extinct? Why are so many unique life forms found on islands? Why do different places around the world that have similar climates have different animals? Why are animals that live in caves more closely related to animals living on the ground above them than to animals living in caves far away? Evolution has good answers to all these questions. Creationism has "God wanted it that way," end of discussion. Winnick argues that favorable mutations are too rare for evolution to work, an improbability as great as a monkey typing out the works of Shakespeare. Please don't accept this without reading Dawkins' book "The Blind Watchmaker," which addresses precisely this question. While mutation is random, evolution is NOT random; evolution is based on the cumulative survival of favorable variations. If a monkey types for a long time and whenever he by chance types the correct letter it is retained, he will in fact type the works of Shakespeare.

Winnick also says that science cannot explain behaviors such as charity that have nothing to do with survival. Winnick clearly missed the very extensive scientific literature on the evolution of altruism. Charity certainly can and does evolve--if it benefits the individual involved or those related to him. Bees have evolved to sting a bear attacking the hive, even at the cost of their own lives, because all the bees of the hive are closely related to one another. The genes get passed on preferentially, even though a few individuals die. Humans are social animals who are highly dependent on their communities for survival; charity is a big part of the social glue holding those communities together. It is not mysterious.

Given that I am an atheist and a scientist, Winnick and I are clearly coming from very different points of the ideological spectrum. If you are inclined to take all of Winnick's book at face value, I would strongly urge you to read some contrary viewpoints. My own personal favorite is Sagan's "Science as a Candle in the Dark."

Winnick takes the survival of human life--any human life--as the ultimate good, no matter what the cost. I am a little puzzled as to why a Christian would take this view. If an elderly cancer patient's next stop is Heaven, why put a lot of money and effort into prolonging their final illness? When does keeping a dying person alive become sadism? When it comes to a one-pound preemie, I tend to think putting him in an ICU for months, doing complex surgery, and the like, is more like sadism than like compassion. If Christians feel it is important to keep people alive no matter what, I would suggest that Christians be the ones to pay the medical bills in such cases.

Another problem with the "life at any cost" approach is that it assumes that the earth can hold any number of people. This is not the case. This is abundantly shown by the accumulating environmental problems we face today, not to mention the declining standard of living in the U.S. We are exhausting the natural resources on which ALL human lives depend very rapidly.(For more on this, I would suggest Diamond's book "Collapse" and Kunstler's book "The Long Emergency.") A stable population is an absolute necessity to get this situation under control. Population control is no liberal fad; on the contrary, it is deeply conservative. Given that we only have one planet to live on, we should be cautious about doing new things with it, including putting lots of new people on it. Whatever else you may say about abortion, it is an effective and inexpensive method of controlling the number of people. If you feel abortion is unethical, you still need to come up with a way to keep the population of the earth at a sustainable level. I don't see Christian churches ponying up the necessary money to pay for billions of people to learn and practice the rhythm method. This is condemning people--not fetuses, grown people--to death by war, disease, and ecological disaster. That doesn't strike me as genuine respect for human life.

That said, I was surprised to find that Winnick and I do have some points of agreement. I am no fan of high-tech infertility procedures, for the obvious reason that I think we have more people already than we need. Such procedures also cost huge amounts of money that could be better spent elsewhere.

I also oppose heart transplants, though not for the same reasons Winnick does. In my opinion, compared to the huge costs, the number of people whose lives can be saved by heart transplants is so small that transplants can only be considered a waste of time and money. The same is true for most other organ transplants, and indeed for much of modern high-tech medicine. Other countries have health as good as, or in some cases better, than we do here in the U.S., for a fraction of the cost. Much of high-tech surgery and medicine has surprisingly little solid scientific support as to its effectiveness. This is not a criticism of science. It is a criticism of doctors, who have allowed greed to lead them into forgetting about science and using unproven, fantastically expensive treatments on patients.

Winnick spends a lot of time criticizing science education. I agree with her that science is taught very poorly at present in the U.S. This is not because it is godless, but because there is a long-standing tendency in education to implement "reforms" without any evidence that the reforms will improve education. To make matters worse, most of the educational research that is done is of truly awful quality: sample sizes too small, samples not randomized, controls poorly done, results followed for too short a time, costs of implementing proposed reforms not taken into account, etc. (Given the importance of education in society and the economy, you'd think good research and lots of it would be a priority. But at present that's not the case.) Winnick falls into a trap here: she criticizes science education as being too focused on rote learning. But the replacement of rote learning with more creative approaches has been a goal of educational reformers for centuries, with a remarkable lack of success in improving education. Rote learning is enormously easier on the teacher than more "creative" approaches are, making it far cheaper to teach kids and making teacher retention and burnout far less of a problem. In addition, there's little or no evidence that kids learn more or are more creative if they're taught by "creative" approaches than by rote learning.

When it comes to improving peoples' lives, in my opinion the road to Hell is indeed paved with good intentions. If Christianity really worked to make bad people good and good people better, I would be the first to sign up. If Christianity was an effective way to relieve poverty and bring peace, I would definitely consider it. If Christianity were just a silly hobby that made people feel good and harmed no one, it wouldn't bother me. Unfortunately, that isn't what I see. Even when in power, Christianity has made little or no progress in solving the social problems that it deals with, such as poverty and violence. Christianity systematically ignores the most serious problems of our times: overpopulation, exhaustion of resources, and pollution, among others. Why does Christianity ignore these problems? Because they receive little or no attention in the Bible, a book written thousands of years ago. We deserve better.

Jarring sects.(Book review): An article from: First Things: A Monthly Journal of Religion and Public Life

Average customer rating:

Jarring sects.(Book review): An article from: First Things: A Monthly Journal of Religion and Public Life
Wesley J. Smith
Manufacturer: Thomson Gale
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Digital

General | Philosophy | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

General | Science | Subjects | Books

Science & Technology | Subjects | e-Docs | Formats | Books

Book Description

This digital document is an article from First Things: A Monthly Journal of Religion and Public Life, published by Thomson Gale on June 1, 2006. The length of the article is 1525 words. The page length shown above is based on a typical 300-word page. The article is delivered in HTML format and is available in your Amazon.com Digital Locker immediately after purchase. You can view it with any web browser.

Citation Details
Title: Jarring sects.(Book review)
Author: Wesley J. Smith
Publication: First Things: A Monthly Journal of Religion and Public Life (Magazine/Journal)
Date: June 1, 2006
Publisher: Thomson Gale
Issue: 164 Page: 42(3)

Article Type: Book review

Distributed by Thomson Gale

Books:

Books Index

Books Home

Recommended Books