Science and Religion Three-Way Blog

Divine Judgment?

2005-12-14T20:50:00.000-05:00

I would like to refer back to the news article on Pat Robertson (11/14 blog post). I do not think that it is biblical for anyone today to foretell divine judgment on a city (which is basically what he did, except he did not say that it was certain, it was just something he thought MIGHT happen). I suppose He may get this concept from the Old Testament of the Bible. For example, Jonah had to go to the city of Ninevah to foretell them of the wrath of God which would come upon the city because of the people’s “evil way”. When the city of Ninevah sincerely humbled themselves, prayed to God, and changed their wicked ways, God did have mercy on them and did not destroy them.

However, we must see the contrast of Jonah and the situation at hand. Jonah was told specifically by God to go and give this warning to the city of Ninevah. God does not speak audibly today, telling people to do this sort of thing. Without a direct command such as Jonah received, no one can say who God will punish (on earth) for rejecting Him. We do not fully understand His ways. Many people have rejected God in many different ways, yet have had earthly success. Sometimes God will bring people to nothing on earth because they act against Him, but other times, justice is not done until after we die. Eternal Judgment is the only punishment we CAN be certain of and be warned of, because it is clearly spoken of in the Bible. Matthew 25:46 speaks of “eternal punishment.” The Bible tells us why we will receive this punishment: “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,” and “the wages of sin is death” (Romans 3:23, 6:23). We all deserve Divine punishment because we have all disobeyed God. But the very next part of Romans 6:23 says, “but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Only those who accept God’s gift of righteousness in Christ alone will avoid their deserved punishment. In agreement with one’s belief, both in God and in Christ’s sacrifice which covers over their rejection of God, one who has accepted Him will likewise believe all that God has said in the Bible, and begin to obey Him. It follows that such a person should believe the history of the earth that God has put forth in the Bible.

The previous few statements probably show why Robertson thinks that the opponents of ID have rejected God. Evolution cannot truly be matched up with the Bible, so believing evolution rather than the Bible is to say that God’s Word is faulty. This is not to say that supporters of ID are all accepting God. An Associated Press article from September 30, 2005 (on MSNBC website) said that “Intelligent-design supporters argue that life on Earth was the product of an unidentified intelligent force.” Clearly, not all ID supporters believe in the Christian God and accept Christ as their Savior. Belief in ID does not equal salvation. ID is a scientific theory which also fits the Bible’s account of Creation. That is why Christians should support ID, and why rejecting ID does oppose God.

Regarding God showing Himself in nature, the Bible says:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they know God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. (Romans 1:18-25)

This passage, though written nearly 2000 years ago, still sheds light on what we see today. All of us have been caught up in such disobedience to God, but thankfully we have the chance to be forgiven in Jesus Christ.

The Consideration of ID as a Scientific Possibility

2005-12-14T04:07:00.000-05:00

Thank you for directing us to the articles on Pat Robertson and Rick Sternberg (11/14). They are very interesting and I think that both issues should have been covered by the media. However, the one about Sternberg should have been reported even more than the one on Robinson (which was highly covered). The one about Sternberg seems more novel (as you implied) and more secretive – something that the public would probably not be aware of or even guess. However, the Robertson article was also important, allowing the public to consider that his statement might be true.

It is horrible that the Smithsonian could do all of the things stated in the article to such an editor as Sternberg. Sternberg wasn’t saying that the Smithsonian’s scientific viewpoint is wrong – all he did was publish a credible article espousing another fully possible scientific theory, which he himself does not even agree with. Intelligent Design is possible from a physical standpoint because we see all of the intricate creatures of this world and their equally intricate relationships, which are hard to imagine having “worked out” all on their own. Additional support for the idea that Intelligent Design is a true scientific possibility is the fact that (as far as I can remember) Dr. Michael Behe, one of the main scientists backing up ID theory, is not religiously affiliated. Therefore he does not have religious beliefs as a motive for espousing ID. Scientists should consider all possibilities, because the purpose of science should be to seek the truth about the physical world, whether or not it is what we expect or desire to find.

Intelligent Design and evolution are both possible systems of creation, as far as science is concerned. Neither has been scientifically proven, so I strongly believe that schools should teach both theories. This would not go against any religious or non-religious teaching that parents want to give at home. Parents can tell their children which view they believe is correct, but children should be taught about both because as far as scientific proof goes, either theory could be the truth. On the contrary, teaching that evolution is a fact, even though it is not proven, does oppose freedom of religion. Someone who learns evolution as a “belief” may more easily come to believe that their religion is not true because it does not support evolution. Therefore, when kids come home to parents with religious beliefs contrary to evolution, who wish to teach their children what they believe, the parents have no ground to stand on – even though the “ground” does exist. We must know all that scientists have observed, because the true “religion” does match what is observed - there is only one truth. I believe that God, the “Intelligent Designer,” has created everything in complexity so that we can observe His Majesty.

"Embryo is or isn't human?" Doesn't matter

2005-12-09T03:52:00.000-05:00

JOURNAL ASSIGNMENT 6
In the technological age of flat screens, jet planes, and heart surgery, perhaps stem cell research draws some of the most attention of controversial issues. The greatest myth perhaps is that religion condemns stem cell research while science encourages it. The only controversy existent concerns the stem cell research that involves perverting a woman’s eggs that have been fertilized by a man’s sperm into a stem cell. It is this topic that draws the attention of the media, the classroom, and politics.
Of many “political/religious” groups, I agree most clearly with Focus on the Family. This group encourages adult stem cell research, as I do completely. We both only contest the embryonic stem cell research, clearly seen here: “Focus on the Family opposes stem cell research using human embryos.” I differ from Focus on the Family, and many groups, as to why I reject the idea of human embryo research. Many groups, such as the Catholic Bishops, believe that the human is created at conception or very soon after. The Jewish people say that after around a month, the embryo becomes a human. I am not so bold as to wager when the human is actually created. This is not for me to say as I leave that up to a greater power than myself. The main issue at hand is not deterring if the embryo is a human. The issue is acknowledging that the embryo is part of the natural life cycle and process. The embryo is the root, the initial union between two sets of chromosomes that constitute the formation of a human being, the shell of a soul. The fact that this is part of the human life cycle separates it from simple matter such as a rock or a vegetable.
The ethical dividing line is not completely certain: some say to research with embryos, some say to not. The question is asked “who can know?” I think that this is such a sticky issue that it is “better to be safe than sorry.” Even if one doesn't believe embryo is a human, the fact is that it is developing into one. Destroying this development is a scary issue and wrong. I believe that human tendency is to break rules and thus I believe that researchers have and will continue to cross such ethical lines.
Speaking of scary issues, the idea of me setting any U.S. policy is insane. U.S. policy is not for me to decide. I do not represent the U.S. and cannot say what the policy should be. As the United States is a democracy, the country should decide as a people. If the people decide to research embryonic stem cells, I believe that most “God-fearing” groups would oppose this, as a variety of other groups. On the other hand, if the people decide not to research embryonic stem cells, a large majority of the “scientific community” and those apparently blinded to the beauty of the natural life process would be enraged with the ruling.
After this year, and previous study of embryonic stem cells, I have reached a point to desire science to stay away from the use of embryos. The reproductive process is natural, whether one believes that evolution by chance brought it about or that some High Power created it. Either way, this is a beautiful process and should not be perverted. To those who say life is a beautiful thing and sustaining it using human embryos is a good thing, even if the ends does justify the means, who is to say if the means, destruction of embryos, shall be justified? I do not think that this destruction of human life/pre-life should be considered even as research. Thus I agree with stem cell research completely as embryonic research does not deserve the title.
As a conclusive statement concerning stem cell research, I agree with the Hippocratic sense of healing rather than destroying and that adult stem cells should be researched for further cures to the ails of humanity. However, to end parts of the human life cycle can only be condemnable.

2005-12-08T21:02:00.000-05:00

In my first journal entry, I wrote that my knowledge regarding the Scopes Trial was limited. After many class discussions and readings, however, the extent of my knowledge has greatly increased. I know feel I have a much better understand of the trial.

The Scopes Trial tested a law passed on March 13, 1925 prohibiting the teaching in any state funded educational establishment in Tennessee of the teaching of “any theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals.” This test trial, which was formulated by Rappleyea, was seen as a chance to gain publicity for Dayton. Scopes, the substitute of the biology teacher, when asked if he had used Civic Biology to teach his students responded “Yes.” This was in violation of the law.

The trial focused the country’s attention towards the freedom of speech and the separation of church and state. This trial brought issues to the surface that are still debated to this day. The most prominent conflict was the fact that evolutionary teaching undermined the authority of the Bible. Conservative Christians attacked evolution as not being scientifically supported. They believed that since the Bible had supported itself in various aspects, then there was no reason to question the truth of Genesis’ account of the origin of human beings. Whereas, growing evidence in fossil records and Darwin’s Origins, was beginning to make people question the validity of the Bible. The Scopes Trial presented the contrasting views of a religious town and an evolving country. It was not so much the verdict the media cared about as much as the opposing views. It was from learning all this that I realized how publicized the whole trial was. Prior to learning about the Scopes trial in class, I never realized that this trial was simply a test. I never understood the underlying reasons of this trial, which were to expose the country to the growing rift between people’s beliefs regarding creation.

In regards to the Dover trial, the ACLU is suing the Dover school board for adopting a policy that requires students to be informed about the theory of intelligent design. The ACLU claims this policy violates the First Amendment Establishment Clause. Intelligent design is an alternative to the theory of evolution. The proponents of intelligent design argue that life is too complex to have evolved by natural selection, such as Charles Darwin suggest, and some intelligent driving-force must have had intervened. The ruling of the Dover trial will have an impact on what happens to the public school system in our country.

I personally feel that intelligent design should not be required to be taught in schools. I do feel, however, intelligent design should not be completely excluded from education. If teachers choose to teach intelligent design to their students, I believe that evolution, creationism, and other theories should also be taught. I see intelligent design as a newer version of creationism. I do not feel that intelligent design really has any solid background to support it. To enforce, however, that students be taught intelligent design, I do not agree with. At the current time, I do not feel that there is enough evidence to support intelligent design. In comparison to the evidence there is supporting evolution, intelligent design is lacking. I do not feel, however, that just become there is not as much evidence to support intelligent design though that people should shun the idea. At the given time, though, the supporting evidence is on evolution’s side.

I currently view the Dover trial and the Scopes trial on similar levels. Both the Dover trial and the Scopes trial have attracted a great deal of media to their small rural towns. While in Dayton, the trial was more so a publicity act, the Dover trial is not a test trial.

The issue of teaching creationism and evolution in the classroom, which was what the Scopes trial was about, is an issue that is still under debate to this day. Intelligent design is the idea that the complexity of life requires designer. This is merely a re-embodiment of the Scopes trial 80 years ago. People argued then that evolution did not have strong enough supporting evidence, whereas people today in the Dover trial claim that intelligent design too does not have enough supporting evidence. In both trials religion has a significant role. In the Scopes trial, people thought religion and the Bible was trying to be shunned from the classroom. Today in the Dover trial, people are fighting because they believe religion is being brought into the classroom. It seems as though there really can never be a happy medium. Either religion should be completely kept out of the public school system, or if religion is going to be brought in then the school system must encompass a large range of religions.

Galileo, Galileo

2005-12-08T14:55:00.000-05:00

In my first journal entry, I really had no idea what the trial of Galileo actually consisted of. I didn’t realize that Galileo’s writings and lectures concerning the Copernican model were what caused such a controversy. I thought, originally, that Galileo had some new or original method of thinking that sent shockwaves through the religious and scientific communities. Furthermore, I didn’t know that Galileo was held in contempt because of his refusal to obey the 1616 ruling of the Pope and later because of his publications regarding the Copernican theory. This theory had as many political implications as it did scientific ones with Galileo losing favor in the eyes of the pope, whereas I thought that his trial was merely scientific in nature.
After learning of the trial of Galileo through both reading and discussion, I find myself having little respect for the scientific legend as a man. His argument for the Copernican theory was based not in fact but in thickheaded belief. He had no proof that the Copernican theory was any more scientifically accurate than Tycho’s or Kepler’s, but he avidly ridiculed anyone who offered a position for any belief other than his own. Galileo was a bully, and used prolific debating skills instead of valid scientific reasoning to assert his views.
The trial itself was not one regarding the validity of the Copernican system, but instead one that questioned whether Galileo had defied the pope’s order not to teach it or argue for it as more than a theory. In this respect, I believe that the trial was just. Galileo did indeed defy the orders of the pope and quite vocally advocated the Copernican model of the universe. Furthermore, he did so in a tactless and pompous manner, inciting the negative attention onto himself that he deserved.
Hindsight is 50-50, however, and in retrospect Galileo was scientifically correct. The universe is heliocentric as Copernicus suspected and because of that I believe that Galileo has gained respect from those looking back on his trial. Yes, he had no real proof and went about it the wrong way, but in the end his views became the accepted norm. Because of this, those who know little about the subject will often consider Galileo the victim in the trial instead of the actual offender that he was. I believe that the Pope made the correct decision in ruling Galileo guilty, but I can also understand that his forbidden words were accurate.
This trial is significant because it highlights an instance in which the church wields its power to silence the voices of those in their opposition. It represented the beginning of an era in which the church would continue to voice its opinions on scientific matters but also highlighted the fact that the church can be wrong. These two realizations paved the way for a new battle ground for the forces of science and religion.

Scopes Trial (big Journal)

2005-12-08T14:54:00.000-05:00

After reviewing my first journal entry, I find my previous comments almost humorous. I stated that I was “only sure that the Scopes trial somehow involved a monkey,” and was obviously mistaken. I’m sure that my relation of the event to a monkey came from the one seen on the front of our book about the Scopes trial. This monkey is placed there as a symbol for evolution, not to represent a literal monkey that was involved in the trial.
Having read the material concerning this landmark trial and also having discussed it thoroughly in class, I now understand it to be an important event in the history of science as well as a cultural phenomenon. It advanced the cause of science by allowing for the national discussion of the theory of evolution as well as captivating the nation in what is considered “the trial of the century.” I feel that this trial advanced the standing of scientific theory as opposed to religion more than any other event in modern history. Because of all the media coverage, the entire nation got to see evolution stand trial against creationism and come away with the upper hand. Thanks to the brilliant cross examination of William Jennings Bryan by Clarence Darrow, the weaknesses and limitations of creationism were exposed to all. Although firm Christian believers could obviously not be swayed from their beliefs, the millions of Americans that were not so sure of their beliefs were presented with evolution as a substantial and credible theory. Furthermore, evolution has since been taught as such in both public and private schools around the country and become the accepted scientific theory regarding creation.
The Dover Trial, which is being deliberated on now, reverses the roles of the Scopes Trial. Currently, intelligent design is on the stand defending its right to be taught alongside evolution. In the days of the Scopes Trial, creationism was the accepted supposition of the day, but now it is outlawed in schools because of the separation of church and state. The trial in Dover is centered on the right to teach intelligent design in schools as an alternative to the theory of evolution. Those who are against Intelligent design see it as a masked form of creationism, while it’s supporters are arguing that it is scientific theory. Michael Behe’s approach to defending the right to teach intelligent design is proving its worth against Darwinism. He points out irreducible complexity, the fact that life is too complex not to be designed, as his main point. I agree with his arguments because of the examples he provides including blood clotting and his metaphor with a mousetrap. I concur with Behe that, since each individual component of the mousetrap has to work together, simple natural selection cannot account for the complexity involved when all the parts work together. When one part evolves, it cannot improve the mechanism because the function of that mechanism is dependant on all of its parts. It is my opinion that intelligent design should indeed be taught in schools along side evolution but in the same manor. It should be taught as a theory and its creator should not be specifically defined. It is important here to recognize and understand the difference between teaching creationism and teaching the theory of intelligent design. If students are subjected to both theories and left to decide their beliefs for themselves, than the teaching of intelligent design allows for independent thinking instead of preaching religious thought. Nothing negative can come from teaching both theories, and it would allow for students to expand their understanding of science’s attempts to explain creation.
I see the Dover trial as similar, but different than the trial of John Scopes. Although the more recent trial is important scientifically, it doesn’t hold the same weight socially and culturally as its predecessor. The Scopes trial was more of a show than a normal court proceeding, as it attracted mass media attention along with the involvement of William Jennings Brian, who was a popular political figure. As if the country hadn’t already been interested enough in the court’s actions, the movie “Inherit the Wind” that came out a few decades later made it a popular culture phenomenon. The movie had a pro-evolution spin and helped to increase knowledge of the already publicized trial. In contrast, the Dover trial includes no public figure such as Bryan, garners no mass media attention, and has no movie to boost its popularity. Therefore, although just as important throughout the scientific world, I doubt that it will become as culturally important as the Scopes trial. People aren’t informed and don’t care enough about Intelligent Design to pay as much attention to it as they did the Scopes trial. Evolution was a threat to people’s engrained religious beliefs whereas intelligent design is just a new theory to be taught alongside evolution. While the Scopes trial was a clash of science and religion, the Dover trial is theory versus theory, and, therefore, attracts less attention and speculation.

Embryonic Stem Cells

2005-12-08T14:52:00.000-05:00

When regarding embryonic stem cell research, I would not consider my opinions to be completely mainstream, but not too radical either. I believe that general stem cell research, in vitro fertilization, in vitro maturation, and SCNT (therapeutic cloning) are all morally acceptable as well as promising as solutions to problems yet incurable in the medical world. According to the first article we were given to read, “The aim of stem cell research is to determine how to create specific tissues.” All the procedures listed above involving using these tissues in order to better people’s lives by finding cures to diseases that were once thought of as invincible. Cancer, AIDS, and Alzheimer’s are all within the grasp of stem cells to cure, but moral and financial problems continually hold them back.
Morally, I have to draw the line at reproductive cloning, in which an actual human being could be cloned. Therapeutic cloning, which involves stem cells that are not “adult” seems okay to me, as the benefits clearly outweigh the moral issues. Not only can this method help to save lives, but it can also help to create them for infertile couples wishing to have a child. Reproductive cloning, however, gives too much power to those who could literally build a human being. I would like to think that scientists would have equivalent moral judgment and be able to draw the line there.
After morality, funding is the main obstacle in the way of stem cell research. Recently, President Bush assigned federal funding only to projects working with an original batch of stem cells. But these cells, in the eyes of scientists, are not enough to effectively advance the field far enough to actually obtain results. I feel that it is not the responsibility of the government, but that of non-governmental organizations to fund this research. Such organizations exist all over the United States, and the funding is there to be had. Once a significant advance comes along in the field of stem cells, I think that it will be much easier to find the money. The American people react to results, and those are sure to come eventually from the embryonic stem cell community. The American government should encourage such research and let it continue, but they have a limited budget that does not need the added strain of this research.
Ethically speaking, I would not personally consider an embryo to be a human being. I would consider something to be “alive” when it knows it is alive. That is to say, something is living when it can recognize and react to stimulus around it. Whether this point is found in the womb or out of it, I consider it a fair assertion regarding what is living and what is not. Therefore, I would align myself most closely with the opinions of the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, who deem the use of aborted or therapeutic embryonic stem cells acceptable when they are used for “purposes of life-saving or life-enhancing research and treatment.” Highly conservative religious groups would obviously be the most likely to oppose my position on stem cells because they believe that a fetus is a human and using it would therefore be immoral.
My attitude concerning this issue doesn’t come from any certain belief system or specific encouragement, but I have, like many others, watched loved ones die of diseases such as cancer. I want us to find a cure for such diseases and I feel that embryonic stem cell research is one feasible way of doing so.

Stem Cell Research

2005-12-08T14:15:00.000-05:00

Stem Cell Research

     I have a lot of experience with cancer and Alzheimer’s disease, so I think that my views on stem cell research have been greatly influenced by my history.  In principal, I am completely behind stem cell research.  I think that science is about improving the quality of life, and there has been some debate about the quality of life for the embryo.  But I don’t necessarily believe that an embryo is a human being.  An embryo does not have skin, hair, nor can it see or feel.  Some may see this as a heartless approach to human life, but rather I see it as a positive approach to a radical form of scientific research.  Therefore I would have to say that I align myself most closely with Professor Blackburn, who doesn’t support a moratorium on stem cells.
I believe that stem cells have the potential to be a human life, but the potential to be other things as well.  Some people in class argued that this embryo could potentially become a human life, and make a difference that way.  I think that this is where the ethical line should be drawn.  While I don’t believe that fetuses should be aborted for the use of medical research, I do think that researchers should have every avenue available to them with which to make scientific advancements.  The potential that the stem cells have to provide vital research and improve knowledge about diseases is more important to me because their potential is unmatched.  Stem cells are unspecialized and are capable of dividing and renewing themselves for long periods.  (Stemcells II)  Lines of stems cells have infinite possibility and I think that this potential for innovation cannot be ignored.  Adult stem cell research is great, but adult stem cells typically generate the cell types of the tissue in which they reside. (Stemcells II)  Embryonic stem cells offer a brand new chance to create healthy cells, rather than potentially carrying over problems from the adult from which they were taken.
I didn’t know that there were so many different types of stem cell research.  I am familiar with in vitro fertilization, but I had no idea that so many potential embryos were just discarded.  If they are going to be thrown out anyway, why not just use them?  The idea of so much potential research simply going to waste is unfathomable to me.  I had never known about the remnants of in vitro fertilization, but I think it’s important for the parents of each embryo to decide its fate.  I can completely understand the parent’s reluctance to donate their embryos, but once the parents have given the go ahead, why not use these otherwise useless embryos?
     I think that George Bush tried to split the fence when it comes to stem cells.  I think that as many stem cells lines should be created as would be useful to scientific research.  I don’t think that their creation should be limited by anything other than necessity.  Conservative Christian organization would vehemently disagree with me, while I think that many liberal Democrats would agree with me.  This is interesting to me, as this is not how my political views typically play out.  But this is one scientific issue that I feel strongly about because of my personal experience with the diseases stme cell research is proposed to help cure.

I Show my Hand

2005-12-08T14:01:00.000-05:00

With death or before, parting comes to us all. And so the time has come, before I depart, to show my hand. I have made a practice of not stating my position, only asking questions. I knew that as soon as I stated a position, my position would become subject to inquiry. This is only right. A structure, especially a philosophical one, must be questioned. In my life, I attempt to live this way. Where I do not know, I do not speak. What I do know is that things can be questioned, for none of us knows everything, or knows anything completely, and so I question.
But now the time has come. Some structure must exist, if only the one to question from. All relativity is relative to something, all science, art, communication and thought relies and lies upon some basis and context.
I am a believer in the soverign God, creator of heaven and earth. I believe the Bible is his one and only word, and that it is the only true interpreter for life. I believe he is active and interactive in our lives, and that he has preserved through history the validity of his word, so that his sheep might hear his voice, and come to him.
I believe that we all rely upon something. We all give authority to something, be it scientists, reason, empiricism, or some other text. I believe there is nothing, no authority, so reliable as the God who has revealed himself through the Bible. He has shown in that text (Daniel, Isaiah, Matthew) to know the future that has come to pass. He has shown himself faithful to me, and the more I know of his character, the more I learn of his faithfulness and my own failing. I pray constantly that he would more fully reveal himself to me, because I can not reach him, he must reach me. I depend upon a God that I can not see, but only see the evidences of.
I believe that all scripture points to Christ, and this is the reason I have a hope. He is the summation and the reason for all the scriptures, and in his coming to earth and dying, he redeemed those he chose as his own, those who, by God's grace, are drawn to him, according to the witness of the Scriptures. The Scriptures are nothing but a witness to him. I believe this is foolishness to those who are being destroyed (1 Corinthians 1-3).
Blessed be his name, forever and ever. All who disagree, begin your attack, all who agree, pray for wisdom, stregnth, grace and love, and the more full representation of Christ. All who question, read the Bible, perhaps begin with John. It, by God's grace, will form those who seek him into those who know him and love him.

Stem Cells and Ethics

2005-12-08T12:50:00.000-05:00

I can think of very few medical endeavors which possessed half the potential of a developed understanding of stem cells and their applications. Having said that, it is possible that stem cells are useless, though more likely their uses are somewhat less than advertised. Even if stem cells can only do a fraction of what is currently thought, it would be useful to millions of people worldwide. It is for this reason that I feel institutions, both public and private, should be fully committed to the research and utilization of stem cells.

Having read the opinions of the various authors, I am forced to agree with the author of the Newsweek article as well as with some of the opinions of members of the President’s special council. Unfortunately, I only roughly agree with these opinions. Both stressed the enormous potential of stem cells as a just reasoning for continued study, with which I agree. I do feel that these authors are being a bit optimistic as far as the ethical considerations are concerned. Both seem to feel that humanity will exploit this technology only to a certain point, beyond which will be ethically out of bounds. This idea is misled in my opinion.

Certainly there are major ethical questions involved in such an endeavor; I myself am quite unconcerned by these questions. Not being religious, I do not believe there is any higher moral authority that what humans allow themselves to accomplish. Additionally, I do not consider a blastocyst to be a human being; as such I am not troubled by the research being done on them, or their destruction. Regarding an ethical divide, I do not believe there should be one. Furthermore, such a divide would be temporary, in the end (though it may take decades or centuries) all barriers to this, and any other research, will break down. Some researchers obviously believe in such a line, while, others do not. Eventually this advancement and all of it offspring including cloning and genetic engineering, will become prevalent.

The government of the United Sates is solely responsible to its citizens. It must not consider the religious implications of such research. The argument that destroying a blastocyst is destroying a human is a poor one. The status quo does not consider these to be human. As a point of fact, a second trimester fetus is apparently not considered a human, though I am not sure I agree with that. The US should pass no law hindering this research. Rather, the government must move to aid institutions which hold the promise of aiding millions of Americans through the cures which may be possible with stem cells. I am sure that many in the scientific and medical community would side with my opinion. I am equally sure that many people who are stereotypically referred to as the “religious right” (Pat Robertson comes to mind) would like to hang me. The first time that the church admitted that the Earth was not the center of the universe was in 1994,; I do not look to them for answers on what is right and wrong.

Dr. Oppenheimer said it best, “barriers for freedom of inquiry. There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors.” In this example, hundreds of millions of people would have a better life if the technology is developed. I cannot turn my back on these people in favor of some religiously oriented ethical dilemma.

Stem Cell Research

2005-12-08T12:44:00.000-05:00

Stem cell research is one of those sticky subjects that don’t quite have clear right and wrong sides for most people. The trouble with this debate is that nobody can really tell when life begins, and if it does begin at “conception,” is it worth it to knock off a bunch of pre-infants to cure humanity of a disease? Is that even possible? It is my opinion, if it is possible, that we should make that sacrifice if we are to advance medically as a society. I’ve never bought into the “slippery slope” argument, that some of my classmates put forth, that implies that the moment we allow the “killing” of embryos for research, we will start farming infants and killing them off one-by-one. The whole “brave new world” scenario doesn’t hold any water because it completely disregards the fact that humans will continue to have morals and a clearly drawn line over which our society cannot step. That line may oscillate from time to time, but it certainly doesn’t move all the way back to the point of murder or a fellow human being in the name of science. By using that argument, they are essentially saying that if they give this up now, they can’t say what they will give up in the future, which is a ridiculous comment because the “slippery slope” is lined with crevasses of uncertainty over which only extrapolation and leaps of logic can take a person.

I think I most closely agree with the Episcopal Church and their “conservative and balanced approach,” of understanding the medical value of the research, but not farming life for the research specifically. Women are going to have abortions, and a certain number of them are going to want to have those embryos used for research, so I don’t see a problem with using them. I think the position of our government should also be that we should allow for the research of already-discarded embryos, but we should not farm them. I think it also holds true logically that it is not as if women are going to go out and get pregnant more often and have more abortions if the final result means donating the embryo to research. The moral dilemmas still exist for the woman, and having an abortion is not a fun time, so I don’t think there will suddenly be a mad rush to have them to start us down our “slippery slope.” The biggest opponents of this idea would essentially be most of the fundamentalist Christian groups, the Catholic Church, and the Greek Orthodox Church. The Southern Baptists would probably continue their “enduring, consistent, and vigorous opposition” to most of my opinions on the matter, which is their right because they believe the embryo to be a life based on their reading of the Bible, a religious text. Our government, however, should take a secular stance on the issue and hold true the ideas of the “social contract” and not do things like kill fellow human beings who are alive and conscious, but use all other means to attain the ends that will help us, namely curing diseases.

2005-12-08T11:47:00.000-05:00

I support embryonic stem cell research. I feel that my views relate closest to those of the Union of American Hebrew Congregations. This group of Reform Jews believes that for the “purposes of life-saving or life-enhancing research and treatment” tissues that have been obtained by therapeutic or spontaneous abortions may be used. It is believed that a person’s primary responsibility is to save a humans life, even if it goes against the law. I believe that people should do all they are capable of to save a human life. Embryonic stem cells present us with the opportunity to do so. Placing restrictions on research and the number of stem cell lines is only hurting us. The U.S. is sitting and watching other countries continue to do research because of bills passed slowing down our progress. The fact that embryonic stem cells hold so much potential to save lives and potential help cure diseases should be reason alone to continue research.

I do not agree with Bush’s ban on further government funding of embryonic stem cell research. The stem cell lines, which Bush had proposed to be used for further testing, have now been found to be useless. While states are allowed to fund research on their own by passing bills, as California did, I do not see this being something that would catch on quickly, if at all, in many states in the U.S. Because of this, and the fact that Bush will be in office for another three years, a strain has been placed on further advancement and research. I believe that if researchers are not allowed to continue research in the United States and are not given sufficient grants, then they will be forced to continue their research in other countries.

In the United States today there are fertility clinics with thousands of frozen embryos, which were prepared for IVF. If these unused frozen embryos are not needed, they are discarded. Why then, if people find it okay to dispose of these frozen embryos, can researchers not put those frozen embryos to use? I personally do not believe that the blastocyst is a human life. Therefore, I would have no problem with researchers using the frozen embryos. Either way they will be destroyed. Why then not put them towards a good use in an effort to save human lives? The point where I would have to draw the line on what I believe is and isn’t ethical is when women would sell their eggs or even their frozen embryos to be tested. If researchers would pay money to receive eggs from women, which in the first place would be a very invasive surgery, I believe this would be stepping over the line.

I think what many people are unable to see because they are so concerned with the fact a human life is being killed, is the great potential to save lives. Just because no cure or huge advancement to this day has been made does not justify ending research. People need to look at the potential of embryonic stems cells and the potentials to save lives and help human suffering.

Stem Cell Research

2005-12-07T20:07:00.000-05:00

Stem Cell Research

Journal Entry #6

Just to put myself into a general category, I would say that I most closely associate with the conservative side of the stem cell issue, such as a group like Focus on the Family. Just as a basic guideline, I would say that the taking of life for the advancement of science is unacceptable; therefore, the dividing line would be drawn before embryonic stem cell research or SCNT therapeutic cloning. The only method of research I find suitable is that of adult stem cells, as no human life is lost. Additionally, this method has already produced results, which shows promise for the future as we improve this technology. As we discussed in class, I know that embryonic stem cells could provide a wider range of final products from just one source (an embryo), and SCNT could produce an exact match, but where do we draw the line after we start playing God?

I do not believe that researchers will refrain from crossing my personal line, as we have already advanced stem cell research and SCNT around the world. However, I also do not expect them to draw the line in the same place as me. Me views are not necessarily the views of everyone, and I can clearly see the benefits of furthering this scientific knowledge; it simply worries me to know that we are marching ahead without much concern of morality or our ethical path. Eventually, stem cell research and SCNT will be funded, and even though Bush is smart to stand his ground on the issue in order to maintain support from conservative Christians, it’s only a matter of time until we are cloning cells and producing organs. On my side of the line would be the conservative Christians, but the strongest voice by far currently are those in support of new stem cell technology. Selected states such as California are already funding local research, and these patches of support will gradually grow until the entire country is ready to advance technological healing.

I draw the line at adult stem cell research because I believe in the conservation of human life and the rights of the individual. It is not up to us to determine which embryos live and which die, even if we are healing someone else in the process. As we discussed in class, an embryo has a potential to become a full fledged human life with talents and intelligence to contribute to the world; to take this gift away is a crime in the utmost sense. Also, I am most afraid of the “slippery slope,” and what a technology such as SCNT will lead to in the future. There is no way of knowing what will happen once we open up the door to cloning and creating human life as we please. What could be next? Will we birth babies to simply harvest their organs and use them for healing, justifying it under the name of science? There is an extreme amount of subjective morality to deal with, and if the ethics aren’t addressed there is potential for great harm to the human race and our nation.

Galileo

2005-12-07T17:55:00.000-05:00

In my first journal entry, I commented on how I was not completely knowledgeable of the exact happenings of the trial of Galileo, but I did know that religion dealt a hand in the trial and the ultimate decision. In the case of Galileo, for many years the exact details of his trial and his battle with the Church have been misunderstood. Galileo is praised as a martyr of science, yet looking at the facts it suggests otherwise.

During the 16^th century, the Church underwent the Protestant Reformation and the Counter Reformation. The church was very conservative in regards to theology and the Scripture, and it was this attitude that was still present during the time of Galileo’s trial. The Counsel of Trent forbade anyone except the pope and bishops from interpreting the Scriptures. With the discoveries of the laws of motion of falling bodies and projectiles, the law of the pendulum, and a more powerful telescope all by Galileo, he was able to discover that Venus along with the moon underwent regular series of phases thus disproving Ptolemy’s theory. In the Bible it states that the earth is at rest and the sun moves around the earth, but Galileo found this statement to be untrue. Galileo knew Ptolemy’s theory to be false, but by voicing his opinions was challenging the Church and the Counsel of Trent. Unfortunately, however, Galileo was never able to provide concrete evidence to support his theory, and it remained unresolved even at the end of the trial.

Believing in Copernicus’s heliocentric model, Galileo went against the Church’s Decree of 1616 not to teach Copernicanism. Prior to this decree, the theory of the Copernican system had been encouraged in discussion, as long as it remained within the confines of science. In turn, Galileo published Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, which violated Pope Urban VIII’s order. It was at this point that Galileo’s friendship with the pope ended. Before all of this, Galileo had worked in agreement with the Church and his fellow scientists. He was praised by the Jesuits and had close connections within the Church. A growing ego, a desire for fame, and believing he was always right were all things, which brought about his downfall. With the loss of his connections within the Church, Galileo was thus unable to write whatever he wanted. There was a great amount of animosity towards Galileo, and many people wanted him put away and punished. He was found to be suspected of heresy, and he was condemned in 1633.

Personally, I feel that Galileo cannot really be called a martyr for science. I do not feel that his conflict with the church can be based solely on his desire to further the advancement of science. Towards the end he was claiming other people’s theories to be those of his own, and from this I cannot help but think there had to have been some selfish motives involved. Had Galileo lived a hundred years before, the trial never would have occurred. Due to the time he lived in, however, a time when there was much less tolerance, Galileo’s confrontation attitude turned out to be his downfall. Before class I had never really known the background of Galileo and the information leading up to the trial. I can now say that I have a very different perspective of Galileo and his trial today than I did the first few days of class.

Stem Cell Research Journal

2005-12-07T17:22:00.000-05:00

My personal views on stem cell research are most closely represented by the opinions expressed by the Union of American Hebrew Congregations and the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice. Judaism believes in the concept of “pikuach nefesh”, the primary responsibility to save human life, which overrides almost all other laws. As a result of this, they believe that we should use all knowledge that is available to us to save human life, and part of this knowledge happens to be our ability to use embryonic stem cells to find new therapies for a wide range of serious human ailments. They believe that based on the current evidence that has been shown, the future of stem cell research is extremely promising and that it will be possible, with much further study to put an end to the suffering of people who are afflicted with such serious conditions as paralysis, Parkinson’s Disease, Alzheimer’s Disease, and many other horrible conditions. I agree very much with this point of view. I think that the primary goal of medicine should be to help relieve the patient’s suffering. There are many conditions that are prevalent in the medical world today and are striking more and more people each day and the tragic part is that doctors have no way of curing them. Now, however, there is a possibility that with embryonic stem cell research we can cure these horrible afflictions, and I think that we should pursue this opportunity and make every attempt possible to relieve the suffering of people around the world.
I also agree with what the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice has to say on this issue. They state, “We believe in the morality of the use of tissue derived from fetuses when the procurement of that tissue is carefully regulated.” They also say, “We also believe that fetal tissue donation is moral when the decision to use the tissue is made separately from the decision to abort. Women who have made informed decisions to donate fetal tissue for research deserve the respect and gratitude of society.” The RCRC believes that women should have the right to make their own choice about whether to donate their fetus’s tissue to stem cell research efforts. I am in agreement with this view because I believe that a woman should have the right to do what she wants with her body. I do not think that the government should restrict this right in any way shape or form. If a woman feels that she would like to donate her aborted fetus’s stem cells to science so that they can be used for research, then this is her right and no one should be able to inhibit her actions. It is not the place of a group of middle-aged men (i.e. the Unites States Congress) to be telling American women what they can and cannot do to their own bodies. I also believe that the RCRC is right to specify that the use of fetal tissue for research is moral when it is procured properly. I agree that it is not ethical to use tissue that was acquired by bribing the donor or taking it in other dishonest, deceitful ways. The mother must make her own decision to donate it, and no one else should either force her into the decision or provide incentives. If women were offered motivation to abort fetuses in the name of stem cell research, a very disturbing and unethical tissue market that exploited human lives could develop in this country and even around the world which would truly be a tragedy.
I think that the dividing line between what is ethical and what is not lies in the motives that are driving the research and the ultimate uses of the technology. As long as the knowledge gained by the research that is being done is used to help people, then the research can be considered ethical. However, the ultimate motives are not the only thing that is important in this case; the ends do not necessarily always justify the means in my opinion. Very careful steps must be taken to ensure that human rights are not abused. In my opinion, it is ok to use the stem cells as long as the embryo is not allowed to mature into a fetus or to be born. Within the first trimester, before the fetus possesses differentiated organs or resembles a human being, it is ok to remove the cells as I do not believe that this being is yet a human. After this point however, I do not think that it is ok to kill the fetus simply for the use of its stem cells. If a woman independently chooses to abort the pregnancy after this point, then that is her decision and it should be respected. There is a danger that once the fetus becomes a human being, its rights could be abused. Theoretically, once there is a greater knowledge of stem cells and how to use them, it will be possible to produce new organs for patients in need of them. If this ability is taken too far, it could result in the creation of human beings simply to exploit them and steal their organs to give to others who need them. This would be very wrong and extremely unethical in my opinion and steps will need to be taken in the future to ensure that if stem cells can indeed be used successfully for this purpose, this kind of abuse does not occur. Strict regulations by the government will most likely be needed to keep this from getting out of hand.
I think that the United States should be more supportive of stem cell research. This is a very promising field that can stand to benefit a large number of people if the technology can be perfected. However, this cannot happen unless our country provides funding to scientists so that they can do the research that is required to find out whether or not this will be able to help people. Many people argue that these programs should not be funded because there has not been enough evidence presented to prove that it will really help to improve people’s lives. In response to this, I would ask how one can make a statement such as that one when it has not even been given the chance to prove whether or not it can help people. Because of this, I think that the United States should start providing more funds for stem cell research in this country. This will allow scientists to determine if there are benefits to this technology. After this, I think that it will be necessary for the US government to impose strict regulations on the use of the technology to prevent it from being abused. It should only be able to be used for therapeutic purposes and should only be employ if there is a clearly demonstrated need by the patient (i.e. permission of the doctor and written permission). There will also need to be rigorous regulations on where the stem cells that are used for therapy come from. They must not be acquired from donors who were given other incentives to donate the tissue (i.e. money) or were forced to do so by an outside influence. This will help to prevent abuse of human rights and exploitation of tissues.

Galileo Journal

2005-12-07T16:41:00.000-05:00

When this class first began, I did not have any significant views on the trial of Galileo. I had a general knowledge of who Galileo was and what his contributions were to the scientific world, but I knew virtually nothing about his trial and his conflict with the Catholic Church. For this reason, I was very interested in this section of the course because I gained a great deal of knowledge about a subject that I had never studied before.

After learning much more about not only Galileo’s scientific research and discoveries, but about him as a person than I knew before, I have to say that I do not think that I would like to have known him. There is no denying that Galileo was a very intelligent man who played an extremely important role in scientific history. However, he could also be very self-centered, conceited, and hungry for the spotlight, characteristics that are not always admirable. Galileo has established this reputation long before his trial occurred. For example, he shows many of these characteristics in his relationship with Kepler. He cut off all correspondence with Kepler and after Kepler volunteered much-needed support for Galileo’s discoveries, Galileo never thanked or acknowledged Kepler for it. Also, whenever Galileo or his work were criticized, he responded violently with sarcasm and insults, a quality which Koestler describes as “a rare gift of provoking enmity; not the affection alternating with rage that Tycho aroused, but the cold, unrelenting hostility which genius plus arrogance minus humility creates among mediocrities” (373). When he felt that he had not been properly credited for his work when it was mentioned in Balthasar Capra’s brochure on the proportional compass, he lashed out in fury with an almost irrational reaction. He accused Capra of plagiarism and then published his own pamphlet in which he used harsh language to deride Capra and his work. When scholars doubted his observations of Jupiter’s moons, he simply responded with sarcasm and refused to see the areas of possible error in his own work.

This evidence led me to believe that Galileo was not a very nice or agreeable person, and this view most definitely caused me to be biased against Galileo when his trial was discussed. I agree with what Koestler says in the beginning of the chapter on the trial: “It is my conviction that the conflict between Church and Galileo (or Copernicus) was not inevitable; that it was not in the nature of a fatal collision between opposite philosophies of existence, which was bound to occur sooner or later, but rather a clash or individual temperaments aggravated by unlucky coincidences” (432). I think that if Galileo had not been so headstrong in many cases and offended so many people, this issue would not have ended in a trial. If he had been more considerate and careful he could have used his connections to his advantage and not faced punishment for supporting Copernican ideas. He was friends with Pope Urban VIII, and this could have been a very valuable relationship had he not abused it. His friend was not out to destroy his career and prevent him from doing his work, and was prepared to overlook his ideology even though it conflicted with the Church. Galileo was able to discuss and write about Copernican theories as long as he did not assert them as fact and spoke strictly hypothetically. Had Galileo not gone on to offend the Pope in his Dialogue, I think that he could have carried on very peacefully with the Church in this way for a long time. He would have been able to continue his work “under the table” and once he had gathered enough solid irrefutable evidence, he could have successfully presented it and had it accepted as fact.

However, Galileo chose to continue in his stubborn headstrong ways and this ended up getting him in trouble. His jabs at the Pope’s beliefs in his Dialogue combined with the many instances in which he had offended the Jesuits caused the Church to become very angry with Galileo and they set out to put him on trial, humiliate him and ruin his reputation.

I think that Galileo was indeed guilty as charged in the trial. He had blatantly disobeyed the decree that had banned him from teaching the Copernican theory as fact. Although I believe that Galileo was a great scientist and that he should be respected for the great discoveries and work that he accomplished during his lifetime, I cannot help but think that he deserved what he got. He acted very recklessly and carelessly in his dealings with people, discredited other scientists’ discoveries, and wanted to take all the credit for all the work that was done in his field. This attitude ended up coming back to haunt him when he had to go up against the people he had made into enemies during his lifetime in order to defend what he believed in.

Scopes trial Journal

2005-12-07T16:39:00.000-05:00

Before this class began, I had spent some time studying the Scopes Trial in other classes, so I had some preliminary views on it. The classes where I had learned about the trial were all history classes so these gave me a very straightforward view on it, and I mostly just learned the basic facts about the trial. Looking back at my first journal entry, it is interesting to see what my initial thoughts about the trial were. I was originally interested in the trial because I was fascinated with the collision between science and religion and the effects of it. I believed that the debate had come about primarily because the two sides were extremely stubborn and were unwilling to compromise with each other on the issue of whether or not evolution should be taught in schools. In my mind, I thought that it was unfair to rule one theory to be right over another and that students should be exposed to both theories and be allowed to make up their own minds as to what they choose to believe in. I also expressed my personal beliefs on the theories and said that I believe that evolution is correct, but I also believe in creation. Since I believe that it is possible for both of these beliefs to exist together, I believe that God used evolution as his mechanism for creating the world and bringing the creatures of the world into existence.

Now, after studying the Scopes trial much more in depth than I ever had before, my view of it has changed in some ways. Before this class, I had no idea that there were such huge political ramifications that went along with the trial and that it was so manufactured. Everything from the location to the lawyers to the defendant was completely contrived. George Rappleyea did not agree with the law that was passed against teaching evolution, and decided that he wanted to bring the trial to Dayton to give the small town some publicity and hopefully help make it bigger and help it make a name for itself. In addition to this, the two lawyers were two of the biggest political figures of the time, and because they would be going head to head on opposite sides of the debate, this made the trial even more of a publicity stunt. People became interested if for no other reason than to be witness to one of the greatest political debates of the time. The lawyers also were not getting involved simply to fight for or against evolution. For William Jennings Bryan, the debate was more about protecting his religion against modern society and education which he believed were causing people to lose their faith. I was also shocked to learn that Scopes was not actually a biology teacher in the Dayton schools. He was picked out to be the defendant in the case based on his lack of establishment in the town. The actual biology teacher was also the principal of the high school and was well established with a family and everything to lose by being involved in the trial. Scopes did not have anything to lose by participating in the debate, and he was also judged to “fit the part” of a young, unassuming teacher who would not be threatening.

Now that I know much more about the facts having to do with the Scopes trial, I feel that my opinions on it have changed slightly. I feel that it is definitely a much more complex issue than I realized it was before. I had no idea how artificial and manufactured the trial was, I simply thought that it was a legitimate case that came about naturally. In some ways, now that I know this, the trial is not quite as significant in my mind as it was before, simply because I do not agree with all of the political game-playing that went into producing the trial. I think that the trial should have been focused more on the issue at hand, whether or not to teach evolution, than on the celebrities who were involved. The lack of scientific debate that went into the trial also took away from the significance of the trial in my mind. For an issue that is so critical to the future of the academic world, there was a severe lack of academic evidence present at the trial.

However, I must say that in many ways, I also think that the politics that played into the trial helped it to make a significant impression on the country. An issue such as evolution, no matter how intriguing it might be to scientists and other members of the academic field, is not always the most exciting thing to the general public. By including big-name politicians as lawyers, pitting them against each other, and turning the trial into a publicity stunt, they successfully caught the attention of the country. Reporters flocked to Dayton, Tennessee to get the latest updates on the status of the trial, and people packed the court room in order to witness this historical event for themselves. It is extremely likely that if the trial had not involved high profile politicians and had not been so highly publicized by the media, then it would not have had nearly the same effect on the country as it did.

I was very interested in our study on the Dover trial in this class because I think that otherwise, I would not have heard very much at all about this extremely controversial issue that is so crucial to the future of how science is taught in American schools. So I am grateful to have been enlightened about such an important event in American politics and current events which also provides a nice sequel to the ever-present debate centered around evolution, and depending on the verdict of the trial, could also provide the conclusion.

I think that in some ways, the Dover trial was a little bit contrived. The entire debate centered around the inclusion of four paragraphs that was read at the beginning of class, warning students that they did not have to believe everything that they were taught regarding the theory of evolution. Many parents believed that this was threatening their beliefs and their own values that they were trying to teach their children. In my opinion, it seems like the community has used this as an excuse to bring an ongoing debate to the courtroom and resolve it. Even some of the students that were interviewed for the articles that we read in class seemed a bit confused over what exactly this trial was about. It seems that a much bigger deal was made about this one, simple statement than was warranted.

However, at the same time, I think that it was necessary to have this trial so that the country could begin to resolve this debate over evolution versus intelligent design. If it is decided that intelligent design violates the separation between church and state that is outlined in the constitution, then the debate could be permanently resolved. That is at least until a new theory is created to challenge evolution. The trial gave the intelligent design advocates an extremely good platform to show the country and the world what their beliefs are all about. There are not a whole lot of people who are very familiar with what intelligent design is, so this was the perfect opportunity for people like Michael Behe to present the facts and educate the public on their theory. Even if they do not win the trial, they really have not lost much because they have only gained publicity and more media exposure, which can only serve to help them in the long run. If more people know what intelligent design is and what it is all about, then they might consider adopting it as their own belief system and the theory will gain a greater following.

In my opinion, there are many similarities between the Scopes trial and the Dover trial, and also some differences. Both of these trials seemed to me to be rather manufactured, more so in the case of the Scopes trial, but I felt that there were still some indications of this in the Dover trial. The parents who were suing the school district seemed to be searching for any excuse to make this argument in court, and the inclusion of this statement happened to be the first thing that came along. Also, both trials served as a platform for people to make their beliefs and theories known. In the case of the Scopes trial, William Jennings Bryan was able to use the opportunity as a chance to vocalize his religious beliefs and to try to “save” people from losing their faith. In the case of the Dover trial, Intelligent Design activists were able to use the opportunity as an occasion to vocalize their own beliefs and to publicize the facts on their theory. People who had never heard of intelligent design were hearing about it on the news and were learning all about what it is and what it stands for. Also both trials served as very definitive decisions in the struggle between science and religion. Certainly in the case of the Scopes trial this is true, and in my opinion, regardless of the verdict, the Dover trial promises to have a great impact on the conflict between science and religion as well. The Scopes trial set the standard for what could and could not be taught in the classroom, and its verdict has yet to be overturned. If the Dover trial rules in favor of the parents who are suing the district, then this will just be one more affirmation of the original Scopes verdict. If the verdict comes out in favor of the intelligent design advocates, this will have just as much of an impact on society in that it will change how science is taught in this country and how we view theories such as intelligent design.

One major difference between the two is the level of publicity that they received. The Scopes trial received a great deal more publicity than the Dover trial did. However, this was due to the fact that in the Scopes trial, two of the biggest politicians of the day were heavily involved, and this in and of itself was a major attraction. The Dover trial has not received very much publicity for today’s standards perhaps because it does not have such high profile participants, and also because it is not the most urgent thing in the news today.

Journal 6: Stem Cell Research

2005-12-06T16:06:00.000-05:00

Stem cell research is a difficult topic, but it is definitely the buzz word of today. I did not realize there were two types of stem cell research: adult and embryonic. Adult stem cell research is not causing nearly as much controversy as embryonic. In fact, most people accept adult stem cell research as ethical and it has already been used successfully to treat many different types of diseases. Embryonic stem cell research is controversial because in order to get the stem cells the whole embryo must be destroyed. However, this embryo is seen to some people as a human being. I would have to agree with this viewpoint. Although it is not and never will be implanted into a uterus to grow into a baby, it is the starting point that everyone came from. I do not agree that human life should be destroyed to save someone else’s life. This brings in the issue of second class citizenship, which is something that America does not stand for. America and the people in America make sure that everyone has all of their rights. It is surprising that the Democrats are usually the group of people who fight for the “little man” and stand up for the people whose rights are usually suppressed yet they support embryonic research. If they really wanted to give everyone their rights, they should fight against embryonic research with all their might because the embryos are the ones without a voice.
The Episcopal Church states clearly that the embryos that we have now should be used for research to cure disease, but new embryonic lines should not be created for this purpose. I agree with this statement when it comes to what we should do with the embryos we have now. I also agree with the Christian Coalition which states that killing one human being to save another is never morally just and supporting embryonic research would be the first time America has supported a program that endorsed the killing of human life for research purposes. Embryonic research is not something that we should try to continue. If we have researched with adult stem cells and found cures through them, we should continue to use adult stem cells. While it may be more difficult to find the correct stem cells, it is more ethical and we know that it works. Embryonic research has not had success like adult stem cell research. While supporters of embryonic research say they need more time, this time should be spent continuing adult stem cell research. Groups which would oppose this policy would be the people who believe embryonic research could have saved a loved one who recently died. Christopher Reeves and Ronald Reagan are just two famous men who died from diseases that have no cure as of now.
Embryonic research is not ethical. It is not ethical because it kills a human life for research purposes. Killing people is not ethical, it is against the law. The problem today is that there is a difference between what different groups consider to be human life or not. Personally I think that human life begins at conception, like the Catholic Bishops. People who support embryonic research do not believe human life starts that early. Until we can resolve this issue, embryonic research will still be a point of major conflict. Once we decide as a country when human life begins not only can we decide about embryonic research we can also decide the abortion conflict.

Stem Cell Journal

2005-12-05T19:51:00.000-05:00

JOURNAL ASSIGNMENT 6

Stem cell research is a rather hot topic in the world today. No one knows what the correct view on this issue is. After reading about the stance of various groups and people, I most closely agree with Professor Meilaender of The President’s Council for Bioethics. This man believes that an embryo is fully deserving of respect. The Christian Coalition says the embryo’s human rights must be upheld. The main question in this whole debate on stem cell research is “what is the embryo?” I personally believe that the embryo is human life, and it should be treated as such. As a result, I do not agree with embryonic stem cell research or SCNT (therapeutic cloning). I believe stem cell research should begin where life is not compromised. I agree with Professor Meileander that there is no difference between cloning-for-biomedical-research and cloning-to-produce-children. Life is life. It’s not okay to end one life to potentially save another because, by doing so, one is choosing to put more value on one life than another. This is ethically and morally wrong.

I also agree with Professor Meileander on the religious implications of stem cell research. I find Meileander’s view that since Christ adopted vulnerability, the embryo’s vulnerability should be embraced and cared for quite interesting. As a Christian, I find truth in this.

The U.S. policy on stem cell research is a much discussed topic. I think President Bush’s policy on stem cell research is okay, but I don’t see the point in allowing existing stem cell lines to be used in research. What will happen once these lines are all used up? I think that if the research proves that embryonic stem cells can actually cure diseases then people will find ways to get more stem cells. I am a believer in the idea that what can be done will be done. Scientists can go to other countries to do research. It is a very slippery slope. We could end up with embryo factories. Life is too valuable to allow this to happen.

I adopt Professor Meileander’s idea that there should be a ban on all human cloning—no matter what the purpose. There should also be no research on embryonic stem cells that aren’t clones. I fear the slippery slope. I think that there is much promise in adult stem cell research. These stem cells have been proven to treat diseases, and they don’t compromise anyone’s life. They don’t have as much potential as embryonic stem cells, though, because they are not completely undifferentiated, but they still have potential. I think this policy would get much support from quite a few religious groups such as Focus on the Family, the Catholic Church, the Southern Baptists and the Christian Coalition. Most of the opposition will come from a few religious groups such as the Reform Jews and the Episcopal Church. Many scientists and doctors will also be against this policy. The actual possibilities of stem cells would be a huge discovery and advancement for the scientists and the stem cells could possibly offer many doctors a cure which they can give to many of their patients. Also, as demonstrated in the Reagan family’s support of John Kerry, people directed affected by diseases that could possibly be cured with embryonic stem cells would also oppose this policy of banning human cloning and embryonic stem cell research.

While some may see this policy as inhibiting science, I see it rather as upholding ethical and religious values. I also believe that adult stem cells have considerable potential and should not be thought of solely as a lesser alternative to embryonic stem cells.

Stem Cell Research

2005-12-05T17:05:00.000-05:00

Stem cell research is currently a hot topic in the scientific and political worlds of the United States. The research in its simplest form involves using a pluripotent stem cell in the laboratory, and in the process destroying what could become a life. The controversy comes from whether using the stem cells for research is morally acceptable or not. There are several opponents of the practice, for religious or other reasons. However, the research promises to hold multiple advances in science and health care.
Personally, I am torn on this issue. While I am not sure of the morality of using these stem cells, I believe that the research will eventually occur in the manner of the phrase, “What can happen will happen.” Despite the moral opposition of various groups, it probably will proceed. Stem cell research is potentially very helpful; it could bring cures to devastating diseases and in general bring scientists a greater understanding of the human body. From a medical standpoint, the research could save countless lives, even though it would destroy a stem cell.
The readings for this subject covered a range of opinions. Most of those backed by religious groups asserted that all stem cell research is wrong and should not be used, though there were exceptions. We read a couple of articles with opposing views, by Elizabeth Blackburn and Gilbert Meilaender, of which I stand in the middle. I think that some of the research should continue, but discussing the issues and finding alternatives is also very important. I do not think that scientists should rush into anything.
As with most controversial issues, a clear line cannot be drawn between what is and is not ethical. Unfortunately, since there have to be set rules, a line does have to be drawn. Though I do not know enough scientific information to make an exact statement, I think a point should be chosen such as it has been in the trimester system for abortions.
Since the line will be such a thin one, I do not think researchers will have a problem crossing it in certain situations. This is hard to monitor and probably inevitable. However, I think that America will never cross certain points in acceptability. Certain things will never be allowed by the public, and hopefully researchers will not cross these lines.
For right now, I think the U.S. should continue its current policy of not giving government funding to stem cell research. There is enough opposition to the research in America right now that a change would not go over well. So, the research should be privately funded if it is to occur. However, I think that eventually America will be ready to fund the research. As with all controversial issues, I think that this one needs a sort of buffering period before it is more widely accepted. If stem cell research begins to prove truly beneficial, I anticipate some people lessening their opposition to it.
In conclusion, I understand the opposition to stem cell research and partly agree, but I think the research could have such great benefits that it should be allowed. The research should proceed slowly, as I think that the opposition will decrease over time. The country seems to be in a particularly conservative phase right now, one that I think will not last. As a means of remaining a scientific superpower and of advancing medically, I think the United States will support and facilitate stem cell research sooner or later.

Stem Cells

2005-12-04T14:18:00.000-05:00

Journal Assignment #6

Stem cell research has the prospective to do amazing things for mankind: the idea of potentially curing cancer, finding a way for barren woman to have children, or even having someone who was paralyzed walk again is mind-boggling, and to think that stem cells could help these processes along. How could someone not want these medical breakthroughs to occur? Yet these medical breakthroughs have not come to fruition as of yet. Adult stem cell research is still in early stages of investigation, and embryonic stem cell research is limited at this point. I think that adult stem cell research should be perfected before embryonic stem cell research is introduced in a more prominent level.

I realize that during the IVF process, there are many unused embryos that are eventually discarded, when they could be used for stem cell research, but once the stem cell is extracted from the embryo, that potential life has ended. Even though this embryo is not considered “alive” by many, I think that if it has potential for life, it should not be destroyed without considerable research and background information surrounding the issue. Once adult stem cell research, which does not require the destruction of a potential life, has been declared faultless, and then I think more research and funding should be put into embryonic stem cells. However, until then, I do not think the ends of destroying an embryo to obtain stem cells justify the means.

I most strongly agree with the Episcopal Church’s view on stem cell research. They concluded that "it is in keeping with our call to heal the afflicted to make use of embryos already held in fertility clinics”. However, the church does not believe in creating embryos solely for research. The Episcopal Church is of the view that it is imperative to aid those who are ailing through stem cell research, but not creating more embryos at this point. Along the same lines, I also agree with President Bush’s take on the stem cell issue; even though many think that this is an unsatisfactory compromise, I think it provides scientists with the opportunity to research adult cells before extensive funding is given towards embryonic stem cell research. I know I am considered very conservative in my views, and I do strongly agree with the Republicans concerning this issue. I am a Christian and I believe my views reflect this fact, since I even consider an embryo to be living with a soul. I would most likely face opposition against those with more liberal views, and those who do not consider an embryo to be a human yet. But then when and what is considered to be a human, or alive? It is again the “slippery slope” that we discussed frequently in class. It just depends on where one draws the line on this issue. I think that it all comes down to when you considered an embryo to be “alive”: a blastocyst, an embryo, a fetus, an infant? I think where you draw this line is where your view lies in the stem cell issue.

Ethics also plays a big role in this controversy. It all lies in your opinion and own personal view. Is extracting the stem cells from an embryo, and inevitably destroying it, obliterating a potential human life? Or are you of the opinion that you are destroying a potential “life” in exchange for great medical breakthroughs? But then one has to consider that stem cell research may not yield amazing medical results. I strongly believe that this why we must first perfect adult stem cell research before delving into the controversial issue of embryonic stem cells.

Journal Entry #4

2005-12-03T22:36:00.000-05:00

JOURNAL ASSIGNMENT 4

1. Go back to your first journal entry and see what you wrote about the Scopes Trial. Make a note of it in this entry. If you had no significant impressions then just state that.

2. Describe your current view of the Scopes trial.

3. Describe your current view of the Dover trial.

4. Describe your current view of how the Scopes trial relates to the Dover trial.

____________________________________________________________________

As I look back at my first journal entry, I realize how little I knew about the Scopes trial. However, I now understand a bit more about the monumental debate, and I use the word “monumental” because I believe it re-ignited the controversy between “scientific evidence” and “religious belief.” It was, in a way, the “Trial of Galileo” of America, and it opened the doorway to the realization that basing every theory on pure, abstract belief is not necessary or even sufficient. Finally, people were able to address the inadequacies and benefits of both faith and rationale; in a way, the trial could be thought of as an “equalizer” that gave the populace the courage to learn of many different arguments regarding creation and decide for themselves the superior. Essentially, room was made for the scientific explanation. So, does this mean that Clarence Darrow, an atheist and main lawyer for the defense team, was advocating the elimination of religion? Personally, this question does not matter; conversely, it is critical that people are able to mold information into a belief in a unique fashion. In our nation of freedom, this should be the central theme: the presentation of a melting pot of philosophy so that people have the ability and resources to develop their own theology. If we truly live in a country of religious liberty, then this methodology should become a line of reasoning. For example, we can’t know that God didn’t have a hand in evolution, or even that He didn’t create the natural laws of physics and other sciences. It’s a very possible doctrine, and before the Scopes Trial citizens of the United States did not have the knowledge to think in this way.

When I look at the Scopes trial itself, the entire progression is almost laughable. Several factors contribute to a “staged” quality. First, John Scopes was recruited by both the prosecution and defense teams before the trial, “…the drugstore conspirators summoned the high school’s 24-year-old general science instructor and part time football coach, John T. Scopes” (Larson 89). Due to their anger with the recent Tennessee legislation banning the teaching of evolution in schools, the lawyers involved in the trial were the very ones to persuade the “general science instructor” to break the law. The theatrical environment in the courtroom led to mass publication by the media, “The trial quickly became more of a media event than a spectator show” (Larson 148). This component to the trial was pivotal, as the majority of the press was in favor of Darrow and evolution.

All in all the trial was not about the persecution of John Scopes, as Darrow clarified before the preliminary rounds, “Scopes is not on trial. Civilization is on trial…America is founded on liberty and not on narrow, mean, intolerable and brainless prejudice of soulless religio-maniacs” (Larson 146). This quote might be on the extreme end of the anti-religion spectrum, but Darrow had clearly picked up on the religious bias of the court, namely Judge Raulston. In fact, the court prayed everyday before the trial’s proceedings-- an act today that would be considered bigoted and atrocious in every sense of the word. Surely, it was the Scopes trial that started the transformation of societal norms.

Now, fast forward about eighty years, and we are again in the midst of a situation that many consider a parallel to the Scopes Trial. However, the lack of effort on the part of the defense has led me to be generally frustrated. The lawyers are uneducated on the complexities of Intelligent Design theory, and the stubbornness of the defense team caused the most influential group in the debate, the Discovery Institute, to leave the trial. Nevertheless, it is important that the theory of Intelligent Design is being presented as a respectable challenge to the long standing doctrine of Darwinian evolution. Interestingly, the public is also seeing the extreme to which this nation has tried to become “politically correct.” Even though this trial has been mostly beneficial, I believe it is ridiculous when a group of people can get a case in court over a statement read in a classroom. We have become so afraid of offending anyone of varying religious backgrounds that we are essentially robbing others of the liberties this nation gives to its citizens. By not allowing the presentation of an alternative to evolution, we are depriving students of the opportunity to learn of other theories on their own! How are they supposed to read about something that they’ve never heard about before? Our current sensitivity toward the issue of “science vs. religion” has become extremely detrimental to the learning ability of students, because we can’t address the issues at hand due to the fear of offending one another.

However, one cannot stop the scientists developing these theories, and it is fascinating to know that highly educated researchers are looking at creation in new and different ways. To paraphrase what Kenneth Miller expressed in his speech at Wake Forest, science is based on theories, and all theories should be looked at with an open mind. It seems that with publications on Intelligent Design, many knowledgeable scientists like Dr. Meyer and Dr. Behe are beginning to express logical arguments for the theory in order to secure an excellent substitute to Darwinian evolution for the future.

There are many relations between the Scopes and Dover trial, but the most interesting as well as most prevalent is the interaction between the press and society. Most unfortunately, the press today tends to have a major influence on the bias of the public as well as the extent of their knowledge. Because Intelligent Design is challenging the media’s scientific baby (evolution), they have done a fantastic job of keeping the Dover trial under the radar, so to speak. While the Scopes trial was widely publicized and talked about, I don’t believe that anyone in our class had heard of the Dover trial, much less of Intelligent Design, beforehand. Therefore, the media has the ability to keep the theory from the public, hiding under the label of being “respectful” to all religions, or promote an idea under the very same label. Although the press was not as big of an organization, the influence was relatively similar during the Scopes Trial, as the papers lifted Darrow up on a pedestal. According to Edward Larson, national newspapers such as The New York Times, The Chicago Tribune, and The Nation portrayed Darrow as making the best speeches of his career. Some of the descriptions from the papers are written in a style similar to an epic legend, making Darrow seem like more of a god than man. The power of the press is underestimated, as it is our only way to learn of current events in many situations. Therefore, the common thread throughout these two trials could be seen as “media power,” for it has influenced the public in many ways throughout history.

Sources

Larson, Edward J. Summer for the Gods. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1998.

Stem Cell Factual and Ethical Conclusion

2005-12-01T23:09:00.000-05:00

I have been doing some more research about stem cell research and I want to share my findings and my opinion based from them. First, I have found 3 different articles stating that cloning of primates is likely impossible since cell division does not work properly in clones. These are the links to those three articles. http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3614
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/04/030411070915.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2936401.stm
I had read similar articles and for this reason, my belief that research cloning of humans, or even of embryonic stem cell, will in the end be mostly fruitless.

This idea of the impossibility of human cloning is backed up from this story of embryonic cloning in Mass. http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1605 This story talks about how cloning of embryos was done, but failure came about in developmental stages. Here is a quote from the article: “ Ian Wilmut, who cloned Dolly the sheep at the Roslin Institute, said ACT's results were "very preliminary". He said a human embryo is expected to double its number of cells every 24 hours, but even ACT's most developed embryo had not done this: "The furthest it got was to have six cells, at a time it should have had 60, so it had already died."” This supports the previous articles and statements about human (and monkey) cloning. The bottom of the article also mentions the Korean scientist and his research as unpublished and invalidated. Another article that mentions the possibility of serious scandal (greater than eggs of graduate students) is here: http://www.news24.com/News24/Technology/News/0,,2-13-1443_1843825,00.html

From viewing the above information, I speculate something about the Korean scientist. I think that his cells were very unsuccessful and he “destroyed” them for “ethical” reasons to cover up his failure of producing successful embryonic clones. Although this is just speculation, it seems very possible since privately well funded scientists in Mass, the same guy who cloned Dolly, had so much trouble. At least he admitted it.

All this to say that I think after this year, and previous study of embryonic stem cells, I have reached a point to desire science to stay away from the use of embryos. The reproductive process is natural, whether one believes that evolution by chance brought it about or that some High Power created it. Either way, this is a beautiful process and should not be perverted. It seems that either nature (or Nature) has limited us. If in 50 years cloning and embryonic stem cells become completely possible, I invite everyone in this class who disagrees with me now to write a long mocking letter to me and then ask for 20 dollars and I will give it to you. Deal?

Trial of Galileo- Journal #5

2005-12-01T21:36:00.000-05:00

Trial of Galileo

As I was reading over my very first journal entry, I was struck by how one-sided my writing seemed. I appear to be very anti-religion, and have an image of Galileo as a poor, tortured scientist just trying to better the world. I saw the trial of Galileo as relentless persecution of an old man, and as an attempt to prevent science from moving forward. As I stated, “the fact that the Church helped to stem the flow of ideas to the general public makes religion seem like one huge conspiracy to confine people to one basic book to define life. The trial of Galileo is probably the most astounding to me. The persecution of this old man, making a 200 mile trek to have his ideas (his IDEAS!) put on trial amazes me.” Looking back over this, I realized how much my views have changed since then. While I still maintain that the Church did play a major role in stemming the flow of ideas in Galileo’s era, I don’t believe that they are the sole reason. The idea that Copernicus’s Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres was “prohibited” because it was “false and completely contrary to the Divine Scriptures” is still disturbing to me, though. (Ferngren 112) I understand that the Church made many errors in this time, but I also feel that since Galileo was fully aware of the Church’s power, and given the many warnings that were issued to him, I feel that some of the blame for the trial itself must rest with Galileo. He openly violated the decree of 1616 against Copernicanism, but produced Bellarmine’s letter of 1616 during the trial. I am not sure what to believe about the letter, but am prone to distrust the Church as their document had never been seen before. (Ferngren 112)
Galileo now appears to me to be a tad arrogant, while at the same time, brilliant. But my opinion on the value of his contributions has not changed. The Galileo affair “still dominates discussions of the…relations between science and religion,” but I feel that without him, the “distrust” that exists between the two opposing forces would never be as great as it is. (Ferngren 115) Galileo views changed the way the entire world operated, and is still causing controversy today.

Galileo Journal

2005-12-01T20:07:00.000-05:00

Galileo is a key figure in the continuum of scientific discoveries encroaching on the domain of religion. His trial can be considered a climactic point in the history of the planet. Previously, I had stated that the trial was an understandable event which was inevitable. Though never agreeing with the church’s position, I nevertheless understood it. Additionally, I felt that Galileo’s arguments were not inherently conflictual with the Bible, but rather with Vatican dogma.

Having studied the issue in greater detail, I must make a few adjustments to my views. While I still understand the Church’s reasoning for opposing Galileo, I no longer believe it was an inevitable event. The disagreeable and arrogant attitude of Galileo was not something that I was aware of. Consequently, if he had kept his comments less argumentative and less directed at those in power, it is likely there would have never been a trial. Of notable importance is his massive ego, which would inflate even more so at the slightest comment from a critic. Such was the case a dinner party of Italy’s elite. The nail in the coffin was not this event, but rather making an enemy of the Pope himself by blatantly insulting his opinions and friendship. In short, Galileo was very good at making enemies, and very bad at keeping friends. It was his own ego, not his scientific positions, which brought about his trial and subsequent demise. My second comment discussed the lack of conflict between the Copernican system and the Bible. I now understand that the issue was vastly more complicated than I had previously believed. As such, it is impossible to fully understand the mindset of the period. From the point of view of the church, his opinions may have been in conflict with the scripture. Additionally, Brad in his lecture did note that Catholic Law is based on the Holy Scriptures and on established church dogma. Because of this, even an insult to the non-Biblical cannon would be problematic to the church.

Jounal 5

2005-12-01T16:25:00.001-05:00

Galileo and his trial are mysterious things, just as all historic people/events are. While he seems very arrogant and selfish in literature and lectures, I cannot judge him as if he is some fictional character in a novel. However, I do believe that he could have presented his work concerning the stars in a better and more amiably was to infuse it into the society of his day. From a human perspective, I think that the Church’s response to Galileo is understandable, as he might have treated them wrongly at one time of another.
Galileo had a right theory, but he presented it in the wrong manner. I cannot say I admire Galileo as I mistakenly did before. I have greatly changed my views from the beginning of the year as I am more informed now. In my first journal entry, I only mentioned Galileo in this sentence: “I . . . admire Galileo for dying with confidence and pride, comforting his disciples and embracing death.” Clearly, I was ignorantly confusing Galileo with Socrates. This is because he seems to be driven by wrong motivations. Again, I cannot judge him, I can only speculate. However, it seems that throughout his life, he cared more about promoting Galileo than the Truth about the natural world. For example, according to Professor Anderson, Galileo accused Grassi of plagiarism and maliciously attacked him. If Galileo were more concerned about science, would not he be joyful in more publications of Truth? Perhaps if Galileo had been more concerned with science than his ego, his findings might have been accepted and infused into the social and scientific community with much more grace and ease.
Some people are angry at the Church and point fingers at it during the trial of Galileo to say that science and religion are in warfare. However, in light of human nature, the fact that the people of the Church aligned themselves against him is understandable as a selfish and sharp tongue causes strife in all people. The reason behind their condemnation of his teachings was perhaps they saw Galileo as selfish and judged whatever he might teach as wrong. The fact that Galileo’s theory was right is luck as no one had complete proof of the Copernican system until 1728 when the aberration of starlight was seen. This was 86 years after his death, according to Professor Anderson. Yet the people of the Church did not have this proof during Galileo’s trial and I do not believe that people should think “this means war!” for science and religion.
I think that if he went about showing his theory in different manner, he might have conveyed Truth in a better way, doing a service to both his and future generations. Yet I cannot say that I unraveled the mystery of this man and/or his trial.

Journal 4

2005-12-01T16:25:00.000-05:00

Reading a trustful source concerning the Scopes trial, Summer of the Gods by Edward Larson, and acting out the Dover trial have helped me in my search for Truth and also have shaped my view of Western culture’s portrayal of science and religion. I am also more aware of the “players,” or people, involved in the ongoing relationship between the two. Due to heightened awareness, I am frustrated with the past and current situations, although I see beacons of light such as Michael Behe who are trying to split the “log” of modern and natural “science.”
Studying the Scopes trial enriched my understanding of it. Thus, the proceedings from both the defense and counsel of the Scopes trial are irksome to me. The defense was and is especially foolish in “protecting rights.” This trial represented a conflict in the fight for rights. According to Professor Macosko, Bryan joined the prosecution because he wanted to give people the rights to decide what theories are taught in school. This represents the rights of the people. Darrow was also fighting for the rights of people, but for the people of minority who wanted to hear about what the majority wanted. This represents the ACLU in general. The ACLU turns the majority into a minority. Minority rules and this is the true deviance from the Democracy of the USA and the American Constitution. There is separation of Church and State, but the interpretation of the ACLU is not what that separation means. Why would the founders have included “Under God” in the Constitution if people should have to separate their faith and their life completely?
The prosecution also bothered me. Local lawyers were foolish and fought as if this were a case for Christianity. They did not allow Jews or others who believe in God to use their wisdom in the matter (Larson 132). This type of religious fighting is destructive as seen throughout history. Pushed to the extreme for example, the Crusades involved a group of people who thought they were God’s people and fighters. This premise caused destruction, death, and hate across the lands. In a similar fashion, many “Christians” did not demonstrate love in the Scopes trial. Even though the prosecution bothered me, I respect Bryan more than I respect the other prosecutors. The fact that Bryan had intentions to discuss science is interesting. He actually wanted to use it to the advantage. He was not as ignorant as some believe him to be (129). Bryan took the case seriously and was not prideful in going about it as he sought wise counsel to use all possible assets.
This year, when I first thought about the Scopes, I referred back to viewing Inherit the Wind. As seen in an earlier journal entry, I was deceived into thinking that fact and fiction are “basically the same.” The film/play focused my attention on the “rigidness of western religions.” I believed that the real Bryan was a complete ignoramus who did not care about science. In fact, he did look like an ignoramus after Darrow’s interrogation of him, but the author of Inherit the Wind took liberties that he did not have. The movie director did not try to present the truth; instead, he presented his opinion. He inserted acting directions and lines that made Bryan look like a complete buffoon. This perversion of history reminds me of George Orwell’s 1984. In this dystopia, the media is controlled and the past is changed to whatever tyrants want the public to believe. Inherit the Wind did the same to the pubic on behalf of the scientific natural tyrants.
I agree with Ronald Numbers when he says in Summer of the Gods,
“Inherit the Wind dramatically illustrates why so many Americans continue to believe in the mythical war between science and religion. But in doing so, it sacrifices the far more complex historical reality” (242). I do slightly disagree with the quote as the character that represents Clarence Darrow combines Origin of Species and the Holy Bible at the end of the film: but this clip is fictional as Darrow was an agnostic/atheist. This distortion of the Scopes Trial perverts history in the mind of many people.
Fast-forwarding to the Dover trial, it was also a truly frustrating event. Not only was the defense unorganized, it was divisive. A historical figure that has great weight in many faiths of the Intelligent Design proponents once said that a house divided against itself will not stand, and his words rung true in this case. In my opinion, the defense lawyers were foolish to disallow the Discovery Institute to function as it desired. This was a prideful and detrimental decision. In addition, the fact that most of the research done for Intelligent Design was not shown in court is also very upsetting. If the trial is to determine if Intelligent Design is religious in nature, why was not the nature of Intelligent Design taken into account by in depth study of written things rather than orally transmitted information. The judge was limited in his decision due to the lack of solid data from the Intelligent Design theory. If an evolutionist would like to say that the lack of evidence is a cause for dismissal, I would expect evolution to leave the schools as well as Intelligent Design. This limitation of information and division between the defenses was frustrating to me.
Studying this trial helps me understand my annoyance with the scientific community at large. If the science community were actually searching for the truth, it would view the Intelligent Design theory with respect and spend some time and money into its research. Instead, it limits itself to the natural world. This truly is a mixture of philosophy and evidence as Michael Behe suggests.
One of my biggest perplexions deals with those that call themselves Catholics and Christians that were witnesses for the prosecution. I do not understand what their motivation is in trying to keep the idea that there is a metaphysical world out of science. I would like to ask them some questions: “Why should there be such a strong separation of science and religion to a point of war? What are you trying to do?” I do not understand how their separation of science and religion coincides with their beliefs.
The Scopes and Dover trial are nearly identical yet also different to the degree of opposites. They both focus on the scientific teaching in a classroom, but the driving mechanisms between them are antithesis. The fact that the “religious” side was divisive against itself is almost exact from the past and the present. In contrast, the fact that the “religious” group was in defense in the Dover trial, rather than on the offense, is different. This represents the shift over time in the separation of Church and State. The ACLU had a heavy hand in switching the tune of the American dance. I find it ironic that the Intelligent Design proponents were trying to agree that their theory is not religious when, whether they admit it or not, the whole purpose of introducing Intelligent Design into schools is to expose youth to the possibility of a metaphysical world. I think Intelligent Design proponents should have argued in court that science can include more than what one can see. As I am sure that Michael Behe and Bill Dembski would agree, proving this would allow Intelligent Design to be taught in schools.
Overall, my general attitude towards the Scopes trial, its representation, and the Dover trial is frustration. I do not understand the need for the antagonist separation of science and religion. I think I do not understand because there is no good explanation, or else I am yet to find it. I hope that more knowledgeable scientists can help me in my, and everyone’s, search for Truth.
Works Cited
Larson, Edward J. Summer of the Gods. Harvard Univ. Press. 1998. Cambridge, Massachusetts. Pages 132-242.

beliefs and stem cell research

2005-12-01T16:17:00.000-05:00

We talked a lot about different beliefs concerning stem cell research in class today. However, I don't think that one point was made very clear. Even though some people believe a blastocyst is not a human being and we can destroy it for research, other people do believe a blastocyst is human life. The people who do believe it is human life do not want them to be destroyed at all. So even if the scientist doesn't believe it to be human and does research on it, the person who does believe it is human is still not happy. Having a system that lets people do what they believe is right only agrees with one side. The side that is against embryonic stem cell research is still mad because embryos are still being destroyed, even if the system tells them that they do not have to do embryonic research if they do not wish to. Before we can decide as a country what is allowed or not allowed, we need to decide what is considered human or not. This is what we should be arguing first and then we can worry about what to do with stem cell research.

Journal 5: Galileo

2005-12-01T16:15:00.000-05:00

In my first journal entry I did not understand the reason for the trial of Galileo. The only thing I knew about it was his conflict with the religion of the time; however, I did not even know what the conflict was. Now, after reading several passages and listening to several discussions and lectures over his trial, I understand why there was a controversy with Galileo. In a way, he created this controversy and pushed his limits.
Galileo’s trial accused him of breaking the rules of a law that stated one could not defend, hold, or teach the Copernican theory in any way, shape, or form. Galileo knew this law, however he was not told he could not teach the theory, only that he could not hold or defend it. The Pope gave him a lot of leeway when it came to the Copernican theory. He told Galileo that he could think about it as long as he made sure it was hypothetical. However, in Galileo’s book, “Dialogues”, he writes about the Copernican theory as more than hypothetical, as if it were what he believed.
The legend of the trial is that Galileo was mistreated and named as a heretic for having viewpoints that differed from the church. Obviously, if this were true, the trial would be a black point in history. After learning about the details of the trial and what actually occurred, I would say that the trial was fair. He did break a law that he was well aware of and received the punishment for this, even though he did not confess to it. Whether the law that he broke was just or not is another question. We also learned from the reading that Galileo never spent a day of his life in jail. They took his old age into account and treated him with respect.
My view of the trial of Galileo has definitely changed from my view at the beginning of this class. I know the details of the trial and can see that it was a fair trial and Galileo was treated justly. Before this class I did not know the exact accusations given against Galileo. I also learned that the trial did not come as a surprise to Galileo. He knew the law and he knew what he was doing when he wrote his book. However, I do not think he knew how much trouble he could get into with his book. Fortunately for Galileo, his friends were sympathetic to him and he was able to get a minimal punishment. Galileo, although he broke the law, was able to live relatively freely and with few restrictions.

Journal 4: Scopes trial

2005-12-01T16:13:00.000-05:00

In my first journal entry, I did not really know what the Scopes trial was about, however I guessed correctly. While I did not comment on the Scopes trial itself, I did comment on the issues it faced. I did not see a problem with teaching evolution as a theory in science class. As long as the teacher prefaced the lesson with a statement mentioning that the theory of evolution is controversial and not yet proven, then the teachers are able to present the different ideas and let the students decide which they believe.
Now I know what the Scopes trial is about, however I do not think my viewpoint has changed much. Basically, John Scopes was sued for teaching evolution to his biology class. To teach evolution in a science class in Tennessee was against the law. I still agree with my thoughts at the beginning of this class, that all legitimate theories should be taught to students and that the students should be the ones to choose what they believe and what they don’t believe. Legitimate theories should be theories that have significant backing and recognition. However it should be made clear that these ideas are theories and not yet proven. Even evolution has its holes and those should be taught as well as the evidence that supports it. Regarding the trial as a whole, I think it was too much of a publicity stunt and a public show. Everything was publicized and it was not run the way a usual trial was run. I do not agree with the way the judge ran his courtroom. He let the questioning of Bryan get out of hand. He was not able to control the emotions traveling through the courtroom and he allowed the feel of a carnival to travel from the outside inwards. However, I do believe that in the end he came to the correct conclusion. The allowance of evolution into the classroom gave the students of America the chance to learn a different point of view about the creation of life. This is important because it allows students the freedom to choose their own beliefs and know the other options available. By not allowing the mention of evolution in the classroom, teachers make their students ignorant to the subject as a whole because they do not know all of the options available. The first step towards making a decision begins with being familiar with all of your options.
The Dover trial is very similar to the Scopes trial. Obviously it includes the same dilemma of what to teach in science class about creation. The main difference is the sides are flipped. Instead of arguing for the teaching of a non-religious theory in the classroom, it is arguing for the teaching of a supernatural theory in the classroom. Evolution is already taught in the classrooms but now some people want to teach Intelligent Design also. I think the whole trial started out on the wrong foot. The parents should not have gotten as offended as they did from the reading of the statement. With freedom of speech comes the necessity of listening to other’s points of view. If everyone says what they believe it does not benefit the society in any way until others listen to what you have to say. Expanding someone’s knowledge by providing them with the viewpoints of others or reading this statement about Intelligent Design in class should not violate anyone’s rights. It is part of growing up and being a good citizen by learning what other people believe and why they believe it. However I also think there is fault with the school board. The statement they chose to read did not explain what Intelligent Design is. If the school board’s intent was to broaden the minds of its students, it needs to include an explanation of Intelligent Design and facts that support it. Another fault was the prohibition of discussion. Students will not be able to learn all the facts if the teacher is not allowed to discuss the issue. Both sides are at fault and I think the students are entitled to know about all the ideas out there, be they accepted or not.
Both the Scopes trial and the Dover trial deal with the same issue: which theories are appropriate for the classroom. In order to have a learning environment I think that all the issues need to be presented. Both evolution and Intelligent Design should be presented in the classroom with the controversy that exists between them. When students are presented with the whole story they can learn all the facts and draw their own conclusions. On another note I find it interesting how the levels of prominence differ between the two trials. The Scopes trial was a huge ordeal with lots of fanfare. However the Dover trial has not gotten as much press, yet people are still calling it “the trial of the century”. Maybe it’s because I’m in college and I don’t watch the news or read the newspaper as much as I did at home, but I have not heard anything about the Dover trial outside of this class. From the descriptions of the Scopes trial, had it happened today, I’m sure I would have heard of it and everyone would be talking about it. This is not the case for the Dover trial today. I do like studying both of the trials together because it is interesting to see their similarities and differences. These trials show us how hard it is for us to look outside of our own viewpoints and see things from another perspective. Even during the years after the Scopes trial we still have the Dover trial and are still having trouble accepting different points of view.

Galileo

2005-12-01T15:20:00.001-05:00

When the class was first introduced to the trial of Galileo, I was of the mindset that the Catholic Church was out to get science in the form of persecuting a leading scientist of the day: Galileo. I believed that the Inquisition and the Council of Trent, as well as the Jesuits, were in the wrong by trying Galileo and convicting him, so to speak, for merely trying to convey his views concerning the Copernican system. However, as I read more and delved deeper in the trial and its intricacies, I realized that the Vatican can not be solely blamed for the trial or its outcome; Galileo was somewhat arrogant and it is now my attitude that Galileo can be held responsible for his actions and he was not exclusively being tried by the Inquisition as an example to the rest of the modern scientists that day who dared to threaten the Vatican’s position on our universe.

Galileo realized that the ancient Ptolemaic theories, which placed the Earth at the center of the universe, were contrary with his own observations. Galileo therefore adopted the Copernican view of the solar system, and at this time, it was a very dangerous and controversial view to take. Leading up to the trial in 1633, Galileo was one of the Pope Urban VIII’s favorite courtiers. However, Galileo's failure to follow the Church's 1616 edicts on the teaching of Copernicus certainly have would have provided a reason enough for the trial. Galileo’s 1632 publication of Dialogue on the Flux and Reflux of the Tides provided perfect opportunity to call a trial against Galileo as it did indeed infringe on the edicts set forth in 1616 about discussing the merits of the Copernican system. Not only did the work discuss Copernicanism at length, but in it, Galileo also had the gall to mock the Pope Urban “with what can only be described as a rude noise at the Pope [Urban VIII]” (Koestler, p. 481), one of his initial supporters. It is facts such as these that demonstrated that Galileo was not under investigation merely as an example.

Furthermore, Galileo was somewhat arrogant. For example, when he heard that Grand Duchess Christina was asking questions regarding the Copernican theory and its application to the Bible, Galileo immediately got on the offensive, since he was so sure of the Copernican system, and wrote to her explaining his view. Galileo knew very well that this letter would be widely circulated, thereby broadcasting his views to many at once.

Galileo is often cast as the victim of circumstance at the hands of the Catholic Church. The villains have become members of the Church who thwarted the progress of science by refusing to accept plain, unequivocal observations. While many times in history it has been the church persecuting and trying to silence new scientific discoveries, such a portrayal misrepresents the logical superiority of Galileo's equals in the church; by the early 1600’s, few scholars accepted the Ptolemaic view. Rather, the Vatican approved of a system in which the planets orbit around the sun, and in turn the sun orbits around earth. This would be the system the alternative system developed by Tycho Brahe.

I would say that my view of the Trial of Galileo has definitely changed since the beginning of class. It is now my realization that the Vatican, though not completely innocent in this ordeal, was not the party to fully blame. Galileo was somewhat overconfident and brought this trial upon himself.

Scopes + Dover Trial

2005-12-01T15:20:00.000-05:00

Before this class, I had never heard of the Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925. The names of William Jennings Bryan, Clarence Darrow, George Rappleyea and John T. Scopes meant nothing to me. I had no real first significant impressions of the case, considering I had never heard of it before. I am now aware of the fact that this trial made a considerable impact on the interplay between science and religion, but before learning about the trial in our seminar, I knew nothing about the Scopes Trial.

Although I knew little about the Scopes Trial before this seminar class, I now look back and wonder how this is possible; the Scopes Trial of 1925 was a major event in our nation’s history that still is applicable to today’s current issues, controversies, and debates concerning the encroaching of religion in the science classroom. The Scopes Trial was basically a media circus. Other than bringing national attention to the small town of Dayton and Tennessee’s “Butler Law”, which was set forth to eradicate the teaching of evolution in schools, the Scopes Trial did not accomplish much from a legal perspective. The entire trial was like a play: it was under the direction of Rappleyea, who wanted to promote the small town of Dayton, and everyone else, including Scopes, were merely players. I find it interesting that although this entire trial revolves around John Scopes and his teaching of evolution in the classroom, he was not even the fulltime science teacher. He was basically coerced by manipulative civic leaders into participating in the trial in order to boost the town’s national recognition. Not to say this wasn’t an ingenious idea on the part of Rapleyea, but it just continues to support the thought that the Scopes trial initially was not about the Butler Law. Once Scopes was secured as the defendant for the trial, the wheels for a media blitz were set into motion. Over the course of the trial, Dayton was inundated with famous politicians, reporters, preachers, scientists, and curious spectators, and so Rappleyea’s plan to bring national acknowledgment of Dayton succeeded. Furthermore, this trial brought forth two of the greatest legal minds of the time: William Jennings Bryan and Clarence Darrow. The two were on opposite ends of the spectrum when it came to their views concerning religion and its role in science. These extreme views only added to the fact that this trial was completely contrived. As I read and learned more and more about this trial, I learned not only about the facts surrounding this case, but also a lot about the basic dynamics of our legal system. To be honest, I can not believe that such a small, local trial could stir up so much national attention. It is also interesting that Rappleyea himself did not even agree with this law that banned teaching evolution in schools, yet he schemed and completely manufactured this trial in order to bring prosperity to Dayton. The fact that this trial came to fruition out of one man’s desire to put the town of Dayton “on the map” is mind boggling, considering we are still learning about the Scopes Trial and engaging in similar debates and courtroom trials concerning the role of religion in science and the classroom even today.

The current trial that I am of course referring to is the Dover Trial that is in its final stages of verdict deliberation. This trial, though conducted 80 years following the Scopes Trial, deals with the similar hot topic of whether scientific ideas taught in biology classes have religious undertones. This trial is between the school board and the eight families that are suing to have intelligent design removed from the curriculum taught in biology classes. The families argue that the theory of Intelligent Design promotes an inherently Christian view of creation, and their perspective is that this violates separation of state as stated in the Constitution. I do not think that teaching and explaining the theory of Intelligent Design in biology classes is unconstitutional. Indeed, I think it is important to teach different theories and ideas in science class, whether it be Intelligent Design, evolution, or some other significant theory that pertains to the lesson. It is important to consider and evaluate many different points of view and hypotheses in science in order to come to your own opinions and conclusions concerning the topic. If evolution, which is also only a theory since it has yet to be proven, is to be taught in biology classes, then Intelligent Design should be also. Although Intelligent Design is a much younger theory than evolution, it has still managed to cause a stir within the scientific community and therefore deserves some recognition when discussing the origin of life in schools. It is my opinion that the Intelligent Design proponents did not put forth a strong enough argument to teach their theory in schools as compared to the evolution camp. Dr. Behe’s testimony did not do the Intelligent Design supporters any favors since it was not as eloquent and persuasive as many of his writings, including his contribution to Debating Design, are. Kenneth Miller, on the other hand, put forth his arguments against Intelligent Design articulately, arguing that not only is Intelligent Design a form of creationism, but also that there is no empirical scientific proof to support Intelligent Design as a scientific theory, whereas the theory of evolution can be supported with archeological findings and other evidence. Based upon the testimonies that we have read for the Dover trial, I believe that the judge will rule that Intelligent Design can not be taught in high school biology classes.

The Dover and Scopes trials are very interrelated: both trials deal with the issue of teaching a science that has religious implications in schools. However in the Scopes trial, evolution is the scientific theory in question, while in the Dover trial it is Intelligent Design. Furthermore, in the Scopes trial, the American Civil Liberties Union wanted to stop a state from banning the teaching of evolution. Currently the roles have changed since it is now the evolution proponents and the ACLU who seek to ban intelligent design from the classroom. Unlike the Scopes trial, though, the Dover trial is not what one would call a “media circus”, mostly because there are not big names associated with it. The Scopes trial boasted a former presidential frontrunner and a well known attorney. Not to say experts in the fields of Intelligent Design and evolution are not participating in the Dover trial, but they are just not as well known by the public as Darrow and Bryan were.

No matter what is decided in Dover in the coming weeks or days, I think the battle concerning religion and science infiltrating schools will wage on. Clearly even after 80 years, the concern of science and religion mixing in a classroom setting is still a hot button issue.

Journal 5 - Galileo's Trial

2005-12-01T12:51:00.000-05:00

Of all the topics covered in the class, none of my views were changed more than on Galileo’s Trial. I original held the traditional and widespread view that Galileo was made a victim to narrow minded church leaders who refused to look at anything outside of the literal word of the Bible. After all of the reading and discussion, I now know that he was, in fact, guilty, and that the church leaders were anything but narrow minded literalists.

At the outset of the class, I held the popular interpretation that the Church was merely persecuting Galileo for disagreeing with the literal interpretation of the Bible. I assumed a multitude of scientific evidence to exist which the Church simply ignored in favor of the “truth” professed in the Bible. Galileo was a noble scientist, a hero willing to sacrifice his own safety in the interest of educating people and putting his theory out there because he knew it was right. He was, or so I thought, innocent of anything but daring to say that after a few thousand years, our understanding of how the universe worked had increased and we shouldn’t ignore this just because out ancestors wrote what they thought in a book and called it the word of God. My view of the aftermath of the trial was this noble, self-sacrificing scientist rotting away in Prison for years, forced to pretend the truth he knew was false, publicly shamed and generally completely beaten and humiliated.

I was wrong. As I learned in the various discussions, and especially the Koestler reading, Galileo supported the Copernican system not because of overwhelming evidence as I had thought, but in spite of the evidence against it, such as the lack of stellar parallax. The church had long ago moved on from believing the system put forth in the bible exactly, and at that time had tentatively settled on Tycho Brahe’s system in which all of the planets except Earth revolve around the Sun, and the Sun itself revolves around the Earth. They widely believed this system because it was best supported by the evidence available at the time, as a real scientist should. That is not to say that a Scientist would refuse to look at other, competing theories just because they were not as well supported, as new evidence may shift the focus to one of them, as eventually happened in this case. This is exactly what the Church did, and told Galileo to do. During his initial confrontation with the Church regarding the matter of heliocentricity, he was told that if he could present proof of the Copernican system, the Scripture would be reinterpreted so as to allow for it. He could not, and he was therefore told not to teach or discuss the theory as anything more than what it was at the time – a hypothesis. He violated this, published it in a format that mocked the Pope and anyone who didn’t believe it, and was put on trial for this. The trial ended with him being put under something more or less equivalent to house arrest. It is true that the house arrest was taken very seriously, but he was not in jail.

The part that surprised me the most of this was that the Church was acting the way a good scientist would have. They believed the best supported theory at that time, but were open to the Copernican theory if it could be proven. Galileo, the “scientist” was the one acting on blind faith, while the Church, filled with people who dedicated their lives to faith, was acting with reason and logic. The trial should be remembered as a triumph of the Science, because even though Tycho’s theory was wrong, all the evidence at the time pointed towards it being right, and the side supporting the best theory won.

Journal 4 - The Scopes Trial... and that one in Dover too

2005-12-01T12:48:00.000-05:00

Isaac Asimov once said, “To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today.” This quote demonstrates my views on the issues discussed in both the Scopes and Dover Trials quite well, those being that invoking God or another form of supernatural in issues that fall into the realm of science should be avoided, and that just because something hasn’t been explained yet doesn’t mean that it never will be. This view remains more or less unchanged from before the class began. My perception of Scopes and the trial itself however have changed rather significantly.

At the start of the class, I saw Scopes as something of a hero and an underdog. He was willing to risk his job as a “science teacher” to actually teach real science unedited and uncensored. I saw the trial as a battle between science and religion, where the religious establishment was fighting against the theory of evolution because it conflicted with the literal interpretation of the Bible that they held. My view of the trial was very much shaped by reading Inherit the Wind for my tenth grade English class. I was under the impression that the play was a fairly accurate representation of the trial, though I didn’t even remember the details of the play terribly well. Reading it had been the only real exposure I had had to the trial beyond casual mentions of it, so I had little knowledge to contradict the play’s portrayal of it.

The various discussions and reading assignments have reshaped my view of the trial and its participants rather dramatically. Scopes went from a hero of science and education to a pawn in a game being played by the Fundamentalist Movement, the ACLU and to a lesser extent, the town leaders of Dayton. The mythical great teacher was killed, only to be replaced with a football coach who never actually taught evolution to anyone, and didn’t understand it terribly well himself, to the point where he was never called to the stand to ensure that his ignorance was not exposed.

It was especially interesting to read about the actual version of Darrow’s famous examination of William Jennings Bryan made famous by Inherit the Wind. Specifically, I found it interesting that Bryan already accepted some ideas like the “period” interpretation of Genesis in which each day is not a literal, 24 hour day, but rather some indeterminate period of time. This differs rather extraordinarily from the fictionalized version of events that I had believed previously in which one of the key points of the examination was Darrow, or actually in this case Drummond, forcing Bryan, nay Brady, to admit this fact. This admission had been taken as the keystone in the argument that evolution could exist in accordance with Genesis, as if each “day” could last millions of years, then life could have evolved over the course of the “week” in which the Bible says everything was created. This was still there to some extent in the actual trail, but its importance was rather less than what was portrayed in the fictionalized versions.

My current view of the Scopes Trial can be explained rather succinctly. It was still an important battle in the long running conflict between Science and Religion, but this was almost accidental. It was held to help a tiny town in Tennessee get some money from tourists, and it was treated by the members of the town’s leadership as just that – a tourist attraction. It was only made to have the huge effect that it did because Bryan was famous, and his goals happened to push him into returning to his days as a lawyer, which in turn pushed Darrow into taking up the other side. With these two giants now involved the trial became big news, which in turn captured the country’s attention, and allowed it to become the defining case in American history for this issue, and one of the most important trials of the Century.

To illustrate just how much the media attention generated by the two big names affected the trial, it is useful to compare it to other, similar cases that have failed to have the kind of impact that the Scopes Trial did. The recent Dover, Pennsylvania is rather similar in that it deals with similar issues. The sides have been reversed in the Dover trial, but the fight is similar – what should and shouldn’t be taught in schools regarding the origin of life and humanity. The Dover trial is different in that literal Creationism has been replaced with the at least pseudo-scientific Intelligent Design, and the trial largely centered on what constitutes science rather than what constitutes truth. The Defense argued that evolution is a theory, and that it cannot explain some elements of the inner workings of a cell. They furthered this argument to say that since scientists cannot explain some elements of how a cell could evolve, we should look at the possibility of a supernatural explanation since no other alternatives currently exist. The Prosecution argued that just because science cannot explain something right now doesn’t mean it won’t ever be able to. They also said that a supernatural explanation, especially one that relies on some kind of supernatural intelligent being creating life, is inherently religious and therefore violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution. This trial had its share of well known people, but they were only famous in the select circle that is actively involved in the Intelligent Design vs. Evolution by Natural Selection debate. The trial as a deciding force in the debate was also hurt by the loss of one of these “big names” in the Discovery Institute pulling their support for the Defense. This may have seriously weakened the Defense’s case, though some of the people associated with the Discovery Institute still served as expert witnesses. This withdrawal was a major victory for the Prosecution, in that the Defense lost their largest ally, but at the same time it does serve to illegitimize the case a bit because all the major players weren’t present.

Regardless of the actions of the Discovery Institute though, the Dover trial never even approached the importance and publicity of the Scopes Trial. Even before the pullout, the Dover Trial received virtually no press coverage, whereas the Scopes Trial was widely covered by more or less every major news outlet in America, and many from around the world. The press coverage of the Scopes Trial allowed it to set the tone of the interaction between Evolution and Creationism for decades, because a large percentage of the population knew about it, and about the decision that was ultimately reached. This is not true with the Dover case, and as a result, while the Dover case may shape legal policy, it will not shape the perspective of the general population on the issue the way the Scopes trial did. Another interesting difference is the legitimacy of the trials. In the case of Dover, the school policy of reading a statement promoting Intelligent Design does exist and was enacted, while in the case of the Scopes Trial, the crime was never actually committed. Scopes never taught evolution to anybody, and that trial was constructed for the purposes of testing an idea and, of course, the publicity and money it would generate for Dayton. The Dover trial came about from actual legitimate reasons – people were unhappy with a school policy, thought it violated the law, and took the legal action they were entitled to based on this. Dover held a trial; Dayton held a glorified press event.

The Scopes Trial was one of the most important of the last century. This is because it captured the attention and the minds of the American People, which allowed its decision to live on for decades after the trial ended. It managed to do this largely because of it’s origins as a stunt to generate some publicity and tourism in Dayton, Tennessee, and because of the clout brought by the lawyers for each side. The Dover Trial may prove to be one of the most important trials of this century, but because of its lack of publicity it probably won’t have anything near the effect that the Scopes trial did. It was a true test case for the idea of Intelligent Design being taught in schools, nothing more and nothing less. The Scopes Trial ostensibly started as a test case for the idea of Evolution being taught in schools, but ended up being more about the Religion that it would replace than the validity of the theory from any scientific standard. Because of this elevation to an argument about the truth of Religion itself that captured the imagination of the entire world, Scopes lives on as a major event in history, while Dover’s compliance to its origins and lack of flashy representatives will condemn it to a historical footnote.

Journal 4-Scopes Trial

2005-12-01T10:36:00.000-05:00

In just a few months, my knowledge of the Scopes Trial and how it relates to the current Dover trial has grown considerably. My initial impression of the Scopes Trial was that it brought the controversy between what should be taught in school, evolution or creation, to the forefront. I thought that this trial was one of the first debates between evolution and creation. I was just familiar with the basics of the trial and not any details.
My current knowledge of the Scopes Trial is much greater now than it was just three months ago. The Scopes Trial did bring the controversy between evolution and creation to the forefront. One reason for this is that religion (creation) had never really been challenged before, and evolution hadn’t been widely accepted. The trial, however, was no ordinary trial because of the celebrities involved and the national attention that it received. When the law was passed in Tennessee legislature that did not allow the teaching of human evolution in school, the ACLU wanted some teacher to challenge the law, so that the issue could be dealt with in court. John T. Scopes, ironically not a full-time science teacher, said that he had taught from a book that contained evolution when he was substitute. This was all the ACLU needed. The lawyers chosen to defend and prosecute were national celebrities. William Jennings Bryan was the main prosecuting attorney. Bryan was a former presidential candidate and well-known for his literal interpretation of the Bible. The main defense attorney, Clarence Darrow, was also quite famous throughout the nation. He was known as the leading defense lawyer of the time.
Not only did this trial contain two of the most known public figures of the time, but the media attention surrounding the trial was huge. This may be due in part to the celebrities involved, but the controversy also attracted the attention. This was the first real clashing between science and religion in court and the country wanted to know about it. Hundreds of reporters flocked to the little town of Dayton, Tennessee. This trial brought the controversy between evolution and creation to the forefront because of the celebrities involved and the fact that the entire nation could follow the trial through the media.
Although the defense actually lost the case in court, the Scopes Trial was a victory for evolution. When Darrow questioned Bryan to the witness stand, Bryan came out looking ignorant. Darrow questioned Bryan on his literal interpretation of the Bible asking questions such as “Did the whale really swallow Jonah?” Bryan answered many of the questions by saying that he has faith. In the end Darrow said, “I am examining your fool ideas that no intelligent Christian on Earth believes.” The media gave the victory to Darrow. This trial discredited creationism as science, and, therefore, led to evolution being more widely accepted.
Many people are referring to the current Dover trial as the new Scopes Trial. The current trial in Dover is basically putting the theory of Intelligent Design on trial. The question is whether Intelligent Design is science. If it’s science, then it should be taught in schools as an alternative to evolution. This is the argument of the intelligent design supporters.
I see this trial as the means by which Intelligent Design in introduced to the nation. I think the majority of people in America think of Intelligent Design as Creationism—it’s just an attempt by Christians to get religion into the schools. This is the hurdle that Intelligent Design has to overcome, and the Dover trial is where this can happen. I, however, think that regardless of the verdict in the Dover case, there will really be no change in the public view of Intelligent Design. I think the reason for this rests on the Dover trial’s inability to achieve the same magnitude of the Scopes Trial. The Dover trial doesn’t have the big names that Scopes Trial had. The Dover trial doesn’t even have the biggest names in the Intelligent Design community. The Discovery Institute, the main organization that supports Intelligent Design, pulled out of the trial. It’s like a basketball team trying to win the national championship without its best players—it will be hard for the undermanned team to win and for the other team to get credit for winning the game. The Scopes Trial had a former presidential candidate and the leading defense attorney of the time; nobody in the Dover trial has anywhere near the fame of the two main lawyers in the Scopes Trial.
The Dover trial also doesn’t have anywhere near the national attention that the Scopes Trial received. While it was standing room nearly every morning before the trial resumed in Dayton, there was no problem walking into the courtroom and finding a seat in Dover minutes before the trial began. Whether the public liked it or not, they were going to hear about the Scopes Trial. However, unless one wants to know what is going on in the Dover trial, they will probably not know because the media attention is miniscule.
The magnitude of the Scopes Trial was much greater than that of the Dover trial, but there is another difference. In the Scopes Trial, creation was the most-widely accepted theory and whether evolution should be accepted as science was the question. In the Dover trial, on the other hand, evolution is the accepted scientific theory and the question is whether Intelligent Design can be accepted as science. There is a complete role reversal between the two trials.
The Scopes Trial brought the debate between evolution and creation into the public’s attention and was really a victory for evolution. The people involved as well as the media attention gave this trial its power. The current trial in Dover may seem very similar to the Scopes Trial, but it is actually very different. The Dover trial is putting Intelligent Design on trial and questions its scientific basis while evolution has already been accepted. The Dover trial has reached nowhere near the magnitude of the Scopes trial. It lacks the big names and the national attention. It will be interesting to see where this science versus religion debate goes in the future.

Journal 5-Galileo

2005-12-01T10:34:00.000-05:00

Three months ago, I could really only guess what the trial of Galileo was. I simply thought the church put Galileo on trial for his scientific views. I had no knowledge of what Galileo’s scientific views were or why the church was upset with his views. I remember thinking that Galileo was the innocent party in this trial. This has changed. My outlook of the trial of Galileo, once a mere guess, has now been developed into a detailed view. I know the causes behind the trial of Galileo. He was not put on trial for his scientific views for no reason, and he is not innocent in this case.
There were many events that led up to the trial of Galileo. The invention of the telescope was one of these events. The telescope allowed Galileo to see the sunspots on the sun, for example. This, along with other observations, led Galileo to challenge the scientific theories of the day. For example, Galileo challenged the unchanging view of the universe and supported the Copernican view. While disagreeing with the scientific theories of his day may not have made many enemies with Galileo, the way in which Galileo challenged these theories definitely made some people unhappy. Galileo was very arrogant and he loved to argue with people. When Galileo heard that the Grand Duchess had talked about his views at a dinner party, Galileo wrote a letter to the Grand Duchess describing his views. Galileo was so arrogant that he wanted everyone to know his views and he wanted to tell them why he was correct. Galileo’s personality and his scientific views were the start of the problem.
Galileo began to clash with the church when he wanted to reinterpret the Bible to show how the Copernican view of the universe could be compatible with the Bible. This occurred soon after the Catholic Church leaders had decided at the Council of Trent that no one should interpret scripture except for the pope and the bishops. The church did this to maintain control. The church decided that the Copernican view of the universe contradicted the Bible and would not be accepted. Cardinal Bellarmine met with Galileo to tell him that Copernicanism would not be tolerated and would result in punishment if it was supported.
Several years after this injunction, Pope Urban VIII became the new pope, and he told Galileo that he could write about Copernicanism as long as it was presented as hypothetical. Galileo wrote Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems. In this writing, though, Galileo presented Copernicanism in a good light and in it he made fun of the pope. Writing the Dialogue violated the injunction that Bellarmine presented to Galileo and violated Galileo’s meeting with Pope Urban VIII, not to mention that it made fun of the pope. As a result, Galileo was put on trial by the church and convicted.
I do not find Galileo to be innocent. I think he brought much of this on himself. He was warned by Bellarmine and the pope told him to only discuss Copernicanism hypothetically. Galileo disregarded all of these warnings and wrote the Dialogue and even poked fun at the pope. I think Galileo’s arrogance got the best of him and he must be blamed at least in part for his conviction. My view of the trial of Galileo has become much more detailed and accurate after taking this course and reading from Koestler and Blackwell.

2005-11-30T16:21:00.000-05:00

The Trial of Galileo

Journal Entry #5

At the beginning of class, I honestly did not know much about the Trial of Galileo. However, I did formerly believe that the trial was a necessary conflict which occurred because of stubbornness in the Catholic Church. Galileo is often portrayed as the heroic figure in the dispute, but I know now that Galileo’s argumentative, confrontational nature was what ultimately caused the trial, as the Church of the time made its position clear to the scientist. Furthermore, the trial was not a necessary conflict at all; in fact, it has been described as “not inevitable” (Koestler 432). As a result, though, a permanent rift was made between science and religion, and all conflicts between the subjects since are a part of its aftermath.
To truly understand the nature of this conflict, it must first be put into historical context. Throughout the latter part of the sixteenth century and into the seventeenth century, the Church was on the defensive. Having just finished reform in the Council of Trent and creation of the Holy Office, Catholics were more conservative than ever before. The Inquisition was in full force, and, perhaps most importantly, Biblical Scripture was an authority to be taken literally. Now, enter Galileo, an arrogant and extremely confrontational scientist that believes absolutely in the Copernican theory. Interestingly, Galileo did not decide to defend the theories of Tycho Brahe or Johannes Kepler, which were both more advanced than their predecessors. Instead, Galileo chose a theory which he could not prove because of inconclusive and incorrect evidence (i.e. the theory of the tides). Even after constant warnings from his friends in the clergy and some leeway from Pope Urban, Galileo marched on with three fatal publications.
The first of these publications was The Assayer, an essay that refuted hypotheses of Horatio Grassi, a Jesuit scholar. This essay, combined with Galileo claiming credit over Schiener for the discovery of sunspots, made him a sworn enemy of the Jesuit order, a key intellectual branch of the Catholic Church. Next came the Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina, an openly published letter that Galileo used to articulate his views of the Copernican system and its accuracy against any Biblical contradiction. Next in the line of publication was Dialogue of the Flux and Reflux of the Tides, a composition which defended the Copernican theory (something Galileo was prohibited to do) and specifically refuted the view of the Pope. Through the reading and class discussions, I have become convinced from the above evidence that Galileo did not discover much of great scientific significance; instead, he took the ideas of others around him and used his extremely honed debate skills to take credit for recent observations. Especially key to understanding Galileo’s haughty personality is his argumentative style, “It did not establish his own point, but it destroyed his opponent’s” (Koestler 459). As Koestler further points out, the method of argument “…was an excellent method to score a moment’s triumph, and make a lifelong enemy” (Koestler 459).
Overall, the Trial of Galileo was simply the result of a confrontational scientist skilled in debate pledging allegiance to incorrect theories and taking credit for other scientists’ work. It is astonishing as well that Galileo chose Copernicus’s model over that of Kepler or Brahe; both were much simpler, and Brahe had recently disproved the Copernican model through a problem with parallax. Hence, while many believe that Galileo was ahead of his contemporaries, he was in fact advocating an expired theory. It’s almost as if he was arguing for the pure sake of winning a debate, but the tear between science and religion resulting from the trial will never be repaired, as we are still seeing its repercussions today.

The Real Action, and the Future of Mysticism

2005-11-28T23:17:00.000-05:00

Strange, the semester is nearly over.

I feel saddened that I have not yet truly engaged anyone in a cogent debate lasting more than two posts. So, now, I make my attempt. I hope Odysseus will forgive me for the long silence on his post on Love, as we did communicate further about it on our own.
In each of my former posts, the focus was upon the creation of generalizations from premises, and especially which generalizations follow from premises. To be honest, the thing that makes me curious about Odysseys' posts are their nature. His primary assumptions about the nature of love, imperfection and knowledge as untreatable by science fascinate me, because they seem so unfounded. Certainly, we have not formulated a scientific position about love, hope, or faith yet, but does this necessarily require that such positions are inaccessible? And no matter what else is said about Newton and Bacon, they were greatly concerned with how to see things, this is why they both separately formed theses of logic and the relationships between deduction and induction and epistemology. If this epistemology finally brings us to a knowledge of love, will love then be in our grasp and no more mystical, or, not seen, as Odysseus puts it in his post? If not on the chemical nature of Love, it certainly seems many of our moviemakers have discovered the causes of love, and used them to excite crowds nationwide, controlling us into loving characters like Han Solo, Maximus Desmeridius, Rick (from Casablanca), and thousands of others.
Questions, questions, and more questions, it seems everything we explore brings us only more questions. Oh well, I suppose if it all brought answers, life would be rather depressing, and I don't think we'd have much to talk about. So, to sum up, the main question, as I see it, is:

1. Can Science EVER (not has it) deal with the "greater human questions" (Love, for example)?

This brings science away from all the theoretical standpoints, and to into it's relevance in our own lives. Neither Copernicus nor Einstein has significantly changed my life's inner workings by their theories, but this, this just might. After all, who wants to feel love if it's just a collection of mechanical, biological operations? Of course, we still would (and so I again remove science from my life) but it really wouldn't have half the impact it does, mystical thing it now is.

Debate Round 2

2005-11-17T01:53:00.000-05:00

Behe

Bacterial flagellum is like a machine.

Behe separates religion and science but he makes sure that they are able to mix in logic since he is searching for truth.

Intelligent design is not essential for Christianity. Yet it works well with the Christian worldview.

Immune system is so complex that is could not have come about by natural selection. Immune system is irreducible complex, like the blood clotting system.

The “simple cell” is not simple at all. Chances that natural selection determined every single change are negligible.

Archeology uses the inferences to design in finding tools or bowls or anything that looks designed. I.D. extends this identification process to biology.

Just because the designer is not known does not mean there is no designer.

Evolution of cells is not published at all.

Publication of I.D. is also absent which is a drawback.

Behe’s book was very intensely peer-reviewed. The peers did not agree, but the book was still published.

There should be more than option for students to believe when it comes to theory.

Fuller

Fuller is not an expert in science; instead, he is a philosopher of science (?). I.D. has not had enough investigation to throw it out of the school system.

Fuller believes that evolution is more convincing than I.D.

Scientific theories should be taken into scientist’s community prior to being taught in high schools.

There has not been probing of I.D. to throw it out.

However, that happens in scientific community, not schools.

There is and could be a natural process to bring about change.

notes

2005-11-15T11:17:00.000-05:00

Behe:

In ID we don't know who or what the designer is
Compares ID to archaeology
Just because there isn’t a known designer, it doesn’t rule out that there is a designer
Incorporates faith with science
Many different theories should be taught in the class

Minnich:

Does not agree with the National Academy of Science which says there is not support for ID
Says there is no evidence to disprove ID; ID disproves evolution
Does not view archaeology and biology as the same
Does not believe life could have come about by natural selection.
Life began suddenly and there are fossil records to prove so
Uses Big Bang as an example

Mock Trial Notes Part 2

2005-11-14T23:20:00.000-05:00

BEHE/MINNICH

-ID does not describe the nature of the designer
-ID simply says there is design
-From a scientific standpoint, you can’t say who the designer is.
-Molecular machines are machines
-Darwinian theory is not easily falsified, but ID is.
-Just because some scientists discredit ID, doesn’t mean everyone does.
-There is a lot of politics involved with the scientific societies discrediting ID.
-Fossil record shows that life appeared abruptly
-We don’t know the cause of the big bang

FULLER
-Not an expert in the sciences
-Considers himself an expert on the nature of science
-ID wants to change the ways science is approached
-Testability is a ground rule of science
-ID would not change the fundamental rules of science
The resist to ID is because people see it as overly religious
-ID doesn’t rule out naturalism
-A supernatural force falls outside the realm of science

Mock Trial Part 2

2005-11-14T09:19:00.000-05:00

Minnich:

-ID assumes to know the ability of the designeràmotivations

-designer as a “natural entity” or Godàmust use reasoning and logic to explain life

-fond of the Big Bang theory

-all machines made by humansàcreation of a human

-believes that scientists use references to evolution out of contextàmany different views on evolution and therefore can’t take it as truth

-ID acts as evidence against evolution as another possibility that differs from evolutionàbeauracracy is what is standing in the way of ID

-his ideas are very similar to the processes as creationists

-life began abruptly is different that it evolved abruptly, but the difference is difficult to perceiveàcould the same idea hold true for creationism and ID?

Fuller:

-not an expert in any scientific field

-ID needs to be further developedàonly reason to continue studying ID is for philosophical purposes

-methodological naturalism

-it is not impossible for a new theory to be accepted by the scientific communityàmust have evidence, etc to gain support

-belief that scientific theories must be well researched and understood in order to be taught

-ID not accepted since it is considered overly religious

-ID is a rejection of naturalism

-supernatural force falls outside the realm of science

FYS Debate Notes

2005-11-14T00:33:00.001-05:00

Dr. Behe

Type Three Secretory System does not disprove the irreducible complexity of the Bacterial Flagellum

The system remains irreducibly complex even if the TTSS can serve a separate purpose.
Slight modifications over long periods of time cannot explain this problem

Science and religion are separate spheres of thought which are compatible with each other.

Dr. Behe is a Christian
Dr. Behe incorporates elements of his faith in his scientific work

Archeology is an example of design in the the world
There is no experiment that can test for a designer in the cell
Dr. Behe has almost no experimental evidence to back his claims
Dr. Behe’s book was extensively peer reviewed before it was released.
Intelligent Design is inherently theological in its ideas and conclusions.

Dr. Minnich

Archaeology is not the same as biology.
ID is a testable theory that can have natural evidence that does not require a massive change in scientific thought.
The evidence which can contradict Intelligent Design is limited.
Life cannot be brought about by the process described by Darwin.

2005-11-14T00:33:00.000-05:00

Notes on the Mock Trial, Day 2

Minnich

Archaeological evidence cannot be applied to Intelligent Design
Intelligent Design is testable by methodological science
There has been no evidence to contradict the theory of Intelligent Design
The question of change is the mechanismàdesign or natural selection
Intelligent Design does not claim to know the nature of the designer nor identify the designer

Fuller

Expert on the “nature” of science
Approaches Intelligent Design philosophically
Intelligent Design needs to be developed further
Focus should be more on methodological testing
Less evidence is required for the discovery phase of a theory than the justification phase of the theory

Pat Robertson's quote on MSNBC

2005-11-14T00:12:00.000-05:00

[The following is an email exchange between Jan and me. I have Jan's permission to post this. We both welcome comments.]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9995578/

I’m not sure Behe would be all too thrilled to have this guy supporting him.

Jan

Dear Jan,

I'm sure he would be pretty sad that MSNBC puts this up as one of their top 5 stories. I wonder why they thought this is more newsworthy than the following NPR report on Rick Sternberg at the Smithsonian (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5007508)

Imagine how much MSNBC would have covered this NPR story if Sternberg had helped publish an article on the biological basis for homosexuality, or a study of the discrimination of women in science. And if the Smithsonian had worked with an evangelical Christian non-profit to devise ways to discredit and hamper Sternberg, by taking away his master key, his access to research materials, etc., imagine the outrage of all the major media outlets. But as it is, not one news outlet has picked up the story since NPR published it 9 hours ago. In that same time, 229 stories have been reprinted about Robertson.

To me it's not newsworthy at all that some preacher will say something stupid about God's wrath. What is shocking is how our tax-funded research institutes are allowed to blatantly discriminate against someone who's only crime was to allow a peer-reviewed article that advocates an alternative scientific viewpoint to be put on the table.

All the best,

Prof. Macosko

P.S. Thanks for the MSNBC link, though. I had fun voting along with the 80% majority that felt Robertson's comments were "pure idiocy". :)

Prof. Macosko,

I think the thing that makes this story newsworthy is this line:

“The 700 Club claims a daily audience of around 1 million.”

Unfortunately, there are close to 1 million people who hang on this guy’s every word, especially when he tells them “go out and vote for…” or “do as I say.” I do find it interesting, however, that this person doesn’t seem too far removed from pure creationism, yet now many will probably see him as the leader of the ID movement. As I’m sure you know, the support of a group like this is akin to the support of any other radical group; moderates would rather not be on their side. If I were a lawyer planning to take on an ID vs. Evolution case, I would be ecstatic to know the possibilities this story brings. To be able to say something like, “But Dr. Behe, didn’t one of the leading proponents of Intelligent Design say that if you do not support ID, God will smite you?” Clearly, if the whole of the United States spent the time to read Behe, Dembski, Haught, Miller, etc, we’d probably have a better representation at the polls of what this country’s beliefs on the topic are. In the meantime, general ignorance reigns supreme.

From the NPR article, I thought this line was great:

“The secular perspective of most scientists, however, is sharply at odds with the religious perspective of most Americans. And that's adding passion to the debate…”

It’s the classic problem, isn’t it? Those who spend the time and money to educate themselves are snubbed by those who don’t. Those who don’t are inevitably going to be the majority. So the mainstream fight isn’t between the labeling of the bacterial flagellum as a designed motor, and the result of a long series of natural selections, but it’s between those who don’t think deeply enough to look much beyond their religion, and those who are proponents of evolution. Unfortunately, Behe (who I thought made some interesting arguments) gets drowned out because his argument isn’t TV-friendly.

Jan

p.s. I also voted “It’s pure idiocy,” but I contemplated “It's justifiably righteous anger” just for the gag. Righteous anger coming from a Christian. How people can distort the meaning and purpose of a religion in front of 1 million people should go down in the Guinness Book of World Records as the greatest close-magic trick ever played.

Professor Kenneth Miller Email

2005-11-13T21:42:00.000-05:00

I recently wrote Professor Miller an email asking him for a rebuttal to the arguments Behe made in response to his own that the TTSS debunks "irreducible complexity." This is going to be a long one, guys, but I thought I should share it on the blog.

=======
My email to him:

Professor Miller,

I was recently able to watch your liberal arts-themed mini-lecture on Wake Forest’s website. A class I am currently taking here at WFU, “The Interplay between Science and Religion,” taught in part by Professor Jed Macosko [I thought it more likely that he would know Professor Macosko instead of Professor Anderson due to his field of study], has been stalled for a significant amount of time on the issue of ID vs. neo-Darwinism. I say “stalled,” but I truly am glad that I’ve been able to read the essays and excerpts of some of the leaders in this field, including your contribution to the Dembski-Ruse compilation, Debating Design, entitled “The Flagellum Unspun: The Collapse of ‘Irreducible Complexity’.”

Right off the bat, I want to apologize to you and everyone in your field since I have always been interested in biology right up to the point at which I had to start memorizing the different proteins. However, I feel that, as a finance major at a liberal arts university, the opinions of people like me are exactly those which you are trying to shape as a leader in the current push for evolution. I have tried, to the best of my abilities, to understand the specific details from each side of the argument. I have also tried to understand precisely how the TTSS functions as a part of the bacterial flagellum and after finishing your essay, most of my sympathies for “irreducible complexity” vanished. I next read a fascinating essay from Professor Haught of Georgetown and several other essays which confirmed this idea.

After this, however, I looked over Professor Behe’s rebuttal entitled “Irreducible Complexity: Obstacle to Darwinian Evolution.” I must say that he made some good points, but now I am just confused about whether something like the TTSS truly does debunk “irreducible complexity” in the bacterial flagellum. I personally believe that science just hasn’t had the time to truly figure these things out yet, and to make the leap to say something is “irreducibly complex” is just cheating. I believe that, given the evidence gathered in fossil records and some of the theological arguments made by Professor Haught, evolution via natural selection is the best explanation we have right now. But as a matter of intellectual interest, I would like to know if you have a made a counter-rebuttal to Professor Behe’s essay concerning the topic.

I don’t mean to waste your time, but I enjoyed your lecture so much that I thought I’d ask you for an explanation. I also echo the sentiments of one of your fellow panelists in asking, “Where were you when I took biology?”

Thank you,
Jan Hartigan

=======

His email to me, hopefully formatted well:

=======

Dear Jan,

Thanks for your note, and for attending the symposium in which I spoke at Wake Forest.

You wrote:
_________

After this, however, I looked over Professor Behe's rebuttal entitled "Irreducible Complexity: Obstacle to Darwinian Evolution." I must say that he made some good points, but now I am just confused about whether something like the TTSS truly does debunk "irreducible complexity" in the bacterial flagellum.
_________

It certainly does, unless "irreducible complexity" (IC) is redefined to the point of becoming meaningless. You should remember that Behe proposed IC as a way to prove that complex systems were unevolvable.... and therefore had to be specially created (designed). The reason that such systems could not have evolved, according to Behe, is that natural selection could not produce their components parts, since they have no function.
As he wrote, any precursor to an IC system that is missing a part is by definition non-functional.

Once one demonstrates that a subset of parts is indeed functional, like the TTSS, the argument is destroyed. Because if a few parts can be shown to have a selectable function, other parts may as well, and any confidence we might have had in Behe's (or anyone's ability) to show that such a system is indeed IC is dashed.

Behe's only response has been to change the argument, and redefine IC. Specificially, he now pretends that IC means only the "original" function, and since the TTSS is a secretory system, not a motile one, it doesn't explain how the flagellum came about.

But that misses the whole point. What I've done is to answer his argument as to why the flagellum is unevolvable, by showing that bits and pieces of the flagellum can indeed have selectable functions. That does not explain how it evolved, but it does definitely show that his "proof" of unevolvability is wrong.

I completely agree that I have not shown how the flagellum evolved. That remains an open question. But Behe should be honest enough to admit that all that is left of his argument is the claim that evolution hadn't yet (just like EVERY other theory in science) solved every imaginable problem.
_________

But as a matter of intellectual interest, I would like to know if you have a made a counter-rebuttal to Professor Behe's essay concerning the topic.
_________

Actually, I'm working on a book right now that will do exactly that, but I really don't feel the need for a counter rebuttal, since the nature of his response actually concedes my point on the evolvability of supposedly IC structures.

[Then he added some thanks for my compliment about him being a good biology lecturer].

Sincerely,
Ken Miller

=======

So what do you think? I'm convinced at this point that Dr. Behe is on the ropes, but it would be interesting to see what he has to say in response to Professor Miller's new book.

Again, sorry for the length of the this, but relative to the Koestler reading, this is a mere pamphlet.

-Jan

The Dover Trial

2005-11-11T12:33:00.000-05:00

Overall, the more I have learned of the Dover trial the more frustrated I have become. It seems like the defense (pro-intelligent design) is not putting in a full amount of effort. First, the Discovery Institute, or “think tank” of Intelligent Design, left the trial! The biggest organization supporting the defense is now not providing expert witnesses, and we are seeing the impact in the trial progression. Second, because of the defense’s excessive stubbornness, experts like Stephen C. Meyer are not allowed to get their own lawyers; this fact caused the Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute to exit from the trial. Third, on top of the above complications, the defense lawyers just don’t really seem to know their stuff; they have obviously done a ton of work, but it was not extensive enough as the theory of Intelligent Design is not being communicated efficiently. Finally, as someone said in class, if Behe could speak half as well as he could write then the trial would be a different story. I completely agree. In Behe’s essay in Debating Design (Dembski, Ruse 2004) he presents a clear, logical argument downplaying arguments made by the likes of Kenneth Miller. And, the overall bias of the press towards evolution does not help the case; if publications by fellows of the Discovery Institute generated as much hype as publications by evolutionists, then we could look at the trial from a different perspective.

Class Discussion on the Dover Trial

2005-11-11T12:32:00.000-05:00

With the trial regarding Intelligent Design in Dover now complete, it is now possible to objectively evaluate the arguments of both sets of lawyers. Let it first be said, that I am not a follower of Intelligent Design. However, the arguments outlined by Dembski, Behe and others in their published works are well thought out, logically sound, and somewhat persuasive. In time, perhaps Intelligent Design followers will be able to offer experimental evidence in support of theory as well. What I was most surprised to read regarding the trial, was that these good arguments from Behe, Dembski and others did not materialize into a solid defense. Blame for this can be divided in three areas. First, the ACLU and its witnesses were very convincing and exposed glaring gaps and problems with Intelligent Design. Secondly, Intelligent Design as a theory is still in its early stages of development, as such, it is quite incomplete. The experts for the defense were unable to answer certain questions effectively because the theory has almost no experimental support. Rather, many defense experts argued the metaphysical, the philosophical, and supernatural. All of these are far less convincing than hard evidence. Lastly, and most importantly, the defense lawyers were wholly unacceptable. They were unable to expose any real problems in the prosecutions witnesses, and they were unable to verify the validity of ID and its supporters. On the whole, I think that the likely outcome will almost certainly be a ruling for the prosecution (excepting legal technicalities which I am not familiar with). The big question is whether or not this will materialize into a ruling against Intelligent Design.

Science, Philosophy and Origins of Plagiarism

2005-11-07T23:10:00.000-05:00

A few of life’s intricacies that we cannot test with science; love, imperfection, knowledge, the afterlife and faith. Why? Have we in our “advanced” state found no clear way to test such things? Or are they unable to be proven? Perhaps they do not exist? What about truth? Of course post-modernity would challenge the premise of truth. Take, though, all of these elements and investigate the deeper meaning which lies beneath, and we will deduce three things. 1.) We are all engrained with them. 2.) They are not visible 3.) We search for this deeper meaning the only way we can in our infiniteness, through the physical; science.

This is what I believe Newton, Bacon and many others were in search of, a deeper relationship with the creator. Charles Darwin, was merely a plagiarist.

Class Thoughts

2005-11-07T21:51:00.000-05:00

I am still rather convinced that Darwin's theory of evolution, although it might have perhaps required less brain-power to develop than Sir Isaac might have used, was more significant to sculpt the landscape of our modern culture because it, for the first time, provided what seemed like reasonable evidence to suggest that animals were perhaps not all created as they are today. It spawned such an immense rift between those willing to stick to orthodoxy and those willing to abandon it that the aftershocks of this temblor are still being felt, perhaps now more violently than ever before.

Lyell made us question the Biblical creation of the Earth, but Darwin made us question our own creation. He offered up an alternative that, despite subsequent tinkering, has not been usurped in more than a century of extremely rapid scientific advancement. He and Lyell both pointed out that unless God intended to fool humans with His creation, the literal Biblical interpretation just does not stand up to simple scientific observation.

Although I believe Newton was, in his own right, an unparalleled genius, his discoveries just happened to fall in that area of science that doesn't happen to be sexy. Gravitational theory, calculus, and the color spectrum within light doesn't challenge God while Darwin's theory did. That is why we're still talking about it today, and Newton has retired to folklore about how an apple falling from a tree induces a massively original scientific theory and not a coma.

Class Discussion

2005-11-07T12:14:00.000-05:00

In class someone brought up the point that faith is a mechanism that many use just to feel better about themselves and life in general. I would have to make a rebuttal to this comment by posing another: is science too not another mechanism for feeling better about life and our purpose here? Many people just write science off as a purely academic field, but I think that many use science to explain life and thereby hope to feel better about life and their role in it. True, many use faith as a way of explaining our existence, but I believe that science could be explained the same way. Even though the way of arriving at the answer to our existence are different in science and religion, in the end, the same question is attempting to be answered by both.

11-3

2005-11-04T19:39:00.000-05:00

When reading Ferngren’s interpretation of Newton and his life, a particular quote by Newton stood out to me --“This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.” This obviously implied Newton did feel that some ‘intelligent and powerful Being’ had a role in our universe. Newton also said though that the role of natural philosophy was to ‘deduce Causes from Effects, till we come to the very first Cause, which certainly is not Mechanical.’ Therefore, I have to disagree with the quote read at the end of class yesterday which argues Newton to have lacked the distinction between religion and science. Newton was able to determine the causes and effects of gravity, while leaving out any role of some higher being.

Class Discussion 11/3/05

2005-11-04T14:06:00.000-05:00

The quote at the end of the class was quite interesting. If I interpreted the quote correctly, it said that you can't separate Newton's theology from science. I don't agree with this statement as a whole. I believe that you can look at calculus for example without considering Newton's theology. However, I agree with the quote in the idea that you can't look at Newton and separate his science and theology. As a man, Newton is what he believes both in science and theology. Newton's ideas can be looked at as separate entities.

Newton and the Meaning of Science

2005-11-04T13:09:00.000-05:00

Newton can easily be considered one of, if not they most, influential scientists of all time. It was brought up during the class of 11/3/05 that Newton was a very spiritual man. A quote, which criticized Newton and his theories for being too spiritual to be considered true science, was read aloud. I must strongly disagree with this position. His faith has nothing to do with the validity of his theories. When evaluating a set of scientific ideas they must be challenged on the merits of the theory, not the faith of the scientist .Throughout the discussion of Newton and Darwin in class, the question arose as to what exactly the meaning of science is. I consider this question to be perhaps the most important one brought up in the class. It has been suggested, perhaps indirectly, that science serves only a practical application. That is, it should focus primarily on the application of theories for the purpose of creating new technologies, methods, tools, etc. While these are important features of science, they are a byproduct of its central focus. All branches of science seek to understand the natural world, of which we are a part. It attempts to answer questions regarding the origins matter and life, it describes natural processes, and it may one day tell us how humans came to be. In short, science is the search for universal truths, not how to create a flashy new cell phone.

Class 11/3/05

2005-11-04T13:00:00.000-05:00

A few comments about class yesterday:
Towards the end of class yesterday we heard a quote talking about how Newton's scientific theories and religious beliefs could not be separated and if you believed one of his scientific theories you believed in his religious beliefs as well. Our whole class except for one person disagreed with this statement, including myself. I can see the speaker's point of view and how he might think that Newton's religious beliefs influenced his scientific theories. However, I do not see how this is possible. All of Newton laws are backed by physical evidence and do not use religion or a supernatural being as part of the explanation. It is true that he believed God created these laws because they were so perfect and beautiful, but Newton did not use God as part of how things worked. I think many people who do not share Newton's opinions about religion, especially trinitarianism, still use his laws when calculating physics problems. If you do believe in the Trinity you can still use Newton's laws and not have conflicting interests. In fact, I would guess that many physicists who use Newton's laws, but have not studied Newton himself, would never know he had radical religious viewpoints. I do not see how the speaker could say Newton's religion affected his science.

Class 11-3-05

2005-11-04T12:30:00.000-05:00

A few thoughts and comments I had on yesterday's class:

First, regarding the discussion of weather Newton's theories, etc. should be taught in science classes in schools due to his religion, I think the question is relatively absurd. The theories do not rely on the religion in any sense, and the exact same theories could have been developed by someone who was not religious, or held vastly different beliefs. Examples of this can be found in Leibniz's near simultaneous and entirely independent discovery of Calculus. Both developed more or less the same methods, etc. Despite having different religious views.

Another thing I want to comment on was the question of the point of science. Is it to further our understanding of the universe or to make cellphones and airplanes? I would say that the point of Science is to further our understanding of the Universe, while the purpose of Engineering is to apply that understanding to produce the various benefits we see today. That being said, it is important to pursue knowledge for the sole purpose of a lack of knowledge. Even from a practical standpoint, many things we use and take advantage of today on a daily basis arose from things that were studied for the sole purpose of understanding. When Newton's theory of Gravity was first introduced, I'm sure many people saw few practical applications... after all, things fell and stayed down just as well when we didn't understand. The acceleration due to gravity could be determined without the theory, which is all that would probably be needed in Newton's time for any practical application. However, a few hundred years later when we started sending things out into space, we needed that understanding to know how strong other planet's (not to mention the sun's) gravity would be. Just because we see little practical application of something (for example, understanding evolution) now, doesn't mean that down the road a bit we won't use it for something.

Newton and the Purpose of Science

2005-11-04T11:02:00.000-05:00

As Dr. Miller said when he lectured at our University, science is not meant to be purely functional or technological. Rather, science, like any other liberal art, is meant to enable the pursuit of knowledge. Just take any science- Physics, Biology, Chemistry, and one could make a case for how humans use its respective principles each day. Even before we knew what Newton's laws were, objects of the universe still obeyed them. Therefore, a refined definition would probably be the "pursuit of our surrounding environment and how it works." Is this selfish or egotistical? My answer is a definite "no." I'll take this from a theological point of view. Assuming that God had a heavy hand in creation, we can say that our brains have a distinct purpose. Amazingly, we only use 10-15% of them! Anyway, why would we be able to consciously observe and discover the world around us if we were not meant to learn of the natural laws? Part of a purpose on earth is to discover the granduer of science and its implications in our lives. So, how does this relate to Newton? Well, like many other religious scientists throughout history, Newton held the philiosophy that the natural laws had been created by God. In other words, God does not necessarily interact directly with humans, but instead through the natural laws on earth. So, here we can justify the pursuit of the natural world and its composition of various laws that we are able to comprehend as an unselfish and fulfilling act.

Discussion in class 11-3-05

2005-11-04T10:52:00.000-05:00

Yesterday in class we discussed Sir Isaac Newton and his science and theology. I was very intrigued by this because I feel that Newton had a very unique combination of the two, in that he was a talented, dedicated scientist, yet at the same time was devout in his religious beliefs. This blend of the two disciplines is one that is very controversial in today’s world and throughout history, as we have seen in our readings for this class, and many great scientists have struggled to reconcile their beliefs about the two. Newton has certainly shown that it is possible to be a great scientist as well as to be religious. In my opinion, I think that his ability to have both of these interests in his life only serves to enrich both of them. An understanding of the spiritual and theological world can serve to put one’s study of the very materialistic sciences in good perspective with the outside world, and likewise, an understanding of science and analytical thinking can help one to assess personal religious beliefs and to help one decide for themselves what to believe and what not to based on the evidence that is provided. I was honestly very glad to see an example of a scientist who was able to combine science and religion in this way, because I think that it is a good combination and one that is not done often enough. Science and religion are too often thought of as two completely separate things when in reality they can be very successfully combined.

Science and Religion Three-Way Blog

2005-11-04T03:05:00.000-05:00

In our class, we watched a video called “Unlocking the Mysteries of Life,” which gave scientific evidence for the Intelligent Design theory. It presented interesting information on the irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum – which must have each of its forty pieces in the proper place in order to work at all. It is a machine, a motor – which appears to be necessarily created. If this machine had evolved, each new part would have had to help the organism survive in order for that organism to be “naturally selected.” However, each part of this machine is, as far as we know, worthless by itself. Therefore, any new individual parts could not help the organism survive, so it would probably not be an organism “chosen” by natural selection. Also, the bacterial flagellum “machine” is put together by “machines” inside the cell, thus demonstrating an extremely complex and brilliantly designed system.

Things appear to be designed when “a highly improbable object or event” “conforms to an independently given pattern.” This seems to be the case with such a structure as the bacterial flagellum, but it is also applicable to the complex “information” in DNA.

Questions and Answers

2005-11-03T23:11:00.000-05:00

Perhaps science is nothing more than a frustrated discipline, born out of a failed epistemology. Of course we as human beings desire knowledge, but for what purpose? Is it because we are aware that what we know is limited and we can therefore never "know enough?" Perhaps it is due to the fact that we want to discover if there is or is not a God, and we feel the need to take whatever physical steps that are necessary to reach out to the metaphysical. Perhaps science is better than sitting around and doing nothing.
Or maybe there is more, perhaps science is merely trying to answer a question. What we must consider in any case is who is asking the questions?

The Purpose of Science

2005-11-03T15:00:00.000-05:00

Today in class, we briefly discussed the definition and purpose of science. Opinions were varied, including one classmate’s opinion that the purpose of science is to help people. I think that at its most basic sense, science is the search for understanding of the natural world. It is the pursuit of knowledge through the use of the scientific method, and the attempt to know what is going on in the world. Advancement in science often brings about progress and helps people, but that is not its main point.

First Mock Trial

2005-10-28T16:39:00.000-04:00

Miller

The gaps in the theory of evolution do not disprove it. We don’t now everything concerning history but we guess them to be true since we know the “basics.”

While neither theory (evolution or I.D.) is proven, evolution has stood the test of time. Thus it is more credible.

While one does not have to be a “fundamental Christian” to believe in the theory of Intelligent Design, I.D. is still inherently religious and therefore it is a violation of Church and State to implementation it in schools.

If irreducible complexity was proven true, evolution could not stand. However, discoveries, such as TTSS, have poked holes through this theory. Because of this theory, I.D. and evolution cannot coexist.

I.D. is not a science. Irreducible complexity is false.

I.D. is theology. Evolution is a science and leaves room for religion. I (Miller) am not a materialist yet I am an evolutionist.

Pennock

To believe in the theory of I.D. does not make one a Christian, and to believe in the theory of evolution does not make one an atheist. Miller’s theistic evolution is OK, and does not make evolution religious.

Big Bang theory is not religious. Scientists came up with this theory. Atheism is not a scientific theory. If a scientist mixes in his or her personal beliefs, this is no longer science.

Evolution is thought through by scientific method and thus is a scientific theory. One can believe in one theory and have his own personal beliefs.

A computer program that generates a swift self-replicating “organism” lets us see evolution on its course. The program is design to see evolution go, not to find the origin of life, since the first organism must be programmed by a person.

Mythological naturalism is the basis of science. Science is about ideas based on logic and nature. Once we try to fit God or some supernatural power into the scope of practice, we will get caught up into the mysterious black hole and cannot ever get out.

Some believe that naturalism in science is out of place.

Debate

2005-10-25T13:28:00.000-04:00

The cross-examination of Miller questioned the theory of Intelligent Design. He agreed that ID had to do with the supernatural and the presence of a designer. In 1990, it was believed that left and right symmetry showed the presence of a designer. However, in 2000 this mechanism was proved by scientific research, and had nothing to do, supposedly, with the presence of a higher power. Intelligent Design has not been proven in any way, unlike science. Evolution has much more credibility and back-up support. ID is not directly linked with Christianity, but it is a very theistic view. One does not have to be a fundamental Christian to subscribe to this viewpoint. There was then some questioning about creationism versus ID. ID is inherently religious and evokes the idea of a greater being, while creationism is a literal interpretation of the Bible. Miller was then questioned about natural selection and the theory of irreducible complexity. This theory could be used to prove ID, but cannot coexist with evolution. Intelligent Design is not a science, and therefore Miller himself does not subscribe to the theory of irreducible complexity. Dr. Miller is a practicing Catholic, perhaps believes that evolution is consistent with God’s plan. He provided his classes with outside supplementary material on ID. In this group, I think that the prosecutors prevailed in that they were able to point out fallacies within Dr. Miller’s testimony.
The cross-examination of Pennick revealed that he is a Professor of the Philosophy of Science and the University of Michigan. He stated that ID is compatible with creationism, but that evolution is not a religious theory at all. The Great Flood could have made the earth appear a lot older than it actually is. He then defined for the court exactly what he thought a theory was, and how scientific it was, and whether or not that was based on its supporters. It was then questioned whether supporter’s religious beliefs affected their views on a particular theory. It was clarified that scientists have two roles, one as a scientist, and one as an individual. A computer program was then discussed, called the “Ancestor Program.” This program calculates the origin of change and tries to look at how evolution might have occurred. Methological naturalism is not universally accepted and people may have resisted it because science objects to it. In the group, I felt that Pennick won the battle. I thought he adapted well to questions about his own personal faith, and he did well to clarify an individual’s beliefs versus their profession.

Mock Trial Notes

2005-10-25T10:21:00.000-04:00

TRIAL NOTES
PENNOCK

Philosopher of Science
He looks at scientific theories and finds ulterior motives behind those theories
He is focusing on the motives behind ID and Evolution.
ID is compatible with creationism
Theistic evolution is okay; it wouldn’t make evolution a religious theory
A theory is based on observable fact and describes natural phenomena
Atheism is not a scientific theory
Scientists have two roles; one as a scientist and one as a person. This distinction is important
A Catholic can support evolution
He uses a computer program that shows evolution
Program begins with one organism and evolution occurs from there.
Program strives to find origin of complex traits not origin of life
Methodological naturalism is the idea that scientists use reason and logical analysis to form theories.
Methodological naturalism does not use supernatural explanations
Methodological naturalism is not universally accepted in scientific community
Copernican revolution did not downplay methodological naturalism

TRIAL NOTES
HAUGHT

Believes ID developed from Christianity
Evolution goes back very far
ID and Creationism are different but only subtly
ID does not necessarily prescribe to literal interpretation of the Bible and Creationism does.
Darwin included Creator in his book, but it wasn’t scientific fact.
Darwin’s Black Box says evolution depends on gradual change over time and some biochemical observations contradict this
Only part of Darwin’s Black Box is empirical science
Haught has reprimanded material Darwinists
Haught is Christian
Believes you could not take a picture of Jesus after resurrection.

Mock trial Notes

2005-10-25T02:33:00.000-04:00

Group #2

Pennockà professor of philosophy of science
-He looks at scientific theories and the ulterior motives and extrerior influences of their proponents

Defines creationism as people who believe that the Earth was created 6-10,000 years ago and follow a literal interpretation of the Bible

Believes that ID is compatible with creationism

Religion is not contingent on science, faith is not responsible for scientific theories

Theistic evolutionà a theory which combines ID and evolution, is not a religious theory

Definition of a theory: a description of natural phenomena that is based on fact

It does not matter what a scientist believes outside of their science, as long as they do not combine it with their scientific theory

Scientists have two different roles: the role of their science and research, and their own personal beliefs, both can coexist, but cannot mix in the science world

Whether or not a person goes to church does not affect the theory, the theory must be considered separately from a person’s personal belief, one must look at the hard scientific facts

Pennock developed the “Ancestor program”, a computer program that allows one to see evolution
--One can observe the impact of random mutations on bacterial populations…do they lead to evolution?
--Allows one to find the origin of change, complex traits

Methological naturalismà science uses reason, logical conclusions to make analysis
--science cannot use supernatural theories to explain things because one cannot explain the supernatural theory
--not everyone likes this method, some prefer to use ID

Group #3

Professor Haught—
-ID started by theological processes of Christianity
-Evolution has a long scientific history, incorporates modern scientific principles

ID and evolution are different, but are related
-ID is tied to creationism
-Creationism and ID are different ideas

Darwin references a “Creator” is his book The Origin of Species
-is this a reason to take the book and the theory out of the classroom?
-Haught has students read excerpts from ID books, the discussions about these readings enrich the class

In Darwin’s Black Box, Behe says that certain things are too complex to have evolved, presents the concept of irreducible complexity

Some materialists are Darwinists
-criticizes materialists, NOT Darwinists
-conflate ideas of materialism and Darwinism

Does God know everything? Is there a limit on what can be known?
Haught sees Christ as faith, can’t take a picture to see Christ

Mock Trial Notes

2005-10-21T11:25:00.000-04:00

Dr Pennock’s Testimony:

-Philosopher of science at University of Michiganàobserves and studies various scientific/theological theories, such as evolution, creationism, ID, their goals, backgrounds, followers, etc.

-Believes that ID and creationism are complementary schools of thought

-Evolution and atheism are not a religious theories

-According to Penncok, a theory is defined as a thought/idea that is based on scientific research

-Discussion of the Ancestor Programàa kind of self replication computer program that helps show evolution happen, using computer generated organism, cells, bacteria

-Methodological naturalismàreasonable and observational analysis about theories; no supernatural phenomena should be used to explain the theories (ie: Newton did not invoke supernatural reasons for gravity)

-ID is not universally accepted as a scientific theory and originally met much resistance

-Individual faith/religion has no bearing on scientific theories and views

Professor Haught’s Testimony:

-ID can be traced back very far to religious points of view and specifically, Christian views

-As a science, evolution is not a very new idea, as it can be dated back to St Augustine and early Greek scientistsàbegan studying similarities and patterns in history and in organism formation

-Haught disagrees with Pennock’s view that creationism and ID are linked. Rather Haught holds the belief that there is a subtle difference between the two schools of thought.

-The fact that the word creator, with a capital C, was found in the end of Darwin’s book, The Origin of Species, was discussed.àShould this book be banned from schools because of the capital C in creator, possibly invoking the idea of a supernatural creator? Haught argued no.

-Dr Behe’s book, Darwin’s Black Box, was also discussedàmain idea that came across about it was that certain cellular organisms could not have been assembled via evolution, therefore there must be a different kind of explanation (ID).

-Materialists vs DarwinistsàHaught stated that not all Darwinists are materialists (although many are, such as Dawkins). Sometimes the materialists and Darwinists can be conflated, but in reality, according to Haught, they are not one and the same.

-Believes that scientific facts should not be taken out of the BibleàChristian views have no place in science.

Mock Trial Notes

2005-10-20T12:15:00.000-04:00

PENNOCK
- Pennock is a philosopher of science – studies the motives behind science, focusing on evolution, ID, etc.
- Creationism is not the same as ID, but compatible with it
- Religion does not affect scientific theory
- Theistic evolution is a legitimate belief
- Evolution is not a religious theory
- One can’t be a proponent of both ID and evolution
- In a theory, science and religion should be separated
- The Big Bang is not religious because scientists came up with it
- Atheism is not scientific because there are no observable facts to support it
- Individual beliefs should not affect theories, if a person is able to separate the two
- Evolution is based on the scientific method, and is therefore not religious
- Pennock works on computer programs that synthesize the process of evolution
o The advantage of these is seeing what the process of evolution might look like, but at faster speed than studying nature
- “Methological naturalism” – reason and natural analysis
o Methological naturalism has been used for a long time, but only recently named
o Newton used methological naturalism when forming a theory about gravity, because he didn’t say “God causes gravity”
- Big Bang theory – at first, opposition because people thought it was a Christian idea, but now accepted

HAUGHT
- Theory of Intelligent Design can be traced back in history
- Theory of evolution is a recent idea – if it was theorized before, it wasn’t scientific
- Chemistry came from alchemy and astronomy from astrology, but that doesn’t make chemistry and astronomy invalid – same with evolution
- ID and creationism are different but related
- This idea of a subtle difference came from Haught’s book
- In Darwin’s Origin of the Species, he mentions a Creator
- This was probably not meant as a scientific statement, and Darwin later expressed regret at writing it
- Hypothesis and data are different
- Flagellum – purely empirical idea
- Materialists = group of Darwinists
o Criticized by Haught
- Christian belief of God
o Hesitant to agree with some major Christian beliefs
- Christians shouldn’t take scientific beliefs out of the Bible

Mock Trial Notes

2005-10-20T11:25:00.000-04:00

Miller

• There are gaps in evolution and it is theory-based. Likened these gaps to Battle of Gettysburg.
• Intelligent Design not back by scientific evidence.
• Evolution is more credible because of scientific clues.
• Christians do not have to be ID enthusiasts and atheists do not have to be evolution enthusiasts.
• Creationism is a more literal interpretation of the Bible.
• ID is not necessarily Christian, but it is inherently religious.
• TTSS disproves irreducible complexity of flagellum.
• Natural selection and ID can’t coexist.
• Miller personally does not believe ID is science.
• Miller believes God is the author of natural processes, so evolution works with his view of God.
• ID is a philosophical theory, not a scientific theory.

Pennock

• University of Michigan Professor
• Considers himself “philosopher of science.”
• ID is compatible with creationism.
• Religion must not intrude on scientific theories.
• But a person’s personal faith cannot be held accountable for a theory he proposes.
• Scientific method used in evolution and not in ID allows for things like future predictions.
• Ancestor computer program replicates evolution by using random mutations and other randomized factors. Caused significant evolution.
• Methodological Naturalism in science does not allow a subscription to the supernatural.

I believe the witnesses won the debate in both groups because the cross-examiners didn’t push hard on some of the topics either witness could not answer properly.

Debate notes

2005-10-19T22:58:00.000-04:00

Miller:

Intelligent Design is supernatural
Intelligent Design people’s ideas are not always but often disproved
Intelligent Design has not been proven and therefore it is not science
It doesn’t prescribe to a certain religion, but is associated with a theistic view
It doesn’t give concrete evidence
Evolution is a science and has gone through testing and has evidence such as fossil records to support evolution
Natural selection and intelligent design can’t co-exist
Irreducible complexity claims things that didn't come about by natural selection
He doesn’t prescribe to just a physically natural world

Haught:

Evolution is a recent idea
Claims intelligent design and evolution are fairly similar
Intelligent design and evolution are tied together but there are differences
Haught criticizes Materialists
Doesn’t like Material Darwinists
Many Materialists are confused with Darwinists
He is a Christian, and claims that God knows everything that can be known.

Class Debate Notes

2005-10-19T20:47:00.000-04:00

Mock Trials

Intelligent Design vs. Darwinism

Pennock, Haught

Pennock

A philosopher of science
Does not subscribe to creationism, or the belief that a flood occurred 6,000 years ago
Intelligent Design (ID) is not compatible with evolution
However, ID is compatible with the creationist theory
Religious belief should be left up to the individual; no belief is imposed in evolution
The Big Bang theory is not a religious theory, and evolution is not always a religious theory
Evolution is not religious but created through the scientific method or methodological naturalism

Methodological naturalism: explaining natural phenomenon through observation and reasoning
For example, gravity was originally thought to be caused by God, but a natural cause was discovered through methodological naturalism in the time of Newton

Pennock and a group a researchers recently came up with a computer program showing evolution after an organism is initially programmed into it

Haught

o Evolution is an old idea but a new theory

o There is a small difference between creationism and Intelligent Design

o Haght Gives his students Darwin’s Black Box by Behe for supplementary material

o ID evidence does not necessarily entail a theory but an idea

o Darwinism does not constitute materialism

o However, many Darwinists are materialists

o These people are criticized by Haught

Notes on Intelligent Design Debate

2005-10-19T20:44:00.000-04:00

Miller

Evolution is a theory

It is based on scientific fact
Gaps are present in the theory of evolution

Intelligent Design (ID) is inherently supernatural

Scientific research to back its claims are lacking
There is little scientific support for ID
ID is not science

Evolution is a science

It has endured long periods of testing
Evidence has been gathered over many years
Fossil records and the human genome are used to support evolution

ID is not associated with a single religion or a religious dogma, but it does posses a theistic viewpoint.
ID violates the Constitutional Amendment separating church and state.
Darwin’s theory is based on minute changes over a long period of time
The idea of irreducible complexity does not hold water in the case of the Bacterial Flagellum and the Type III Secretory System.
ID can be proven if natural selection fails to maintain validity.
Dr. Miller is a practicing Catholic who believes in God’s creation

Haught

Evolution is an old idea, but a new theory
ID and Creationism are only subtly different
Darwin was not a theist

His reference to a “Creator” does not imply his belief in God.
Darwin’s ideas do not violate the separation of church and state clause of he Constitution
A hypothesis and data are different

Darwinism is not the same as Materialism

A Darwinian Materialist is bad
Scientists often confuse materialism and Darwinism

Copernicus is my homeboy

2005-10-11T20:03:00.000-04:00

At the time in which I wrote my first journal entry, I had almost no prior knowledge having to do with anything in this class. I did, however, know that Copernicus had something to do with the heliocentric model of the universe. I had always imagined he was some great scientist and fell in line with Galileo and Newton and the rest. I had never actually heard of the Copernican Revolution itself, except maybe just in passing.
Now I understand Copernicus and his revolution for what they are and were. Copernicus was a Canon that didn’t consider science, astronomy, or his theory of the universe to be all that important. He was cautious to divulge his information to the rest of the world because of fear that it would earn him nothing but ridicule. He may have been a genius, but he was meek, never really published much besides “Revolutions,” and turned into somewhat of a hermit in his later years. His revolution was spurned by the book that was published while he was on his deathbed, and that would not have even been published if it wasn’t for the help of his assistant, Rheticus. Although his theory had gained support before his work was published, as it was recognized by many as a step forward from Ptolemy’s model, and was at one time even supported by the Pope, once it was in print it failed to sell even one thousand copies. It was dense, copious, and hard to understand, which put many years in between the release of his heliocentric universe and when it was eventually taught in the time of Galileo. What we today call a revolution, was nothing of the sort. It was instead a model adopted slowly, and mostly by intellectuals and scientists, for it never truly gripped the imagination of the everyday man of the time.
I personally feel that Copernicus was very close to hindering the progression of modern science while guarding his works. If he had shared his work earlier, when it was being discussed and talked about in upper circles, his theory of the universe could have very well spread quicker. Luckily, those who understood and accepted his system passed on their knowledge so that the heliocentric universe of Copernicus’s fame could be revealed and widely accepted.

Number 3

2005-10-11T11:57:00.000-04:00

Prior to class discussion about Copernicus, I had no significant impressions about the Copernican revolution. I knew that Copernicus had made contributions to the heliocentric model of the universe, but that was the extent of my knowledge.

Copernicus is usually credited with creating the heliocentric model of the universe, and I too had believed this. From the earlier class discussions, however, it is obvious he was not the first to do so. He was the first though to write it all down. It became more obvious to me that Copernicus’ ideas were those of others, which he then built on and tried to correct. His book was more so a compilation of pervious astronomer’s theories, which he then built on. I did not realize how complicated his book was to read, and how it actually was not widely read at all. I had no previous knowledge of Rheticus, or the impact he had on having De revolutionibus published. Had Rheticus not continually encouraged and helped Copernicus, the book never would have been published. I also was under the impression that the Copernican revolution began right after he published his book. The “revolution”, however, did not take place until many years after his death and publication of the book, partially due to the complexity of the book and also the small amount of copies. The “revolution” was in the work of Kepler and Galileo, who were to later base their work on Copernicus’ model, thus doing away with the old view of astronomy.

I now feel I have a much better perspective of Copernicus and the Copernican revolution after our class discussions and readings. Although Copernicus can not be credited with creating the heliocentric model, he did improve on Ptolemy equant, and aspired to simplify Ptolemy’s model. I now know that the “revolution” did not spread as quickly as I thought it had, and in fact it really was not even a revolution. I do feel, however, that Copernicus’ book helped lead to a new area of thinking.

Journal Entry 3

2005-10-10T21:17:00.000-04:00

Journal Entry # 3
During the beginning of the year, I noted in my first journal entry that I respect Copernicus. I admit that, thankful to Koestler, some of that respect has been washed away by knowledge of Copernicus’s fear. I also am angry that his fear is falsely attributed to religious persecution, but I understand this is not Copernicus’s fault.
I still admire Copernicus in the fact that he thought differently from the usual cosmological beliefs of his time. According to Professor Anderson, he saw a problem with Ptolemy’s "equant" and he knew there was a better explanation of the astronomical world. I admire that Copernicus pursued this explanation with passion and diligence.
Having said how I am similar in my previous opinion, I differ greatly too. I thought that Copernicus had the “confidence to stand” but now I see he had no such thing. I sympathize with him to some degree as I am a very sensitive person and Copernicus was also very sensitive. Yet, according to Koestler, because of three tiny things criticisms, Copernicus did not hold the strength to publish his work and findings of the truth. I understand that criticism is scary, yet Copernicus was being preposterous. He was very selfish to sacrifice scientific progress for his own reputation.
Speaking of Copernicus’s selfishness, perhaps the most aggravating detail is that he thought of himself higher than the public and they were too “impure” to find out the truth. This mentality is so selfish and unfruitful. If one does not tell the world the truth, what is the point of knowing it? This is scientific pride and must be broken for the advancement of human thought and knowledge.
Thus, I still respect his search for truth, yet I condemn his long refusal to share his knowledge with the world due to his selfishness.

Journal Entry 3

2005-10-09T20:15:00.000-04:00

Before the class started, I thought the Copernican revolution was something that led to an eventual breakthrough in how the church and everyone else thought of the universe, and specifically our solar system. However, I have now formed the opinion that it was not much of a scientific revolution that Copernicus “led,” but more of a revolution of the opinion of the Catholic Church. Arthur Koestler’s scathing, yet mostly true, remarks about how Copernicus lived his life and what he did and did not do with relation to the great Greek scientists in the past, coupled with the essays in “Science and Religion,” showed me the actual events that transpired rather than the popularized version thereof. The class discussions had about these topics where we split off into separate groups reinforced my newfound opinion that, although Copernicus was, in fact, a rather smart individual, he wasn’t ground-breaking in his theories to any significant degree. He solved none of the problems that plagued the ancients, but at the same time, his great work did inspire people like Galileo, Tycho, and Kepler. The one passage that I feel truly solidified my opinion of Copernicus was when Koestler said that he could not compare Copernicus to the great intellectual minds like da Vinci, Newton, and Einstein who could develop wholly unheard-of ideas from things we had all before heard. Koestler said Copernicus was not to be considered in the same light as these greats, but he still was no useless historical figure.

Journal 3

2005-10-09T16:34:00.000-04:00

The Copernican Revolution was a major turning point for science in the sixteenth century. Credited with its beginning is the well-known Nicholas Copernicus. In my original journal, I wrote that Copernicus was the first to record a heliocentric universe. I said that he was the first to challenge the geocentric theory, and thus paved the way for future scientists. Implied in my analysis was my thought that Copernicus really came up with a new concept, one that set the study of the heavens on the right track. I also stated that the Copernican Revolution did not occur immediately after Copernicus had published his work; instead, Copernicus was somewhat ignored until the time of Galileo. At the time I wrote these impressions, I had already researched the trial between Galileo and the Church for a previous class, so I knew a little background of the Copernican Revolution. Thus, my first impression was not completely off, but my thoughts on Copernicus have changed slightly after studying him in depth.
Earlier I was aware of Copernicus mainly for the legacy he left. However, the Copernican Revolution, as I have recently learned, should not be credited to Copernicus as much as it is. The readings and class discussions led me to believe that Copernicus was not in fact the first to come up with a heliocentric universe model. Several scientists before him had established with this idea, but Copernicus was simply the first to collect the theory into a published work. Before studying Copernicus, I was aware that the publishing of his book did not have an immediately huge effect. However, I did not know the reason. Copernicus, called “the timid canon” by Arthur Koestler, followed the Pythagoreans’ example of secrecy and waited to publish his book. When he did publish it, the Catholic Church was in a “golden age of intellectual intelligence”(Koestler 154), so the Church did not oppose his work right away. Only later, in the time of Galileo and Kepler, were Copernicus’s writings viewed as sacrilegious. Beyond those reasons, the Book of Revolutions was fairly unreadable, and few made read it through.
I also had a misconception about the correctness of Copernicus’s theory. While Copernicus was right in stating the solar system’s heliocentricity, he did not prove this point well. The beginning of the book holds a summary of Copernicus’s theory, and the meat of the book explains it. But as Koestler writes, “…when that is completed, there is hardly anything left of the original doctrine. It has, so to speak, destroyed itself in the process”(196). So it seems Copernicus was not quite the genius scientist that I (and others, I am sure) revered him as.
Koestler’s criticism of Copernicus should be taken with a grain of salt, because it seems Koestler’s analyses are quite influenced by his personal opinion. Overall, I think Copernicus is a scientist to be respected. Although he was not completely original with heliocentricity, he was the first to develop a comprehensive model centered on the sun. Though he did not rush to publish his book, the fact that he wrote one suggests that he meant the information to be spread. And though not all of his information was correct, no one else’s was either; the instruments of the time were not sufficient to make an absolutely correct model. My understanding of the Copernican Revolution was altered but not completely changed after studying it more in depth. Though the Copernican Revolution was not immediate and was sparked by more than just Copernicus himself, it moved science beyond a concept that was holding it back and sped along the process of finding the nature of the universe.

Journal 3

2005-10-08T14:23:00.000-04:00

Before learning about Copernicus in class, I knew very little, if anything about him. I had heard his name, and assumed that he must have had a great influence on science in some way, but after reading and discussing his life and works, I now understand that his contribution to science was more of a movement in the direction of change, rather than the development of any innovative and extraordinary ideas.

Initially, when I read about the Copernican Revolution, I was skeptical about the term “revolution”. It is understandable that Copernicus was scared of criticism and persecution from his peers and the church. Here was a man who was always unsure of his own thoughts and refused to publish his main work until he was pushed into it by his disciple, yet it started a “revolution”? I do not think I would even call what occurred following the publication of his book a revolution; it was not immediate, nor did it garner much of a reaction from the public at first. Additionally, when first reading about Copernicus and his thoughts, it seemed that he expanded on other astronomers’ views and ideas, rather than formulating his own original ones.

My current views concerning Copernicus have changed very little since my initial reading: I still feel that Copernicus was more of a “crystallizer of thought”, than an originator of it, and that the “revolution” did not spread quickly or cause a large stir.

Since our lectures and class discussions, I have learned more about Copernicus’s contribution to astronomy; although he did not have original thought, he did improve on other astronomical models, such as Ptolemy’s. Copernicus questioned Ptolemy’s equant and tried to simplify Ptolemaic system in general, also making the model heliocentric rather than geocentric. Contrary to popular belief, Copernicus was not the originator of the idea of a heliocentric universe; Aristarchus was, however Copernicus is usually the astronomer more commonly associated with this discovery.

The Copernican Revolution was not a revolution in the fact that its spread was not immediate, nor was it initially poorly received. In fact, when Copernicus first published his treatise, it was popular with the Vatican and Pope. The main reason the ideas contained in Copernicus’ De revolutionibus did not cause an immense stir was that it was a very dense and difficult book to read, nor were many copies published.

I do not doubt or question Copernicus’ intelligence. On the contrary, Copernicus must have had great mental prowess to take century’s old ideas and resurrect them. Although his ideas and works were not widely received, they still made an impact on those who learned of them. I do not know if I would refer to that which occurred following the publication of De revolutionibus a “revolution”, but it do believe that it ushered in a new era of astronomical thought and debate.

Impressions of Copernicus

2005-10-07T18:47:00.000-04:00

The initial impressions and observations that I made of the Copernican Revolution were extremely brief and cursory in nature. I had originally felt, and still do, that the revolution was long overdue. Numerous observations, most importantly the issue of orbits, could not be reconciled with the geo-centric universe as described by Ptolemy. Given the level of intelligence of many earlier scholars, I find it surprising that geocentricity was not more thoroughly scrutinized.

Perhaps the most interesting fact that I discovered throughout the study of Copernicus and his system was the extremely precise nature of Ptolemy’s model. The Ptolemaic system was just as accurate as the Copernican system in explaining planetary orbits and the like. However, the mathematics and geometries of the heliocentric universe are simpler, and therefore more likely to exist. As Occam’s Razor states, if two different answers explain an identical problem equally well, then the simpler of the two answers is more likely to be the correct one. My initial judgment of the Ptolemaic model as dated and imprecise may have been too harsh.

The most interesting points of Copernicus were brought to my attention by Arthur Koestler through his writings. The utterly poor writing style of The Book of Revolutions and Heavenly Spheres was so bad as to make it unreadable. Additionally, Koestler points out that there were strong points against believing the Copernican system. In one instance, it is noted that Copernicus added eight spheres, now totaling 48, to Ptolemy’s system. Given that heliocentricity is no more precise than previous models, it is easy to understand why it was not accepted. To my great surprise, as stated by Koestler, the Copernican system is not heliocentric, but rather quasi-heliocentric. That is to say, the heavenly bodies do not orbit the Sun, only an arbitrary point near the Sun. Aside from the theory itself, light is shed on the personality of Copernicus. He was a reclusive hermit who would not have published his work if not for the pressure of others. On the whole I was extremely surprised to discover the problems inherent in the original system devised by Copernicus. Such inconsistencies are rarely discussed, and reading it in Koestler was definitely a revelation.

Journal 3

2005-10-07T12:20:00.000-04:00

My view of the Copernican revolution has changed considerably since the beginning of this course. I really was not sure exactly what the Copernican revolution was about but I wrote that I thought it had something to do with a theory that the earth is round and rotates as it orbits the sun. I thought that the theory caused a big controversy with the church. This initial impression was more like a guess. However, after reading about Copernicus and refreshing my memory, I realize that I thought that Copernicus was the creator of the idea that the sun is in the center of the solar system.
My current view of the Copernican revolution is much different, and is based on Arthur Koestler’s perspective of Copernicus as well as Owen Gingerich’s view. There is much more fact in my current view. Unlike my original thoughts, the Copernican revolution did not have to do with the earth’s shape nor the fact that it rotates nor was there a controversy between Copernicus and the church. Actually, the Copernican revolution did not have much to do with the church. Also, I no longer see Copernicus as the creator of the sun-centered model of the solar system, but rather as the man who reintroduced the idea, which triggered many men after him to build from the heliocentric idea.
The reading of Koestler and Gingerich has led to my changed impressions of the Copernican revolution. I now do not see Copernicus as the creator of the heliocentric model, but rather, as Koestler puts it, a “crystallizer of thought.” Copernicus was not the first to come up with the heliocentric idea. Many before him, such as the ancient Greek Aristarchus, adopted the sun-centered model, and Copernicus simply reintroduced the sun-centered model. The reason why Copernicus is important is not because he came up with an original idea or some great model. In fact, as Koestler and Gingerich point out, Copernicus’s model of the universe was nearly all wrong. Copernicus created the model in response to the Ptolemaic model with which he did not agree. The “equant” idea bothered Copernicus. Having the sun as the center of the universe eliminated the need for an equant and more explained retrograde motion. The movement and locations of the planets in Copernicus’s model were not correct; he basically used Ptolemy’s model but put the sun in the center. For this, Koestler calls Copernicus a “crystallizer of thought.” He used previous ideas and made them into one model. While Copernicus was not the genius who had the idea that the sun is the center of the solar system, he wasn’t a total failure. Copernicus reintroduced the idea of heliocentricity.
The Copernican model did not encounter much heat from the church, at least initially. The model was not very popular until many years after Copernicus’s death. Koestler points out how few copies of Copernicus’s Book of Revolutions were printed and read, which was a reason why the church and the model never really clashed (Martin Luther and some others disagreed with the model but it never caused too much of an uproar). The revolution the book caused, however, was in the progression of science. The idea of heliocentricity was the cornerstone that allowed others to build on the knowledge of the cosmos. Copernicus placed this cornerstone.
My view of the Copernican revolution has changed drastically since I first entered this course. Although I now realize that Copernicus did not invent the heliocentric model, I know that without his “crystallization of thought,” our knowledge of the cosmos possibly would not be where it is today.

Journal #4

2005-10-06T23:18:00.000-04:00

Scopes and Dover Trials
As I went back to look over my first journal assignment to prepare for this one, I was struck by how one-sided my essay seemed at first glance.  My most significant impression was idea of this poor, persecuted man just trying to get his ideas out to the public.  I completely blamed the Church “stemming the flow of information to the general public.”  I think I was eager to blame the Church because I didn’t grow up in a very religious environment, and was always a little wary of the intensity of religion.
     Now, after all of my reading and discussions, I am slow to take a position either way.  I now feel that Copernicus was a coward who was easily intimidated.  Premier cardinals within the Church did not oppose his research outright, and often wrote him letters voicing their encouragement.  But when I read what kept Copernicus from publishing his works, I felt that his cowardice kept the world and science from moving forward.  I was confused at first by Koestler’s titling of the chapter on Copernicus, “The Timid Canon.”  I had previously thought that Copernicus endured persecution during his lifetime.  All Copernicus “endured during his lifetime [was] an after-dinner remark, a passage in a private letter, and a carnival joke” (Koestler 157).    An after-dinner comment affected the outcome of scientific progression, as Copernicus was so intimated by this.  I thought this seemed so immature, these actions from a man who changed the world of science.  Copernicus didn’t even want his name “mentioned” (Koestler 161).  “Rheticus was to stick out his neck, and the Canon was to retract his into his tortoise shell” (Koestler 161).  Throughout my reading, this seems to be the underlying current throughout most of the reading on Copernicus.  Also, I had thought that Copernicus was this huge revolutionary, but his “predictive system was not substantially more accurate than Ptolemy’s, and if judged on the accuracy of prediction, Copernicus’ work must be deemed a massive failure.”  At the same time, I still feel that the significance of his research cannot be undermined by the man himself.  He was a great thinker, and my view on that has not changed.  I feel that although he didn’t want to, he pushed science forward, and helped to make it was it is today.
     The Dover trial seems nothing like the Scopes trial to me.  The elaborate fanfare and “media sensation” (Ferngren 292) that accompanied the first trial is greatly lacking in the second.  I believe that the Dover trial is an essential one, because I find the statement that was read to the class slightly shocking.  I have always felt that evolution was fact, and the idea of a Creator seems more to me like a belief than a fact.  I think that only facts should be taught in schools, and not beliefs.  Intelligent Design seems to me to be more of a belief, as it ultimately involves the idea of a higher power.  The debate about the teaching of evolution in school could go on forever, because both sides are so passionate about their causes.  I found it interesting that in each case, the law seemed to be on trial, not the defendant.  Then again, that is the point of test cases.  However, when do cases stop being test cases, and become real ones?  This sort of logic kept the testimony of 15 national experts in science and religion from testifying at the Scopes trial.  The judge ruled in favor of the prosecution, and the “trial appeared to have ended without ever directly taking up the promised issues of science and religion in public education.” (Ferngren 294)
     While some may feel this defeats the purpose of the entire process, others expressed in class that the importance of each trial is to bring this issue of evolution into the minds of Americans.  I sympathize with each side, as I feel that the Scopes trial set in motion the debate about a long lingering question about public schools, but did not “directly” (Ferngren 294) accomplish much as is perceived.
     .

Journal Entry #3

2005-10-06T21:40:00.000-04:00

Honestly, I didn’t write very much about the Copernican revolution in the premier journal entry, but I was able to dig up some trivial notes that were taken on the topic during the second or third day of class. When I heard the word, “revolution”, in August, I thought of science’s historical clashing with religion and assumed that Copernicus caused much controversy as he published cosmological works. As I know now, however, this was not at all the case. Copernicus hardly published anything, and the one text that he did get to the public on his own, Revolutions, was nearly impossible to understand even on the scholarly level. I remember thinking of it as a “flash in a pan” type of action where Copernicus wrote some magnificent work of literature, gathered his observational instruments and confronted the Pope. In reality, some members of the clergy were the greatest encouragers of the publication! Also, the impact that Copernicus had on later scientists did not come from his specific theory; in fact, the only thing he had right was the idea of heliocentricity (or, to be exact-“spot-near-sun centricity”). Rather, as Arthur Koestler puts it, this “revolution” dropped the proverbial rock in a metaphorical pond, and the influence came from the ensuing ripples. The scientific world had not contemplated the idea of heliocentricity since a Greek named Aristarchus, and it had never conceived the idea of elliptical orbits or a non-Ptolemaic system. Therefore, one could make the argument that Copernicus’ purpose, in the end, was to open the way for astronomical giants like Tycho Brahe, Johannes Kepler, and Galileo to revise the incorrect model.
So, I’ve come to the realization that Copernicus induced a slow process and series of ideas that infected the scientific world. These ideas led them to observe the stars to great detail and imagine new concepts relating to cosmology. His ideas got the wheels turning, so to speak, on heliocentricity and elliptical orbits. Hence, when current historians and scientists downplay the contribution of Copernicus, one must look closer and realize the movement that he revamped near the end of his lifetime. Questioning of age old theories came back into style, and Tycho Brahe was able to destroy Aristotle’s theory of the eternal heavens, Kepler able to contemplate his three laws, and Galileo able to greatly advance the telescope. In my opinion, the appearance of these scientists without the preceding work of Copernicus has to be questioned. To use another analogy, it’s as if scientific discovery had hit a wall, and the canon’s job was to break that wall down and prepare the way for others to come; his model was no simpler than Ptolemy’s, but the re-arrangement of the universe as they knew it was what sparked the flame.

Journal 3

2005-10-06T16:07:00.000-04:00

Going back to my first journal entry about the Copernican revolution, I realize I did not know anything about the revolution. In my first journal I said “all I know is he constructed a helio-centered model of the universe”. Now I have a view of the Copernican revolution as opposed to not having one at all. Currently, I believe the Copernican model of the solar system was very revolutionary for the time period. Unlike most of his predecessors, Copernicus put the Sun in the center of the planets and has all of the planets rotating around it, including the earth. However, he still used circular motion for the rotations of the planets. For all of the motions and measurements to add up Copernicus still had to employ epicycles and eccentric circles. Although he did position the Sun at the center, he was still trapped in the mindset of Aristotle’s circular motion. Therefore, when comparing the Copernican model and the Ptolemaic model, both are equally confusing and filled with several different spheres and epicycles.
In spite of all the confusion, I still believe Copernicus took a big step in situating the Sun at the center. Gingerich talks about the major mindset change that needed to occur with this theory. People had always believed the earth was the center and everything they observed on earth supported this belief. The planets seemingly changed their positions according to the earth and the stars were fixed in position around the earth. Also, everything happened on the earth: storms, floods, droughts, and other weather phenomena. Therefore, why shouldn’t the earth be the center? It is a natural thought process to place yourself in the center of your world with everything revolving around you. Koestler talked a great deal about Copernicus’ reservations of publishing his viewpoint because he did not want to be ridiculed by his peers. I understand why he would have felt this way, especially when the majority believed oppositely. Having to face criticism is a hard thing to do and the feeling of rejection is even harder. On the other hand, he was a scientist and scientists are supposed to be able to publish their findings and observations and accept the fact that others may not agree with them. Koestler also points out that Copernicus had a lot of support for his publication and had no reason to be afraid of publishing. In fact, even the Catholic Church supported his findings, which was rare for a scientist.
In earlier class discussions, students brought up the topic of whether or not the Ionians and ancient Greeks should be celebrated because their ideas about cosmology were incorrect. As a class we came to the conclusion that it was not the actual result that mattered, but the fact that people were starting to ask questions and look at the universe in different ways. I think this argument applies to the Copernican revolution as well. While Copernicus may not have gotten the entire model correct, he was the one that took the step in placing the Sun in the center of the planets. With his model he was able to help others following him to contemplate simpler models eventually leading to the model we have today. The Copernican revolution allowed people to think in different ways and consider that the earth may not be the center. I believe this is the main point of the Copernican model, showing others how to question what is in front of them and envision their own theory of how the universe works.

3rd Journal Entry

2005-10-06T16:06:00.000-04:00

Before this class began, I had never studied the Copernican Revolution before, so I did not have any real views on it. I had heard bits and pieces of information about it in the past, but had never known exactly what it was, and what its impact on the scientific community was. So, when I learned that we would be studying the Copernican revolution in this class, I was excited to learn more about it and its effect on the world. The reading that we have done on this topic and the discussions that we have had in class have all helped me to learn the facts about what the Copernican Revolution was as well as to formulate my own views on this subject.
I think that the Copernican Revolution was quite innovative for its time. Based on the past attitudes of the church towards scientific progress, Copernicus had reason to fear the reaction of the religious world. The Catholic Church had stifled science during the dark ages and had restricted scientific progress and research, thus slowing down the progression of scientific knowledge. His fears most definitely were justified, so it is amazing to me that he even attempted to do his research, knowing what the possible reaction of the Catholics could be. This could have been particularly disastrous for him considering his powerful role as a canon in the church. Yet, he researched anyway and came up with a theory that changed the way the world thought. For these reasons, in contrast to Koestler’s view of Copernicus, I believe that Copernicus was a great mind and that he did much more than simply “crystallize” the thoughts of the time. Koestler says, “He was not an original thinker, but a crystallizer of thought” (213). It may be true hat many of Copernicus’ ideas were already in existence at the time, but there is something to be said for the person who is able to solidify them into one. The role of solidifying thought is a very important one that cannot be denied. By doing this, Copernicus prepared the knowledge for being presented to the world, thus fulfilling the intentions of the scientists who had come before him.
I also agree with Koestler’s view of Copernicus to some extent. Copernicus seemed overly self-deprecating to me after a certain point. I could understand him being afraid at first to share his theory with the world, but after a certain point in time he had received much encouragement from the outside world, including members of the Catholic Church. For example, in the reading, a letter from a cardinal is reprinted and it says, “Therefore, learned man, without wishing to be inopportune, I beg you most emphatically to communicate your discovery to the learned world, and to send me as soon as possible your theories about the Universe, together with the tables and whatever else you have pertaining to the subject” (Koestler, 155). With this kind of outright support, it is hard to imagine what reason Copernicus could possibly have not to publish his theory. It was frustrating that he did not respond positively to the support that was given to him and that he continued to deny that his theory was of any importance to the outside world.
However, it would be misleading to give Copernicus all of the credit for his achievement. I think that a large part of the credit for this goes to Rheticus, Copernicus’ assistant who was the driving force behind the publishing of his book. Because Rheticus had played such a large role in Copernicus’s fame, I found it to be particularly tragic that he was not given any credit in Copernicus’s book. Giese refers to it as, “the unpleasant oversight that thy teacher omitted to mention thee in the preface of his book” (Koestler, 177). I agree with Giese that this would indeed be very unpleasant; after investing so much time and energy in ensuring the success of Copernicus’ theories, it must have been devastating for Rheticus to have been denied any recognition in the end. This was the one fault that I found with Copernicus. It does not bother me that Copernicus feared exposing his theories to the world, but I do find fault with him for not properly recognizing the person who helped make such an important scientific discovery available to the world. Koestler says that the only reason that Copernicus would have done this is out of fear that he would anger the Catholics by mentioning a Protestant in his book. If this is true, then I believe that Copernicus let his fears dictate too many things in his life.

Entry 2

2005-09-12T21:54:00.000-04:00

After learning about four different approaches to the search for truth, I would have to say that I personally relate to the Ionian philosophy. Before the Ionians emerged, man had used mythology to explain the ways of the universe and that of nature. Disregarding these traditional explanations, the Ionians began to ask questions. Although their answers were not correct, they were asking the right questions. When it comes to science and finding answers, I personally do not believe religion should have a role in scientific theories. I found it easier to relate to the Ionian philosophy more so than the others mainly due to the fact that the Ionians did not involve mysticism or mythology with science. When I am looking for answers, I need evidence to support the facts.

I feel modern day science reflects the Ionian attitude towards science more so than the other three philosophies. Scientists are obviously concerned with discovering the correct answers, but I believe that the approach they take is similar to the Ionians. Modern science today does not base their calculations on mystical events or actions of the gods, but rather asks questions and takes the steps to solve the problem. That is exactly what the Ionians did.

When it comes to scientific theories, I feel that God, or any other supernatural force for that matter, has no impact. This bias, on my behalf, can be attributed to my beliefs in God, or lack there of. In the past, man has used God or a supernatural force to explain some type of natural occurrence they were unable to explain. For instance, to explain the movement of the stars, there were theories created that angels carried them. Today, however, we are able to back these theories up with scientific data to explain why these events actually happen. The technology of the time these theories were evolving was no where in comparison to the technology we have now. I believe that the theories we have today we are unable to explain, given time, we will find the answers. Just because we are unable to explain them now does not mean they should be left as an act of God. Science searches for the true causes of events, just as I feel the Ionians did too.

Journal 2

2005-09-12T20:59:00.000-04:00

The four different approaches to truth that we have studied thus far have offered varying perspectives, each diverse from the next. I personally relate to Pythagorean way of thinking the most. By utilizing the idea of unifying science, religion, math, music, medicine, cosmology, and harmony the Pythagorean were ingenious and the style of thinking can still be applied to modern science of today. I believe the Pythagoreans to be pioneers concerning the idea of the integration of these different disciplines. Relating to a basic combination of science and religion is significant for me as I do not heavily lean one way or another other when it comes to a debate or discussion between religion and science. By linking and unifying science and religion, I can better relate and ponder the interplay between the two. Furthermore, since many of the Pythagoreans’ theories and enlightenments are still applicable today, such as the Pythagorean Theorem and the “string theory” in physics, I continue to use and relate to their thought processes and style.

With respect to modern science, I think that the Pythagoreans were the thinkers that developed ideas and had a thinking style that is most similar to ours today. Because the Pythagoreans used rational integrations and combinations with numbers, they could provide reasonable explanations and proofs for their theorems. In addition, it appears rather definite that the Pythagorean thinkers established great insight into numerical patterns which aided in developing the musical scale. The method in which they integrated their numbers to the harmonies of the universe is still being explored today, specifically using the example of the string theory. In modern science, links are often sought out to compare different disciplines. Even though most modern scientists do not use any type of mysticism when searching for truth, the style of connecting ideas is timeless.

When developing scientific theories, I think that science and religion do have some interconnecting threads, but they should not overlap completely. The universe, the cosmos, the human body and nature all work together too perfectly for some kind of supernatural force not to have played a part. I do not think that we just appeared one day and evolved without some kind of intervention. Perhaps it is because I hold Christian beliefs concerning a creation where God made the world and has a plan for all living things. I do sometimes question the exact details surrounding the earth’s creation in seven days, the theory of evolution, and the possibility of extraterrestrial life and its implications for religion, but in the end, I always come back to my faith that even though science and theology usually do not mix well, God had some hand in many scientific theories. To me, everything in science works out a little too perfectly not to have been without the help of some kind of supernatural force, such as God.

The Search for Truth

2005-09-10T13:27:00.000-04:00

Even though my beliefs don't relate totally with any of the “search for truth” categories, I can relate mostly to the Pythagoreans. My philosophy combines God and science into one being, as I believe that God, not humans, actually created science. Obviously, I don’t believe that the distance between the planets creates a corresponding musical interval, but I do admire the way that the Pythagoreans went about science scientifically (that is, with numbers and calculations vs. a purely religious approach) while still finding a way to enter God into the equation. They were innovative and unique because of their attempt to combine the seemingly different topics of science and religion after the purely scientific approach of the Ionians. However, modern science is much different from the science of the Pythagorean’s day for many reasons (with the most prominent being much more knowledge) as well as some subtle reasons. Today, science reminds me of the way the Ionians searched for truth. Issues such as the “Big Bang Theory” and the evolution of the entire universe have proven to me that many scientists would like to eliminate God from their theories and base their ideals on scientific processes and chance. Even though I can see the justification and reasons that scientists would want to do this while continuing the ultimate search for knowledge, God must play a bit more of a factor in my own historical cosmology.
As I have already implicitly stated, I think that God can play a big role in scientific theories. God, being the creator of all things, has created science. In fact, God created so much that I believe there are many parts to science that we, as humans, have yet to discover. Out there, waiting for us, are these perfect laws of science that fit to together like the pieces to a puzzle. Therefore, I see nothing wrong with the continuous search for knowledge; God gave us brains, so why not use them? However, I do have an issue with humans claiming themselves as the “gods” for these discoveries and using the knowledge, as St. Augustine put it, for an end versus a means. To me, science brings us closer to the work of an all powerful God- if it wasn’t for God, the laws of nature wouldn't be there to discover! We are mere specs in the universe trying to unfold the amazing, stupefying, and humbling work of an infinite God.

Greek Cosmology

2005-09-10T11:39:00.000-04:00

When considering the various cosmological models pondered upon by the ancients, it is important to place them in their own time. It would be unrealistic and unfair to assume that any of the Greeks should have a 21^st century perception of the universe. This applies not only to their understanding of mathematics, gravity, helio-centricity and orbits, but to more abstract concepts such as the scientific method, rationalization, deductive reasoning and logical analysis.

Having said that, I am forced to side with the Ionians as having the most rational understanding of the universe. This stems not from their correctness, but rather their methodology. The Ionians attempted to remove all preconceptions of divinity in their assessments. Perhaps their most enduring legacy is their ability to logically explain a situation in a mechanical way. This is evidenced by one of their models of the universe: the central pillar. This pillar is freestanding, therefore lacking any tendency to lean in one direction. While subtle, this idea is tremendously important as it shows the Ionians chose a logical explanation. More specifically, they deduced that if a pillar is floating perfectly upright in midair, it would have no preferred direction in which to lean. Their contemporaries would perhaps have attributed this floating to a divine being. The fact that the Ionian model is completely wrong makes no difference, what matters is their thought process. It is that mentality which separates and elevates them above all the other ancient Greeks.

In keeping with my beliefs outlined above I am forced to conclude that the Ionians were also the most “modern” of the Greek philosophers. The Pythagoreans were the first to really apply numbers and mathematics to the universe, but they made one critical error. They attempted to reconcile science and religion into a single cohesive theory. This, in my opinion, can never be accomplished. Furthermore, it is the position of many modern scientists to not consider divine causes as they relate to understanding a given problem. Ionians were the first to realize this. Accordingly they set up cosmological models that ignored mystical approaches. Modern science has kept with this practice (more or less) for the better part of five hundred years. Aristotle was too abstract in his thinking and, like the Pythagoreans, tried to reconcile science with God. Plato made the greatest blunder of all by completely ignoring science in his model. It is for the reasons of rational thinking and logical approach that the Ionians were the most modern oriented Greek philosophers.

As mentioned above, God should not be considered when formulating scientific theories. It is impossible to say with absolute certainty whether the universe can be best explained by science or religion. Science is the study of a discipline through the use of logical, rational and verifiable means. It was not enough for Newton to say the gravity exists; he had to explain how it affected matter. Additionally, Newton had to predict future occurrences of a gravitational force, hence Universal Gravitation. The idea of God is juxtaposed to the principles of science. God asks for faith alone. God provides no means of verification and no predicable observations. It is a great irony that both scientific theories and religion (through God) seek to answer the exact same questions. All the more interesting is how completely contradictory their methods are. The combination of science and God, however slight, is not only irrational, but also impossible.

Essay Assignment

2005-09-09T10:32:00.000-04:00

[The following essays have been voluntarily posted by five of our 15 students.  The assignment for the essay is described in this post—Prof. Macosko]

We have now studied four different approaches to the search for truth.

a. The Ionians for the most part, kept God and divine intervention out of their models of the universe and out of their philosophical speculations.  They looked for natural causes.

b. The Pythagoreans combined mysticism with science and mathematics.

c. Plato’s view was that truth could not be obtained through the study of nature.  Anything which we observe in the material world is akin to the shadows seen by the chained observers in the cave analogy.

d. Aristotle looked for natural causes but also included God in his cosmology.  However, his god did not create the universe, nor was he aware of it.  He was unconsciously responsible for the motions of the celestial objects.

Which of these styles do you personally relate to the most?  Which do you think is closest to that of modern science?   What role do you think God (or any other supernatural force) should play in scientific theories?

One Student's Views

2005-09-09T10:12:00.000-04:00

[I’m posting an essay for a student who had difficulties getting online—Prof. Macosko]
As we have covered the four different approaches to the search for truth in class, I have felt that I have been able to identify with each one in some way.  The Ionians theory appealed to me because of their quest to discover natural causes to explain the natural phenomena that they saw all around them.  I believe that religion most definitely plays a role in science to some extent, but I also believe that it is necessary to search for a scientific and natural cause for things.  You must have both religious and scientific components to your explanation in order to fully understand what is going on around you, and by completely excluding one of them from your explanation, you would be excluding a legitimate portion of evidence.  Before the Ionians, the Greeks focused solely on the religious explanations for the things that they saw around them.  Because they did not incorporate science into their search for truth, they were not able to successfully or accurately explain what they saw.  However, with the Ionians, came a change of thought, and without them, I believe that science could not have traveled down the successful path that it did.  Although religion does play some sort of a role in the quest for truth, one cannot advance very far without looking at the natural and scientific causes for the events we see around us every day.  Even though not every one followed their exact set of beliefs, they were the ones that introduced the importance of searching for natural causes, and this was somehow incorporated into every other approach to the search for truth after the Ionians.  I can really personally relate to the Ionians’ style because this is how I tend to approach a scientific problem.  Like them, I am more apt to focus solely on the scientific causes for a problem and do not factor religion into the situation very much at all.  I like to have physical proof and evidence for the hypotheses that I come up with rather than just assuming that it is a result of divine intervention or a message sent from the Gods.
I also felt that I could personally relate to the Pythagoreans’ approach to the search for truth.  Even though I tend to focus more on the scientific explanations for natural phenomena, I also believe that religion does play some sort of a role in the search for truth.  Because of this, the Pythagoreans’ idea of combining the two areas really appealed to me.  They were able to successfully intertwine the two disciplines and use science to explain religion and vice-versa.  Like the Pythagoreans, I like the logic of numbers and I like to use them to provide solid proof for my theories.  However, I am also like them in the sense that I believe that religion plays a major role in science and the quest for truth.  I believe that religion explains many things in this world and can go hand in hand with the scientific explanations.  Just because a phenomena has a scientific explanation that can be supported and proven with numbers equations and other hard evidence, this does not mean in my mind that God and spirituality has no had any role in the phenomena.  Perhaps this was how God intended to create the world, based on scientific, numerical evidence.  Who’s to say that God himself didn't find the idea of the Big Bang or Darwin’s theory of Evolution just as appealing and logical as we do and decided to use them to implement his plan for the world?
I think that the Ionians’ theory is the closest to that of modern science.  Like the Ionians who did not implement religion into their search for truth, scientists today do not appear to include God, religion or spirituality in very much of what they do at all.  When scientific theories are published, they do not contain any reference to God or any sort of religious aspect at all.  Today we are solely concerned with finding the solid physical evidence needed to back up our theories.  Although I believe that this is good, I also think we need to have some sort of a balance between the two.  In the United States especially, there are many conflicts between the religious and the scientific, and I do not think that it has to be this way.  If we can find some way to compromise between the two, these conflicts will no longer be necessary.  Each group believes that their way is the only way and is not willing to allow for another interpretation of events and phenomena, and so because of this stubbornness, a conflict arises.  For example, right now many people are divided on the issue of creationism vs. Darwinism, stem cell research, and abortion.  Perhaps if each side could agree to disagree and accept that there are other points of view, we could compromise on these issues and continue to progress with scientific discovery.

2005-09-08T20:05:00.000-04:00

JOURNAL ASSIGNMENT 2

Arthur Koestler details four different approaches to the search for truth in the Ionians, Pythagoreans, Plato, and Aristotle. I personally relate to the Pythagorean approach most. The Pythagoreans incorporated religion and science. They complemented each other. This is my approach to the search for truth. I believe that religion and science can help explain each other.

The Pythagoreans also took a logical approach to finding truth. They considered numbers sacred. Therefore, they tried to explain the world with numbers. I find this a convincing way to find truth. I understand the world better if it is logical—numbers are involved. The Pythagoreans explained the world by starting small. By this I mean they started to explain the world on a smaller scale and worked their way up. For example, they found that different string lengths made different sounds, and from this they explained “the harmony of the spheres.” The fact that this theory was completely wrong is not the point. The point is their order of reasoning—if these strings make sounds then the planets might also work this way. It wasn’t the other way around. The other philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle had much more philosophical and vague approaches to truth. Aristotle started with his belief in the “Unmoved Mover” and explained the universe from there. I prefer a more logical approach.

Modern science, however, takes more of the approach to finding truth of the Ionians—science and religion are separate. Explaining the world with the supernatural was not an option for the Ionians and, for the most part, modern science takes that same position. Although it is highly debated, evolution and not intelligent design is what is being taught in public schools.

I do not side with the majority of modern science on the role of God in science. I believe that if there is evidence of God or design in the world, then it is acceptable and expected to consider God for a scientific theory. Why is religion often associated with being intellectually inferior or conformity? My view on God and science lead me to side with the Pythagoreans’ approach to the search for truth (science and religion can and should coexist) and disagree with the Ionian and modern approach, which tries to separate God and science.

Journal Number Two

2005-09-08T15:43:00.000-04:00

After the briefly studying four different historic approaches to the search for truth, I realize that the closest approach to mine is that of the Pythagoreans. The primary reason for this common ground is that God, “mysticism,” and science are so tightly intertwined as I will explain below. The reasoning behind my rejection of the other three approaches are as follows. Plato’s view is false because truth is revealed in nature. If the entire world is shadows and there is no reality to be seen, what hope does humanity have? Especially since the “enlightened one,” such as Plato, was false in his knowledge. It is true that this world consists of shadows, but there is hints of truths in these shadows otherwise all is meaningless. Aristotle’s view is incomplete because if God is the perfect being, He must know everything since ignorance is weakness and imperfection. Since He is the only all-knowing being, only He could have created us. Thus Plato and Aristotle are false.
Modern science, unfortunately, takes the approach of the Ionians. Most scientists today as so infatuated with the natural and with what a man can see. The problem in this approach is that while he can see that the sun is bright, he cannot prove that he is even seeing the sun! We cannot prove nature as true because we cannot prove that our five senses are telling the truth. Incidentally, this natural mistrust of the senses leads someone to Plato’s allegory of the cave in which all humanity sees is shadows of unreality. The truth is something greater, something supernatural, must explain the improvable such as the origin of species; not faulty theories without proof. This is the role of God in scientific theories. Since nature points to a Supernatural Being as the Creator, God is more involved in scientific theories than any man has been, is, and ever will be. He is the Author of scientific theories; we only discover them and read the beautiful words in His ultimate “treatises” such as balance in the universe via gravity, light, or atomic reactions. Thus the Ionian, and current, approach is faulty as God is the very cause for all science.

Facts - Essay #2

2005-09-08T14:54:00.000-04:00

I am a very factual person. I prefer to look at data and statistics to make logical choices. The mysticism of religion has never really taken with me. However, I believe in God, but not that everything I do has been a direct cause of his power. Therefore, I identified the most with Aristotle’s style of cosmology. I liked that he searched for natural causes to explain phenomena, thereby searching for the truth, rather than simply using the excuse of God to explain such events. I liked that he never used religion as a fallback to explain something that he didn’t understand, but he still believe in God. His religion didn’t dominate his thinking. However, I think that the Ionians were the closest to that of modern science. Their models had absolutely nothing to do with God, and he was not a consideration in their science. I think these allows for the most objectivity when it comes to science. By that I mean, that science is the only explanation for their cosmology, therefore based on the facts as they knew them, correct or incorrect as these may have been. I think that God, quite honestly, has no place in science. Nothing about his existence can be proven without a doubt. There are many theories, and many phenomena that cannot yet be explained, but I don’t think that God has a place here. Many years ago, we didn’t have explanations for things like lightening, but now they are scientific event that is a specific consequence of certain weather conditions. Therefore, I do not think that God is an appropriate “fall-back” for unexplained natural phenomena. I think God is best left out of scientific theories, which should be based solely on fact.

Turtles All The Way Down

2005-09-08T09:42:00.000-04:00

It is my firm belief that there are certain philosophical extremes between which we must all exist. On the one side, there are men like Plato, who have “escaped” so thoroughly from the cave that they have gone blind from staring for too long directly into the sun, and all they can truly explain with any clarity is precisely how they got that point, why their current way of thinking proves how insignificant we all are, and that all of it sure is a lot better than being in that smoky cave. On the opposite end, there exist those whose chains are fastened so tightly that they not only believe the shadows are real people, but they believe the natural colors of hands and feet are bluish-purple.

There once was a scientist and a traditionalist who were arguing around the time tectonic plate theory emerged. The scientist argued for the theory, but the traditionalist argued that we were actually moving on the backs of giant turtles bumping into each other. The scientist, rather miffed by this decidedly unscientific theory, decided to play along and asked, “Well, what’s below the turtles?”

“More turtles,” replied the traditionalist.

“And below that?” asked the scientist to a visibly annoyed traditionalist who was running out of explanations.

“It’s turtles all the way down!” said the traditionalist. So does it make more sense to argue that turtles are there and that’s just the way it is, or does one continue digging for more and more turtles until their arms are too tired and bitten to go on?

Clearly, many modern scientists, like the Ionians before them, will keep digging and digging until humanity goes extinct, but then what will we have to show for ourselves? We will have scores of frustrated scientists, aggravated philosophers, and those of us who were unfortunate enough to have to deal with them. Even if time is not infinite, what could we possibly learn about what happened before time and who decided that it might be a good idea to get the thing going in the first place? Who created the thing that got time going and who created the thing that created the thing that got time going in the first place? What makes up quarks and is the universe the relative size of a quark compared to some other huge thing? Philosophically speaking, this line of existential questioning can go on forever, and it leads to the very heart of frustration.

However, is it acceptable to simply ignore things that could be discovered just to uphold another ideology or belief? Were the Pythagoreans correct to believe in their unproven assumptions about the universe simply because that’s what was there and that it sounded perfectly plausible? I hasten to say “no,” but there is a certain sense of calm and understanding that accompanies a leap of faith or logic.

I believe most people have an insatiable intellectual curiosity that yearns for more knowledge, but at some point that just gets too frustrating because you can’t know everything about the universe before you die, and then you’re dead. Your epitaph might read, “Here Lies a Man Who Never Stopped Searching,” which should more accurately end with, “Until He Died,” but perhaps that means you were never satisfied with the world around you because nobody had invented a telescope to look at things smaller than the bits of an electron. So we have to ask ourselves how far down the infinitely tall stack of turtles we will go before we give up the idea of questioning our existence, just accepting a religion, and getting on living happily until we die. For me, like Aristotle, it’s a little bit of both, but for God’s sake, existentialists, stop bothering me and my turtle theory.

Plato's Cave

2005-09-04T23:19:00.000-04:00

In class on Thursday, September 1, we discussed Plato's cave theory. The concept of reality came up during our discussion of this allegory. The reality that people chained within the cave experience comes from shadows created by puppets held over a fire by other, more enlightened people. Therefore, the "reality" experienced by those chained isn't really "real." But it is to them. Their definition of real is very different from ours, because we consider ourselves much more enlightened then them. But is the someone more enlightened then us? The people in the cave believe in it because it is all they know. But the trees and people that we see every day are all we have ever known. Therefore, are they really trees and people, or merely shadows? How then, do we define reality? Is what is real to us acutal reality, or is it what is real to a more enlightened being, and if so, is there a more enlightened being than us?

First Impressions...

2005-08-31T20:18:00.000-04:00

My first day of class, I will admit that I was slightly overwhelmed. When we began discussing the possibility of finding another planet with life forms and the possibility of that planet having a different religion than of any found on our Earth, the knowledge that many students were able to contribute to the discussion impressed me. I had thought before of the implications finding another planet would have on our planet, but never before had I factored religion into the scenario. The ideas that the students in our class shared I found to be very thought provoking. I think that for many of the people in this world that believe we are the only ones, the discovery of a new planet would be a huge shock to them, especially in regards to religion. The Bible tells us that we were created by God to be special, so how would Christianity be able to defend that if a new planet were found? Would Christians stand firm in their faith, or would they waiver with this new knowledge? The other option would be to scientist discovering there was no other form of life, therefore reaffirming the religious beliefs of many people. Either way, I think that the opening discussion for our class was insightful, and I look forward to many more discussions such as this one for the rest of the semester.

Initial Impressions

2005-08-30T18:10:00.000-04:00

During the first class we had some really good discussions concerning religion and its effects on the scientific world, and vice versa. It seemed as if those who spoke were on one side of the issue or the other, which made for interesting and thought provoking debate. Some points and views, such as the positive implications of a new found planet, complete with a different religion, were brought up that I personally had never considered before. My initial thoughts about a new religion and planet were immediately negative ones: the foundations of Christianity would be shaken because we would then know that we were not alone in the universe and how would God account for this new planet and species in the context of creation and the Bible? However, some of my classmates brought up the idea that perhaps with the discovery of a new religion and planet would come some of kind consolidation or conversion.

Additionally, another interesting point was brought up about people's motives when it comes to practicing a religion. A student suggested that many people practice or join a certain religion to making sure they get into heaven. I would have to agree with him/her on this poin; I do believe that many people are overly concerned with afterlife and heaven and see "becoming" a certain religion an easy way to gain access into an eternal resting place, but then my thought is that if they join the religion solely for this purpose, are they truly religious? I don't want to be so cynical as to say that many people, whether they be Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, or any other type of religion, practice, or even just say that are part of that religion merely to reap the benefits of an enjoyable afterlife, however, I am not so naiive to think that this never happens.

The discussions were really interesting and I gained some new insights into my classmates thoughts concerning religion and science that I had not considered before. I continue to learn from our teachers, readings, and discussions we have in class.

Another Possibility: Religions Accommodate

2005-08-29T20:57:00.000-04:00

In Thursday’s class, we discussed the effects of a few plausible discoveries about the nature of life in the universe. First we discussed the impact that finding intelligent life on other planets would have on religion. Opinions spread from current religions strengthening, to suggesting that the people of Earth would convert to an alien planet’s religion. We also debated what would happen if scientists found with proof that there was no other life, and we were alone in the universe. Arguments varied much here, as well. However, I think that one major possibility was left out of each topic. A very likely effect that these discoveries would have on religion is… almost nothing. Most of the major religions have survived through disputes and potentially harmful events in the past. Each religion, as an institution, would be desperate to survive no matter what. Therefore, they would accommodate to the new discoveries. Taking the Catholic Church as a case study, similar things have happened before. Before the sixteenth century, it was widely accepted that the solar system was geocentric, with everything revolving around the Earth. When this was contested by scientists such as Galileo, the Church at first held firm to its traditional beliefs, ignoring scientific proof and pointing to verses in the Bible that seemed to refute heliocentricity. But, to make a long story short, the Catholic Church is still in existence today, as is the fact that the earth revolves around the sun. Similarly, I think that most of the religions would have a minor setback with such a discovery in the future, but they would find some way to accommodate and recover. Thus, there would be little lasting effect on the major world religions.

Life on other Planets affecting religous life

2005-08-28T16:08:00.000-04:00

In our initial “the interplay between science and religion” class, we discussed how the possibility of life on other planets could affect religious life here on earth. The first scenario included scientists from earth discovering intelligent life on a planet similar to ours somewhere in the universe. We get to know this civilization and this culture, and eventually we are able to understand their religion. Immediately, the students in class tackled the negative scenario where the religion there is completely different from ours and God’s vow that we are uniquely made in His image is broken. Therefore, Christianity as we know it is destroyed as we realize that the words of Genesis are void. Or, maybe we learn from these different religions and re-shape the ones we have here on earth. We learn about the history that they have recorded of the life on their planet, and we are able to benefit from their religious experience/ explanation of God just as we are able to benefit from their advances in technology, medicine, etc. However, what if this culture that we discover on Planet X shares a religion with us here on Earth? Being a Christian, I’ll use Christianity as an example. We land on their planet and, after several weeks, we find that they read the Bible, worship and understand the Holy Trinity, and have a similar religious history as current Christians on earth. How amazing and beneficial would that be? Imagine a civilization light years away that accepted Jesus Christ as their savior. I know it seems far-fetched, but the whole situation is a “what if” scenario, so why not? Christianity would seemingly be confirmed as truthful, many religious debates would be solved, and peace would be easier to come by as many of the problems today are centered around discrepancies in religious belief.

The second possibility was that we somehow are able to see the universe in its entirety, and we do not discover life anywhere. The earth is the only planet in the universe with intelligent life on it. Would things here change at all or stay the same? While some believed that religious life would be strengthened in general, I think that things would more or less remain the same. We’re really in that situation now- we don’t know that there’s life on another planet, and only a minority really believe that there is. That minority would be disappointed and would probably change their lifestyles, but overall peoples’ faiths and practices would not change. If a change were to occur, though, some faiths might be strengthened slightly on a smaller level. The change would certainly not be as dramatic as discovering a Christian civilization 5 light years away, but it would confirm that we are the only intelligent civilization in existence. Some would come to realize that we are surely part of an elaborate plan constructed by a higher being and that earth really is a unique, special habitat. Therefore, I guess that religious life would increase in some cases, but only on a much reduced scale.