Awake!, February 8, 1956

Download: PDF — Awake!, February 8, 1956

MATERIALISM CROWDS OUT THE REAL JOYS

How to make lite really worth living!

Fossil Plants Disprove Evolution

Paleobotany produces proof of creation

— - • ..........................

Putting the Spirit of Geneva to the Test

What marked this great failure?

Read Your Bible Right

THE MISSION OF THIS JOURNAL

News sources that are able to keep you awake to the vital issues of our times must be unfettered by censorship and selfish interests. “Awake 1” has no fetters. It recognizes facts, faces facts, is free to publish facts. It is not bound by political ambitions or obligations; it is unhampered by advertisers whose toes must not be trodden on; it is unprejudiced by traditional creeds. This journal keeps itself free that it may speak freely to you. But it does not abuse its freedom. It maintains integrity to truth,

“Awake 1” uses the regular news channels, but is not dependent bn them. Its own correspondents are on all continents, in scores of nations. From the four corners of the earth their uncensored, on-the-scenes reports come to you through these columns. This journal’s viewpoint is not narrow, but is international. It is read in many nations, in many languages, by persons of all ages. Through its pages many fields of knowledge pass in review—government, commerce, religion, history, geography, science, social conditions, natural wonders—why, its coverage is as broad as the earth and as high as the heavens.

“Awake I" pledges itself to righteous principles, to exposing hidden foes and subtle dangers, to championing freedom for all, to comforting mourners and strengthening those disheartened by the failures of a delinquent world, reflecting sure hope for the establishment of a righteous New World.

Get acquainted with “Awake!” Keep awake by reading “Awokel”

Published Semimonthly ter WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY, INC.

117 Adams Street Brooklyn 1, N. Y., IT. 8. A.

N. H. Knorr, President Ga ant Suiter, Secretary

Printing this issue: 1,550,000

Languagn in which thli maiming I, puhllthtd: Semimonthly-—Afr Ikawa. English, FJtlnlah, French, Lerman. Ilcllandlsh, Italian. Japanese, Norwegian, Spanish, Swedish.

Monthly-—Danish, Creek, Portuguese, Ukrainian,

Otneea Yearly Butacriptlott rate

America. U.S., 117 Adama St.. Brooklyn 1, N.Y. ?1

Antral I a, 11 Beresford Brt., strathflelri, N.S.W. 8/-Cenaia, 40 Irwin Ave., Toronto 5, Ontario II fnplani, 34 Craven Terrace, London, w. 2 7/-

Sa* Zealand, O.P.O. Bra 30t WJWUwi, C. 1 7/-Sooth Africa, Private Bag, Elandstonteln, Tri. 77-

Five cents a copy

Remlttarieas should be sent to office in yonr country In compliance with regulations to guarantee Bate delivery of money. Remittances are accented at Brooklyn from countries where no office is located, by International money order only. Subscription rate in different countries are here stated In local currency, Notice of ttplratbn (with renewal blank) is sent at least two Issues before subscription empires. Change of add rets when sent to our office may be expected effiertfre within oca wjrtfe, Seed your old as well as new address

Entered as second-dues matter at Brooklyn, N.T., Act of March 3. 1S7A Printed In U.S.A.

CONTENTS

Food Surpluses, Also Hunger

Materialism Crowds Out the Real Joys 5

The Real Joys

Love—the Wonder Medicine

Putting the Spirit of Geneva to the Test 9

Child Outlaws

The Story of Juries

Dinner Delay

Fossil Plants Disprove Evolution

Constancy of Family Kinds

Quebec Court Orders School to

Admit Jehovah’s Witnesses

Life in the Surinam Bush

From Pocket to Plate

“Your Word Is Truth”

Read Your Bible Right

Jehovah’s Witnesses Preach in AH

the Earth—French West Indies

Do You Know?

Watching the World

Food Surpluses, Also Hunger

THE most of the world for generations has worried about getting enough to eat, yet the United States worries about food surpluses. “A billion and a half people—two thirds of the human race—suffer from malnutrition,” declared the noted nutritionist Dr. Josue de Castro, chairman of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization’s policy-making executive committee; while at the same time the United States is fast winning "a unique distinction of being the first nation ever to farm too much and too well for its own good.” Its strange problem is an overabundance. While this might not make sense to those not having enough to eat, nevertheless, too much food is a major threat to the economic stability of the nation.

The United States government’s total investment for crop buying and loans is approximately $7.5 billion, a full $1 billion more than 1954, even though the government disposed of $1.3 billion worth of surplus products at a net loss of $800 million in 1955. To this whopping bill of $7.5 billion that has been paid in hard cash to the farmers in worth of surplus or loan commitments must be added the $700,000 a day, about $5 million a week, a quarter of a billion dollars a year, just for storage space alone. According to one authority, this means that every adult American, some 100,000,000, "has a seventy-five-dollar stake in an agricultural surplus which, for the most part, we can’t eat, we can’t wear, we can’t sell and we can’t give away.”

How great a surplus does this represent? Frankly, the figures are astronomical. Across the country warehouses are bulging with food that hungry people cannot touch or eat. The United States government’s Commodity Credit Corporation owns outright or under loan enough wheat to supply each family with at least 1,600 loaves of bread, enough cotton to make 117 shirts or 91 house dresses for every family in the country. If the government-owned 877 million bushels of wheat were loaded into freight cars, the train would extend from New York to California and back again as far as Kansas, a distance of more than 4,500 miles. The more than 803 million bushels of government-owned or mortgaged corn would fill a train of boxcars that would stretch from New York to Los Angeles. The United States government owns enough grain of all kinds to make a train 8,123 miles long, reaching a third of the way around the world.

In addition to the mountainous stock of surplus corn and wheat on hand, statistics show that “the United States holds directly or on loan 7 million bales of cotton, 447 million pounds of butter, 423 million pounds of cheese, 810 million pounds of cottonseed oil, 251 million pounds of dried milk, IfO million pounds of wool, 1,988,OOu bales of cotton linters and $377,000,000 worth of other farm products.” Further, “it costs the {American] taxpayer $4,200,000 a month to store the corn, $3,500,000 to store the cotton, $600,000 to store the butter.”

Cause and Give Away

A voracious, war-stimulated world appetite is being blamed for these enormous surpluses. During World War II the United States encouraged farmers to produce all the food they possibly could raise at whatever price the buyer had to pay. The farmer never quite recovered from the wartime bonanza to "peacetime” reality. During the early 1930’s the farmer was allured through a voluntary program to plow under wheat, corn and cotton—and kill little pigs—in a desperate effort to keep market prices high. Following World War II the scandal that rocked the nation concerned the government’s high price-support program for potatoes. The farmers were promised a guaranteed profit. Potato farmers, and many who were not, planted with a frenzy. Fortunes were made by some with a single crop. But the result was devastating—too many potatoes. So mountain-high surpluses were heaped up in the fields to rot. For this blunder the American taxpayers paid more than $500 million for the privilege of growing more potatoes than they could eat. Now the storage bill alone for surplus products is a quarter-billion dollars a year, the cost of growing too much.

What should be done about the surpluses? Why not give them away? is the oft-expressed question. Why not give them to the hundreds of millions of people that are desperately in need of food? Secretary of Agriculture Ezra Taft Benson said: *Td like to see more food moved abroad. I certainly have always favored making food available torhungry people even if we have to give it away, rather than let it stand in government warehouses indefinitely until it eats itself up in storage charges.” When asked why this was not being done, he answered: “We are, now, since our disposal authority has been broadened. Until now disposal was pretty well restricted. The stuff had to be spoiling, or in danger of spoilage, before we could give it away. We could give to various types of relief organizations, but generally speaking we’ve been pretty well restricted.”

The “give-away program” is much easier said than done. Uncle Sam has learned the hard way that giving away food or placing it on the competitive world market is a good way to make enemies and irritate people. For example: When the United States offered to sell some of its surplus butter supply to France so that French school children could have butter with their lunch, the dairymen of France objected. They argued that imported butter would jeopardize their domestic market price. New Zealand’s Dairy Products Marketing Commission labeled the United States’ move as a “pure and unadulterated dumping of surpluses” in violation of the international trade agreements.

So while politicians and economists jockey for favorable positions, hundreds of millions suffer want and die of starvation. “Hunger,” says chairman de Castro, “comes from Haws in the social and economic structure erected by the human race in becoming 'civilized.' ” Mother earth, he asserts, has provided a superabundance for everyone. So much in fact that it “could properly feed three times the present population of the earth, without a single improvement in existing agricultural techniques.” Under the present system, however, the probability of correcting the problem remains dubious.

IN SPITE of modem man’s material progress he suffers from anxiety, frustration and discontent. And ever increasingly so, as can be seen from such fruits as the evermounting incidence of mental and nervous diseases, the ever greater number of ailments of psychosomatic origin and the increase in adult and juvenile delinquency. The very popularity of “peace of mind”

makes it seem enticing, all-important. Leaders in politics and business set the example, yes, and even those in religion, in serving materialism. But by yielding himself to materialism man has let it crowd out the real joys. Justwhat is this materialism and what are these real joys? How has materialism crowded out the real joys, and what can we do about it?

Materialism is a philosophy that de

religion and books further bears testimony to modern man’s disturbed state of mind.

One thing is certain, the Creator did not intend man to suffer in this way when He created him. The Bible shows the Creator to be “the happy God,” perfect in love, wisdom, justice and power. He experiences no anxiety, frustration or discontent regardless of the circumstances. At all times he has full control of himself and of the universal situation and so at all times enjoys peace of mind. And having created man in his image, God purposed that man likewise enjoy his existence, be happy and have peace of mind. To that end God gave man a measure of the four attributes that He enjoys in perfection and completeness. Clearly, man is not realizing his potentialities or he would not be suffering from anxiety, frustration and discontent.

Why does man find himself in this condition? Because he has succumbed to the lure of materialism. On every hand advertising propagandizes for materialism, nies the existence of the Creator and of other invisible intelligences. It denies that there is order and design in the universe. According to it there is no such thing as a revealed religion and the Bible is merely a collection of more or less wise and moral sayings of men.

While comparatively few accept this philosophy consciously, yet by far the great majority of mankind show, by their course of action, that they have made this philosophy their way of life. The Bible speaks of these as saying, not necessarily with their lips, but in their hearts, “There is no God." Materialism as a way of life makes the material things the goal of existence. Not that there is anything wrong with enjoying material things, but they must be kept in their places. We may not lose perspective. We need food, clothing, relaxation and suchlike, but their satisfaction or enjoyment is not the purpose of our lives. When we make these things all-important, then we become materialists and let materialism crowd out the real joys.—Psalm 14:1.

Materialism is also like a contagious disease that easily infects one because of its prevalence, unless one has built up good moral resistance. It is also a condition of slavery, because it brings into bondage its devotees, robbing them of rest and peace of mind. Materialism also serves as a religion for those who idolize wealth or who make their stomach their god. Warning against such materialism, Jesus said: "Be on the alert and on guard against every kind of covetousness, because even when a person has an abundance his life does not result from the things he possesses.” —Luke 12:15, New World Trans.

■ The Real Joys

What are the real joys? They are the joys that make life really worth living, giving it meaning and purpose. Among these joys are peace of mind and contentment; sincere friendships and wholesome family life; the joys that come from serving others, from contributing in some way to their well-being or happiness; the joys of quiet meditation and of drinking in the right kind of knowledge; and, above all, the joy that comes from the realization of being in harmony with one’s Creator, Jehovah God. Being deep, these joys are not easily affected by such outward factors as financial prosperity, physical vitality or the opinions of men. And being in line with the Creator’s purpose for man, they are joys that endure.

In regard to these real joys as contrasted with materialism-we might liken our lives, and particularly our hearts, to a garden. The real .joys are the flowers, the proper concern for material things the vegetables, while the undue concern for material things or materialism is the weeds. Jesus, the one who above all others had these real joys, likened Bible truth to seed and the anxiety over material things and the deceptive power of wealth or materialism to thorns. These thorns crowd out not only Bible truths but also all other real joys. —Matthew 13:18-23.

The Love of Money

Among the most common forms of materialism is the love of money, the desire for selfish gain, the wanting to lay up riches on earth. Such selfish desire robs one of peace of mind and contentment, for the more one has the more one wants and the greater his fear of losing what he has. Modem medical science speaks of a ‘'money sickness” and states it is one of the major causes of psychosomatic illnesses. It shows itself on the one hand by needless scrimping in regard to the necessities of life and continual haggling over the cost of things, and on the other hand by an overindulgence because someone else foots the bills or because it gets a “bargain.” Even dedicated Christians at times neglect their friends and families, their Bible study, congregational meetings or praise to Jehovah and service to their fellow man.

This love of money also robs many of the joy of work. Instead of getting satisfaction from doing work well, accomplishing something worthwhile, they are concerned only with their wages. So instead of their working hours’ being filled with joy and contentment because of what they are producing, they are filled with rivalry or selfish striving.

Strongly emphasizing how materialism in the form of love of money crowds out the real joys are the words of the apostle Paul: “Those who are determined to be rich fall into temptation and a snare and many senseless and hurtful desires which plunge men into destruction and ruin. For the love of money is a root of all sorts of injurious things, and by reaching out for this love some have been led astray from the faith and have stabbed themselves all over with many pains/'—1 Timothy 6:9, 10, New World Trans.

Food and Entertainment

Then again, there are those who succumb to materialism by making food allimportant. They say, “Let us eat and drink; for to morrow we die." Among such are the glutton and the fastidious .epicure or gourmet.—1 Corinthians 15:32.

With others materialism manifests itself in the pursuit of the pleasures of amusements, in a craving for excitement. True, entertainment, diversion, relaxation, can serve a wholesome purpose when indulged in with moderation. We need a change at times, it seems, and in itself there is nothing wrong with an afternoon or evening spent in various forms of wholesome relaxation. But we must not let such things become so important that they crowd out the real joys.

Take television, for example. It can serve for both education and entertainment, and there certainly is nothing wrong with watching a TV program. But today many people are becoming television addicts; they are so enamored of the medium that they become oblivious of what is offered to them and so keep their eyes glued on their set by the hour regardless of how mediocre, how vulgar, how shallow or how ridiculous the programs may be and regardless of other things that need to be done, such as study, housework or getting sufficient sleep. Friends are invited but when they come, instead of worthwhile conversation, the telling of interesting experiences, the mutual exchange of ideas that build up both the speaker and the listener and cause friends to know one another better and love one another more, all sit silently with their eyes fixed on the TV set and then depart none the wiser, none the richer for having been together for an evening.

Materialism?8 Chief Folly

In that materialism ignores man’s need for the real joys of peace of mind, contentment, quiet meditation, association of true friends- and wholesome family relationships, it is indeed folly. But its chief folly lies in its ignoring man’s spiritual need, man’s need to worship and to have a realization of being in harmony with his Creator and Lawgiver. It is because of man’s pursuit of materialism that such men as Dr. Julian P. Price of the American Medical Association’s board of trustees state that “the disease threatening the [United States] today is spiritual, not physical or mental.”—Science News Letter, December 11, 1954.

Testifying to the same effect is Dr. Viktor Frankl, one of Vienna’s foremost psychologists: “Ours is an age of intellectual confusion, with a topsy-turvy sense of values. Materialism rides high; indiff er' entism is in the saddle. But our time is also a period of deep tragedy and acute political crisis. To take the shock of wars and threats of war with no religious beliefs to support us is a task too great for many.” According to him men can find peace of mind and happiness only if they will recognize their need for a belief in God and in a meaning to life beyond their personal pleasures, which, as we have seen, is exactly what materialism denies.—Woman’s Home Companion, April, 1954.

Another voice testifying to the vanity of modem man’s materialism is that of Albert Schweitzer, French physician, philosopher and musician: “Without realizing it, we allow the spirit of the world to make its home in our hearts, and grant the spirit of Jesus only a modest little place in the corner. He must not interfere too much with our life, because it is too uncomfortable for us to comply utterly with what he wishes us to do, if we are to yield ourselves up to him completely. This is why there is no real peace, no real happiness, no real serenity in us. Nothing else will do but that day by day we should weigh what we have granted to the spirit of the world against what we have denied to the spirit of Jesus, in thought and especially in deed, be it small or great. In the quietness of our hearts we must be an incorruptible judge of ourselves.”—The Christian Century, September 7, 1955.

Materialism is the way of this world, “the desire of the flesh and the desire of the eyes and the showy display of one’s means of life.” It is a following of the lines of least resistance; it is a leaning in the way we have been bent due to inherited sin. It is a following of the line of selfishness, of walking in the way that seems to offer immediate happiness, only to find it a mirage, a snare and a delusion, for its fruit is anxiety, frustration and discontent. —1 John 2:16, New World Trans.

What is the remedy ? Put material things in their proper place, as a means to an end. Do not make them the goal in life regardless of how pleasurable they may seem to be. Thus you will have room in your life for the real joys. Do not keep on cheating yourself, and also your neighbor, by following materialism. And, above all, give first place to your Creator and Lawgiver, Jehovah God. As Jesus summed it up: “You must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind and with your whole strength,” and “You must love your neighbor as yourself.” Doing that you will experience the truth of the words of wise King Solomon; “The blessing of Jehovah, it maketh rich; and he addeth no sorrow therewith.”—Mark 12:30, 31, New World Trans.; Proverbs 10:22, Am. Stan. Ver.

Love—the Wonder LWedicintj

Farfetched to call love “the wonder medicine”? Not at all. Why not? Penicillin is termed the “wonder drug,” is it not? Then it is also fitting to speak of love as the "wonder medicine,” for, according to the medical superintendent of what most likely is the world's largest general hospital, New York city’s Bellevue, his hospital staff could no more do without the group of volunteers that provide love for their children patients than they could do without penicillin.

Reporting on this an article in the Saturday Evening Post, July 30, 1955, described love as "a medicine the best hospitals can’t buy” and which “works wonders”; also as “a vitamin without which babies weaken or lapse into idiocy and older children tend to fade or turn delinquent.” As far back as 1909 certain doctors noticed that “infants under six months who have been in an institution for some time are pale, listless and unresponsive,” and that they “fail to gain weight properly despite adequate diets and have slight resistance to illness.” In more recent years doctors making a study of the subject found that lack of love in early childhood could permanently impair sanity and even kill.

To supply this need of love a group of volunteers, consisting of 165 housewives, businessmen, professional people, etc., termed “Recreation Service, Children of Bellevue, Inc.,” has been organized, all of whom make regular visits to the hospital spending from one and a half to twenty hours a week with the children. Nurses report days are brighter and nights quieter as a result of these visits and riots in the mentally disturbed ward have ceased. Acknowledging their help, the city has provided a professional staff to direct and co-ordinate th$ir activities. Yes, love is “the wonder medicine,” especially for children.

Mig the Spirit of Geneva to the Test

ONCE again the curtain has fallen before the great stage of the political world theater in Geneva. The drama was entitled “The Spirit of Geneva, Part n.” But no one applauded. The world audience was greatly disappointed. Much advertisement had been made for this play and the public were justified in expecting more.

MACMIUAN

The first part of this drama had been played in July, 1955, At that time the heads of government of France, Great Britain, the Soviet Union and the United States had met at the conference table in Geneva to discuss burning problems of world politics. To be sure, practical solutions to these problems had not been found, but something new had been created in the East-West relations, namely, a friendly atmosphere in which such problems could eventually be solved. This atmosphere was designated the “Spirit of Geneva.” The Spirit of Geneva became an international slogan.

But because the heads of government were not able to solve the problems themselves, they resolved to send their foreign ministers to the conference table. This took place three months later, from October 27 to November 16, 1955. This conference put the Spirit of Geneva to the “acid test,” as President Eisenhower said it would.

Just three months had elapsed between the two conferences. moiqtov But when the four ' foreign ministers—

BY "AWAKE1" CORRESPONDENT IN SWITZERLAND

Antoine Pinay from France, Harold Macmillan from England, Vyacheslav Molotov from Russia and John Foster Dulles from the United States—had become seated at the conference table in the Palais des Nations, it soon became evident that the Spirit of Geneva had disappeared. The smiling was for the most part missing and the delegates abstained from shoulder patting. Soon the language became direct, frank and sometimes even aggressive. They seemed sometimes to find once more the old familiar tone of the East-West conferences, for which Molotov is said to be famous.

The agenda comprised three items: (1) German unification and European security, (2) disarmament, (3) improving East-West contacts.

German Unification and

European Security

This question received priority. As discussions got under way a great chasm opened up over which no golden bridge seemed to lead. The Western conference delegates drew the unification of Germany to the fore and stipulated this as a condition preliminary to a European security system. Without a unification of Germany there could be no real security in Europe, they maintained, and a divided Germany ' would always represent an element of insecurity. Hence they moved that Germany be united in the year 1956 on the basis of free and secret elections in both parts of Germany.

Molotov did not share this opinion, however. In his statement he made it clearly understood, if not in so many words, that Russia today has actually no interest in Germany’s unification. Russia wants things the other way round. First, the conclusion of a European security system inclusive of all European states and the United States of America. At a later date, abolition of the NATO and the West-European Treaty and then eventually the unification of Germany. Molotov then moved that representatives of both parts of Germany should be invited to Geneva to join in the parley, in conformity with the slogan “Germans at one table.” This proposal was strictly refused by the Western powers, seeing that the German Democratic Republic is not recognized by any one of the Western participant states.

During the course of the conference the East German government submitted their proposals, which were almost simultaneously covered by a plan submitted by Molotov. This plan provides for the unification of Germany in a gradual way. First, an AllGerman Council formed by members of the West and East German parliament should be constituted, but without preceding free elections. The unified Germany would have to be neutral in military respect. The first step would be a fusion in matters of economy. This plan betrayed that Eastern Germany should become the basis of a reunified state and aims at a Communist AllGermany. It is superfluous to say that this proposal was met with a complete rebuff.

In a radio broadcast Brentano, the West German foreign minister, rejected this idea as “discouraging and indignant.” He strongly attacked Molotov on account of his effort to impose the “social achievements” of East Germany on West Germany. He said: “It really takes some courage to speak about ‘achievements’ in this connection. That government calling itself the German Democratic Republic is built up on violence and terror. It acts for the Soviet Union and is supported by the Red Army but does not possess any mandate by the German people.” And Pinay posed the question as to why Molotov should discourse on the “social achievements” of East Germany and present them as an example for the West, when about 3,000,000 persons have fled from East Germany since 1945.

To satisfy the pretended Russian sense for security, the Western powers then put one of their main cards on the table: The collective European security pact, to be concluded after the reunification of Germany, would mean that the United States with all their military power would defend the Russian border in case of a new German aggression. That was a very interesting proposal. But also here the Russian reply was Njet (No).

It was the same with free elections for Germany as proposed by the West. Molotov replied that one must never forget that Hitler came to power by means of free elections, which “proves” what an evil free elections in this sense would be.

The conference then went on to point 2 of the agenda,

Disarmament

But here too the conference met up with ununitable differences of opinion. Both world blocs sigh under the giant load of military armaments. From the standpoint of economy both would welcome disarmament, The Western delegates, however, demanded an effective control system prior to a disarmament, arguing that without such any disarmament would fail in view of the existing distrust. But Molotov rejected the idea of an International control, stating that this did not make sense if not preceded by a general prohibition of atomic weapons and a reduction of the military forces. Moscow claims to want a disarmament, but it does not want anyone to enter its country to check whether this disarmament is being carried out or not.

Moreover, Molotov continued, Eisenhower’s proposal of aerial photographic inspection had only been presented for the purpose of espionage, so that afterward the Soviet Union could be destroyed the more easily. The British foreign minister, Macmillan, who more than once cornered his Russian colleague by his pointed questions, asked of the Soviet Union not merely to state how many soldiers were demobilized, but also how many are kept under the flag.

These discussions made it very plain that Russia does not intend to have anyone look into its cards. The conference had not progressed by one inch. It was decided to refer these questions to the disarmament subcommittee of the United Nations for further study, And while this committee ponders these problems, the armament factories in East and West will be working at maximum capacity, and while the results of those discussions will very likely be practically nil in the future, the armament industry on both sides will reach peak production figures.

Finally the conference proceeded to item 3, that of

Improving East-West Contacts

It seems paradoxical, though, how foreign ministers who do not find true contact between themselves want to improve the contact between the nations they represent. And, as more or less expected, negotiations ended in a blind alley also in this regard. Already the committee of experts that dealt with these questions beforehand and that was supposed to bring the various proposals on a common basis failed to achieve this. The Western proposals presented were in the main: free exchange of men, ideas and goods, removal of censorship, free radio broadcasting, change of the ruble rate to promote tourism, establishing of information centers in Russia, establishing of air routes between Russia and the West.

But Molotov’s reaction to all of these proposals was negative. He argued that •this would mean interference in the internal affairs of the Soviet Union. Russia would not allow “inimical propaganda” by books, newspapers, journalists, radio broadcasts, spying tourists, etc., to penetrate its territory, with an aim to destroy its ruling system. The realization of the Western proposals would amount to a subversive activity, Molotov did not even hesitate to label these proposals as “fascist maneuver,” made intentionally in such a way that Russia would not accept them.

Dulles replied that Molotov seems to be afraid of freedom. If the Soviet state were so solid, there would exist no reason to isolate the Russian people in this way. And so also in this regard, as in the two preceding subjects, the talks were completely unfruitful. It is evident that Russia does not want to open up itself to the West. It has to fear that such contacts create sympathy for the condemned capitalist states, and so it wants only those contacts that may keep the idea of a peaceful coexistence going, but not more.

The Great Failure

Thus the Geneva foreign minister conference concluded without results. It proved to be a great failure. The Spirit of Geneva did not stand the test. The disillusionment was even greater when on the occasion of the anniversary celebrations of the Bolshevik revolution in the Bolshoi theater in Moscow, Kaganovich, first deputy premier, stated in his speech that communism will triumph in the world this century. This is Just the opposite to a peaceful coexistence decorated with the Spirit of Geneva. Rather, this is stating plainly the Russian aim. Everything else is but a means to this end. And the Spirit of Geneva is but a new means to this old end. It is the new and ridiculous mask of the cold war.

The German paper Rheinischer Merfaur reported: “The Spirit of Geneva was never anything but a narcotic. Many have perceived this in the meantime, having regained consciousness from the narcosis. But some do not want to admit the truth of this, because the dreams were so pleasant during their slumber.”

The world press did not hide the great failure of the conference. In France the disappointment was especially great because results had not even been attained with regard to the improvement of contacts. Observers were of the opinion that the reaction in Germany, besides disappointment, was a feeling of uncertainty. One wondered what would happen in Germany if the unification could not be achieved by conferences. The London Times reported that in the coming months and years more effort and imagination would be necessary to persuade the majority of the West German population of the fact that their safety, prosperity and hopes lie in their partnership with the West. The day after the conclusion of the conference Austrian papers carried the headlines: “Geneva, Complete Failure,” “The Spirit of Geneva, a Promise Not Kept.”

Upon his return the secretary of state, Dulles, admitted the failure of the parleyin his broadcast to the American nation, but to avoid too great a disillusion he sugar-coated somewhat the situation and stated the cold war would go on but in the form of a peaceful competition, without the animosity of the past.

Whether and when the curtain will be lifted again on the Geneva scene was not decided at the conference. But this much we can state already with absolute certainty, the solution of the world's problems will never be achieved by the Spirit of Geneva. To this end it needs another spirit, a higher, stronger and more durable one, the spirit of God. “Not by [human! might, nor by [human] power, but by my Spirit, saith Jehovah of hosts.”—Zechariah 4:6, Am. Stan. Ver.

The term juvenile delinquency often deceives people. This is because the phrase once represented a boy’s transgressions of the doormat, the ash barrel and the milk bottle variety. But not any longer. Commenting on the glaring contrast between delinquents of years ago with those of today, Judge Elijah, Adlow, chief justice of the Municipal Court of Boston, wrote: "What makes the revolt of modern youth serious is that it bears little resemblance to what was once viewed as juvenile delinquency. There was a time when the difference between a bad boy and a playful boy was merely one of degree. Today the crimes of violence in which the young indulge can never be mistaken for boyish pranks. The many cases of malicious destruction of property that have entailed great Joss to the public are not the cumulative consequence of youthful exuberance but the product of calculated and planned mischief. The many assaults with dangerous weapons, some of which have had fatal consequence, are the acts of irresponsible desperadoes which differ little from the planned attacks on society by adult outlaws."—The Atlantic Monthly, July, 1955.

judges of the law as well as of the facts. There was no jury deliberation. As soon as the speeches were completed, the jurors filed out and on the way out cast their ballots.

If, by a majority vote, the jurors found the accused guilty, they then decided between two penalties: the

posed of the witnesses themselves! That would be a far cry from the jury trials we know. Today witnesses give testimony but do not decide the case. Yet when jury trials began, the very basis for choosing jurors was their possessing knowledge of the case. These witnesses were considered the only ones qualified to be the jury. Not just any man would do. From their own knowledge the jurors handed down a verdict. So the way the jury system originally worked is the exact opposite of the way it works today!

How did jury trials begin? Their exact origin is really not very certain. But the trial jury is generally looked upon as the glory of the English law. Its origin in England is said to stem from the customs introduced by the Normans. In any event the practice of requiring twelve men to reach a unanimous verdict was settled in English law a century before Columbus sailed.

Yet long before Columbus and even before the time of Christ, there was a kind of jury system. This was in ancient Greece. In Athens a body of 6,000 men was formed each year. The men were chosen from citizens over thirty years of age. They were called “dicasts” and the number of jurymen who sat on a case varied with the importance of the person on trial. In an ordinary case 201 jurors participated. At the trial the Athenian magistrate was no more than the chairman of a public assembly. The citizens were the whole court—the penalty that the accuser named and the one that the accused person was called upon to suggest. There was no third or “halfway” penalty that the jury could fix. Naturally, it was to the advantage of a person found guilty to name some real penalty for himself. For if he proposed only some trifling penalty, it would only drive the jurors into a rage of anger and cause them to prefer the heavier sentence recommended by the accuser. This is what happened to Socrates. At his trial, in which 501 jurors voted, he was found guilty by a majority of just 60 votes. When, according to established custom, Socrates made a counterproposition to the court’s death sentence, he proposed to pay a very small fine. This offer so angered the jury that it voted by an increased majority for the death penalty. And Socrates drank the hemlock.

When Rome became the predominant world power, it developed a legal system that was influenced somewhat by the Greek. In the early days the entire popular assembly might sit in judgment. There was in effect a system of 60,000 jurors voting on a single case. But smaller juries came into use. Then finally, under the emperors, juries disappeared and most trials took place under a single judge.

Alfred the Great and Henry ll

In the history of the jury system two kings played prominent roles. One of those kings was Alfred the Great. He did much in the way of legal reform; he renewed, re-established and improved laws. Alfred is said to have begun trials by jury in England. A number of authorities ascribe the jury system to him about A.D. 886.

About 250 years after Alfred the Great, a man named Henry inherited the throne of England. He became known as Henry n. It is to this king that the development of English common law is said to owe more than to any other man in its history.

Henry had become disgusted with ecclesiastical courts, whose abuses were admitted by all reasonable men. To correct these abuses of the Vatican, Henry made laws and decrees. Their ultimate purpose was to take the supreme authority out of the church-controlled courts and put it in the royal courts. The laws that Henry made in 1164 are called the Constitutions of Clarendon, They constitute one of the most important documents in the history of relations between church and state in England. In one of those laws Henry decreed that certain suits concerning the ownership of land should be settled in his courts by the sworn testimony of twelve knights or freeholders of the neighborhood. It was not long before this method was to become part of the normal procedure in almost every kind of civil action.

Trial Jury Develops from Inquest

Before Henry’s time murderers went unpunished provided the murderer paid a sum of money to the family and to the feudal lord of the one whom he had murdered. But Henry, disturbed by the unfairness of the courts where innocence was often punished and the guilty allowed to go free, experimented with a system of justice that had been used somewhat in the past. From time to time kings had journeyed over the country to administer justice. But Henry appointed a number of well-educated judges to represent the crown. These royal officers traveled throughout the kingdom. When visiting a district, the royal justice would hold an inquest; that is, he called together twelve of the most trustworthy men of the region. The twelve men whom the judge called together each took an oath to tell the truth. The Latin word that means “I swear” is juro. Thus it was that the twelve men became known as “jurors.”

The jurors were asked to tell whether anyone in their neighborhood had committed a crime or was suspected of committing a crime. Since the jury did not pass upon the guilt or innocence of a person, it was really an accusing jury. (From this developed what is known today as the “grand jury.”) But if the accused person already had a bad reputation, the indictment of the accusing jury was enough for the judge: he ordered the accused person punished. Other persons accused by the jury of crimes were then brought to trial. It was from this germ that a separate trial jury developed in criminal cases.

Even up to the thirteenth century the most common method of trial was the absurd “ordeal by battle.” But as trial by ordeal began to disappear, a substitute was found for it in criminal cases by allowing the man accused by the accusing jury to submit his defense to a second jury of the neighborhood. This second jury was made up of those who would most likely know the facts of a crime. The jurors were their own witnesses, and the verdict they gave was their sworn testimony.

Since these jurors were almost exclusively neighbors, they did not take kindly to the absolute rejection of the statements or testimony of one of their number. Verdicts were phrased in such a way as to cause no resentment and to be acceptable to ail members of the jury. From this neighborly consideration there evolved the principle of unanimity of verdict—a principle used today, especially in criminal cases.

Juries Change Their Character

As the population increased it became difficult to find jurors who had any immediate knowledge about the case. So the parties were gradually permitted to add to the jury’s own knowledge by the introduction of evidence, either oral or written. As the function of the jury expanded and as witnesses were called, the verdict of the jury became more than a summary of what the jurors themselves knew. It became now not only the sum and substance of their own knowledge, but their appraisal of the testimony of the witnesses who appeared before them.

By the beginning of Edward I’s reign (1272), trial by jury began to assume something of its .modern character. But for a considerable length of time the principle on which the jury system operated was that the jurors knew something about the case. Not until the beginning of the eighteenth century was it finally settled that a jury could not decide a case on its own knowledge.

About that time some judges were trying to coerce the jury and alter a verdict by locking the jurors up without food or drink, sometimes fining them as much as £1000. So that jurors could decide a case according to their own consciences, rather than in obedience to the directions of a court, a principle that was to play an important part in the jury system took root: the practice of giving a jury, while engaged in deliberation, absolute privacy.

Trial by jury came to America during colonial times. In 1735 a trial took place that became a landmark in the history of the jury system. Jnhn Peter Zenger went on trial for publishing news about official corruption. The king's royal governor sought a libel conviction, but the jury defied the power of the king’s royal governor; it acquitted Zenger and thus established an important foundation of press freedom. Later one of the complaints raised against the king in the Declaration of Independence was that in some cases he was depriving people of the right of trial by jury.

But the jury system survived its enemies, and today vigorously exists, though in a form completely reversed from the way juries began. While not a universally accepted means of deciding disputes, many non-English-speaking countries also use some form of juries. Trial by jury has existed in Greece since 1834. In Norway there has been trial by jury in criminal cases since 1887. In .Sweden it is limited to offenses of the press, while in France and Italy serious criminal cases are tried by jury. And South American republics use juries for criminal cases.

Today persons with knowledge of a case cannot be jurors, only witnesses. The knowledge that once qualified one to be a juror is now the very thing that disqualifies one. But one thing has remained constant. That is controversy over the value of the jury system.

It is an enlightening subject, and in a later issue Awake! will discuss the benefits and weaknesses of a system that can affect the lives and property of millions of people.

The owner of an air ambulance service, telling about his recent flight over the Florida everglades, said he had to swerve his plane to avoid striking a bird. When he landed he found a fish in the plane’s engine. There was a slight delay in the dinner plans of one hungry bird.

Fossil Plants Disprove

EVOLUTION

PALEOBOTANY PRODUCES PROOF OF CREATION

This article was written by the graduate botanist of Manchester University that contributed the one entitled ‘tPUnfe Produce Evidence Against EyoJD' lion” that appeared in the September 8 “Awake

HE WHO asserts evolution to be true needs to show a reasonably well-connected chain of organisms illustrating his point Darwin once said that lack of fossil evidence was one ol> the weakest points of his theory, and, despite the fact that evolutionary tables are constructed whether such evidence is forthcoming or not, most biologists as well as others look to the rocks to provide it. If the theory of evolution is true we should expect deductions based upon the theory likewise to bo true, Lei: us iww examine these.

First, we should expect the fossils to reveal what was the primitive ancestral type of any plant. To illustrate the point let us take the dominant group of plants found on earth today—the flowering plants proper, or Angiosperms. This is the name given to this group of plants to distinguish them from the Gymnosperms, which include the conifers and the cycads. The Gymnosperms, as their name indicates, have exposed or naked seeds, while the Angiosperms—buttercups, daisies, oak trees, ivy, corn, palm and pond lilies— have their seeds enclosed in ovaries.

Now the Angiosperms, being such a prominent and diverse group of plants, have come in for much of the evolutionary argument and speculation as to their origin and their primitive nature. Evohi-

Ifi

tionary classifications have been set out and much has been written about the hypothetical first Angiosperms. Some said the petalless trees, such as oak, beech, hazel, alder, were the primitive types, since all that they have is the very minimum of a flower. Others say the flowers with petals and other organs all separate and not joined at all, such as buttercups and magnolias, are primitive. The fossils ought to indicate which view, if either, is correct. Do the evolutionists hold to their belief in fossils here? Let us see.

“The assumption that the primitive Angiosperms had flowers of the Ranalian type, such as Magnolia, and that all other floral types are derivatives of this, is pure hypothesis and based almost entirely upon a comparison of living species, for the most part ignoring the geological evidence which is by no means in accord with such an hypothesis.”3

Thus we see in actual fact neither view is correct, that is, the facts as revealed to date fit in with no theory of evolution. The facts show that both groups of plants arc contemporaneous as far back as the fossils are found, and that many of the genera are closely akin to those found growing today. Pollen grains of nelumbium, a water

a Campbel), 1940, qudioc! by Wwrdlaw in Ph ylorjeny fftht ■VMrphntfi’ttFNKf, p. 9^. ' -j

AWAKE!

lily, almost indistinguishable from those found today are the oldest indubitable remains of Angiosperms, and almost as early are leaves of several families, including the beeches on the one hand and the magnolias on the other.b

Another question, unsolved by evolutionists, is that of the origin of the great division of Angiosperms called “Monocotyledons.” which includes lilies, tulips, com, reeds and palms. This group is represented as early as the others mentioned, by a leaf similar to the modern monocotyledon smilaxf

So, then, while the evolution theory teaches that fossils show which are the primitive types in a group, the fossils themselves flatly deny it, and instead of conforming to theory in this case pose not one but three unsolved “problems.” If the evolution story is true, why is it that there is no evolutionary history among the Angiosperms?

Secondly, it follows from the evolution theory, if true, that the history of a group of plants should be marked by steady evolution to types better fitted for living than their predecessors, because of continual adaptation to environment. It is quite true that the plants of long ago lived under different circumstances than plants now do, and that the presentday forms better fit the present-day environments than would their predecessors. This, however, is not sufficient to prove evolution. The fossil facts show the alter-

i' Walton, An Introduction to the Study a} Fossil Plants, l&t ed.. P. 166; Wardlaw. PMftogew and Mar-ptogenesls. p. 93.

e Walton. An Introduction to the Study of Fossil Plants, 1st ed., p. 167. native, special creation, is the overwhelming logical conclusion.

Constancy of Family Kinds

Just as among animal families, we find that plant families begin suddenly and keep constant (according to their kinds) down through the ages. The changing appearance of the green mantle of the earth is found to be due not to the. ejtointjru?. o£ families, but to their replacement by other created families. When we search every plant known to science, past and present, we never find links between families. There remain “missing links.” When a family remains from ancient times, it inevitably is found to have the same characteristics, little or not modified, as those it had when it first appeared. Indeed, sometimes even species and genera appear little altered. This is admitted by evolutionists.

“The features exhibited by these Carboniferous liverworts may all be matched in the living (liverworts),” says Walton.4 And did you know that it was once held by evolutionists that certain plants, namely, Setaginella and Lycopodium (the club mosses) and Equisetum VCne horsetails) were much-reduced relics of the great forest lyco-pods and calamites, but that now fossil plants have been discovered contemporary with the ancient giants, and which evidently are just fossilized SelagineUaf Lycopodium and Equisetumf In fact, while they may not be specifically identical with any of the modem forms of these very diverse genera, they are so evidently mamhert

<1 Walton. tU Introduction to the Study of Fossil Plant*, 1st <>a., p. 23. of these genera that they are caned SelagineUites, Lycopodites and Equise-tites,0 The discovery of ancient forms generically identical with modern forms is evidenced by a comparison of many types, of which we list a few.

Osmunda, a fern, is generically identifiable with Osmondites from the Jurassic age and onward.1 2

isoetes, the quillworts, is identifiable likewise with Isoetites from the Cretaceous age.®

Ginkgo,3 the maidenhair tree, was till recently found preserved only in monasteries in China in isolated spots. The rock records of Ginkgo reveal it to have once encircled the globe. Much detail of the leaves has been examined so that several species of Ginkgoites in the rocks have been named. It is interesting to note that the entire variations among all these “species” can be found in many single specimens of the living plants. So it is apparent that Ginkgo has not evolved. Some might say that this is why it is not very successful nowadays, but actually Ginkgo is a hardy plant and will grow in many places other than its native China.

Sciadopityx, Araucaria (the monkey puzzle) and many other conifers are found in fossil form, remaining generically distinct as far back as the fossil records go, with no connecting links to hypothetical “ancestral types.”2 The giant sequoias, including a peculiar form until recently known only as a fossil and since rediscovered in China, as far back as the fossil record indicates remain unevolved. In fact, whichever plant family we might choose, if it has a fossil record at all, speaks the same story: no cnange, no evoiuuon, no primitive ancestry, just bringing forth after its kind with no more variation than we see among modern-day families of plants, and never once a link between two family kinds!

Some evolutionists hold these up as examples of plants that have not evolved while others have, but they are quite unable to show us any of the latter, while examples of the former are numerous. A similar state of affairs exists in the animal kingdom, namely, Lingula, the tapir, and man himself.

Refine Search

Index Downloading...

Awake!, February 8, 1956