Darwin’s Magic Potion

By Bruce Malone:

When Charles Darwin published The Origin of Species in 1859, he brought scientific credibility to the concept that man developed slowly from previous life forms. Most people do not realize that the concept of evolution did not actually originate with Darwin, but predates him by thousands of years. As far back in history as the ancient Greeks there were ideas about life coming from previous forms of life. Even the mechanisms proposed by Darwin can be attributed, in a large part, to others.1 What sets Darwin apart is the timing of his work. The intellectual community of Northern Europe was ripe for a naturalistic explanation of life. The distortion of Biblical Christianity was bringing faith in the supernatural under increasing ridicule, and humanism (man making himself the center of all things) was rapidly replacing the Christian belief in absolute truth.

Thus, when an alternative to creation seemed to have been found, it was rapidly accepted as fact. The easiest way to reject the authority of a creator is to remove the existence of that creator. In actuality, Darwin proved neither where life came from nor how it developed. He merely proposed a method whereby this transformation from beast to man seemed possible. With the exception of mutations as the source of new genetic information, the belief in evolution as the explanation for our origin has progressed little in the last 150 years. The concepts popularized by Darwin continue to be taught with the fervor of religious dogma.

Darwin proposed several things concerning the origin of the enormous variety of life on our planet. The first was that “the species are not immutable” (i.e. we came from a previous simpler form of life). Darwin’s second proposal was that this trans-formation of one life form into another was driven by a process called natural selection (popularized as “survival of the fittest”). His third assumption was the rejection of a Biblical time frame and a world wide flood as an explanation for the geology of the planet. This allowed him to accept the increasingly popular huge time periods needed for this transformation to take place. Believers in evolution still assume that given enough time, there is essentially no limit to biological variation. But can this seemingly magical force transform amoebas into man?

Almost every biology textbook has the following example of natural selection in action. In England, before the industrial revolution, it was common to find the peppered moth in proportions of 95 percent light-colored to 5 percent dark-colored. This was believed to be caused by the majority of the trees in a certain area being light so the light-colored moths were better camouflaged. Thus fewer light-colored moths were eaten by predators. After the industrial revolution, the trees became primarily dark-colored (due to pollution) and the light-colored moths were now at a disadvantage to the predators. Thus, the peppered moth population shifted from light colored to 95 percent dark. This is a classic example of the powerful ability of natural selection to adapt an organism to its environment. But how far does this go to explain the development of completely different types of animals? We started with light and dark moths and we ended up with...light and dark moths. Nothing new developed. The population merely shifted.

There does not exist even one example of natural selection producing a new type of animal, a new organ, or even a major permanent change in an existing organism. This is because “natural selection” is just that - selection. It can create nothing new. It can only select the most advantageous information which is already present in the molecular blueprint of the organism. Natural selection cannot cause new useful information to be added to the DNA of an animal. Darwin was simply wrong when presenting this mechanism as the explanation for life’s development.

1. Ian Taylor, In the Minds of Men, TFE Publishing, 1987

Read More

Prayer Takes in the Whole Man

E. M. Bounds

Download Audio (11.8MB)

“Some years ago, on a ferryboat, I met a gentleman who knew [Henry Clay Trumbull]. ‘Oh, yes,’ said my friend, ‘he was a great Christian, so real, so intense. He was at my home years ago and we were talking about prayer.’ ‘Why, Trumbull,’ I said, ‘you don’t mean to say if you lost a pencil you would pray about it, and ask God to help you find it.’ ‘Of course I would; of course I would,’ was his instant and excited reply. Of course he would. Was not his faith a real thing? He did trust God in everything. And the Father honoured the trust of His child.”1

Prayer has to do with the entire man. It takes the whole man to pray, and prayer affects the entire man in its gracious results. As the whole nature of man enters into prayer, so also all that belongs to man is the beneficiary of prayer. All of man receives benefits in prayer. The largest results in praying come to him who gives himself, all of himself, all that belongs to himself, to God. This is the secret of full consecration, and this is a condition of successful praying, and the sort of praying which brings the largest fruits.

The men of olden times who wrought well in prayer, who brought the largest things to pass, who moved God to do great things, were those who were entirely given over to God in their praying. God wants, and must have, all that there is in man in answering his prayers. He must have wholehearted men through whom to work out His purposes and plans concerning men. God must have men in their entirety. No double-minded man need apply. No man with a divided allegiance to God, and the world and self, can do the praying that is needed.

Holiness is wholeness, and so God wants holy men, men wholehearted and true, for His service and for the work of praying. “And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.”2 These are the sort of men God wants for leaders … and these are the kind out of which the praying class is formed.

Daniel kneeled upon his knees three times a day in prayer. Solomon kneeled in prayer at the dedication of the temple. Our Lord in Gethsemane prostrated Himself in that memorable season of praying just before His betrayal.

The entire man must pray. The whole man, life, heart, temper, mind, are in it. Each and all join in the prayer exercise. A loyal intellect must conspire and add the energy and fire of its undoubting and undivided faith to … the hour of prayer. Necessarily the mind enters into the praying. First of all, it takes thought to pray. The intellect teaches us we ought to pray. As praying is asking for something definite of God, so, beforehand, the thought arises: “What shall I ask for at this hour?” All vain and evil and frivolous thoughts are eliminated, and the mind is given over entirely to God, thinking of Him, of what is needed, and what has been received in the past. The very first step in prayer is a mental one. The disciples took that first step when they said unto Jesus at one time, “Lord, teach us to pray.”3

It takes the whole man to pray till all the storms which agitate his soul are calmed to a great calm, till the stormy winds and waves cease as by a Godlike spell. It takes the whole man to pray till cruel tyrants and unjust rulers are changed in their natures and lives, as well as in their governing qualities, or till they cease to rule. It requires the entire man in praying till high and proud and unspiritual ecclesiastics become gentle, lowly, and religious, till godliness and gravity bear rule in Church and in State, in home and in business, in public as well as in private life.

It is man’s business to pray; and it takes manly men to do it. It is godly business to pray and it takes godly men to do it. And it is godly men who give over themselves entirely to prayer. Prayer is far-reaching in its influence and in its gracious effects. It is intense and profound business which deals with God and His plans and purposes, and it takes wholehearted men to do it. No half-hearted, half-brained, half-spirited effort will do for this serious, all-important, heavenly business. The whole heart, the whole brain, the whole spirit, must be in the matter of praying, which is so mightily to affect the characters and destinies of men.

The answer of Jesus to the scribe as to what was the first and greatest commandment was as follows:

“The Lord our God is one Lord; and thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength.”4

In one word, the entire man without reservation must love God. So it takes the same entire man to do the praying which God requires of men. All the powers of man must be engaged in it. God cannot tolerate a divided heart in the love He requires of men, neither can He bear with a divided man in praying.

In the one hundred and nineteenth Psalm the psalmist teaches this very truth in these words:

“Blessed are they that keep his testimonies, and that seek him with the whole heart.”5

It takes wholehearted men to keep God’s commandments and it demands the same sort of men to seek God. These are they who are counted “blessed.” Upon these wholehearted ones God’s approval rests.

Bringing the case closer home to himself, the psalmist makes this declaration as to his practice: “With my whole heart have I sought thee; O let me not wander from thy commandments.”6

And further on, giving us his prayer for a wise and understanding heart, he tells us his purposes concerning the keeping of God’s law:

“Give me understanding and I shall keep thy law; yea, I shall observe it with my whole heart.”7

Just as it requires a whole heart given to God to gladly and fully obey God’s commandments, so it takes a whole heart to do effectual praying.

Because it requires the whole man to pray, praying is no easy task. Praying is far more than simply bending the knee and saying a few words by rote.

“’Tis not enough to bend the knee,
And words of prayer to say;
The heart must with the lips agree,
Or else we do not pray.”8

Praying is no light and trifling exercise. Prayer draws upon the whole nature of man. Prayer engages all the powers of man’s moral and spiritual nature. It is this which explains somewhat the praying of our Lord described in Hebrews 5:7:

“Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications, with strong crying and tears, unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared.”

It takes only a moment’s thought to see how such praying of our Lord drew mightily upon all the powers of His being, and called into exercise every part of His nature. This is the praying which brings the soul close to God and which brings God down to earth.

Body, soul and spirit are taxed and brought under tribute to prayer.

David Brainerd makes this record of his praying:

“God enabled me to agonise in prayer till I was wet with perspiration, though in the shade and in a cool place.”

The Son of God in Gethsemane was in an agony of prayer, which engaged His whole being:

“And when he was at the place, he said unto them, Pray ye that ye enter not into temptation. And he was withdrawn from them about a stone’s cast, and kneeled down and prayed, saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me; nevertheless, not my will, but thine, be done. And there appeared an angel unto him, from heaven, strengthening him. And being in an agony, he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.”9

Here was praying which laid its hands on every part of our Lord’s nature, which called forth all the powers of His soul, His mind and His body. This was praying which took in the entire man.

Paul was acquainted with this kind of praying. In writing to the Roman Christians, he urges them to pray with him after this fashion:

“Now I beseech you, brethren, for the Lord Jesus Christ’s sake, and for the love of the Spirit, that ye strive together with me in your prayers to God for me.”10

The words “strive together with me” tell of Paul’s praying, and how much he put into it. It is not a docile request, not a little thing, this sort of praying, this “striving with me.” It is of the nature of a great battle, a conflict to win, a great battle to be fought. The praying Christian, as the soldier, fights a life-and-death struggle. His honour, his immortality, and eternal life are all in it. This is praying as the athlete struggles for the mastery, and for the crown, and as he wrestles or runs a race. Everything depends on the strength he puts in it. Energy, ardour, swiftness, every power of his nature is in it. Every power is quickened and strained to its very utmost. Littleness, half-heartedness, weakness and laziness are all absent.

Just as it takes the whole man to pray successfully, so in turn the whole man receives the benefits of such praying. As every part of man’s complex being enters into true praying, so every part of that same nature receives blessings from God in answer to such praying. This kind of praying engages our undivided hearts, our full consent to be the Lord’s, our whole desires.

God sees to it that when the whole man prays, in turn the whole man shall be blessed. His body takes in the good of praying, for much praying is done specifically for the body. Food and raiment, health and bodily vigour, come in answer to praying. Clear mental action, right thinking, an enlightened understanding, and safe reasoning powers, come from praying. Divine guidance means God so moving and impressing the mind that we shall make wise and safe decisions. “The meek will he guide in judgment.”11

From The Essentials of Prayer, Bounds, Edward M. (1835–1913)
Rights: Public Domain.

Published on Anchor November 2012. Read by Simon Peterson.


1 Robert E. Speer.

2 1 Thessalonians 5:23.

3 Luke 11:1.

4 Mark 12:29–30.

5 Psalm 119:2.

6 Psalm 119:10.

7 Psalm 119:34.

8 Author unknown.

9 Luke 22:40–44.

10 Romans 15:30.

11 Psalm 25:9.

Read More

Mutations Always Result in a Loss

By Bruce Malone:

Darwin’s original theory of evolution included the idea that environmental changes could cause structural changes to occur in plants and animals. He also postulated that these acquired characteristics could be transmitted to offspring. In other words, a horse-like animal, by stretching its neck to reach the leaves in a tree, would be at an advantage if it had a longer neck. So after a life time of using its body in this way, it might develop a longer neck and would pass on this characteristic (which was acquired during its lifetime) to its offspring. This original belief, known as Lamarckism, has been shown false and has been replaced by the belief that mutations are the driving force behind evolution.

Mutations are mistakes made during the transfer of information from the genes of one generation to the next (birth defects are examples of these.) Believers in evolution postulate that if these mistakes are beneficial to the animal it will give the mutated animal an advantage, and natural selection will then preferentially select these animals for survival. Although this belief seems logical, it does not fit reality.

Mutations are mistakes which have never produced a long term benefit. Even examples of “beneficial” mutations, such as sickle cell anemia (a fatal disease which imparts a resistance to malaria) do not create new features or improve overall survivability. One hundred years of experimentation has shown that mutations can not develop new organisms or even cause useful changes to existing organisms. This is because mutations never add useful information. They are exactly analogous to random misspellings in a book. Therefore this mechanism for evolution, even in combination with natural selection, fails to explain how new functional structures could arise.

During the last century millions of fruit flies have been irradiated in laboratory experiments to observe the effect of mutations. The mutation rate has been increased by as much as 15,000 times1. The results of this experiment simulate millions of years of evolutionary progress. What has resulted are big-winged, small-winged, wrinkled-winged, and no-winged fruit flies; large-bodied, small bodied, and no-bodied fruit flies; red-eyed, speckled-eyed, leg-in-place of eye fruit flies; many bristled or no bristled fruit flies; but mainly dead or sterile fruit flies. In conclusion, researchers began with fruit flies and end up with...well...fruit flies - defective ones.

Furthermore, after several generations, even changes in the number of bristles on the irradiated fruit flies reverted back to the original number.2 No new organ or useful functioning feature has ever developed.

The belief that mutations could slowly change an animal into some other animal is analogous to believing that an old vacuum tube black and white television could be changed into an color liquid crystal monitor by throwing random parts at it. The impacts will definitely produce changes (given the quality of current TV shows it could even be argued that these changes would be beneficial), but they certainly will not change the unit into a color TV.

In the same way, mutations may produce changes, and it is remotely possible that some may be beneficial, but they will not change an organism into some other type of organism. For that to happen, useful information would have to be added to the DNA of the creature. This simply is not going to happen as a result of random mutations.

It would seem that this commonly accepted evolutionary mechanism (mutations) has serious flaws which are seldom reported to students or to the general public.

1. E.J. Gardner, Principles of Genetics, (N.Y.: Wily, 1964) p. 180.

2. N. MacBeth, “The Question: Darwinism Revisited”, Yale Review, June, 1967, p. 622.

Read More

13 Lessons From A Great Social Entrepreneur: Pamela Atkinson

Devin Thorpe, Forbes, Sept. 23, 2012:

Pamela Atkinson, an adviser to the last three governors in Utah, an Elder in the First Presbyterian Church and a tireless advocate for the homeless and refugees in Utah, still volunteers her time actively and personally among Utah’s poorest people and counts them as her friends. She sat down with me recently to share her insights from her more than twenty years of humanitarian service. The following are the lessons I drew from her:

1. Ego has no role in service: Pamela describes herself as “an ordinary person” despite the fact that almost no one who knows her would describe her that way. Years ago, she helped rally the town of Logan, Utah to create a health clinic for the uninsured poor there. Although she was the driving force for the project, she focused on getting the community to own the project, which meant that she had to move quietly to the background as the community rallied to build their own clinic.

2. Collaboration: There are three important “Cs” in relation to service: coordinate, cooperate, and collaborate. Of these, “collaborate” is the greatest, she says. After she launched her homeless outreach program in 1991, visiting homeless in their camps each week, she welcomed the Utah Chapter of the Volunteers of America who wanted to run and expand the program. She continues to participate in the expanded program more than twenty years later.

3. Don’t “be afraid to speak out”: Serving as an advisor to three governors, she has learned not to be afraid to speak out. “If I feel strongly about an injustice, an issue that is not being addressed in a collaborative and focused way, then I need to speak out,” she says. She’s learned that even when everyone in the room openly opposes her, she’ll often get private indications of support from people who are grateful for her leadership.

4. Never let issues interfere with relationships: While lobbying Utah’s legislators for support for her programs over the years, she’s learned never to let disagreements interfere with relationships. She notes, “By not destroying relationships, I can go back again on other issues.” She does this by truly listening to opposing points of you, often with the invitation, “I never thought of it that way—tell me more.”

5. Transparency is the key to success: For social entrepreneurs, transparency is critical. “The more transparent [the organization] the more people will want to get involved,” she explains. People want to see and understand the impact that an organization is having.

6. Treat Volunteers with Respect: “Ask the volunteers, how are things going? Are you enjoying this? Ask volunteers for ideas to improve service,” she says, emphasizing that too many organizations fail to appreciate the value of their volunteers.

7. Don’t give up on someone when fundraising: When she hears “no,” she asks, “What can I do to help change your mind?” She offers to provide tours, introductions, whatever it will take to change a mind. Her approach has made her one of the most successful fundraisers in Utah.

8. Small Things Make A Difference: Over the years, Pamela has learned that “it doesn’t always have to be huge.” As an Elder in the First Presbyterian Church, she asks members to contribute small things to her effort to provide for the homeless. She collects socks, underwear and hygiene items, the latter often collected by members who travel and collect hotel amenities (soaps and shampoos) for her hygiene kits. She recounts a story of arriving at the home of a low income family, finding that the family had no hot water, no soap and no shampoo. She had a hygiene kit in the car and provided that immediately, to the joy of the family and later helped them to get their gas restored for hot water.

9. Everyone Can Do Something: Pamela often speaks to groups and always makes the point that everyone can do something. She notes that she was once challenged by a woman who said, “I’m 80 years old, I rarely get out of the house and I have a limited income, how can I make a difference?” Pamela challenged her to donate a can of soup to the food bank each week. She took the challenge and for several years thereafter, she did just that, ultimately providing hundreds of meals for people who otherwise might have gone hungry.

10. Power of Touch and a Smile: While volunteering with the Salvation Army years ago, she was assigned by the Major to greet each homeless person attending dinner that evening with a warm smile and a hearty handshake, noting that some of the homeless won’t have been touched in the last week. She’s never forgotten that lesson and makes a point to always greet people, especially the poor with a smile and handshake or other appropriate touch.

11. “I can do all things through Christ who strengtheneth me.” Pamela notes that she sometimes feels guided and directed by a divine influence in her work, crediting her faith in Jesus Christ for her strength. She notes, however, that many of her non-churchgoing friends are among the kindest and most generous people she knows. Sometimes, she acknowledges that she says to herself, “I did make a difference. Thanks, Lord.”

12. If she can do it, so can I: It was many years ago that she was driving in Seattle where she lived at the time and heard an invitation on the radio to volunteer with the Salvation Army to serve dinner on Christmas Day. She asked her family and they agreed to help. It was her first experience as a volunteer. She says she was “taken aback by how grateful the homeless were.” She now describes herself as an addict, “I’m addicted to volunteering.” She hopes that people see that if she can do it, so can they.

13. Avoid Emotional Bankruptcy: It is important to take care of yourself. You can’t take care of others unless you do. “Your family and friends” support you and help you to carry on.

Read More

A Jornada Rumo à Simplicidade

Amanda White

A caminho da academia eu ouvia a um programa de rádio cristão onde cada dia fazem uma pergunta para os ouvintes responderem por telefone ou Facebook. Hoje era um assunto simples: “Qual a sua expectativa de futuro?”

As pessoas enviaram respostas simples, mas estimulantes. Por exemplo, uma moça disse que fica na expectativa de tomar uma xícara de chá à noite depois dos filhos irem para a cama.

Isso desencadeou pensamentos sobre as coisas simples na vida. Em essência é isso o que desejamos, as coisinhas simples. – Um abraço do marido ou da esposa ao fim de um dia conturbado; uma xícara de chá ou café de manhãzinha; o sol depois de uma semana de chuva quando poderemos finalmente pendurar a roupa para secar. Uma cama confortável onde nos deitarmos à noite; um banho revigorador; a grama em casa bem aparada.

Gosto de pensar nessas coisinhas como manifestações do amor de Deus por Mim tanto quanto as coisas maiores ou aparentemente mais importantes com as quais Ele me presenteia de vez em quando.

Robert Louis Stevenson definiu bem a questão: “As melhores coisas na vida estão bem ao nosso alcance: o fôlego, podermos respirar; a luz nos olhos; as aos nossos pés; os deveres a serem cumpridos; o caminho diante de nós. Para que ficar desejando agarrar as estrelas distantes! Faça o trabalho simples e corriqueiro quando for preciso, na certeza de que as tarefas cotidianas e o pão de cada dia são as coisas mais doces na vida”.

Sem dúvida, às vezes ficamos animados na expectativa de grandes coisas, de coisas emocionantes, como, por exemplo, as férias ou uma viagem para visitar amigos ou parentes. Estou me lembrando que preciso pensar mais e valorizar mais essas coisas, pois é muito fácil perdê-las de vista no meio da correria do dia a dia.

Nessa mesma semana fui com a minha família a um lindo parque à beira de um lago. Ficamos sentados à sombra de uma árvore observando a paisagem, a água reluzente, desfrutando do clima maravilhoso, e absorvendo a paz e a tranquilidade do lugar. A minha filha logo arranjou uma amiguinha com quem brincar toda feliz; meu filho e meu esposo foram fazer uma caminhada, e eu fiquei deitada diretamente na grama relaxando. Não precisava fazer nada, ouvir, ler, comer ou beber coisa alguma! Não estava a fim de pegar o iPhone. Era tudo tão simples que foi uma terapia! Se pudesse eu teria passado o dia inteiro ali.

Eu tenho mania de estar sempre atarefada e apreciar pouco as coisas. Não é novidade, apenas algo do qual preciso me recordar constantemente, pois é um daqueles princípios de vida e felicidade que muitas vezes passa batido quando estou preocupada com coisas maiores e mais estressantes que obstruem a minha visão.

Decidi começar aos poucos e colocar em prática o conselho da ouvinte no programa de rádio. Determinei alguns minutos para relaxar tomando uma xícara de chá à noite depois que as crianças estavam na cama – e desfrutei de cada gole!

Estou em uma jornada rumo à simplicidade também no meu relacionamento com o Senhor. Acredito que o mesmo Deus que deseja que eu desfrute das pequenas margaridas em flor e dos lindos pores do sol que duram alguns minutos também quer que eu redescubra a alegria e a simplicidade que Ele me oferece.

As coisinhas simples na vida me deixam feliz. E talvez as coisinhas simples que eufaço também deixem Jesus feliz! Quem sabe?!

Ele me disse algo sobre isso o outro dia quando estava muito estressada por não fazer o suficiente para Ele, nem ser tão espiritualizada quanto deveria.

Orei mais ou menos assim:

“Senhor, tenho impressão que Você está chateado com a minha negligência. Sei que se comparar com o meu comportamento de antes eu tenho sido negligente na minha vida espiritual. Na verdade, fico um pouco confusa, eu não sei mais o que é o melhor em termos de relacionamento com Você e vida espiritual. Antes eu sabia, ou achava que sabia, ou pelo menos seguia uma trilha que me fazia sentir bem e eu via que tinha uma conexão com Você. Mas desde que as coisas mudaram, às vezes nem sei se estou Lhe agradando e nem sei o que Você gostaria que eu fizesse. Você quer que eu separe um tempo para ficar junto com Você todos os dias para anotar e organizar as coisas? Ou prefere que eu Lhe entregue os meus pensamentos, sentimentos, tempo e energia, mesmo que de uma maneira diferente da que usei por anos – e também em doses diferentes?”

Ele falou ao meu coração:

“Sei que se sente um pouco desestabilizada, mas isso faz parte do Meu plano para a sua vida. Quero que volte ao básico do básico. Nos nossos próximos momentos juntos você deve refletir na essência da sua relação Comigo deixando de lado opiniões e interpretações de outros. Vai ser bem simples e descomplicado.

“O perigo com as pessoas como você, que se dedicaram tanto e por tanto tempo, e que desejariam continuar entregando-se a Mim e aos outros (apesar das circunstâncias terem mudado), é que tem uma expectativa muito alta em relação a todos os aspectos da sua vida, inclusive na comunhão Comigo. É uma luta voltar à ‘simplicidade que há em Cristo’, mas é na simplicidade que vai Me encontrar.

“Pense no que Eu represento. Não sou uma lista de afazeres sem fim. Não sou uma relação de emoções complicadas ou difíceis, porque disso a sua vida já está cheia, e é normal. Mas Eu sou amor, paz, verdade, luz, o caminho, o pão da vida. sou todas essas coisas boas, positivas e saudáveis. Já lhe disse que a Minha sabedoria é pura, pacífica, cheia de justiça e bom fruto. Por que complicar as coisas ou se condenar porque hoje a sua relação Comigo é mais simples?

“Eu sei que está levando um tempinho para deixar de lado a pesada carga de expectativas que carrega há anos, tanto as impingidas por outros como as que você mesmo decidiu carregar. É natural se sentir vazia depois de pôr tudo isso de lado. Está com os braços desimpedidos e não sabe o que fazer consigo mesma, então fica irrequieta achando que tem algum problema. Olha, só relaxe, desfrute o resto dos seus músculos espirituais e aproveite a jornada de volta à terra onde reina a Minha simplicidade.”

Read More

Godly Confidence

A compilation

Download Audio (9.5MB)

Exodus 4:10–14 [says,]

Moses said to the Lord, “O Lord, I have never been eloquent, neither in the past nor since you have spoken to your servant. I am slow of speech and tongue.”

The Lord said to him, “Who gave man his mouth? Who makes him deaf or mute? Who gives him sight or makes him blind? Is it not I, the Lord? Now go; I will help you speak and will teach you what to say.”

But Moses said, “O Lord, please send someone else to do it.”

Then the Lord’s anger burned against Moses.1

There’s a saying that goes, “If you want to make God laugh, tell Him your plans.” Well, apparently if you want to make God mad, tell Him your limitations.

God had approached Moses with an assignment that was over his head. The Lord was going to take on the leader of the most powerful nation in the world at that time in order to free His people from slavery … and Moses was going to be His representative.

Moses’ initial response seemed to indicate a genuine humility: “Who am I that I should go to Pharaoh and bring the Israelites out of Egypt?”2

God simply responds with, “I will be with you.” No hint of anger whatsoever.

Moses continues to ask questions, all of them pretty legitimate. And every time God responds by giving him a game plan and telling him He’s got it covered. Once again, no anger.

But then Moses oversteps his bounds. He implies that his poor communication skills will undercut God’s intention to use him to speak on His behalf. We might be tempted to think that Moses is once again displaying humility.

In fact, it’s just the opposite. It’s pride.

Moses’ problem isn’t that he’s too humble and doesn’t believe in himself. It’s that he’s prideful and thinks God’s capability rises and falls with his own inability.

We often think pride means overconfidence in our own abilities. Or possibly attributing the source of those abilities to ourselves rather than God. But there is another side to pride that is often overlooked. It can also mean that you believe your limitations are an unstoppable obstacle to God’s power and purposes in your life.

There’s nothing quite so prideful as thinking that you have the ability to single-handedly thwart what God wants to do in and through you.

This time God isn’t patient or nice to Moses. He doesn’t respond with a “you just need to believe in yourself, you’re better than you think you know,” motivational talk. He actually turns angry, because Moses’ perspective is monumentally insulting to God. A God with limitless power and ability has no desire or time to hear about the limitations of the people He wants to use.

True humility doesn’t start with having an accurate view of ourselves. It starts with having an accurate view of God. And an accurate view of God will both shrink us down to size but also make us realize that God is big enough to use anybody of any size.

This includes you.

Maybe you think you’re doomed to be a miserable parent because you had miserable parents. Maybe you think your lack of an education will keep you from making a significant impact for God’s kingdom. Maybe you believe your friend’s response to Jesus is based solely on the excellence of your gospel presentation. Maybe …

You’re not that big. God knew your limitations long before you were ever even aware of them. Don’t stop selling yourself short. Stop selling God short. He used a stuttering, murdering shepherd to set a whole nation free.

Imagine what He could do with you.—Steven Furtick

*

One of the fruits of the Spirit that’s closely related to humility is meekness.

I like the definition of meekness that was in the Bible dictionary I was looking at. It says meekness is “an attitude of humility toward God and gentleness toward men, springing from a recognition that God is in control.” Isn’t that good? I’ll read it again. “An attitude of humility toward God and gentleness toward men, springing from a recognition that God is in control.” It is strength and courage under control, coupled with kindness.

This kind of meekness is having faith and peace, because you know God’s in control. You can be mild and quiet of nature, because you’re full of faith. You’ve got the Lord’s presence right there with you, and you’ve gotten your instructions from Him, and you have the assurance that He’s going to work things out, and that He’ll do the miracles that are needed, no matter how incredibly overwhelming or desperate the situation might be.

You have faith, and therefore you have trust. You’re quiet in spirit. You’re mild, because you’re not frantically trying to work up a miracle or a solution in your own strength. You’re depending on the Lord and not on yourself. You’re not depending on your own talent, your own wisdom, your own charisma. You’re just trusting, because you have confidence in the Lord, you have that calmness, that meekness, which translates to others as the Lord’s presence right there with you. They know everything’s okay, because you have that meekness, that quietness of spirit about you.—Peter Amsterdam3

*

The meek man will attain a place of soul rest. As he walks on in meekness he will be happy to let God defend him. The old struggle to defend himself is over. He has found the peace which meekness brings.—A. W. Tozer

*

Everybody can be great ... because anybody can serve. You don't have to have a college degree to serve. You don't have to make your subject and verb agree to serve. You only need a heart full of grace, a soul generated by love.—Martin Luther King, Jr.

*

Those who are following My Spirit closely and are trying to emulate My ways don’t have to fear losing their image, because they’re trying to make My image their image, so they have nothing to fear. Those who are used to turning to Me and drawing their power and strength from Me have faith and trust. They’re not afraid, because they know that I’m the one who has to lead and guide them, and they pin their faith and trust in My answer and My leading, and in all they do they obey what I show them.

The humble are not afraid, because they've already accepted that they are nothing, that they know nothing, and can do nothing without Me. They know they need Me and they readily acknowledge this to Me and to others. So they’re not afraid, because they know that I will have to help them, and they’ve learned that I don’t fail when they cry out to Me.

They’ve learned through experience that I am always ready to answer their needs and their cries for help, so they rest in Me and depend upon Me to carry them through and to work through them. They’ve learned the power of prayer and the power of My Spirit. So they pray and trust, they pray and listen, they pray and obey, and thus they are not afraid, for they let Me lead the way. They’ve learned that I truly am in control, so there’s nothing to fear.

Those who have not learned to depend on Me are always afraid of their own weaknesses. They’re afraid of the mistakes they will make. They’re afraid of the things they don’t know. They’re afraid of the future. But all of this can be washed away as they learn to give their whole heart to Me, and as they humble themselves completely as little children before Me and let Me be their Lord and Master.—Jesus, speaking in prophecy4

*

Archimedes of Syracuse is famous for his quip: “Give me a place to stand and I will move the earth.” He was referencing the lever, of course. A lever amplifies the input force to provide a greater output force. The longer the lever, the greater the leverage!

Can I borrow that simple statement but substitute one word?

Give me a place to KNEEL and I will move the earth. Humility is our lever! The lower you go in humility—input force—the greater the output, because God intervenes on your behalf. Bow the knee and God will extend His mighty right hand.

In the spiritual realm, humility is the longest lever. If you completely humble yourself before God, then there is nothing God cannot do in you and through you.—Mark Batterson5

Published on Anchor September 2012. Read by David Salas.


1 NIV.

2 Exodus 3:11 NIV.

3 Originally published February 2009.

4 Originally published April 1998.

5 www.markbatterson.com

Read More

What Good is Part of an Animal?

The late Dr. Werher von Braun, a renowned space scientist and former director of NASA, made the following statement concerning our origin, “One cannot be exposed to the law and order of the universe without concluding that there must be design and purpose behind it all...To be forced to believe only one conclusion - that everything in the universe happened by chance - would violate the very objectivity of science itself. What random process could produce the brains of a man or the system of a human eye? It is in scientific honesty that I endorse the presentation of alternative theories of the origin of the universe, life, and man in the classroom. It would be an error to overlook the possibility that the universe was planned rather than happened by chance.”1 This is not the statement of an unintelligent, uninformed, non-scientist. Furthermore, there are now dozens of creation organizations engaged in research to explain our world based on creation.

A powerful example of the evidence for creation is the interdependence of the parts within an organism. Could completely different yet fully functioning parts of an organism have all arisen in a step-by-step fashion? If not, their origin must have been simultaneous creation. The butterfly is a perfect example. How could some worm-like creature have mutated with both the ability and desire to seal itself inside a cocoon? For either to happen would require thousands of simultaneous and useful changes to the chemical structure of this mysterious “pre-butterfly” type creature. What would have happened to some worm-like creature that sealed itself inside of a cocoon but did not yet have the ability to rearrange its biomatter into an adult butterfly? There has never been a logical explanation of how an insect other than a caterpillar (which already possesses the necessary information to become a butterfly) could transform itself into a butterfly by a series of small genetic changes.

Another example is the woodpecker. Evolution teaches that some kind of bird turned into a woodpecker at some time in the distant past. But what would happen to the first bird born with its feet modified with a backwards claw... yet without the instinct to search for insects while holding onto a vertical tree trunk? Or to the first bird born with backwards talons and the desire to beat its head against a tree... but the incorrect bill? Or the correct feet, desire, and bill...but no instinct to blink its eyes at the moment of impact to keep its eyeballs from popping out? Or the correct feet, desire, bill, and blinking ability... but with a tongue too short to reach the insects inside the hole which it had just beaten into the tree? Or the correct feet, desire, bill, blinking ability, shock-absorbing membranes in the back of the skull, and tongue...but now the tongue too long to fit into its mouth because its skull was not yet redesigned to hold the tongue? In each case, the bird would be at an incredible disadvantage and natural selection would have brought its evolutionary development to an end.

There are thousands of other examples in nature. It is easy to look at a perfectly designed organism and say, “Look at how well this creature is adapted to its environment!” The critical question is ignored by evolutionists and not presented to students - “Is it logical that this animal could have developed by one small change at a time?”



1. Excerpts from an original interview in “Applied Christianity”, from the Bible-Science Newsletter,

May 1974, p.8.

NOTE:

Throughout this book ‘evolution’ will refer to its original meaning: the transformation of one type of animal into a completely different type. No one disputes that there can be minor variations within a given class of organism (micro-evolution). However, this has never been shown to lead to completely new features or types of creatures. No example of macro-evolution has ever been demonstrated.

Read More

Eight Tips to Decrease Public Speaking Anxiety

By Mary Ann Gauthier, Dumb Little Man, Sept. 24, 2012

Let’s face it: Many of us would rather dive into a vat of boiling oil than give a speech.

Public speaking is one of the major phobias. But it doesn’t have to be that way.

By following the eight tips below, you can decrease your public speaking anxiety and give an effective speech.

1. Prepare. Taking the time to prepare thoroughly will give you confidence. This means more than taking notes or doing research. You need to find out as much as possible about your audience and tailor your speech to them.

Are they knowledgeable about your subject? If not, you may have to define some of your terms.

Furthermore, the words you choose will be different if your audience is composed of grammar school students rather than a gathering of nurses. For every audience, you’ll have to craft an attention-getting beginning, make the middle of your speech interesting, and the ending memorable.

As part of your preparation, go to the place where you’re going to deliver your speech.

Walk around the room. Put your hands on the podium. Check the lighting. Doing these things will help you become familiar with your surroundings and give you some measure of control.

2. Practice. Give your speech to a group of friends. Stand in front of a mirror and practice. You might also videotape your speech. Make sure your pace is right—not too fast or too slow.

•Have you paused in the right places?

•How does your voice sound?

•Are your gestures animated?

•What about your posture?

•You aren’t leaning on the podium, are you?

The more you practice your material, the more comfortable you will be delivering it.

3. Question Your Imaginary “What Ifs”. What if you stumble and fall? What if you forget part of your speech? What if your audience laughs at you?

True, each of these situations would be unpleasant, but you would survive. Do you really think people will remember that your voice trembled or your legs shook when you gave your speech?

Maybe—for about five minutes. People are much more concerned about themselves than they are about your successes or failures. They probably won’t even notice that you’re nervous.

4. Use Guided Imagery. Picture yourself, the expert, walking confidently to the podium, greeting your audience with a smile, and sharing your knowledge.

Do this a few times a day. Just visualize, in your mind’s eye, everything going well, but also throw in a few problems, then see yourself dealing with them. Make it realistic.

5. Focus on Your Material. Concentrate on your material rather than on how you’re feeling.

You’ll do a much better job if you train yourself to focus on your content, and you may even forget about your nervousness.

Take the focus from inside to outside. Focus on helping your audience and doing your best.

6. Breathe. Studies have shown that deep breathing lowers your blood pressure and helps you to relax. To begin, sit down and eliminate all distractions. Then take a deep breath while pushing out your abdomen.

Hold the breath for a moment, and then exhale, letting your entire body go limp. Do this several times a day, and it will become a habit you’ll turn to in times of stress.

7. Avoid Caffeine. The caffeine that wakes you in the morning can give you the jitters if you drink it later in the day.

Skip the coffee, and you’ll feel calmer. And don’t forget— chocolate and many sodas contain caffeine. Drink water instead, or tea (without caffeine, of course).

8. Just Do It. Avoid giving your speech, and it will be more difficult next time. If you’re willing to endure a little discomfort in the short term, the next time you have to give a speech will be easier for you.

As Eleanor Roosevelt said, “We gain strength, and courage, and confidence by each experience in which we really stop to look fear in the face … we must do that which we think we cannot.”

A little apprehension is a good thing. It gives you the energy to do well, and it means you care. Use these tools to control your anxiety, so that it doesn’t prevent you from giving a speech or from doing anything else you want to or have to do.

Read More

First-Ever Lifetime Feeding Study Finds Genetically Engineered Corn Causes Massive Tumors, Organ Damage, and Early Death

Dr. Mercola, September 22 2012
The first-ever lifetime feeding study evaluating the health risks of genetically engineered foods was published online on September 19, and the results are troubling, to say the least. This new study joins a list of over 30 other animal studies showing toxic or allergenic problems with genetically engineered foods.

The study, published in the peer-reviewed journal Food and Chemical Toxicology, found that rats fed a type of genetically engineered corn that is prevalent in the US food supply for two years developed massive mammary tumors, kidney and liver damage, and other serious health problems.

The research was considered so “hot” that the work was done under strict secrecy. According to a French article in Le Nouvel Observateur, the researchers used encrypted emails, phone conversations were banned, and they even launched a decoy study to prevent sabotage.

According to the authors: “The health effects of a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize (from 11% in the diet), cultivated with or without Roundup, and Roundup alone (from 0.1ppb in water), were studied 2 years in rats. [Editors note: this level of Roundup is permitted in drinking water and GE crops in the US]

In females, all treated groups died 2-3 times more than controls, and more rapidly. This difference was visible in 3 male groups fed GMOs.

All results were hormone and sex dependent, and the pathological profiles were comparable. Females developed large mammary tumors almost always more often than and before controls, the pituitary was the second most disabled organ; the sex hormonal balance was modified by GMO and Roundup treatments.

In treated males, liver congestions and necrosis were 2.5-5.5 times higher… Marked and severe kidney nephropathies were also generally 1.3-2.3 greater. Males presented 4 times more large palpable tumors than controls, which occurred up to 600 days earlier.

Biochemistry data confirmed very significant kidney chronic deficiencies; for all treatments and both sexes, 76% of the altered parameters were kidney related. These results can be explained by the non linear endocrine-disrupting effects of Roundup, but also by the overexpression of the transgene in the GMO and its metabolic consequences.”

Does 10 percent or more of your diet consist of genetically engineered (GE) ingredients? At present, you can’t know for sure, since GE foods are not labeled in the US. But chances are, if you eat processed foods, your diet is chock full of genetically engineered ingredients you didn’t even know about.

The study in question includes photos and graphs. They really are not exaggerating when they say it caused massive tumors… They are huge! Some of the tumors weighed in at 25 percent of the rat’s total body weight. This is the most current and best evidence to date of the toxic effects of GE foods.

Rats only live a few years. Humans live around 80 years, so we will notice these effects in animals long before we see them in humans. The gigantic human lab experiment is only about 10 years old, so we are likely decades away from tabulating the human casualties. This is some of the strongest evidence to date that we need to avoid these foods.

Do we really wait 50 years to see what GE foods will do to human health and lifespan?

Related news also sheds light on the massive devastation brought on the environment by GE crops, and how soil destruction ends up affecting your health by decimating the nutrient content in the foods you eat.

In response to a scientific study that determined Western corn rootworms on two Illinois farms had developed resistance to Monsanto’s YieldGard corn, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) made an admission about genetically engineered crops: Yes, there is “mounting evidence” that Monsanto’s insecticide-fighting corn is losing its effectiveness in the Midwest. Last year, resistant rootworms infested corn fields in Iowa, Illinois, Minnesota and Nebraska.

But YieldGard is just one of Monsanto’s problems. Roundup-Ready crops are creating super-resistant weeds that no longer respond to the herbicide. In fact, the problem is so bad that 20 million acres of cotton, soybean and corn have already been invaded by Roundup-resistant weeds.

Unfortunately, resistant weeds are not the only, or the worst, side effect of Roundup-Ready crops, genetically engineered to withstand otherwise lethal doses of glyphosate—the active ingredient in Roundup.

Mounting evidence tells us glyphosate itself may be far more dangerous than anyone ever suspected… Earlier this month, Purdue scientist Dr. Don Huber again spoke out about “the woes of GMO’s” and the inherent dangers of glyphosate in an article published by GM Watch.

“Corn used to be the healthiest plant you could grow. Now, multiple diseases, pests, and weak plants are the common denominator of ‘modern’ hybrids,” he writes.

“Over three decades ago we started the shift to a monochemical glyphosate herbicide program that was soon accompanied by glyphosate- and insect-resistant genetically engineered crops.

These two changes in agricultural practices—the excessive application of a strong essential mineral chelating, endocrine-disrupting chemical for weed control and the genetically engineered production of new toxins in our food crops—was accompanied by abandonment of years of scientific research based on the scientific precautionary principle. We substituted a philosophical ‘substantially equivalent,’ a new term coined to avoid accountability for the lack of understanding of consequences of our new activities, for science.”

Dr. Huber commented, “Future historians may well look back upon our time and write, not about how many pounds of pesticide we did or didn’t apply, but by how willing we are to sacrifice our children and future generations for this massive genetic engineering experiment that is based on flawed science and failed promises just to benefit the bottom line of a commercial enterprise.”

Read More

How to Stop Hospitals From Killing Us

By Marty Makary, WSJ, Sept. 21, 2012 When there is a plane crash in the U.S., even a minor one, it makes headlines. There is a thorough federal investigation, and the tragedy often yields important lessons for the aviation industry. Pilots and airlines thus learn how to do their jobs more safely. The world of American medicine is far deadlier: Medical mistakes kill enough people each week to fill four jumbo jets. But these mistakes go largely unnoticed by the world at large, and the medical community rarely learns from them. The same preventable mistakes are made over and over again, and patients are left in the dark about which hospitals have significantly better (or worse) safety records than their peers. As doctors, we swear to do no harm. But on the job we soon absorb another unspoken rule: to overlook the mistakes of our colleagues. The problem is vast. U.S. surgeons operate on the wrong body part as often as 40 times a week. Roughly a quarter of all hospitalized patients will be harmed by a medical error of some kind. If medical errors were a disease, they would be the sixth leading cause of death in America—just behind accidents and ahead of Alzheimer’s. The human toll aside, medical errors cost the U.S. health-care system tens of billions a year. Some 20% to 30% of all medications, tests and procedures are unnecessary, according to research done by medical specialists, surveying their own fields. What other industry misses the mark this often? It does not have to be this way. A new generation of doctors and patients is trying to achieve greater transparency in the health-care system, and new technology makes it more achievable than ever before. I encountered the disturbing closed-door culture of American medicine on my very first day as a student at one of Harvard Medical School’s prestigious affiliated teaching hospitals. Wearing a new white medical coat that was still creased from its packaging, I walked the halls marveling at the portraits of doctors past and present. On rounds that day, members of my resident team repeatedly referred to one well-known surgeon as “Dr. Hodad.” I hadn’t heard of a surgeon by that name. Finally, I inquired. “Hodad,” it turned out, was a nickname. A fellow student whispered: “It stands for Hands of Death and Destruction.” Stunned, I soon saw just how scary the works of his hands were. His operating skills were hasty and slipshod, and his patients frequently suffered complications. This was a man who simply should not have been allowed to touch patients. But his bedside manner was impeccable (in fact, I try to emulate it to this day). He was charming. Celebrities requested him for operations. His patients worshiped him. When faced with excessive surgery time and extended hospitalizations, they just chalked up their misfortunes to fate. Dr. Hodad’s popularity was no aberration. As I rotated through other hospitals during my training, I learned that many hospitals have a “Dr. Hodad” somewhere on staff (sometimes more than one). In a business where reputation is everything, doctors who call out other doctors can be targeted. I’ve seen whistleblowing doctors suddenly assigned to more emergency calls, given fewer resources or simply badmouthed and discredited in retaliation. For me, I knew the ramifications if I sounded the alarm over Dr. Hodad: I’d be called into the hospital chairman’s office, a dread scenario if I ever wanted a job. So, as a rookie, I kept my mouth shut. Like the other trainees, I just told myself that my 120-hour weeks were about surviving to become a surgeon one day, not about fixing medicine’s culture. Hospitals as a whole also tend to escape accountability, with excessive complication rates even at institutions that the public trusts as top-notch. Very few hospitals publish statistics on their performance, so how do patients pick one? As an informal exercise throughout my career, I’ve asked patients how they decided to come to the hospital where I was working (Georgetown, Johns Hopkins, D.C. General Hospital, Harvard and others). Among their answers: “Because you’re close to home”; “You guys treated my dad when he died”; “I figured it must be good because you have a helicopter.” You wouldn’t believe the number of patients who have told me that the deciding factor for them was parking. There is no reason for patients to remain in the dark like this. Change can start with five relatively simple—but crucial—reforms. Every hospital should have an online informational “dashboard” that includes its rates for infection, readmission (what we call “bounce back”), surgical complications and “never event” errors (mistakes that should never occur, like leaving a surgical sponge inside a patient). The dashboard should also list the hospital’s annual volume for each type of surgery that it performs (including the percentage done in a minimally invasive way) and patient satisfaction scores. A survey of New Yorkers found that approximately 60% look up a restaurant’s “performance ratings” before going there. If you won’t sit down for a meal before checking Zagat’s or Yelp, why shouldn’t you be able to do the same thing when your life is at stake? Nothing makes hospitals shape up more quickly than this kind of public reporting. In 1989, the first year that New York’s hospitals were required to report heart-surgery death rates, the death rate by hospital ranged from 1% to 18%—a huge gap. Consumers were finally armed with useful data. They could ask: “Why have a coronary artery bypass graft operation at a place where you have a 1-in-6 chance of dying compared with a hospital with a 1-in-100 chance of dying?” Instantly, New York heart hospitals with high mortality rates scrambled to improve; death rates declined by 83% in six years. Management at these hospitals finally asked staff what they had to do to make care safer. At some hospitals, the surgeons said they needed anesthesiologists who specialized in heart surgery; at others, nurse practitioners were brought in. At one hospital, the staff reported that a particular surgeon simply wasn’t fit to be operating. His mortality rate was so high that it was skewing the hospital’s average. Administrators ordered him to stop doing heart surgery. Goodbye, Dr. Hodad. Imagine that a surgeon is about to make an incision to remove fluid from a patient’s right lung. Suddenly, a nurse breaks the silence. “Wait. Are we doing the right or the left chest? Because it says here left, but that looks like the right side.” The surgery was, indeed, supposed to be on the left lung, but an intern had prepped the wrong side. I was that doctor, and that nurse saved us all from making a terrible error. It isn’t every hospital where that nurse would have felt confident speaking up—but it’s this sort of cultural factor that is so important to safety. 98,000: Annual deaths from medical errors in the U.S.—Source: Institute of Medicine If anyone knows whether a hospital is safe, it’s the people who work there. So my colleagues and I at Johns Hopkins, led by J. Bryan Sexton, administered an anonymous survey of doctors, nurses, technicians and other employees at 60 U.S. hospitals. We found that at one-third of them, most employees believed the teamwork was bad. These aren’t hospitals where you or I want to receive care or see our family members receive care. At other hospitals, by contrast, an impressive 99% of the staff reported good teamwork. These results correlated strongly with infection rates and patient outcomes. Good teamwork meant safer care. The public needs to have access to such information for every hospital in America. It may come as a surprise to patients, but doctors aren’t very good at complying with well-established best practices in their fields. One New England Journal of Medicine study found that only half of all care follows evidence-based guidelines when applicable. Fortunately, there is a technology that could work wonders to improve compliance: cameras. Cameras are already being used in health care, but usually no video is made. Reviewing tapes of cardiac catheterizations, arthroscopic surgery and other procedures could be used for peer-based quality improvement. Video would also serve as a more substantive record for future doctors. The notes in a patient’s chart are often short, and they can’t capture a procedure the way a video can. Doug Rex of Indiana University—one of the most respected gastroenterologists in the world—decided to use video recording to check the thoroughness of colonoscopies being performed by doctors in his practice. A thorough colonoscopy requires meticulous scrutiny of every nook and cranny of the colon. Doctors tend to rush through them; as a result, many cancers and precancerous polyps are missed and manifest years later—at later stages. Without telling his partners, Dr. Rex began reviewing videotapes of their procedures, measuring the time and assigning a quality score. After assessing 100 procedures, he announced to his partners that he would be timing and scoring the videos of their future procedures (even though he had already been doing this). Overnight, things changed radically. The average length of the procedures increased by 50%, and the quality scores by 30%. The doctors performed better when they knew someone was checking their work. The same sort of intervention has been used for hand washing. A few years ago, Long Island’s North Shore University Hospital had a dismal compliance rate with hand washing—under 10%. After installing cameras at hand-washing stations, compliance rose to over 90% and stayed there. Following Dr. Rex’s camera study, he did a follow-up, asking patients if they would like a copy of their procedure video. An overwhelming 81% said yes, and 64% were willing to pay for it. Patients are hungry for transparency. Sue, a young accountant, came to my office complaining of abdominal pain. She wasn’t sure what was causing it. She offered various theories: “Could this be from my Bikram yoga?” “Did my late-night ice cream cause the pain?” “Does having unprotected sex have anything to do with it?” Throughout her visit, I took notes. When we were done, she looked down at them suspiciously. “What did you write about me?” she asked. She was concerned that I thought she was either nuts or an ice-cream addict. In the course of our conversation, I also learned that she wasn’t quite sure why I was recommending an ultrasound, though I thought I had told her. I decided to start dictating my notes with the patient listening in at the end of his or her visit. “I also have high blood pressure,” was a correction one older patient blurted out. Another said, “My prior surgery was actually on the right, not the left side.” Another patient interrupted me and said, “No, I said I take 20 milligrams, not 25 milligrams, of Lipitor.” Being able to review your doctor’s notes in writing might be even better than my method, particularly if you could add your own comments, perhaps via the Web. Harvard doctor-researchers Jan Walker and Tom Delbanco are using “open notes” at Harvard and Beth Israel Hospital in Boston, and my hometown hospital, Geisinger Medical Center in Pennsylvania, has begun giving patients online access to their doctors’ notes. So far, both patients and doctors love it. Though there are many signs that health care is moving toward increased transparency, there is also some movement backward. Increasingly, patients checking in to see doctors are being asked to sign a gag order, promising never to say anything negative about their physician online or elsewhere. In addition, if you are the victim of a medical mistake, hospital lawyers will make never speaking publicly about your injury a condition of any settlement. We need more open dialogue about medical mistakes, not less. It wouldn’t be going too far to suggest that these types of gag orders should be banned by law. They are utterly contrary to a patient’s right to know and to the concept of learning from our errors. Political partisans can debate the role of government in fixing health care, but for either public or private approaches to work, transparency is the crucial prerequisite. To make transparency effective, government must play a role in making fair and accurate reports available to the public. In doing so, it will unleash the power of the free market as patients are better able to take charge of their own care. When hospitals have to compete on measures of safety, all of them will improve how they serve their patients. Transparency can also help to restore the public’s trust. Many Americans feel that medicine has become an increasingly secretive, even arrogant, industry. With more transparency—and the accountability that it brings—we can address the cost crisis, deliver safer care and improve how we are seen by the communities we serve. To do no harm going forward, we must be able to learn from the harm we have already done. —Dr. Makary, a surgeon at Johns Hopkins Hospital and a developer of the surgical checklists adopted by the World Health Organization, is the author of “Unaccountable: What Hospitals Won’t Tell You and How Transparency Can Revolutionize Health Care,” published this month by Bloomsbury Press.

Read More