Hi Students.
As you know I enjoy teaching Physics and AP Physics at Chattahoochee High School, and that I have put many classroom resources on my webpage:
http://www2.fultonschools.org/teacher/weaverc
There you can find details about the Physics Help Center, exam dates, assignments, homework solutions, weblinks to practice exams and tutorials, and more. The course syllabus can be viewed at my website.
As you also know, I am available to provide you with extra help in physics, and I want to assist you in your math and physics endeavors. I can be found after school most days, and I read and respond to student emails frequently. You can email me at weaverc@fultonschools.org
This blog site is for students. You can discuss anything related to physics (concepts, problems, Web Assign, etc.). This blog site is also available for you to discuss any issue related to science. I will monitor what you post.
As you know there are many controversial issues in science: darwinism, intelligent design, global warming, and stem-cell research, to name a few. As an educator, I feel it is important for debate over these issues to be allowed, rather than suppressed. You can use this blog site to debate your teacher and your classmates on these issues.
To get the discussion started, go visit the website for a soon-to-be-released movie by Ben Stein that is sure to create controversy and debate about intelligent design and darwinism:
http://www.expelledthemovie.com/
This movie will be released in February 2008. To get an idea what it is about here is a quote from the website:
“Big Science Academy” is proud to have the support of the “Mainstream Press” in stifling the rise of freedom of speech in our science classrooms. In so many ways, “Big Science” and “Big Media” are on exactly the same page, when it comes to making sure that dissenters and troublemakers are properly expelled.
Post your opinion on the issue.
It is appropriate for you (and your parents) to know your physics teacher's position on this issue: I am skeptical of the claims of modern evolutionary biologists. In particular I do not find their argument that the vast complexity of life at the biochemical level arose due to darwinistic gradualism alone to be very convincing.
I am also skeptical of the views of young-earth creationists who not only oppose Darwin and evolution but also reject what physics and chemistry has shown about the age of the Earth. There is much convincing empirical evidence that Earth is around 4.5 billion years old, yet these creationists continue to uphold the view that Earth is only about 6,000 years old.
So I am skeptical of much. What do I believe? I believe that God created the heavens, the earth and every living creature. I believe that details about origins are interesting and debatable, and that investigating the evidence for both sides of these issues to be worthwhile.
Let's discuss!
Mr. Weaver
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I've been debating this issue with myself for the longest time, longer than I can remember, and have come to the conclusion that there is some evidence of Intelligent Design that's hard to attribute directly to sheer probabilistic fortune.
For example, DNA is an incredibly intricate molecule that's found in every living organism. The nucleotides, which include deoxyribose sugars and phosphate bases, chain together along with a complementary strand to form a lengthy, lengthy double helix, which in turn wraps around billions of nucleosomes, which coil together trillions of times to form chromatin, which loop billions of times onto a protein scaffold, which in turn loops trillions of times onto itself to form chromosomes, of which we have 23 in each cell of our body.
The stance I have taken, however, is that Darwinism is inherently a very plausible theory. For all we know, a God could have guided evolution, or even just created the entire mechanism himself to create what he considers to be "good."
Another thing to understand is that the early Earth did not have the proper chemicals to form the macromolecules of early monerans. The atmosphere contained mostly nitrogen gas, rather than ammonia, which makes a significant difference since N2 does not tend to be very chemically reactive. The Miller-Urey experiment was inherently flawed. Is it possible that life started in thermal vents? Scientists say that any organic molecules would have been immediately destroyed in the intense heat. Early Earth just did not prove very hospitable to the beginning of life. Who's to say that a "holy panspermia" couldn't have happened?
In conclusion, there ought to be a sort of synthesis of ideas. The mechanisms we've discovered and the evidence we've found cannot be ignored (as the young Earth theorists might mistakenly believe in a 6,000 year old Earth), but it's also closed-minded to assume the absence of a cosmic being if we've no proof otherwise.
Before any heated debate begins, I thought I would point out the fact that the Book of Genesis was written in Ancient Hebrew by a borderline nomadic people, not in English by 21st century pofessors.
Many atheists attempt to discredit the Bible by pointing out errors that are largey the result of poor translation and in some cases the inability of the authors to comprehend what they saw in nature or were told by the Lord.
For example, skeptics often point out that in Genesis Day and Night were created 3 days before stars, and that the Sky was created as a divide between two bodies of water.
The former inaccuracy is partially the result of a failure of translation; it would be more appropriate to say that the Lord set time in motion rather than to say the Lord set the Sun and Moon in orbit around the Earth.
The latter example should actually lend credence to the Book of Genesis. The idea that space was filled with some fluid (usually called aether) was accepted by the scientific community as fact as recently as the 19th century.
I guess the point I'm trying to make is that the Bible should not be taken as literal fact, but rather as a fusion of natural observations and divine inspiration.
In response to the “synthesis of ideas” suggestion, I’d like to draw from what Sai said: there are many who would suggest that God created such mechanisms as evolution… However, this is a decidedly religious point of view – one put forth and promulgated by the religious side, possibly in an attempt to discredit the very basis of the scientific side’s argument (i.e. by saying that “science”, or in this case, specifically evolution, is all a creation of God anyway). Note that I am not attempting to give my own opinion on this matter (I do have my own opinions, but they’re complicated and it would take more effort than I can muster at the moment to express them adequately)… I’m just pointing out that any so-called “synthesis of ideas” would be extremely difficult to craft in such a way that it satisfies both sides and not just the moderate or on-the-fence people. I just don’t think we can see a synthesis that doesn’t come off as seeming to be merely some religious fundamentalist trying to attack scientific views, or, on the other hand, a religious scientist (assuming of course, that in the real world this would describe many people, although in theory a “scientist” as I’m using the word would refer to someone who believes in science rather than God) attempting to reconcile with the conflict between science and God.
Anyway, since I didn’t really say anything of substance just now, I’ll try to stir up some more discussion. Question to Sai: if the Miller-Urey experiment was flawed, and the thermal-vent theory seems unlikely, what, then, do you suggest as the origin of the early organic molecules? Are you trying to suggest that it WAS, in fact, an act of God (because I’m thinking that’s not what you were trying to do, yet it does seem that way since it points to nothing else)?
Also, to Matt: I’m not really sure of the point of your post, other than that the Bible and/or Book of Genesis can’t really be used as a reasonable [negative] argument by atheists… but for that matter, you left it unclear as to whether you believe the words should be taken by their “true” meaning (i.e. whether the “errors” caused by “poor translation” should be disregarded, and thus we follow the original meaning)
I need to do more research into this, since I haven't the time (or I suppose I just forget to do it), but the origin of Earth's organic molecules is a mystery to me. I've heard theories (such as I've already commented upon), but they have already been proved incorrect. I'm sure the most supported current model pertains nothing to God, but my suggestion is to not leave it inconsiderable.
I agree, it's hard as heck to manage that synthesis of ideas (which is why we still haven't figured it out over all these millenia), and I see the view you hold that the synthesis is chiefly religious. And it is, there's no denying it. God is by nature impossible for the human mind to completely comprehend and understand (infinite wisdom? Now there's an undefinable concept), so who's to say that our rationalization is correct in any case (whether scientific or religious). Perhaps eventually we'll hit upon that all-encompassing theory. Regardless, the pursuit of science could be said to be the pursuit of the knowledge of the creations of God by some. It's not as if religion and science are opposing factions that cannot be reconciled.
A sincere Physicist will always be ready to listen to different and conflicting arguments in his pursuit of truth. I think you are making a good attempt through your blog.
Post a Comment