Volume 12 Number 5, Part 1 May, 1985

either a creator or a ruler." Bertrand Russell 3 under- stood it and said, "Man ' s origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs are but the outcome of accidental collocations of a t o m s . . , blind to good and evil, reckless of destruction." HitleP made it clear that Darwin's natural selection was the basis for his belief in Aryan superiority and a justification for his mass murders. He wrote, " I f nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one; because in such a case, all her efforts throughout hundreds of thousands of years to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile." Writers of our science texts today understand it and are becoming bold enough to state it plainly to a generation taught nothing else. A major biology text used currently in many colleges and universities says that scientists must accept that an ev- olutionary concept of society eliminates concern for others, goes on to admit that this remains offensive to some, but says that true scientists see that their only concern should be for themselves and their immediate offspring. 5

As we fail to recognize evolution as an established religious tenet of our educational system, we therefore fail to recognize the increasing efforts to eliminate the weak. If we do see it, we are too indoctrinated by the religious foundation of our science to question it. We glance over the numerous articles appearing in our jour- nals saying that "death is not the e n e m y . . , pain and disability are the real enemies ' '6 and say to ourselves something like this: "That ' s all too deep for me, but it does sound good and comes from a university, so it must be true. Why didn't I understand earlier that it is a good thing to let the old and the defective die; and yes, I really am beginning to see that I 'm helping them, their families, and society if I kill them. After all, I am saving them from the real enemies whether they realize it or not ."

Remember the ancient fairy tale about the pair who decided their creator was only kidding when he said death would follow their lack of obedience, so ate the forbidden fruit? They had never seen death and would not believe it could really come for them. We have seen it come, but, with their same motivations, have decided to deal with it by calling it "good." In the past, death may have been an enemy, a result of the fall, the wages of sin, etc. But all those crazY ideas came from the Bible, and who in this brave, new world takes the Bible seriously!

We are as unwilling to submit to a creator as were

Correspondence 891

Adam and Eve. And thus we cannot see that according to all "time-honored rules of scientific investigation" our religion of naturalism is not bringing us to a higher state of being. Its acceptance brings death in ways more far-reaching than any of us can comprehend. And the death that it is bringing for us is not good.

Carol K. Tharp, M.D. 840 Green Bay Rd., Winnetka, IL 60093

REFERENCES 1. Mish F: Webster's student dictionary. Springfield, MA,

1981, Merriam-Webster Inc. 2. Marx K, Engels F: On religion. New York, 1964,

Schocken Books Inc. 3. Russell B: Mysticism and logic. New York, 1918, Long-

mans, Green & Co. 4. Hitler A: Mein kampf. London, 1939, Hurst and Blackett

Ltd. (4th printing.) 5. Wallace R, King J: Biology, the science of life. Glenview,

IL, 1981, Scott, Foresman & Co. 6. Landau RL, Gustafson JM: Death is not the enemy./AMA

252:2458, 1984.

Reply

To the Editor: We try to review books that are interesting, diverse,

timely, and useful to our physicians and to include some that are likely to draw partisan comment. Nothing in Dr. Tharp's letter suggests that we are in much agree- ment; however, one point in my review was that we may recognize honest disagreement and accept the odd- ness of each other.

It is important to emphasize my main point. We invariably must insist on skepticism in science. Where final supernatural elements or naturalistic prohibitions or "tree faiths" demand the end of skeptical and proper inquiry, then that is not science. Physicians owe much, as do their patients, to good science and therefore should honor profound skepticism inherent in all good science. In the very long run, may the better concepts win. Physicians who sit on public school boards, take note carefully.

P . C . A .

Clinical experience with 0.05% clobetasol propionate creams

To the Editor: Dermatologists are well aware of the possibility of

side effects from the long-term use of the stronger ste-