2008 Scientific Revolutions 210-03

Dawrinism and Intelligent Design

2008-12-18T20:05:00.000-08:00

I have been an avid supporter of Darwin’s theory of Evolution since day one of Scientific Revolutions. I openly expressed and defended my opinions of this subject in class discussions. This pattern also rang true when the topic of Darwin’s competition, the idea of Intelligent Design surfaced in class discussions. I opposed the theory from the start, stubbornly ruling out the validity of the theory’s ideas. In a passing conversation with a fellow student on our way out after the class, I realized I had little to no knowledge on the idea I was so brashly denying as logical thought. While browsing through some popular videos in the defense of Intelligent Design, I came across a trailer for a documentary on the subject. The film, "Expelled: No Room for Intelligence" stars Ben Stein and stresses some key points about how things are far more complex than we could ever imagine. The documentary mentions that recent advancements in technology have enabled us to now observe things so microscopic they were previously beyond the scope of any technology to observe. With this new technology came new experimentation and observations. What it revealed is that there is a literally an entire universe of complexity within every cell. Unimaginably small structures are somehow performing tasks necessary or life with mechanical precision. What the video tries to express with this fact is that there must be some source of information that is telling these tiny little things what to do.

When I first watched this trailer, my stubborn biased thoughts clouded my openness to the ideas that were being put forth. I felt the trailer had too many loose ends and therefore couldn’t be considered reputable. And than as if snapping out of a cognitive stupor, I remembered that what I had just watched was a trailer, and that all trailers have loose ends. Punching myself for being such a space-case, I began looking for more information on the documentary. I came across several other brief chapters from the film. Upon watching these additional clips, questions began forming in my head. My conceptions of what I was so stubbornly accepting as the only plausible logic was suddenly full of holes. Intellectually shaken and a bit perturbed, I pondered the ideas still burning in my head. After quite some time of further introspection, (several days in fact), I was able to gather myself logically and come to a realization. Darwin’s theory has some shady spots. That fact is undeniable. Some things are left unexplained, and at the moment it may seem the most logical explanation for some things in fact is divine presence. However then I remembered the pattern in human existence I had studied in depth for an earlier project. Religion seems to always be the explanation for something that we can’t understand yet. Many years later, with appropriate technological advancements and scientific experimentation, humankind usually tends to find a more reasonable scientific explanation. What I hope is that upcoming experiments involving the Hadon Collider will bring about some new scientific advancements in the field of the universe’s origin. For now I will remain skeptical of intelligent Design, and when further advancements in technology will permit, I will make further conclusions at that point. Nonetheless, I must acknowledge the potential for fallacy in Darwin’s ideas. It’s important to give some space for research into theories possibly opposing the ideas expressed through Evolution.

"Expelled: No Room for Intelligence" trailer:

As Stein’s documentary reveals, teachers and scientists are being outright shunned and discredited amongst their peers in the various fields of science for questioning Darwin’s ideas. What I’ve come to realize is that by being such an immovable supporter for Darwin’s ideas, I’m no better then the members of the Inquisition in the time of Galileo. As my roommate discovered while flipping through the various writings in Appleman’s Darwin, Darwin himself was quoted saying, “Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge,”(Appleman, 525). This quote was used in far different context during Darwin’s time. However, it still applies in today’s society, though with different applications. In my case, this quote implies that by being such a stubborn Darwin supporter and remaining ignorant to the pleas of other logic, I am far more likely to convince myself that what I know of Darwin is the absolute, undeniable system of reason. In stead, I should rely in what ‘knowledge’ has to offer. In this case, it is the recent observations on the most complex microbiological process that are beginning to expose potential fallacies in Darwin’s reasoning. As Pope John Paul II stated in his “Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences”: “A theory’s validity depends on whether or not it can be verified; it is constantly tested against the facts; wherever it can no longer explain the latter, it shows the limitations and unsuitability. It must then be rethought.” He goes on to say, “rather than the theory of evolution, we should speak of several theories of evolution,” (Paul, 528).

Through the discussion of intelligent design and possible holes in Darwinian Theory I had a revelation in which I realized that as technology stands now, and with the current level of advancement in Microbiology, There are some things out there that don’t necessarily fit in with Darwin’s theory. I realized that I have been far too close-minded on the entire subject of existence.

This is the trailer that originally go me interested in the subject

For additional videos on Intelligent Design and trailers for "Expelled" click here

Work Cited
Darwin, Charles, and Pope John Paul II. Darwin. Ed. Philip Appleman. New York: Norton Paperbacks, 2000. 525-28.

Darwin Revelation: Religious Thought

2008-12-14T23:30:00.000-08:00

Throughout my most recent final time line and corresponding essay, and throughout the semester of Scientific Revolutions I explored the various impacts of the roles of creationism and evolution on the history of scientific thought, and common society, specifically societies beliefs on this theme. My studies of Darwin, and the effects he has on society have led to multiple new understandings, new revelations regarding how Darwin's theories were accepted within the general public. I've gained new perceptions of science, religion, culture and society all from one theme and outlook. Based on what we studied this semester of Darwin and his discoveries, my new understanding of science, is in regards to societies general beliefs shaping as a result of the continuing role of evolutionary and creationism thought throughout our culture.
The revelation that I experienced as a result of studying Darwin's entity surrounds the amount of people that support either evolutionary or religious viewpoints of cosmogony. I have constructed new understandings as a result of Darwin's thoughts through the lens of looking at its historical role throughout society and everyday life. Through my research I have realized that religion is far more ingrained in the population’s general belief than I previously thought, according to people’s view of how we came to be, and continue to be in the future. My revelation was a discovery of the prominent belief of creationism in our society, forming as a newfound perspective for myself of the role of science and religion today in our world.
I have achieved this through looking at plenty of sources, and seeing the amounts of support for each viewpoint. From my research I found a lot profound evidence for movements to promote creationism, which seemed surprising to me, as I thought scientific evolutionary thought took the majority of support. I didn’t think people actually believed in creationism over science, but when I thought about it, it makes sense to me because religion is so prominent, and entwined in our society. I found a lot of factual evidence for evolution, natural selection and scientific thought, and simply a lot of 'movements' and 'attempts' to promote the belief of intelligent design, rather than factually or scientifically proving it. This new understanding was revealed through discovering the historical treatment of this theme throughout history. I analyzed the 'evolution' of evolution, the ups and downs of where society stands, and where the peaks are for science and religion.
To describe this ‘evolution’ of the consistent battle of religion and science, from discovering the historical and cultural contexts represented by the events of the chronological time line of this theme. When researching and discovering the annotation of the states changing laws, I found statistics showing the increasing number of supporters for intelligent design. An article from 'dadi.org', supports my newfound Darwin revelation, and states the increasing number of religious supporters over scientific supporters within the general public.
“The [creationism] movement's recent success may in part be a reflection of the fairly widespread sympathy for some of its basic principles. According to Gallup polls, about 44 percent of Americans believe in a biblical creationist view, that God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years. About 40 percent believe in "theistic evolution," the idea that God oversaw and guided the millions of years of evolution that culminated with humankind. Only one in 10 of those surveyed held a strict, secular evolutionist perspective (Rosin).”
This statistic frightened me; I always thought science had the one up over religion, this shows the up and down evolution of this highly disputed topic. The belief of evolution is waning in the public, as it is split in separate sides, with a greater amount on religions side. To me, I interpret this evolution or development of this theme to be a constant fluctuation of where society tends to stand. I see this as the general population having a greater affinity with religion, while the scientific community, including professors, students, and scientists having views of ‘pure’ evolution, a belief that evolution is a sole basis for biology, as one the main structures of life, and scientific thought. I thought the majority of the world stood on supporting evolution, correlating with my beliefs of scientific thought. Another element of my revelation was the impact Darwin's thoughts he had on the world, and the following response towards his ideas. To further support another aspect of my revelation of how much Darwin actually impacted society and public thought, Ernst Mayer writes in support of Darwin's scientific views, and how much he influenced peoples perception, in a book titled "Darwin" compiled by Philip Appleman.
"In intellectual revolution generated by Darwin went far beyond the confines of biology, causing the overthrow of some of the most basic beliefs of his age. For example, Darwin refuted the belief in the individual creation of each species, establishing in its place the concept that all of life descended from a common ancestor" (Appleman 23).
Another piece of evidence that enhances my already existing belief of evolution, and supports the scientific communities beliefs of evolution is seen in a video clip of evidence of the 'collapse of I.D. as a theory' proved through evolution and the fossil record. This video shows that the scientific community definitively believes in the profound scientific theories of Darwin, as it shows a lot of evidence and facts supporting his ideas, which I thought the public believed the same, which in my revelation was exposed that the general public believes in creationism. {Embedded Video}

Through my discovery of Darwin's mass influence on history and peoples beliefs, the path of events in history shows the evolution of this theme, how it has developed into a prominent evolution vs. creationism battle, from the 1600’s to today. This development shows the relation between the events, how they interlace with each other with one event leading to the next throughout history of cosmology. Looking at all of the relating events of this central topic, it contributed to my revelation of a new understanding of the standpoint of society on this subject as it is important to scientific thought because of its direct influence on history.

Works Cited:

Appleman, Philip, ed. Darwin. 3rd ed. New York: W.W.Norton, 2001.

Rosin, Hanna. “Kansas Board Targets Darwinism.” Dadi.org. The Washington Post Company. 8 Dec 2008.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9a-lFn4hqY

Darwin Revelation

2008-12-14T20:51:00.000-08:00

After reading about Darwin that biggest revelation that I had was about the relationship between parents and their children and the genes and personality traits are passed down. Natural selection works by taking more favorable traits and passing them down instead of more unfavorable traits. This can be used to see why some people are better things then others. To show that natural selection was real Darwin used finches and the different beaks that they had and which one were better for the area that they were living to be able to get there food. “Darwin’s finches, establishing the fact of natural selection operating in real time- that is, in the biologically brief period of a few decades.” (Appleman 9) He found that there were thirteen different kinds of finches. I think that it is really interesting that we are able to see that natural selection is real in such a of time using the finches proving that it is something that takes place in most generations if not all. This means that children should be good at the same things that each parent is good at and there for would get more intelligent from generation to generation at least in these those areas. I think that is was what I found most revelation because it something that can help me understand myself and others around me better. Knowing more about natural selection can help me understand why I enjoy the same things that my parents do with more then just the simple that how I was raised.

In this video it talks more about Darwin’s finches and how important they were, and how they changed because of there food sources.

Works Cite

Appleman, Philip. Darwin. 3rd. New York: Norton, 2001.

Darwin Revelation: Justifying Gender Roles

2008-12-14T20:36:00.000-08:00

In reading Appleman's selections of Charles Darwin's The Descent of Man, I found it interesting how much his studies supported the lopsided gender roles of his day. His study states, "Man is more courageous, pugnacious and energetic than woman, and has a more inventive brain." This writing allowed men in Darwin's time to justify subduing the women in their lives, confining them to roles in the household and involving child rearing. I believe that Darwin's study was biased, whether unintentionally or not, as Darwin was a product of his time. He lived in a time in England where women had never been granted the right to vote, had no rights to birth control and had no ability to gain a political position.

Although Darwin produced a biased study on gender roles in society, his intention was to simply observe. Others however used Darwin's work to keep women out of the business world and in the home. Strong gender roles were established and existed into very recent history.

This video shows the stereotypes placed on a working woman in the 1950's:

The video clearly demonstrates that women were seen as second class citizens even recently. Although women

had been granted the right to vote, their place in society still did not match that of a man's. They were expected to

drop their work life immediately once they were married and had a family. Today that is not the way of thinking for

everyone, but many of Darwin's ideas are still prevalent in our stereotypes of beauty and female body image.

Overall my revelation changed the way I view Darwin's work. Having learned about evolution several times in

elementary and high school, I was just given the overview of his theories of natural selection and the idea of "survival

of the fittest." However now I look at Darwin with a more critical eye. I still believe in his theory but I see that it

was not a perfect study and as could happen with any scientist, his work was influenced by his surroundings. It also

gave me a greater understanding of how Darwin has affected my personal life. Clearly human's have been

produced due to natural selection, but being a female, my life has been influenced by more than that. I am

targeted by media and cosmetics companies, striving for an ideal beauty and if I choose to enter corporate America,

am still going to have to fight harder than my male counterparts for the same job, rank or salary.

Works Cited:

Appleman, Philip, ed. Darwin. 3rd ed. New York: W.W.Norton, 2001.

Davies, Norman. Europe: A History. New York: HarperPerennial, 1998.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BA3uryDJzI0

Darwin Revelation: Dating

2008-12-14T20:26:00.000-08:00

The Darwin Revelation: Dating and Mating

When Charles Darwin published Origin of the Species in 1859 and introduced his idea of natural selection and sexual selection in which only the strongest, brightest, and most adaptive of a species will live to procreate, I think the last thing that Darwin thought his theory would lead to was an online dating website. But, DarwinDating.com exists today, holding Darwin as the founder behind their idea of creating a dating website for “beautiful people who possess the qualities of effective natural selection”. I laughed at first when I saw this, but they do have a point: humans are much more willing to not only date, but mate with people that they consider to be of their same level of attractiveness or better.

We choose our mates based on attractiveness, health, virility, age, and lastly, personality. It’s easy to tell by sight if you’re attracted to someone—that’s why first impressions are so important. You see someone first, and you speak to them to judge character next. Have you ever wondered why when asked what the person you’re dating is like, you begin with a physical description that highlights all the aspects of that person that you find attractive, important, or promising? (An example of this would be, “Well, he’s tall, muscular, has dark hair, is two years older than I am…” etc.) Subconsciously, you’re going through the details of a significant other that make you believe that makes them an ideal candidate to showcase the production of natural selection.
Taken from an excerpt of the Origin of the Species in our Darwin reader (which you can find here: ) in which he explains his thinking on the topic of natural selection, Darwin states: “…Can we doubt (remembering that many more individuals are born than can possibly survive) that individuals having any advantage, however slight, over others, would have the best chance of surviving and of procreating their kind?” (Appleman 111-112) For humans, intelligence, strength, and beauty seem to be the standards that we unknowingly breed for in natural selection. Some people argue that money is another thing that helps people become more successful and desirable, but wealth is material, and thus must be gained. Also, having money doesn’t guarantee you a genetic jackpot. Look at Donald Trump. (But then again, he is married to a model and fathered a child at the age of sixty. Natural selection for a better next generation?)
In a further except in the same reading, Darwin goes on to say, “As man can produce and certainly has produced a great result by his methodical and unconscious means of selection…Man can only act on external and visible characters…Man selects only for his own good…” (Appleman 113). On DarwinDating.com, they provide a (seemingly) tongue-in-cheek explanation of what are not attractive characteristics that people applying to the site are not allowed to have, including “no visible skin between the eyebrows” and “no proportionally large ears”. We are, admittedly, a very sight-biased species, but in the world of dating and mating, we would rather die than admit to trying to procreate with someone “ugly” or “beneath us”. Maybe this fascination with aesthetic beauty is Nature’s way of further evolving the human species.
Some people have certain “types” that they find themselves attracted to. Some people can’t tell you why they’re with their partner based on looks, but they certainly can tell you what they find attractive in a member of the opposite sex, and chances are, some or most of those traits will be exhibited in the person they are with. DarwinDating.com has exploited this tendency in people to find new partners based on looks, and everything that goes with it in our society today, which includes a certain physique. You can’t blame them, really—everyone dates according to the process of natural selection: that’s why the human race is still around today and flourishing. Most of us just don’t publicly subscribe to the notion like they do.

Works Cited:

1.) Appleman, Philip, ed. Darwin. 3rd ed. New York: W.W.Norton, 2001.

2.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0P_Om9jWCI

3.) DarwinDating.com

Darwin Revelation

2008-12-14T20:20:00.000-08:00

Some of Darwin's very basic studies point out that every species survived to the point we're at now by being able to stronger, faster, and more clever than other's of our species. The term "survival of the fittest" was coined through this observation. We can see today that the human species is the same. Those of use who look both ways before crossing the street, usually don't get hit by cars. The ones that check the expiration dates on food don't end up with food poisoning. Those who eat healthy and avoid an over abundance of fatty food usually maintain a healthy weight and heart. Most of the time, those are the people who survive longer, and are able to reproduce in a more effective manner passing on healthier and more fruitful genes.

That's not to say that those with lesser intelligence don't survive. In fact, they tend to procreate more, but unlike in lesser species, they have the same margin for survival that the smarter do. In all of human society, back all the way to the beginning of civilizations, it's never been about who's got the bigger IQ, it's about who is "more." When I say more, I mean more of everything. Better looking, more money, more muscle, more friends, just more of everything. This isn't an exclusive method of choosing, I mean someone's got to love the ugly people, but this seems to be the norm.

In Appleman's Darwin, Darwin himself writes, "females are most excited by... the more ornate males." In the text, this is made in observation to birds, but the same stands for humans. In this video, you can see that like all species, there are certain preconceptions about attraction.

The Chief, the green guy, shows us how there are certain ideas that we have about attracting the opposite sex. Though this is an extreme example, seeing as how the Chief is extremely socially inadequate, it makes my point. In the end, he was able to be more attractive by having more of something. In his case, it was more social skills, but it was still more than what he started with. He was able to flaunt himself, and as a result gained respect and some sort of attraction from the girl he encountered, regardless of the fact that he was about as bright as a fleck of dust.

Work Cited:

Appleman, Philip. Darwin. 3rd. New York: Norton, 2001.

http://www.youtube.com/v/hH2yjZAoWRg&hl=en&fs=1

http://2008scientificrevs210-03.blogspot.com/2008/09/course-readings.html

Darwin Revelation

2008-12-14T19:38:00.000-08:00

Zachary Morse
Brandenburg
COR 210
December 14, 2008
Darwin Revelation
Antibiotics: Blessing or Curse?
Charles Darwin was one of the most influential scientists in history. His discoveries still resonate to this day, even one hundred and twenty years after his death. Unfortunately some of his discoveries have been overlooked and unheeded by some members of the medical community. My revelation came to me when I read a bottle of hand sanitizer in a bathroom on campus. I caught a small label on the bottom of the bottle; it said that it kills 99.9% of bacteria. Not long after that I had a flashback to my high school biology class; in the class we had a two week discussion on microbes. During the class we discussed how on the average human hand there can be tens of millions of bacteria. It was then that I realized that if even a tenth of a percent of 30 million survive then 300,000 bacteria survive and are immune to the hand sanitizer and can spread unhindered throughout the population. The ability for microbes to exploit their advantage over other microbes is better expressed in Darwin’s “The Origin of Species”.
“Owing the this struggle for life, any variation, however slight and from whatever cause proceeding, if it be in any degree profitable to an individual of any species, in its infinitely complex relations to other organic beings and to external nature, will tend to the preservation of that individual, and will generally be inherited by its offspring. The offspring, also, will thus have a better chance of surviving, for, of the many individuals of any species which are periodically born” (Applemann 108)
What this means in layman’s terms is that if a certain bacteria, or virus, or any other organism has an advantage over others in its own species then it will have the upper hand and will then will have a better chance to procreate. For example if the outer coating of a cell wall of a bacterium is thicker or has some other advantage that makes it resistant to antibiotics or hand sanitizer than it will be more successful in procreation; and will therefore be able to spread farther and for longer without being killed. Eventually bacteria, which reproduce far faster than us, will become far more resistant to our treatment methods and our strongest drugs like penicillin and other antibiotics may become less and less affective. It is only a matter of time before our methods become more obsolete and we will have to search for new options or face a new health crisis in the form of mass bacterial infections resulting in fatalities. The imbedded video show some of the first signs of this resounding possibility.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2L82V6VPJkQ&feature=email

In the video Russian prisoners have started to contract an old disease, Tuberculosis, which has evolved in to a new more potent and more deadly strain. The cause of this is a direct result of poor prison conditions and even worse health care in the prisons. In the video they discuss how they have developed a new drug that could eliminate the new strain, however watching this forces me to ask the question. How long will it take for the disease to develop a resistance to this new drug and become just as deadly as it was before the invention of antibiotics.

Works Cited:

Appleman, Philip. Darwin. 3rd. New York: Norton, 2001.
Evolution Ep4: The Evolutionary Arms Race. April 27, 2007. December 14, 2008.

Darwin Revelation

2008-12-14T19:25:00.000-08:00

Throughout the semester we have discussed the many theories of Darwin and his thoughts on the human race. We have taken these ideas and applied them to our everyday lives and how they compare to what we have to come to know based on research that has been done over the years. We have learned that Darwin's thoughts were revolutionary and the first of that kind.
One specific theory Darwin developed was Natural Selection in which he believed the strongest survive and the weak don't and that is how nature naturally selected what species would survive. Darwin believed those who survived and adapted to changes were the ones that were meant to live and if they didn't it meant they were meant to die off. Darwin states, "The key is man's power of accumulative selection: nature gives successive variations; man adds them up in certain directions useful to him. In this sense he may be said to make for himself useful breeds (Appleman, 104). His theory is based on the idea of the adjustments to changes specific to different species. It is about those species being able to adapt to the changes nature has made and evolve based on their adaptation. Those who are unable to adapt to these changes are not meant to continue on.
I felt this theory developed by Darwin is not only interesting but also important because it relates to our past as well as our future as a society. Natural selection has been occurring since the beginning of time. The species we currently have on earth today are, according to Darwin's theory, meant to be here and were the strongest of their time. We can look back and see how many different species were on the earth thousands of years ago and if natural selection is in fact the case then there is a reason some of them are no longer here and it was meant for them to become extinct. Darwin explains, "Every slight modification, which in the course of ages chanced to arise, and which in any way favoured the individuals of any of the species, by better adapting them to their altered conditions, would tend to be preserved; and natural selection would thus have free scope for the work of improvement" (Appleman, 112). He is stating that natural selection works in such a way that if a species is able to adapt to the naturally occurring changes in their living conditions they are strong enough to survive.
Our environment and society has been dealing with a lot of changes lately, some being man-made but never the less inevitable. A lot of our concern relates to the problem of global warming and what is going to happen because of it. This makes me think back to Darwin and especially this theory of Natural Selection. It opens up a lot of questions in my mind and has made me realize that this could be happening to the human race. If global warming is going to affect us so much, what changes will occur when it gets to be too much. Right now such small changes are happening on the planet and if something is not done about it, I wonder what will become of humans and our world. Will the strongest people out of the entire human race be the only ones to survive, or will we all have to adapt in such a way that we are no longer humans and a different breed completely? The Natural Academy of Sciences explains Darwin's theory, "Drought diminishes supplies of easily cracked nuts but permits the survival of plants that produce larger, tougher nuts" (Appleman, 292). I feel this relates to the future of the human race by opening the question will global warming just change certain aspects about humans? I wonder if we will become extinct all together because our race is not strong enough to survive.
Darwin's ideas have brought up a lot of controversy but to some it is a realization and an explanation as to what is happening in the world. I have been taught Darwin's theories in the past but only a basic level. After going into such detail about Darwin's theories it has definitely opened my mind a lot more to what is going on in the world. It has made me realize I need to pay closer attention to what is happening and what could happen. Natural selection has caught my attention and has made me think a lot about where we come from and how the human race has survived for so long, as well as making me wonder if the same will happen in the future.

I chose this video because it is a stimulation of natural selection and evolution. I felt it was a great way to show how natural selection works and it gives detailed information but is basic enough for everyone to understand. A lot of what is talked about in "Darwin" is hard to understand based on the language used and how scientific the explanations are. This video breaks down the information and uses a computer to stimulate the process giving you a great visual.

works cited

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCXzcPNsqGA&feature=related

Appleman, Philip, ed. Darwin. New York: Norton & Company, 2001. 111-15.

Darwin Revelation

2008-12-14T19:16:00.000-08:00

Casey Norton
Cyndi Brandenburg
Scientific Revolutions
12/13/08

Darwin Revelation

A topic that is prevalent within American culture since its beginnings is the idea of the American Dream. This topic is something that has intrigued me since highschool after learning about American history and society. It was also prevalent in many texts and movies that were shown to me through my youth. Through many of these novels, there was an idea of the impossibility of this dream and its emptiness. Along with the idea, that the dream becomes emptier each day because currently in American society, people want to acquire wealth. One of the examples that was shown to me in highschool was within the movie American Beauty featuring Kevin Spacey as Lester Burnham. He lacks happiness because he believes he is average and cannot amount to what society wants of him. This movie exemplifies the struggle of the individual to conform within American society.
This study of the American Dream continues to follow me as I continue to examine my own life and what I am learning currently. Throughout this semester of Scientific Revolutions, Darwinian thought and influence is something that raised many questions in my mind. When I look at Darwin and his many ideas, I look at them through how they have affected society today.
Charles Darwin’s belief of Natural Selection was based off the idea that there were favorable variations. Within these variations, come better variations to deal with external problems. According to Darwin in his book The Origin of Species, “Throughout the world, every variation, even the slightest; rejecting that which is bad, preserving and adding up all that is good” (113). In this Darwin describes the idea that the strongest will remain while the weaker are rejected. With the idea of Natural Selection, people could be lead to believe that the poor in American society were just a weaker being. In this case, the poor would remain poor while the rich got richer and did not feel guilt for not helping.
This idea follows one that is discussed in The Bell Curve by Richard J. Hernstein and Charles Murray. This book is along with the ideas of Herbert Spencer are viewed in an article by Rutledge M. Dennis called “Social Darwinism, Scientific Racism, and the Metaphysics of Race”. The article uses both examples to show the racism within science. Each idea allows for an inferior variation or race. Within written proof that there is an inferior race or being, it allows for people to continue suppression of a certain class or race.
In its beginnings, the American Dream was open to all that chose to come to America and flourish. Now, the dream is almost an impossible goal to reach. This idea is one that is recognized as one that even now people continue to strive for. Comedian, George Carlin explains the way people attempt to live their day to day lives.

He commentates on the emptiness of the dream and what it has become.

Appleman, Philip, ed. Darwin. New York: Norton & Company, 2001. 111-15.

Dennis, Rutledge M. "Social Darwinism, Scientific Racism, and the Metaphysics of Race." The Journal of Negro Education (1995): 1-4.

Darwin Revelation

2008-12-14T19:06:00.000-08:00

Throughout this entire semester in Scientific Revolutions, we have been discussing the affects of Darwin on the history of our world in its entirety and science in general. Darwin has given me a new outlook upon both science and society. In relation to my time line about war, Darwin’s outlook upon science and his knowledge of society comes into play by allowing me to apply his ideas and thoughts to my own project. Darwin’s theory of evolution has permeated our word since the beginning, and will continue to do so. If Darwin was not around to create this theory, I wouldn’t have any information to support my time line. I wouldn’t be able to explain why guns exist, how telescope technology is used on guns, how we conduct ourselves as a society, and how the cause and effects of war have altered over time. My personal revelation is my understanding of the vital importance of Darwin’s theory’s that have shaped our country into what it stands for today.

According to Philip Appleman, “Science is a particular way of knowing about the world. In science, explanations are limited to those based on observations and experiments that can be substantiated by other scientists. Explanations that cannot be based on empirical evidence are not a part of science” (Appleman, 289). This statement helps portray my revelation in the light of Darwin because it expresses the nature of science and how is must be supported. Evolution is an example of science that would apply to this previous statement. Referring back to my time line, evolution has a lot to do with war because of how technology in weapons have evolved, reasoning’s for war, protection, and tactics. An example of evolution in my time line is art; Picasso’s Guernica is a very abstract painting which was not always seen as art. Aesthetics and art have been evolving since the beginning of time, getting more and more abstract and modern. Speaking of aesthetics, art is not the only war related subject that has changed through time. Music is another example, expressed as the 1812 Overture in my time line. Music has not always been like the Overture, and obviously has evolved much since then, hence today’s popular musical artists and genres. One doesn’t hear music much from the 1930’s in today’s time, and I’m sure in 2099 they won’t be listening to music from 2008. This example relates to art, music, and science because of technology improving every day.

Science and aesthetics still come back into play even when basing my personal revelation upon Darwin’s theory’s and relating them to my time line of war. Appleman states, “Scientific knowledge may enrich aesthetic and moral perceptions, but these subjects extend beyond science’s realm, which is to obtain a better understanding of the natural world” (Appleman, 300). Basically this statement means that even though scientific knowledge is the basis upon life and is backed with scientific proof, aesthetics and the moral outcomes are the determinants. Any information is somewhat bland; however, once it is aesthetically portrayed to the public determines the way in which it’s meant to be taken, its importance, impact, and possible beauty. Aesthetics overpowers science by being able to contort how society reacts to its scientific outcomes. My personal revelation is very important to me and I feel is very important to others too because most do not have knowledge of Darwin. I’ am amazed of how much Darwin has impacted my thinking throughout this semester, and I feel that everyone else in the class feels the same way.

I chose this video because it relates to my discussion of evolution in the promoters and outcomes of war, and how science must be proved with credible evidence. This video displays evidence for evolution and how it plays a role in our world in the past, present, and future. I found this to be the most relevant video clip coinciding with my theme. Our course readings are also another possible source for information.

Work Cited

Appleman, Philip. Darwin. “Darwin and the Shaping of Modern Science.” (289). New York: Newton & Company, Inc, 2001.

Appleman, Philip. Darwin. “Darwin and the Shaping of Modern Science.” (300). New York: Newton & Company, Inc, 2001.

Darwin Revelation

2008-12-14T18:41:00.000-08:00

When constructing my annotated timeline I decided to go with the theme of war. While I was looking up different events, I came across a revelation. One that I had not thought about before, which was war among one's self. I never thought about a self-conflict as a war but when looking at the definition of what war was it was a conflict, or a struggle, this could possibly mean that someone could have a war with themselves.

When someone has an internal struggle they are fighting two sides of themselves.This links to Darwin's theory of evolution, in evolving personalities. It is an evolution because in an internal struggle the stronger side of the personality will win the battle causing the weaker side to become nonexistent. When the stronger side wins this changes the way person acts, and perceives themselves, causing an evolution. It is an evolution because the person is forming into someone new. For example in the video below Gollums stronger side Smeagle took over Gollum's and eliminated him. This caused him to be a new character.

As Steve Pinker said in his segment of How the Mind Works, "behavior is the outcome of an internal struggle among many mental modules, and it is played out on the chessboard of opportunities and constraints defined by other people's behavior" (Appleman 469). By this quote, he means that everyone is confronted by internal struggles, which could create different kinds of behaviors whether it is sad, angry, or even acting distant towards others. Sometimes these behaviors could be judged by other people, mainly because other people could react differently over the same situation.

This video is of Gollum from the Lord of the Rings. It was the scene when Gollum was sitting by himself and fighting with his other half of his personality Smeagle. He was confronting himself by calling himself a liar, a murderer, and other hateful things about himself. He was basically turning into two different characters one side being Smeagle who was the good side, and then there was Gollum who tried to make himself sound like a bad person. This was the side that wanted to steal the necklace from Frodo. In the end his stronger personality Smeagle won the battle, and Gollum was officially gone. The video shows an internal conflict among a person.

Appleman, Philip, ed. Darwin. 3rd ed. New York: W.W. Norton, 2001. 469

Darwin Revelation

2008-12-14T18:23:00.000-08:00

This semester we have been studying Darwin and his different ideas and theories. We have discussed and made our own theories about what he has said and what we have studied. I personally think one of the most interesting theories is the one about what parents and children have in common on the basis of traits and what we pass on. "Darwinism is a scientific theory about the origin of biological species from per-existent species." (Appleman 9)
We have all heard about how parents and children usually end up having a great deal of things in common. I think it is interesting to try and understand if these different traits come from genetics, or simply what we learn over time. There have been countless media examples of the common saying "like father like son" or "like mother like daughter". I thought an interesting one was from a 1967 PSA:

I think that this concept of a parent influencing a child is something that is present all the time. I think that it is really hard to say whether or not we are products of our parents based on what they pass genetically to us, or what they teach us as we are growing up. All of these are questions that were present in last years classes, this semester's classes, and I'm sure will come up many times in the future.

Works Cited:
Appleman, Philip, ed. Darwin. 3rd ed. New York: W.W.Norton, 2001.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmzDLzqQ-A0

Darwin Revelation

2008-12-14T17:50:00.000-08:00

Charles Darwin developed the theory that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor, the Theory of evolution. After reading different selections from Philip Appleman’s “Darwin” I began to develop my own ideas regarding human nature. By studying Darwin’s theory and the mass amounts of criticism that he received for it, I began to further think about human curiosity to know how the world began. After wrapping my head around this concept for a while, it led me to the idea that humans want one clear explanation to how the world was created. That it is difficult to except that there may be numerous answers to fundamental questions instead of everyone settling on just one. In our society especially humans want a single answer, even though the answer one wants may vary. This theme has been prevalent throughout the course. Multiple times the discussion has come up if Religion is fading out and Science taking its place, debate has thrived over this topic. It is difficult for humans to not know everything, and face that there are multiple explanations for the fundamental question of “how humans came to be?” The debate over this question has created both growth and destruction. Growth has occurred because humans have made multiple discoveries trying to answer these complex questions. Destruction because there have been numerous wars across the world due to differences in opinion regarding this question.
Darwin theory of evolution, and the reaction that it received, has only emphasized the idea of human nature for the need of only one answer. Frans De Waal selection on “Good Natured: The Origin of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals”, discusses this phenomenon. De Wall states, Even if animals other than ourselves act in a way tantamount to moral behavior, their behavior does not necessarily rest on the deliberations of the kind we engage in. It is hard to believe animals weigh their own interests against the right of others, they develop a vision of the greater good of society, or that they feel lifelong guilt about something they should not have done.” (Appleman 515) De Waal then continues to discuss the nature of human consensus. The idea that it is the nature of animals to look out for the good of the community as a whole instead of ones personal interest has been tested by humans. Humans in the past have chosen to be destructive towards one another instead of accepting various beliefs. Does human desire to be correct put a damper on the human species?
Although personally I believe in evolution based on information gathered from numerous experiments and studies, I think it is unrealistic that our world can thrive as a whole if one cannot except other perspectives. This notion of putting different theologies up against one another was discussed in the article “How to Teach Science to the Pope” by Michael Mason. Throughout this article the debate of science vs. religion is prominent, with the conclusion that science cannot fully explain religion in the same way that religion cannot fully explain religion and the world is to complex to understand it all.
Darwin has developed a theory of “how humans came to be” that is the most probable and has much scientific proof to back it up, but still some people do not agree. This has lead me to believe that when it comes down to it is not worth fighting over what is “right” but excepting that no matter what, opinions will always vary. By continuously fighting over different theories regarding complex question humans may most likely never fully answer it is only holding us back instead of allowing us to move forward and work together as a whole. Therefore my Darwin Revelation is rather indirect and broad, but my studies of Darwin and the reactions of his discoveries have made me realize that even with all the proof in the world humans will always have different opinions, it is human nature.

I chose this video because it portrays the theme of self destruction of our own species. As mentioned in the post the idea that humans desire to be right is putting a damper on the human species as a whole. This video is a rather humorous depiction of how fighting with one another eventually will lead to the destruction of humans and possibly our earth.

Work Cited:
Birdman12078. "End of Ze World." Youtube. 14 Dec. 2008. Http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZMwKPmsbWE.

Appleman, Philip, ed. Darwin. 3rd ed. New York: W.W.Norton, 2001.

Mason, Michael. "How to Teach Science to the Pope." Discover Magazine. August 18, 2008. http://discovermagazine.com/2008/sep/18-how-to-teach-science-to-the-pope

Course Readings

Darwin Revelation

2008-12-14T16:46:00.000-08:00

Darwin Revelation

The world of business has dramatically evolved over time from what it used to be. People for centuries all over the world have been engaging in business transactions to better themselves and others. “The intellectual revolution generated by Darwin went far beyond the confines of biology, causing the overthrow of some of the most basic beliefs of his age. For example, Darwin refuted the belief in the individual creation of each species, establishing in its place the concept that all of life descended from a common ancestor” (Appleman, 23). Darwin believed that everyone came from one single common ancestor much like the world of business. The basic definition of business is an exchange of goods or services for something of value. Back in times like the renaissance era artists would create pieces or art and then sell them. This is a perfect example of the earliest most simple for of business. The artist gets money or something of value in exchange for one of their paintings; both parties are better off after the exchange. All Business's have evolved from this simple form to large corporations that you see dominate today’s economy.

When sitting down to write this blog post I had a revelation that the evolution in business is directly related to technology and the advancements of it. As time went on and new technologies were discovered businesses were able to evolve into a new and improved form. An example of this would be the invention of the printing press, with this technology businesses were able to print out and distribute information about their store and location. This allowed business to reach a larger customer base by having the name of their store spread throughout the area. During the industrial revolution the next pieces of technology were introduced, these would again change and evolve the business world. Steam power changed was the biggest factor for the evolution of business in this time period. Having steam power allowed business to transport their merchandise must faster and at more cost efficient. Businesses now are able to ship their goods to a customer who is far away once again reaching even more potential customers. With business able to attract more customers they are able to generate more income and grow. Businesses have gone from single store fronts to now multiple stores all over the country with each store front attracting a wide array of customers.

Darwin’s theory of natural selection applies to business as well as science, Darwin said “As many more individuals of each species are born than can possibly survive; and as, consequently, there is a frequently recurring struggle for existence, it follows that any being, if it vary however slightly in any manner profitable for itself, under the complex and sometimes varying conditions of life, will have a better chance of surviving, and thus be naturally selected.” (Appleman 97) This quote explains how natural selection, and how if you are better than the competition you will survive. In the business world if you can’t offer a superior product than your competition than you will not survive.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1A9lYC3g-0

This video connects to the evolution of business because it is about an important invention that has completely revolutionized the world we live in today. In 1991 the company Cern invented the internet. The video talks about how the internet can connect people all over the world in a matter of seconds. This technology allowed the business world to move to the next evolutionary stage in its life, e-commerce. E-commerce is business that is conducted over the internet; the customer doesn’t ever have to leave their seat to purchase practically anything they want. The internet is just one example of how technology has helped the business world evolve.

Works Cited:

Appleman, Philip. Darwin. 3rd. New York: Norton, 2001.

The Amazing Internet[video]. Received Dec 13 2008. From

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1A9lYC3g-0

Evolution of Video Games

2008-12-14T14:36:00.000-08:00

It’s funny how some of the best ideas can come from odd places. In this case something that is done frequently. While sitting on a couch and playing a game, a usual task for myself, I came upon a revelation. Though amazingly simple, video games are technology, and like technology they’ve evolved. It was a thought that I just hadn’t thought about for a long time. How every few years new consoles come out, and with them a bucket load of new features. The amazing realistic style games that exist now are a product of all the consoles and games that have failed and succeeded throughout the past few decades. In a way the industry has evolved through natural selection.

Companies come and go every few years, Sega was a big contender for years but they removed from the console business with the Dreamcast. Microsoft would enter with their Xbox and take up a reigning position within the industry. It’s exactly like what Darwin said,

“As many more individuals of each species are born than can possibly survive; and as, consequently, there is a frequently recurring struggle for existence, it follows that any being, if it vary however slightly in any manner profitable for itself, under the complex and sometimes varying conditions of life, will have a better chance of surviving, and thus be naturally selected.” (Appleman 97)

Whenever a console is created with a strong successful feature, the consumer will purchase it, improving the company’s business, increasing its survival. It’s near the end of that generation of consoles that other companies attempt to mimic the feature or improve upon it to succeed as well. Before you know it every game system has it as a staple feature. For example Microsoft brought online multiplayer to the table, now on the next generation Sony and Nintendo have picked up the feature for their own products, This being one of the more modern examples. The upgrade from 2D to 3D and the change from cartridges to disks are some of the older ones, to see 50 of the greatest innovations in the game industry click on this, 50 Greatest Game Design Innovations(Link).

So while Darwin might be referring to the evolution of species, it can still be applicable to the game industry and how far it has come. Systems have come and gone, and all of the industry has evolved from every stepping stone. The next generation will come, and with it new ways to survive in the world of video games.

Works Cited:
Appleman, Philip. Darwin. 3rd. New York: Norton, 2001.

Edge Staff, "50 Greatest Game Design Innovations." Edge Online. 01 Nov 2007. Edge. 14 Dec 2008 .

News In Science: Dippin' Dots

2008-12-14T13:21:00.000-08:00

Carissa Stimpfel
COR-210
Brandenburg
12/11/08
News in Science: Dippin’ Dots

Chances are, if you’ve been to a movie theater, at one point or another, you’ve had Dippin’ Dots. If you haven’t, you’re really missing something. Small, round balls of cryogenically frozen ice cream that has to be kept at a temperature of -20 degrees Fahrenheit and coming in flavors such as Banana Split, Bubblegum, Chocolate Chip Cookie Dough, Cookies & Cream with Oreo, Cotton Candy, and your good old-fashioned Chocolate, Vanilla and Strawberry—they taste like nothing else.
Labeled “the ice cream of the future”, Dippin’ Dots takes on a whole new ice cream-eating experience. You can pour them into a cup, eat them slowly, even play with the beads. However, because of the extreme temperature they need to be stored in, Dippin’ Dots are not sold in regular supermarkets or are widely available. Movie theaters seem to be the best place to find them, short of at one of the few Dippin’ Dots franchise stores in the U.S.
In 1988, microbiologist Curt Jones got the idea to combine his family’s ice cream recipe with liquid nitrogen, which flash-freezes the ice cream into small beads, locking in the flavor and texture and making the ice cream less susceptible to quickly melting or sticking together. This process is known as cryogenically freezing—you may have heard it used in science-fiction articles in regards to freezing people like Walt Disney. Same basic theory. To be cryogenically frozen, something must be frozen at under -75 degrees. By cryogenically freezing something, texture, taste, and moisture are locked in better than if the food was to be traditionally frozen. Traditional freezing requires quick thawing with loss of water retention, where cryogenically freezing things does not.
This is a revolutionary idea because not many of our current foods are cryogenically frozen. Although it is a longer and more involved process than traditional freezing and requires both liquid nitrogen and special machinery, it’s important because it can and could be used more commercially to keep foods fresher longer. Also, there has been some testing and speculation done with cryogenics to see if they could freeze to later resuscitate humans, hence the Walt Disney theory. In the meantime though , Dippin’ Dots remain a fun novelty.

http://www.cryogenicsociety.org/resources/cryo_central/food_processing/
http://www.dippindots.com/company/faqs/

Darwin Revelation

2008-12-14T12:45:00.000-08:00

Kate Harroun

Scientific Revolutions

12/14/08

Darwin Revelation

Social Darwinism is known as the survival of the fittest within a society. This theory is best shown from the reasoning of why kids enroll in college. This is because they want to get a degree and obtain a good job in the future. The kids that decide not to go to college usually do not make as high of a salary as those who spent a good amount of money and four years getting an education. In the workplace an individual always wants to be better than their peers in the hopes that they can have a better life. This is what my revelation of social Darwinism in the real world means to me.

Different course readings touched on this subject in a variety of ways. Andrew Carnegie wrote in The Gospel Of Wealth that, "We accept and welcome, therefore, as conditions to which we must accommodate ourselves, great inequality of environment; the concentration of business, industrial and commercial, in the hands of a few; and the law of competition between these, as being not only beneficial, but essential to the future progress of the race" (Appleman, 396). This basically means that only a few hold the ability to live in the best places, work the best jobs, and because only these few individuals have this grace the human race will live on. This is because of the competition people experience in their lives. This could also be further explained as the survival of the fittest, and if everyone had the survival techniques to have an equal life that is the best the human race would all be the same.

Another course reading that explains this revelation is a selection from On Becoming Human, by Nancy Makepeace Tanner, where she states, "Natural Selection - the fitness of the individual and ... the intelligence to gather and the sociability to share with offspring doubtless were enhanced by natural selection ... and skilled use of the hands" (Appleman, 432). This basically means that physically being the best and mentally being the best are just as important to one another. To be the best and survive as the fittest you need not to just have a large mental capacity but strong physical features as well. Both are important to survive as a human in this lifetime. You need to have both the mental stamina and physical stamina to achieve success.

The Apprentice Season 1 Intro. Retrieved December 14th, 2008, from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEFQlrvJ618

I have included the video for the theme song to the popular job interview show called The Apprentice. This show involves people that go through many tasks in the hopes to win a high power job working for Donald Trump. At the end of the show only one person will be the winner if they show Mr. Trump they are the strongest for the job. This is another example of how the theory of social Darwinism occurs in everyday life.

Works Cited

Appleman, Phillip, ed. Darwin. 3rd ed. New York: W.W. Norton, 2001.

Darwin Revelation

2008-12-14T12:35:00.000-08:00

Chelsey Obuchowski
December 14, 2008
Darwin Revelation

Charles Darwin altered common scientific beliefs and set the foundation for biology with his theory of evolution "Darwinism is a scientific theory about the origin of biological species from per-existent species....Darwinism can be evolutionary metaphysic about the nature of reality and the universe...an economic theory, or a moral theory, or an aesthetic theory, or a psychological theory (Appleman 9). This theory said that all animal species on earth have evolved from their respective ancestors throughout history. Darwin Called this natural selection which is basically a form of survival of the fittest, each species changed their physical attributes through generations of selective mating in order to adapt to survive in their environment.

A deeper look inside this theory shows that parents pass on their traits to their children. If both parents pass on their most valuable traits to their children then the child, along with their own personal traits has better opportunities to succeed. For example if your father is very handy with tools and fixing things and your mother is very good at math and science, then you are likely to be good at both.

The following link shows a young boy who is fascinated with his father’s car magazine.

He is too young to realize that this is something that his father is interested in and therefore likes it to be like his father, he just naturally was interested in it. I think that this proves the point that these types of traits are naturally part of our personalities and we do not follow in our parents footsteps simply because we choose to.

Work Cited:

Appleman, Philip, ed. Darwin. 3rd ed. New York: W.W.Norton, 2001.

"Like Father like Son".Youtube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQveBE_7SjQ

Darwin Revelation ; Religion vs. Science

2008-12-14T11:05:00.000-08:00

The idea of Natural Selection presented by Darwin, whereas a species or organism adapts to its environment over a long period of time, can be used to explain the fundamental problems inherent in modern society and the belief systems of some organizations. More specifically, the adaptation of Religion over the years, along with its counter-part, Science, to better survive in a world of constant questioning. For my revelation, I have decided to explore this connection, and explain how I understand each form of belief has adapted to survive in modern society.

The primary support for my endeavor comes from the article How To Teach Science to the Pope, by Michael Mason. Growing up in the last decade, the misconception that religious authority disapproved of Science was still accepted to an extent, especially after being taught the conservative methods of the Catholic Church and their response to scientific reasoning in the past. A quick example being the prosecution of Galileo Galilei during the 1600's; after defending the theory of heliocentrism as defined by Copernicus and Galileo's own inquiry, the Church condemned any such notions and subjected him to house arrest.

However, the strict code of belief owned by the Church has diminished over the years. In 1936, the Vatican established the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, an institution designated to the research and understanding of Science. According to Brother Guy Consolmagno, “If you think the universe is fundamentally good and that it’s an expression of a good God, then studying how the universe works is a way of becoming intimate with the Creator. It’s a kind of worship. And that’s been a big motivation for doing any kind of science.” The main focus of the science studied is to better understand God and his mysterious ways, but I propose a different, more preposterous reason.

According to Darwin, an organism must adapt and survive to its environment in order to survive. Is it not suiting to say the Church has done just this in changing their belief system and accepting science? In a message from Pope John Paul to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, he states: “During this plenary session, you are undertaking a “reflection on science at the dawn of the third millennium,” starting with the identification of the principal problems created by the sciences and which affect humanity’s future. With this step you point the way to solutions which will be beneficial to the whole human community” (Appleman 527). The acceptance of Science and the Churches new fervor to be part of its advancement is a relatively strong sign that the Church has started to change on behalf of its environment.

Belonging to the Academy are scientists and religious scholars, all pursuant of scientific truth and its implications on religious matters. One of the people working here, Richard Dawkins, is known as an extreme Atheist, and has written a book called The God Delusion. This video provides a short excerpt from the book on Dawkins theory behind religion:

Evolution and the scientific theory behind it might answer a few questions about our origin, but the big questions, like "Why are we here?, Is there more to life?, and What created it all?" can only be speculated on. In this sense, religion, along with science, is still a necessesity. Both compete to provide answers to questions, yet neither can be 100% on those above. It is here that one must be willing to make acceptions in belief and the sources of those beliefs.

For a list of the readings that have helped lead me to this conclusion, go here.

Sources:

Appleman, Philip, ed. Darwin. 3rd ed. New York: W.W.Norton, 2001

"God Delusion by Richard Dawkins - Science vs. Religion." Youtube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rte3kfzNXPg

Mason, Michael. "How to Teach Science to the Pope." Discover Magazine. August 18, 2008.http://discovermagazine.com/2008/sep/18-how-to-teach-science-to-the-pope

What's New(s) In Science?

2008-12-14T10:51:00.000-08:00

Nutrition Bars:
Are They Healthy?

When I was looking for articles to use for “What’s News in Science?” I wanted to do an article about nutrition and healthy living, since I base my life around staying healthy and eating “good” foods. I searched google.com for information about Nutrition articles and I came across a website called BellyBytes.com. At first it didn’t seem like a highly scholarly website, but the information on the site was truthful and interesting and the article about Nutrition bars caught my eye. The website claimed to be a “No Nonsense Nutrition Resource.”
I wanted to see if I could find another source that had more established credit, so I found an article in the Washington Post that talked about Nutrition bars as well and the debate on whether or not they were really as nutritious for you as they were claimed to be. However, the article in the Post praises nutrition bars for the most part in their ability to provide energy over long periods of time and the fact that they can indeed serve as a replacement for a meal. There are so many brands of nutrition bars as well as they come in all types of flavors and textures such as crunchy and granola, etc. This article spoke of how the flavor wins out and the health benefits to nutrition bars such as weight loss and body-building. I found this article at the following site: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn-content/article/2006/02/08/AR20060022800285.c

The article, “Nutrition Bars: Are They Really Nutritious?” talks of the debate about Nutrition bars and their healthiness. “Most nutrition bars on the market today are either mislabeled or contain less healthy nutrition than a McDonald’s Big Mac." An independent study done by www.ConsumerLab.com, found that 18 out of the 31 bars they sampled didn’t contain the level of ingredients the labels claimed and provided major misleading information about the carbohydrates in the bar. A lot of Nutrition bars contain more carbohydrates than listed because of the glycerin in the bar, but manufacturers decide to exclude glycerin on their bar labels. Glycerin is what keeps the bars moist, adds bulk, and provides the varying degrees of texture. There has been research done showing that glycerin may not be fully metabolized by the body. However, some manufacturers have responded to these health questions by providing bars low in fat and their labels containing all the ingredients within, such as Life Time Fitness producing their Fastfuel High Performance Protein Bars. I found this article on the following site: http://www.bellybytes.com/articles/bars.shtml

When you decide that you have to replace a meal with a nutrition bar, there are some guidelines you can follow to make sure you’re choosy healthy ones. First off, the protein content of the bar should be between 14-31 grams. The protein should also be a mix of two different types of protein, such as whey (caseinate or soy protein) and high-quality amino acids such as glutamine, carnitine, and arginine. These amino acids provide muscle repair, maintenance, and growth. The variety of proteins allows the body to carry out its metabolic functions. Secondly, the carbohydrate value should contain at least 3 grams of soluble fiber per bar. It is impossible to make a bar with no carbohydrates. Be aware the Nutrition bar will contain fats. This is what keeps the bars moist and provides the flavor. The fat content should be between 3-6 grams, 2-4 of which should be saturated fats. Search for a bar with 10-15% of the Daily Value for essential vitamins and minerals. The last, and most important criteria, is finding a bar that tastes good. If the taste is unpleasant, all the other criteria doesn’t matter because the bar will remain uneaten.
This information about nutrition bars matters to me because like I said earlier, for the last 4 years I have eaten healthy and made sure that I put good foods into my body and balance out my diet with exercise. Essentially, I am addicted to being in shape and being healthy because it makes me feel great. I feel amazing when my body is working and running properly from just the knowledge of the other options of what I could be eating. This information should be important to others because there are so many people that buy and consume nutrition bars on a daily basis. Sometimes it gets to the point where they replace meals with the bar because they don’t have time to eat a real meal. Since nutrition bars a big part of our culture and a common source on our daily eating regime, it is smart to know that some bars we put into our bodies are just as bad for us as a McDonald’s Big Mac. Which totally defeats the point of eating a nutrition bar anyways. The information appeared in these articles because more and more people are becoming concerned with diets, weight loss, healthy life styles, and determining what is good our bad for our bodies. We are analyzing what we eat and what kinds of food we consume. Our biggest obsession is staying fit and healthy and striving to reach our goals. I think that since this information is made more public, the people who truly care about their systems and bodies will keep these factors in mind the next time they go to eat a nutrition bar. They want to know what they are putting into their bodies, their temples.

Darwin Revelation

2008-12-14T10:46:00.000-08:00

I live in a world of numerous and differing cultures. I am fortunate enough to live in a place where each culture is just one piece of this giant puzzle that we make to be life and we use these pieces to make a thriving and living society, whether by large groups or otherwise. Just one person can make the tiniest bit of difference in the world. Cultures can grow and thrive from the influence of just a single person.
During high school, and now more so in my college classes and my own experience at looking at the world, I’ve learned that throughout history, cultures and entire nations have been under the influence of powerful people who can radically change the path of life in a heartbeat or over the course of years. Sometimes unexpected and terrible things result as outcomes, but most of the time the changes are positive ones made by inspirational and revolutionary thinkers. When you look at the past, you analyze how a culture or civilization once lived and you see how differently we live now. We are able to live in a time where, in a generalization, we are free to make our own decisions and determine how best to live our lives on our own terms. We have the freedom to express ourselves, to wonder and discover religion, and to escape persecution, from our own opinions, and those of the ones around us.
One such figure that has changed the way in which the human race looks at the world is Charles Darwin. During the time Darwin was alive, society was just beginning to look at the world through the separation of religion and science. The world has always believed the existence of man kind was due to the god Christ and what he reigned determined man’s path through life and when they died whether they would be saved in heaven or sentenced to eternal damnation. We believed that our beginnings on this earth were due to the Bible story of the Seven Day Creation and our path in life was determined and guided by God’s will. Darwin, being a man who followed science more so than religion, came to question this rule that had long been established as the only knowledge of the puzzle of what it’s like to be human. He broke away from the social norms and begin to explore and hypothesis and make his own conclusions. He came up with his theory of evolution, which challenged a worldwide acceptance of our existence. “A long path leads from the origins of primitive “life,” which existed at least 3.5 billion years ago, to the profusion and diversity of life that exists today. This path is best understood as a product of evolution.” (Appleman 290) He was telling us that we were not created by a higher deity but we evolved over the course of millions of years. We started as the most primitive of forms and evolved to the intelligent, functioning humans we are today.
Darwin’s theory was scorned during the course of his lifetime simply because it wasn’t heard of. Who was he, a single man, to dare challenge an idea that had been established as the answer for thousands of years? We as the human race was always lead to follow one common belief, and though there are many different religions, they pretty much had one ideal in common, that we were under the guidance and influence of a higher deity. For hundreds of years we had even gone to the extent of war over such radical and “preposterous” ideas that would shake what had been the foundations of our world and our social beliefs as a whole. Darwin’s theory of evolution and the ideas of free choice between science as the answer and challenging religion were unacceptable. It wasn’t until many years after Darwin’s death that the theory of evolution was even looked at a second time and analyzed. It became studied, broken down, and picked apart until we came to think that perhaps Darwin could be right. Until we found evidence of this actually happening it was nothing more than just a silly idea by a man who thought outside the box and wanted greater answers. Now that science and religion have taken two different roles, but both are still followed, we accept Darwin’s theory as a possibility. It is not the answer to the question of our curious minds, it is simply an answer. It is up to the individual to choose which idea to believe and follow for their life.
Darwin goes to show how just one man can change the entire course of the world. He stood by his own ideals and questioned the world for something more. He sought his own answers and in turn used his conclusions to develop a theory that he thought could prove true. Even when the masses scoffed at Darwin’s ideas he stood his ground and held to his own thoughts because he believed them to be true. What Darwin probably didn’t realize that many, many years later his own thoughts and perceptions would quake the entire world. If the idea of evolution proved to be true, and that we were not created by a higher deity, then perhaps we were not bound to follow the will of a god? Though yes, we could still believe in a higher being, we could separate our faith from our own human will. We could use that faith as something to hold onto, such as our hopes or our dreams, but we could determine for ourselves how we should live our own lives. We as humans have this natural longing to want to do more.
“For as all the inhabitants of each country are struggling together with nicely balanced forces, extreme modifications in the structure or habits of one inhabitant would often give it an advantage over others; and still further modifications of the same kind would often still further increase the advantage. No country can be named in which all the native inhabitants are now so perfectly adapted to each other and to the physical condition under which they live, that none of them could anyhow be improved.” (Appleman 112-3) Not so much in the past, but in the present, we encourage change. We are constantly trying to improve the way we think and we question everything. We want to know more about the world we live in and our everything, even the tiniest swoosh of a branch, can affect how life determines us. We are curious. We use the thing we covet the most, our minds. Our minds are not only our greatest tool, but also our greatest weapon. We value knowledge as power. And we can use that power for the benefit or destruction of our societies and our world. Our minds guide us through our lives because they are the voices we hear inside our heads, it is what keeps us going when all seems hopeless and we want nothing more than to give up. What drives us is the knowledge that everything we are, know, and do is because it is what our minds crave. We believe that as we succeed we can succeed more. A country or a culture can fall prey to the guidance and influence of a leader who has pure want for power, or honestly want a better life for their people and strive to find ways to achieve such a high goal. We follow ideals as groups and cultures, or we can change the world for ourselves. We just have to embrace the idea that every single little action, decision, or thought that we have can influence our future.
We can change our own lives and in an offhanded way, we can change the lives of those around us. So perhaps we think like Darwin and other historical thinkers of the past and question, seek, and discover and perhaps we’ll reach the conclusion that we too have the power of change. We ourselves do not have to merely be followers, but even us, the simplest of people, can too embrace the ability and concept to change. What we choose to do with that power is another question.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AuK2A1ZqoWs

The video that I have chosen to include in this revelation takes a different sort of turn from ideas that would probably be expected. I remember hearing this song one day in another class that reminded me of everything we had been discussing about making our own decisions and following our own beliefs, whether through religion or science, and I admire the song because if you really listen to the lyrics, they incorporate historical situations that resulted from one person taking control and changing the course of an entire country, and race’s life, such as the Holocaust. It also speaks of making free thinking decisions and breaking away from following the crowd and being your own leader. It talks of taking this idea of a single person influencing life and making what you will of it. It tells of the battle between creation and destruction, between right and wrong, and between power and weakness. I, being a person who strongly follows that I believe in all aspects of my life, chose to think outside the box and chose a video that reflects my abstract thinking.

Works Cited:Appleman, David. Darwin: Third Edition. New York: Norton and Company, 2001.

*Note* Due to the video's embedding being disabled upon request I couldn't phyiscally embed the video, but I could include the YouTube link so that you could be directed to the site to watch it.

What's New(s) in Science

2008-12-14T07:44:00.000-08:00

For my, what’s new(s) in science project I choose to write about a recent study done at Lund University in Sweden. Henrietta Nittby of the neurosurgery division uncovered some interesting results when testing cell phones and the radiation they give off. Nittby set an experiment up using rats to see if cell phone radiation affected their memory. The experiment consisted of releasing rats into a box with four objects mounted inside. The rats were all exposed to the radiation that a cell phone gives off, except for the control rats who, were left alone and were not exposed to any radiation. The rats would enter this box and inside were four different objects; Nittby then studied the rat’s actions inside the box. Next they same rats would enter into the same box again except the four objects were replaced with four new ones, and again Nittby would watch them. The third time the rats entered into the box was the most important because two of the objects were from the first round and the other two were from the second round. What happened was that the rats who, were not exposed to the radiation spent more time examining the objects from the first round because they had not seen them for a longer period of time; while, the rats who were exposed to the radiation “Evinced less pronounced differences in interest”. (Lund)

Nittby and her supervisor think these results are linked to the microwaves that the cell phone gives off and the reaction they have with the blood-brain barrier. This barrier is meant to protect the brain by preventing anything that is in the blood stream to enter the brain tissue or damaging any nerve cells. What happens is a protein named albumin leaks into the brain tissue due from the weakened blood-brain barrier. The albumin also damaged nerve cells in the cerebral cortex, and the hippocampus which is the part of the brain that deals with memory. (Lund)

This article appeared in the online magazine Science Daily, in the article it explained exactly how the experiment was run and went into detail about how the radiation actually affects the brain tissue. Science Daily is not written for the average person, it is written for the person who really understands science and wants to know more than just the result. My other source came from the website textually.org; which is a blog like website where top stories about health issues are posted. This site is for the person who doesn’t want to read much into the story; they just want to know the facts. In this article the author gave a quick synopsis of the experiment then said the result, nothing more.

I choose to report on this issue because cell phones have become an integral aspect of most people’s lives in today’s society. Cell phones have made us reachable no matter where we are or what we are doing. In return that makes people’s lives more efficient by being able to take your business on the road or where ever you are headed. In recent years cell phones have become more than just portable telephones, we are able to put a music player, camera, and the internet all on a single cell phone. With this news that cell phone radiation is harmful to the brain you would think that society will take this news seriously and either purchase hands free equipment or stop using cell phones altogether. However because cell phones are so embedded in our everyday lives, the majority of the population will continue to use their cell phones on a regular basis.

Works Cited

Lund University. "Mobile Phones Affect Memory In Laboratory Animals, Swedish Study

Finds."ScienceDaily 5 December 2008. 7 December 2008

"MOBILE PHONES AFFECT MEMORY IN LABORATORY ANIMALS, SWEDISH STUDY FINDS." Textually. 6 Dec. 2008. 7 Dec. 2008 .

Darwin Revelation

2008-12-13T20:53:00.000-08:00

Charles Darwin created his theory of Natural Selection with the intent of explaining the variation between creatures of the same species. His theory analyzed how creatures with certain hereditary attributes will fare better than others in specific environments, and thus will be more likely to survive long enough to pass those attributes on to their young. While Darwin specified that his writings were on organic beings, there are applications outside of the field of biology for this theory.

“It follows that any being if it vary however slightly in any manner profitable to itself, under the complex and sometime varying conditions of life will have a better chance of surviving, and thus be naturally selected. From this strong principle of inheritance, any selected variety will tend to propagate its new and modified form.” (Appleman 95)

Natural selection can be used to explain how social and economic aspects of life work. In a capitalistic economy, people often say “it’s a dog-eat-dog world” in reference to how easy it can be for small companies to be absorbed by larger corporations. For example: in late 2007, the large game publishing corporation Activision merged with Vivendi Games, another game publisher with many smaller game design studios that it partnered with or owned. All of the assets owned by both companies were now the property of a larger corporation by the name of Activision Blizzard.

“The overwhelming popularity of ‘Warcraft’ is what led Activision to consider doing a deal with Vivendi as opposed to trying to crack the multi-player market on its own.
‘We didn't feel we could deliver an audience experience like they have done,’ Activision CEO Bobby Kotick said in an interview. ‘As we began to talk, we realized we had these incredible synergies and a common belief on how the market would evolve.’ ” (Gallagher)

Activision’s motivation for the merger with Vivendi was to gain a hold of Vivendi’s Blizzard Entertainment, one of the largest and most profitable game development companies in North America. This effort allowed them to get into the PC market with Blizzard developing Starcraft II, Diablo II, and already having World of Warcraft, the largest money maker on the PC today. Since Activision had difficulty breaking into the massively multiplayer market they used the merger to improve their company and become part of a larger, much more profitable company. True to Darwin’s words: “Natural selection almost inevitably causes much extinction of the less improved forms of life and induces what I have called a divergence of character”. (Appleman 97) The merger of the two game publishes killed the individual companies, but allowed a new company to form with better attributes and more resources at hand.

The game industry at the moment favors large game production companies. With Electronic Arts, Microsoft Games, and Nintendo all controlling large portions of the industry, a merger placed both Vivendi and Activision in a competitive position. Had they not merged, both companies would not have had the ability to compete effectively in the industry against the heavyweights, and would most likely have spiraled downwards until they ultimately were bought out by the very companies they are trying to compete against.

Works Cited

Appleman, Philip, ed. Darwin. 3rd ed. New York: W.W.Norton, 2001.

Gallagher, Dan. “Vivendi, Activision to create video game giant”. Market Watch. The Wall Street Journal. 2 DEC 2007. http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/activision-vivendi-games-merge-create/story.aspx?guid={BBDC07E4-9608-46CC-8A83-F6B6AFD451AE}

Sessler, Adam. “Gaming's New Power Couple” G4. 6 Dec. 2007. http://files.g4tv.com/videoDB/019/317/video19317/go_sesslerssoapbox_merge_pod.mp4

Darwin and Race

2008-12-12T17:58:00.000-08:00

Growing up in today’s society we are all very aware of the term race and all the controversy surrounding this. Racism has been around for a very long time. Science has been somewhat intertwined with justifying racism, especially after the work Darwin published in 1859, where he explains his theory of evolution.

Although Darwin’s intentions were not to help racial justification of actions, scientists like Herbert Spencer who coined the phrase ‘survival of the fittest’ from Darwin’s publication, “Reasoned biological evolution could be equally applicable to human society.” (Rutledge 1). Darwin’s piece along with some “racist” white people only influenced the idea that the white race was the superior race and “colored inferiority” allowed them to treat others so badly and unfairly.

Many who took Darwin’s theories in the biological sense soon discovered that the humans all have the same common ancestor which originates in Northern Africa. Darwin states in his famous text that natural selection is, “if it (trait) be any degree profitable to an individual species, in its infinitely complex relations to other organic beings and to external nature… will generally be inherited by its offspring” (Appleman 108). It is believed that the population in Africa was growing, so the humans migrated to new places and new environments. Due to the change in radiation from the sun, to better protect themselves, those who moved closer to the equator had darker skin tones to better protect them with more pigments. Those who migrated farther away got less color because they didn’t need as much protection from the sun.

The video above is a more in depth explanation of where humans came from, specifically in the terms of evolution. It begins with where we all branched from and how we have become so spread out.

After learning about this piece of information, it makes me wonder what a world without racism would be like. So many things would change. Racism is everywhere in our lives. It’s in TV such as stereotypical uneducated black man, or the mob boss who is Italian, or the ditzy girl. We also touched on race in Aesthetic Expressions where we watched a documentary on how black people were portrayed on TV during the past 50 years. After knowing what I know now, it’s ironic that in a way white people are making fun of themselves because we are all technically coming from the same place, we all just simply adapted differently to our different environments.

Unfortunately in the society we live in there are many things that are stopping us a whole to accept this knowledge and change. For one, religion and religious people believe that God created humans and will not accept the ideas of scientists especially anything Darwin started. Secondly race is so embedded into our everyday lives that it will be very hard to stop stereotyping, etc people of different skin tones. I believe if everyone knew that we are all from the same ancestors, and it’s because of Natural Selection that we are all different people might act differently however that is a revelation that not everyone will grasp.

Works Cited:

Appleman, Philip, ed. Darwin. 3rd ed. New York: W.W.Norton, 2001.

Charles Darwin Evolution 1 of 6. Retrieved December 12, 2008, from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xiFXVzlzfI4&feature=related.

Dennis, Rutledge M. “Social Darwinism, Scientific Racism, and the Metaphysics of Race.”
Journal of Negro Education. Summer 1995. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3626/is_199507/ai_n8730395

What's New(s) in Science

2008-12-12T11:59:00.000-08:00

In Aesthetic Expressions, we talked a little bit about the “Beauty Machine” and how a professor at Tel Aviv University programmed a computer to change the features of a human face to make it more attractive. Hearing this really intrigued me and so I went into further research of the topic to do this assignment. The “Beauty Machine” article that we read for Aesthetic Expressions came from Science Daily and so that was where I began my search to find similar articles to that one.

The first article that I found was “Computer Taught to Recognize Attractiveness in Women”, and basically what it talked about was how a scientist at Tel Aviv University, Amit Kagian, taught a computer to identify attractiveness in women. It also said that he could not conduct the same experience for male attractiveness because there is less agreement on what makes a man attractive, and people tend to agree on the features that make women attractive. Kagian surveyed 30 men and women with 100 different faces of Caucasian women, and asked them to judge the attractiveness of the women on a scale of 1 to 7. Given the data collected from the survey, he was able to electronically process and map the geometric shape of facial features mathematically, specifically measuring facial symmetry, the smoothness of the skin, and the color of the hair. Based on the human preferences, the computer “learned” the relation between facial features and attractiveness scores. When put to the test with new faces, the computer did astonishingly well, implying that the computer had been able to learn how to interpret beauty through processing previous data that it had received. The article went on to say that the discovery of this technology in computers is a step towards developing artificial intelligence in computers.

For my second article, I sought to find one that explained what artificial intelligence is and why it’s important. Most of the articles I found on the topic were written in far too advanced a language for me. I am not a scientist and I am not hip to scientific lingo, so I needed to find an article that I could understand to present to the class. Finally, I found an article that was a UCLA publication called "Artificial Intelligence reaches new heights" that focused on how artificial intelligence is already ingrained into our everyday life, and theorized as to what technology could be capable of in the future.

Senior technology strategist student at UCLA, Phillip Duncan, discusses how artificial intelligence is completely ingrained into our lives and how humans are becoming increasingly reliant on it without even realizing it. Among the ways that we use artificial intelligence, he specifically cites machines that authorize credit cards by analyzing a person’s financial history, global positioning systems that identify their owner’s voice, and internet sites that analyze a person’s interests based on their search engine. He goes on to theorize that in the future, computers will learn to communicate electronically (e.g. Responding to emails without input from the owner), develop the ability to answer full questions posted in search engines rather than searching for key words, etc. He makes the suggestion that one day artificial intelligence and computers will go beyond human ability, and will perform without human weaknesses, such as distraction and regeneration modes.

This topic is important to me as a writer major because if computers are one day able to surpass the abilities of humans than they would also be better authors and have a better understanding and use of vocabulary than I do. I think this is an interesting topic because this is a technological world that we live in, and the existence and advancement of artificial intelligence is not something that can be avoided.

Sources:
“Computer taught to recognize attractiveness in women.” 5 April 2008. ScienceDaily.
com. 1 December 2008.

Terzyan, Seda. “Aritificial Intelligence reaching new heights.” 5 November 2008. The Daily Bruin. 8 December 2008.

Trish's Darwin Revelation

2008-12-12T07:05:00.000-08:00

Looking throughout the history of the world as we know it, and all the places in the world, there are very drastic differences between each region. However, there is one thing that all places in the world seem to have in common, and that’s war. War and fighting seem to mark most of the reasons why the world is the way that it is today. For instance, America would not be the “Land of the free” and the democratic republic that it is today if it had not fought the Revolutionary War against our British rulers and declared ourselves an independent nation. Reading in Darwin, specifically about Natural Selection, I found an interesting quote that relates to the notion of countries are drawn to war.

For as all the inhabitants of each country are struggling together with nicely balanced forces, extreme modifications in the structure or habits of one inhabitant would often give it an advantage over others; and still further modifications of the same kind would often still further increase the advantage. No country can be named in which all the native inhabitants are now so perfectly adapted to each other and to the physical condition under which they live, that none of them could anyhow be improved. (Appleman 112-3)

This quote suggests to me that peace may be an inherent trait that could one day be passed down to our future generations through the process of Natural Selection. This seemed interesting to me because I had never really thought about peace or war being anything but environmental. But it makes sense considering that while reading David Linden’s The Accidental Mind, I learned that some personality traits are genetic and not environmental as I had assumed that they were before reading that text. He even says on page 55 of the text that “genes influence behavior (Linden 55).” So, it could be that the desire to go to war that seemed to be apparent throughout the nations of the world, could fall under the genetic category of our psyche, and that we have inherited our willingness to war against one another through genes and Natural Selection. And of course “war” in a sense could never fully be eradicated from the world because there is the food chain to take into consideration – species killing other species in order to survive, but what I am referring to is war in the sense of fighting that it not caused by the need to survive.

Darwin’s text also suggests, in relation to the desire to have war being passed down through Natural Selection that it is possible for the desire to have peace to be passed down through Natural Selection. He seems to suggest that all it takes are one or two people to be born who possess with an advantageous trait against war, and to reproduce, and pass that trait down to their children and to their children’s children for it to start to become apparent among the people of the world. Of course, the process of Natural Selection takes much too long for it to become apparent in our lifetimes, but one day, future generations can look back at now and see what they have evolved from.

Looking at the current society, it has difficult to imagine that we could one day adapt ourselves and evolve to become peaceful. I believe, from what Darwin suggests in his writings, that it would begin with individuals finding peace with all other members of their own community, such as different races or ethnic backgrounds of the same region, and they would stop having racial feelings or tensions towards one another, and once that was established, humanity would evolve further to accept all other races and regions of the world. War has become such an engrained part of society for most of the regions of the world that it seems like a crazy notion that this could ever happen, and like I said before, it couldn’t in the span of our lifetimes, but Darwin is a very scientific and reasonable thinker. I trust that he would not make a statement such as that one if he had not observed and hypothesized from his observations that this sort of evolution had the potential to occur in nature.

This documentary tells the story of two young filmmakers on a journey for peace inspired by the infamous Peace Pilgrim, Mildred Norman. When I found this video on YouTube, I thought that it was befitting my revelation because they have the mindset that I picture people would evolve to have according to Darwin’s words. Towards the end of the trailer she says “the way to peace starts with a single step”, and I think that that’s true. If Darwin is correct and we can evolve to become more peaceful, the trait that would pass down would have to begin with a single person. That’s all that it would take to change the world over the course of time and possibly the two filmmakers making this documentary are the people that it can begin with.

Works Cited:
Appleman, Philip, ed. Darwin. 3rd ed. New York: W.W.Norton, 2001.

Linden, David J. The Accidental Mind. Cambridge, MA: Belknap, 2007.

Cure for AIDS

2008-12-06T13:41:00.000-08:00

Could a disease many claim to be incurable be cured? A man who is forty-two, currently living in Germany was born in the U.S, received a stem cell transplant because he was suffering from both Leukemia and HIV. In a stem cell transplant the immune system is wiped out, with drugs in radiation, the process also wipes out bone marrow. Then a donor with the same blood type, good tissue and a rare genetic mutation blood and bone marrow was inserted into the man with HIV. The process is extremely risky and has a high fatality rate. A very small percentage of the population has a genetic mutation “Delta 32” in which they are unable to get HIV. The donor had this mutation and because of this the aids was not able to continue to attack the white blood cells due to this resistance. It has been 20 months and the man so far still has no signs of having HIV, after it was something he fought with for over a decade. As good as this sounds, many scientists are very skeptical of using a stem cell transplants because of the high fatality rate and cost. Due to the large expense of the procedure it is unrealistic for any third world countries, were aids is the most prominent. However it does give some hope that we may be on our way to curing aids through injection of stem cells, and in the future possible prevention of aids by replicating the mutation “delta 32”.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/14/health/14hiv.html

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1858843,00.html

Religion vs. Science

2008-12-06T13:30:00.000-08:00

The debate of science vs. religion or god vs. science has been ongoing for thousands of years, Even though it is popular belief that Religion and Science are on completely different ends of the spectrum, science and religion work together in more way than one may think. In the article “How to Teach Science to the Pope,” by Michael Manson, the suggestion that science and religion are intertwined with one another is discussed. “The idea that the universe is worth studying just because it’s worth studying is a religious idea,” Consolmagno says. Studying, observing and gaining a better understanding of the world we live in benefits everyone not matter what ones religious beliefs are. However throughout history the idea that science will eventually replace religion has created an ongoing battle between the two. (Please see article: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1555132,00.html) Both science and religion play a role in all of our lives. Which bring forth the question, which is more important, I think Religion nor Science can answer all of our questions. Such as the question of how the earth was created? Is science there are many theories, the big bang and evolution. In religion there is belief that there is a creator? Even though the theory of evolution may seem more realistic it is still a theory and there could be a different, perhaps better theory. Instead of constantly putting religion and science against each other could the two work together to further better the general population. Religion touches a lot of people where as science does not. Especially when it comes to third world countries were advances in science and technology have little impact on people, whereas religion has significant impact.
The end of the article states, “We are not saying that science has to explain religion. It is impossible from the perspective of transcendent faith. I would say that a scientist feels that science is not giving him everything. Science does not explain many aspects of human life such as love, friendships, and things like that.” I Personally feel it is beneficial for us to realize that we cannot understand the entire universe through only looking at religion or only looking at science. However by looking at science, religion and numerous other areas of studies allow humans to have an overall better understanding of the universe.

Work Cited:
Mason, Michael. "How to Teach Science to the Pope." Discover Magazine. August 18, 2008. http://discovermagazine.com/2008/sep/18-how-to-teach-science-to-the-pope

Is the Internet for Better or Worse?

2008-12-06T13:26:00.000-08:00

Is goggle making us stupid? Does the Internet make us efficient or lazy? Do humans lose the ability to process information or does the way humans process information change? As technology continues to grow rapidly these are questions that arise. Nicholas Carr the author of “Is goggle making us stupid,” states “Never has a communications system played so many roles in our lives—or exerted such broad influence over our thoughts—as the Internet does today. Yet, for all that’s been written about the Net, there’s been little consideration of how, exactly, it’s reprogramming us. The Net’s intellectual ethic remains obscure” I agree with Nicholas Carr in the sense that humans are being “reprogrammed”. However the underlying question remains is the Internet for better or for worse? (please see article: http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2006-11/2006-11-29-voa19.cfm) Carr’s argument sheds a negative light on the Internet and what it is doing to humans. Carr discusses that because the Internet is so fast and allows one to hop from one thing to another in a split second people can no longer stay focused. The humans attention spans have dwindled away and are no longer satisfied unless we’re are constantly doing multiple things at once. Yes, there is a fair amount of truth in this but the Internet is changing the way humans think. It literately is reprogramming the process in which our brains go about accomplishing tasks. Personally I do not think that the reprogramming of humans is necessarily bad. As technology continues to develop and advance this is bound to happen. The same as with the invention of clocks, the printing press or electricity. Humans have to adapt to new technology even if it changes our though process.
The internet presents us with an interesting problem; information overload. Now more than ever before do humans have enormous quantities of information at their fingertips. So how do we filter and interpret so much information? It is obvious that the filtering process is going to change, it would be impossible to immerse ourselves in such large quantities of information. So instead of submerging ourselves in to one book we have to skim through hundreds of thousand of websites. Is this bad or good, or is it just different? As humans begin to develop new ways to decipher information and complete tasks more efficiently I think the debate of whether the Internet id for better or worse will fade out. The way human’s process information will change as the use of computers, internet and technology only continues to grow.

I thought this was interesting website discussing why people use the internet and why people put things on the web. http://english.unitecnology.ac.nz/resources/resources/tutorial/conceptual/uses.html

Work Cited:
Carr, Nicholas. "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" The Atlantic. 2007. http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200807/google

What's New(s) in Science

2008-12-01T17:21:00.000-08:00

Robots that fetch: Device could help disabled at home

I found my two articles at CNN and Science Daily. The article from CNN http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/12/01/robot.health.aide/index.html talks about how at the Center for Healthcare Robotics at Georgia Tech in Atlanta, they are testing a robotic machine that can help disabled people fetch items. Professor Kemp is focused on programming the machine to locate and fetch common household items such as; a bottle of pills, a cell phone, TV remote, and open doors. This robot could provide people with some independence and give caregivers a break.
The robot is about 5 feet tall, with a single robotic arm that can move up and down to pick objects up. During the demonstration in a living-room setting at Georgia, they used a laser pointer to identify what the robot was to get. They robot got the object 94.8 percent of the time.
They hope this robot will help people who are in wheelchairs, the elderly, and people with diseases like arthritis and diabetes. There is still a lot of research to be done with the machine to function in homes on a daily basis.
This robotic machine is taking away jobs from service dogs. The article from Science Daily http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081026101212.htm talks about this, while the robot may not be able to mirror the personality and furry companionship of a canine, it does have other benefits.
This study and research will help people with different kinds to diseases and disabilities and help them feel more independent.

Bendable Cement !

2008-11-30T16:31:00.000-08:00

When we think of cement in our world… it has always been a very coarse, expensive, and has absolutely no flexibility which causes brittleness. In today’s day and age, technology has changed drastically and has introduced the cement of the future called ECC (engineered cement composites). This ECC is bendable cement which brings a whole new realm into the building and construction world… let alone natural disaster prevention and improving the economy by not spending government money to repair cement as much. I initially discovered this subject at a business seminar locally in Burlington which discussed the future of our world, and economy, in accordance with business. At the end of the presentation the speaker displayed numerous innovative inventions and prototypes that are brand new and out there shaking the bushes in our technology driven world. I started searching the web for bendable concrete and discovered that The University of Michigan developed idea; therefore I obtained an article on their webpage in order to learn more. My secondary source that I found from searching on CNN is called www.designnews.com; this website appears to be reliable because it was derived from CNN’s website which is a very commendable news station. This website discusses all recent designs that are revolutionary, which is why it is reliable and why it has my subject included in its information. This secondary source differs from my original one because it discusses how this ECC could protect from hurricanes and also slightly touches on the scientific aspect but not as in depth as the Universities webpage. New building codes and sky-high insurance expenses are causing builders to incorporate this new technology in with their buildings in order to make them more resistant to natural disasters. This is another way that ECC will help our world labor wise and financially.

The scientists of the University of Michigan are the ones responsible for this invigorating news in science. The formation and development of this bendable cement has been underdeveloped for the past ten years and has just recently been claimed ready for use as of May 2005. This material is said to be first tested and used in Michigan…which is given seeing that Michigan is the state of origin. ECC has also been used out of the country in such places as Japan, Korea, Switzerland, and Australia. Back in the testing stages there was a patch repair on Curtis Road Bridge over M-14 in Ann Arbor in October 2002 that has endured three winters with no cracking. Madison, Wisconsin is also planning on building a bike path using ECC along the Lake Monona shoreline with sensors inside which will monitor its durability and sustainability. This fiber reinforced concrete is referred to as ECC which stands for engineered cement composites. This material is 40% lighter than ordinary cement and is 500 times more resistant to cracking. We all are aware of the problems with standard concrete such as cracking, lifting, lack of durability, and high expense of repair. This new ECC concrete is designed for maximum flexibility and will cost less in the long run because it strays from the repair expense by how long it lasts. The key to this cement in order to differentiate itself from ordinary cement is explained by engineering professor, Victor Li, “ECC is engineered, Li said, which means that in addition to reinforcing the concrete with micro scale fibers that act as ligaments to bond the concrete more tightly, scientists design the ingredients in the concrete itself to make it more flexible.” Flexible cement would save our country mass amounts of money, inevitably improving our economy. Imagine how much money would be saved if the country had sidewalks, driveways, bridges, and foundations built from ECC, which is 500 times more resistant from cracking.

I found a video feed of three different examples of ECC being tested during its research and development at the University of Michigan. This link is from the Universities webpage, http://ace-mrl.engin.umich.edu/NewFiles/movie(bend).html . These videos display a far away view and up close view of the ECC being flexed along with a chart of the force being applied to the ECC during the testing. These videos are very interesting and informative because it proves to viewers that it really is real and very bendable.

Work Cited:

Michigan. “U-M researchers make bendable concrete.” 04 May, 2005. umich.edu. 20 November 2008. http://www.umich.edu/news/index.html?Releases/2005/May05/r050405

Michigan. “U-M researchers make bendable concrete.” 04 May, 2005. umich.edu. 20 November 2008. http://ace-mrl.engin.umich.edu/NewFiles/movie(bend).html

www.designnews.com

What's New(s) In Science - Stem Cell Research

2008-11-27T19:48:00.001-08:00

For my What's New(s) in Science presentation I chose the topic of stem cell research. I used two different articles for two different aspects of my presentation. One article talked about stem cell research in general and the basic information about it. It discussed the 5 most important topics related to stem cell research. The article discussed where stem cells come from and the importance of them. Stem cells come from embryos that come from labs. These embryos are used as research in labs, but if they cannot be used for some they are simply thrown away. Instead of throwing them away, scientists could use them to turn them into one of any of the 200 cells in our body, therefore being able to use that specific cell to cure a number of diseases.
The second article was related to President Obama and his plans for stem cell research. Currently, it is illegal to use embryos for stem cell research because of the laws President Bush put into effect. He felt it went against the church to use these embryos for research. It is however legal to just throw these embryos away. Obama said, “We owe it to the American public to explore the potential of stem cells”.
I felt this topic was important because it relates to everyone, everywhere in the world. Whether you are someone who is currently diagnosed with a deadly disease that could possibly be cured using stem cell research or if you are someone who knows someone that could possibly be cured either way stem cell research is going to benefit you. It also relates to what we have been discussing in class, the difference between science and religion and their constant battle. It is important to not let religion get in the way of such scientific advances but it is impossible to prove who is right and who is wrong.

The first article I found was from Science Daily and the second source was from USA Today

Hall, Mimi. "Opponents Brace for End of Stem Cell Ban." 17 Nov. 2008. USA Today. 18 Nov. 2008
.

University of Michigan Health System. "Five Basic Things To Know About Stem Cell Research." ScienceDaily 14
October 2008. 18 November 2008 .

What's New(s) in Science : Google Flu Tracking

2008-11-22T06:09:00.000-08:00

With Flu season approaching and flu concerns on the rise, I felt it fitting to follow the story of Google's new Flu Tracking Program. The program works by analyzing search queries based on region. By monitoring how often words like Influenza, Flu, and similar terms appear in each Region's search queries, Google makes a rough estimate on where flu activity is on the rise. This new detection system, when compared to the U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention's old detection system, was surprisingly accurate, and could actually predict flu patterns much faster. Jeremy Ginsburg, the lead engineer behind Google's new program, stated that "Researchers found a tight correlation between the relative popularity of flu-related search terms and CDC's surveillance data"(Landau), confirming that the program was a success.

"Traditionally, influenza surveillance has involved physicians' reports of patients with flu-like symptoms, lab reports of influenza from nasal and throat swabs, and death certificates"(Landau). However, with this new program, everyone who uses the internet to learn more about illnesses online helps create a sort of collective Intelligence. Referring to this collective flu-intelligence will help many people and doctors take the necessary precautions when flu is on the rise in their areas. Dr. Randall Stafford, associate professor of medicine at Stanford University's Prevention Research Center, stated that "I would be very hesitant to diagnose influenza at this point in the year, but if the tool tells me influenza in California is really increasing dramatically, I might be more likely or willing to diagnose,"(Landau).

Here's a news reel covering Google's Flu Detection program.

In addition, here's a direct link to the new program.

Because we live on a college campus in a bustling college town, illnesses when introduced here, tend to spread like wildfire. This was much of the reason why I opted to follow this story. An observation I made on the day of my presentation, was that Vermont was one of several states listed as having "Moderate" flu activity. Luckily, as I noticed while constructing this post, our state's flu activity has dropped to "Low", and I appreciate the fact that this program allows me to see that.

The two resources I used as my main means of research were an article from CNN and an article from The New York Times.

Works Cited

Landau, Elizabeth. "Google tool uses search terms to detect flu outbreaks." CNN Health. 13 Nov. 2008. CNN. .

What's New(s) in Science?

2008-11-18T07:00:00.000-08:00

For my presentation, I chose an article from The New York Times about extrasolar planets that had been discovered only a few days ago. Astronomers had been speculating whether it was planets or just failed stars, but after further discovery with new tools, they were able to record multiple planets orbiting distant stars. With the use of The Hubble Space Telescope, astronomers were able to block out the light from the stars and use infrared to detect the heat from the forming planet. From this, they discovered three planets, which were orbiting the star HR 8799 along with another planet orbiting the star Formalhaut.

The star Formaulhaut is visible in our sky and was looked at as an extremely bright star, but after new observation, it may be the light source for a solar system similar to ours. Using infrared, astronomers were able to detect a body moving in circular motion around the star. From these recent discoveries, astronomers may be able to see what the earth looked like when it was 60 million years old and how it was formed.

Reading about the stars and newly discovered solar systems, made me think more into what we had been learning in class. This story was so intriguing to me because in class we are learning about a time period where peoples' thoughts of the world around them were constantly changing. People looked to the sky as the heavens and had a hard time grasping something that disproved a religious answer. It made me wonder in this day and age how the public will respond to a discovery such as this. Will it bring more turmoil between religion and science? Religion verses science will be ongoing, but the more insight into how the planet was formed could ignite issues among religious extremists. Will people lose hope or belief because each day there are more scientific answers?

Overbye, Dennis. "Now in Sight: Far-Off Planets." The New York Times. 14 Nov. 2008.

Bryner, Jeanna. "First-Ever Images Taken of Extrasolar Planets." MSNBC. 13 Nov. 2008. 17
Nov. 2008 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27702538/

New Artificial Heart Unveiled

2008-11-13T14:11:00.000-08:00

For my What's New(s) in Science I decided to talk about the new artificial heart that was unveiled late October. I first came across about this new innovation through CNN. I found it interesting because it is designed by engineers from Airbus aircraft. So basically, this new heart has components of a plane and satellites in it. The heart was developed by Alain Carpentier, France's leading cardiac surgeon. The part of the this new heart that made it interesting was the fact that it is the only heart thus far that acts like a real heart. If a cardiologist was to look at charts of this heart they would assume that it was a typical human heart, when it is actually an artificial heart. Also, its the first heart to come close to beating like a regular, when someone is running it will increase the blood flow causing the heart beats to increase. Then when the person slows down it will gradually decrease. This new artificial heart is a new way of saving lives. Especially when keeping in mind that heart disease is one of the worlds top killers. Even though this heart lasts for about five years it is the best so far, people will not have to sit and wait and see if their body will accept their new heart or not.

Here is a short clip of the heart.

Here is some more outside reading.

What's New(s) in Science

2008-11-04T20:21:00.000-08:00

For my what new(s) in science presentation I decided to talk about the new finding that scotch tape can be used to find x-rays. I first saw this on the New York Times website and I found it interesting that something that is an everyday household idem could have a completely new use so different from what it is used for. Although the idea has been around for a long time like in 1939 they found that pulling scotch tape in the dark makes light and in 1953 the idea of electrons being produced by the tape was though up by Russian scientist. But no one believed this idea until now when this study was done by the department of Physics and Astronomy at the University of California.

The way that this works is the scotch tape must be placed into a vacuum. After it is inside the vacuum the tape is peeled at a certain speed it releases a current that is generated for a billionth of a second and has 300,00 X-ray photons. With the currents and the photons it crates enough energy to take a x-ray.

At this point in time they are only able to do this on a same scale such as a finger. But it is hoped that in the future they will be able to use it on a larger scale. If this happens we will be able to use it in areas that don’t have electricity because this would be able to be powered by a human by just cranking a handle.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/10/22/scotch.tape.xray/index.html http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/28/science/28xray.html?ref=science

Of Mice And Mammoths: Cloning after Death

2008-11-04T13:05:00.000-08:00

Extinct is such a final word. It implies that, what ever the subject is, it's never going to come back. We will never see it again in it's natural habitat outside of Natural History museums, and we've come to accept that. While this may have been true a few years back, in today's society we don't like to think in terms of endings. We like to think in beginnings.

In the lab of Teruhiko Wakayama, a Japanese geneticist, a mouse was frozen for 16 years, devoid of any cryo-protection, at -20 degrees Celsius. That's -4 degrees Fahrenheit, about the temperature of permafrost located on the upper boundary of the Arctic Shelf, which ranges from 0 to -2 degrees.

At this temperature it seemed impossible to harvest usable nuclei for cloning purposes. They assumed that all of the cells were dead, but with a newly developed cloning process, Wakayama's team was able to extract usable nuclei from the mice's neurons. These were then inserted into the embryos of healthy, living mice. The stem cells produced were then used to make healthy mice pups. Prior to this the record for frozen cells to still be eligible to cloning was only 350 days.

If it was possible to clone a 16 year old frozen mouse, couldn't the same process be used to clone a mammoth frozen in the Siberian Tundra? No tests have been done yet, but the idea if being tossed around to use this method on already extinct species.

As with prior cloning experiments, the question of ethics comes up, but these are a little different. Technically, after being frozen that long the animal is long dead. By harvesting it's cells, not only are you playing God, but you're playing Frankenstein. It's still reanimating a dead animal, since the one created is genetically identical to the previously frozen mouse. We have to ask our selves if it's morally right to bring back what's dead, and will this be implemented on humans of social significance? The possibilities are endless, but so are the consequences.

Mice Cloned After 16-Year Freeze; Mammoth's next?

Production of Healthy cloned mice from bodies frozen at -20 degrees Celcius for 16 years

Measuring the Temperature of Permafrost

Robert Hooke: Microscopic Monstrosities?

2008-10-31T20:04:00.000-07:00

The microscope, the key instrument of Robert Hooke’s experiments, is an important key factor in furthering our discoveries about the mysterious world we live in. Eventually, we believe that his experiments will lead us to discovering the compound of all the different particles we, and all living things, are made up of. With his research, we can unravel the vast mysteries that God has set forth on our planet.
Hooke discovered that this simple instrument, the microscope, could reveal great details on the body of small creatures, his prime specimen being the fly. The perfection found in such small creatures is further proof that our God exists, for only he could create such a glorious creature. Hook himself states that this is these experiments are “certainly the most likely way to erect a glorious and everlasting structure and temple to nature and thus to Nature’s Creator” (Shapin, 153).

Links:

http://roberthooke.com

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/hooke.html

Sex and Reproduction Under the Microscope

2008-10-31T07:32:00.000-07:00

Antonio Van Leeuwenhoek is well known for his studies of microorganisms, sex and reproduction under the Microscope. Born in the Netherlands during the mid 16th century, he lived during a thriving period of time in Dutch History. This was known as the golden age, a time of economic, cultural and scientific prosper. Immigrants came to the Netherlands to escape religious prosecution. Amsterdam was bustling with writers, scholars, and wealthy merchants. Leeuwenhoek who was raised in the Netherlands started to perfect the recently invented microscope in the lat 1660’s. He continued to study small organisms, such as fleas, under the microscope. Leeuwenhoek soon discovered that there were millions of microorganisms everywhere. By putting corn meal under the microscope, he sat that it was invested with minute worms. These worms were causing sifters infectious diseases.
Leeuwenhoek is also known for his scientific advances in reproduction. He looked at seminal fluid under the microscope and realized sperm was made up of millions of microorganisms, which were documented as spermatozoa. This allowed him to further understand the process of reproduction, and theorized that the sperm entered the ovum. His scientific discoveries regarding spermatozoa and reproduction enable him to prove the popular belief of spontaneous generation of life incorrect. This was a theory that living organisms could come from non living objects. Such as mice could come from dirty hay. This theory was believed by the majority of people during the 16th and 17th century and was recognized by the church. Even though Leeuwenhoek did prove this theory incorrect he was not a major threat to the church because it did not disprove the theory of creationism. His discoveries were important for two main reasons. First, he was able to find the route of many infectious diseases by discovering microorganisms. Second, he was able to understand what actually occurred during reproduction and prove the theory of spontaneous generation incorrect. Leeuwenhoek is known as the father of microbiology, and was and was recognized by the English Royal Society.

Please look at this amusing video about how the sperm attaches itself to the ovum.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gc1L61FpAnY&feature=related

For more information on spontaneous generation:
http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/spontaneous-generation.htm

Is space a vacuum? 17th Century style

2008-10-31T04:21:00.001-07:00

Our concept is that past the Earth’s atmosphere, in space, a vacuum exists. A vacuum can be defined as a space devoid of all matter and substance, a void per se. Another definition though is that a vacuum is a space in which the pressure is significantly lower compared to the pressure of our atmosphere. Blaise Pascal delved into this very subject and performed experiments which gave our desired proof and result. Pascal first grew interested by reading the results of the Torricelli experiments. In these Evangelista Torricelli wanted to experiment and explain the effects of a pump better, He created a pump that would inadvertently lead to his construction of the first barometer, and leading even further to Pascal’s experiments on our planet’s pressure.
Pascal repeated Torricelli’s experiments by creating his own with a glass syringe and a carefully fitted piston. While covering the open end with his finger he adjusted the height the syringe was submersed in the water, the empty space in the syringe changed accordingly proving to Pascal that nature abhors vacuums no matter what size it may be.
Later Pascal would perform another experiment to confirm the existence of air pressure. He asked his brother Florin Perier to carry the barometer up a volcanic peak. The mercury level 3000 feet above the base of the volcano was about three inches lower. They reached the conclusion that it was in fact pressure weighting down the mercury. From there he could state as one went high enough the air pressure would be lessened enough to allow a vacuum to be formed.

Here’s an article and how a Barometer works:

Palmer, Chad. "How a Barometer Measures Air Pressure." USATODAY.com. 5/20.2005. USA Today. 30 Oct 2008

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/wbaromtr.htm

And here’s a simple biography on Blaise Pascal himself and other things he invented.

Bellis, Mary. "Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)." About.com: Inventors. About.com. 30 Oct 2008 http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blpascal.htm

What's New(s) in Science: Immunocomputing

2008-10-30T23:35:00.000-07:00

For my What's New(s) in Science, I decided to present Immunocomputing, a fairly new innovation on information gathering. So what is immunocomputing? Also known as negative databases, these bits of code seek to immitate the immune system found in any living organism and use it to gather and "learn" information. This system would have two main parts: self and nonself. In the immune system, cells are given the knowledge of what they should be and use that to protect the host. If something is within the body that isn't considered "self", or nonself, the nonself intruder is dealt with accordingly. Practical applications for negative databases are network security and information gathering. I believe this will be a breakthrough someday, once the technology itself has matured and is finally implemented. The articles below summarize immunocomputing, the first in a very simplistic manner. The second is a bit more technical, but explains the details behind negative databases better.

I feel the implications for this technology will expand rapidy as more and more become knowledgable of it. In health, computing, and biocomputing, knew ways of each are becoming apparent. It is the next big step in human science, and will change our futures for the better.

Esponda, Fernando. "Immunocomputing." Seed Magazine. 10 October 2008. http://revminds.seedmagazine.com/revminds/member/fernando_esponda/

Antoniou, Ioannis. "Immunocomputing." Chaos and Innovation. December 2000. 10 October 2008. http://web.auth.gr/chi/PROJECTSIMCOM/Results.html

Paracelsus and the Philosopher's Stone

2008-10-30T19:46:00.000-07:00

The Scientific Idea we are proposing as a worthwhile field of exploration is the theory of the Philosopher’s Stone. The idea behind the Stone is that it is a powerful healing device, and is also capable of turning lesser metals into the purest gold with a touch. We feel the Stone’s ability to create gold is far outweighed by its potential healing capabilities. Theophrastus Paracelsus, a leading alchemist of the Renaissance, stated in one of his writings, “[With the Philosopher's Stone}, I have cured the leprosy, venereal disease, dropsy, the falling sickness, colic, scab, and similar afflictions; also lupus, cancer, noli-me-tangere, fistulas, and the whole race of internal diseases, more surely than one could believe.” (Paracelsus). As preposterous as this sounds, the idea of the Philosopher’s Stone is by no means the dream of some crazy loon. There are references referring to objects of various names that share all the qualities of the Philosopher’s Stone that date as far back to the time of Islam’s Abraham. By following in the footsteps of Alchemy’s pioneers, and adapting their take on the world, we hope that one day the science of Alchemy will be developed and explored enough to transmute a successful Philosopher’s Stone, capable of unfathomable feats of healing. The vastly beneficial medicinal implementations of a true Philosopher’s Stone could improve the standard of living for all humans. It is for this reason that our presentation will attempt to convince an audience of Renaissance men and women that studying Alchemy and the Philosopher’s stone will benefit their lives directly.

Click here to learn more about what was standard medical practice at the time.

Paracelsus, Theophrastus B. The Book Concerning the Tincture of the Philosophers. London: J.H. Oxon, 1660.

Fossils Don't Fall From the Sky

2008-10-30T17:36:00.000-07:00

During the period of Nicolaus Steno people believed in magic, unicorns and crystals curing diseases, they had also believed that the tongue shape stones that were everywhere had fallen from the sky. Some also believed that the same tongue shape stones were serpent fangs from where Saint Paul changed serpents into stone. Could any of this be possible? Steno didn’t think so and after having the chance to dissect a shark he realized that their teeth were the same as the tongue shape stones people were finding. To get to the conclusion of what exactly fossils were, Steno did a lot of research and other findings to back his claim. At website http://academic.emporia.edu/aberjame/histgeol/steno/steno.htm the author goes into detail all of the findings and works of Nicolaus Steno.
He claimed that fossils would be the key in figuring out when the world was created. It was also key in figuring out the kinds of organisms that may have relocated to different regions and the organisms that may be extinct. We are trying to prove that fossils are important and that they did not fall from the sky and that they do not grow in rocks. In a particular article, it states how religion gets involved with geology: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/Giants/Steno/
Fossils are important and will help us build our knowledge and understanding of how the world functions and who/what have wondered the world.

Works Cited
Remer, Lorraine R. "On the Shoulders of Giants." Nicolaus Steno. Earth Observatory. NASA. .

William Harvey: Breakthrough in Blood

2008-10-30T12:05:00.000-07:00

William Harvey is quoted, "I have first to dispose of certain observations that bear on the circulation of the blood as discovered by me. Scarce a day has passed since the birth of my circulation of the blood that I have not had something said to me for good or evil of my discovery" (Willis). Which I found on an online book located here.

This is one place in his works in which Harvey speaks of himself as the only discoverer of the circulation of the blood through the heart and body. This discovery is pivotal to the knowledge of human biology, specifically the pulmonary and circulatory systems during this time period of the Scientific Revolution. The knowledge of the common population during the 16th and 17th centuries in regards to the heart and circulatory system wasn't very extensive before Harvey's discovery's, observations, and writings. A webpage that summarized Harvey's work and findings, and his life, also describes and explains the little generalized knowledge of the bodily systems at this time, the fact that blood was circulated by a sort of a pulsing action from the arteries. This wasn't known to science, or as a 'science' at all, this was the general popular belief at this time. The site then explains his accomplishments in regards to fulfilling this lack of knowledge. His research of the circulatory system was generously sponsored and encouraged by King Charles I. Whom Harvey was later appointed personal physician. By studying animals given to him, Harvey eventually developed a very accurate theory of how the heart and circulatory system operated. He then published his theories in 1628 in his famous book "On the Motion of the Heart and Blood in Animals," which functioned as the backbone of his notoriety throughout Europe (Wiegand).

Outside readers should further inquire and learn more, if they don't have previous intellect on this subject, (especially if they live in the 16th or 17th centuries, and don't know much about the heart and blood). Our documentation and proof of the importance on the innovation should be read into further, to gain knowledge of the pulmonary and circulatory systems, to know more about our human bodies. The current perception has little knowledge of this time period, and I'm sure that what's included in our presentation about major arteries, the basic structure of these systems, and the dangers associated with the blood, is unknown to most. In order to make sense out of a previously obscure and confusing subject, read further to develop a coherent sense of this lively juice flowing through our bodies. For the sake of being cautious and knowledgeable about your body, one should know about the potential pathogens like a rusty nail that can infiltrate and disease ones blood stream and body. With the help of the groundwork from William Harvey, and our documentation on this important scientific innovation, we can explore the basic structure of these systems, and explore the potential hazards that can harm the body and blood stream. The awareness of these hazards will be especially beneficial to anyone who doesn't know about them, which lack of this intelligence limits the assurance of good health and prosperity.

Works Cited:

Wiegand, Susan. "William Harvey (1578-1657)." NNDB. Accessexcellance.org. 3 Nov 2008. <http://www.accessexcellence.org/RC/AB/BC/William_Harvey.php>

Willis, Robert. "William Harvey: A History of the Discovery of the Circulation of the Blood." London: C.K. Paul & Co., 1878. (Online Book)

<http://books.google.com/books?id=pS4JAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=william+Harvey&ei=538PScnYDafKzATfppiBBA>

Mechanizing the Cosmos

2008-10-30T10:47:00.000-07:00

Rene Descartes was an influential French philosopher, mathematician, scientist, and writer. He was considered the “Father of Modern Philosophy” and a key figure in the Scientific Revolution. Descartes developed many new scientific ideas such as the idea to mechanize philosophy by using pieces of matter and their characteristics to explain the physical effects. http://www.iep.utm.edu/d/descarte.htm He also thought of the idea of using distinct elements to place together based on partial size to produce different physical bodies. During this time period, Descartes wasn’t the only Philosopher to come up with ideas; the Scientific Revolution began with Copernicus and his beliefs in Heliocentric Cosmos and ended with Newton’s Universal Laws. http://www.web.clas.ufl.edu/users/rhatch/pages/03-Sci-Rev/SCI-REV-Teaching/03sr-definition-concept.htm
For Rene Descartes, human knowledge functions the same way that a simple tree does. He explains this by saying that metaphysics forms the roots and physics creates the overall tree, while medicines, morals, and mechanisms become placed on the branches that eventually form knowledge. This goes out to prove that he was a strong believer in human minds; he was a dualist that believed in the soul (mind) and the human body. Descartes strongly wanted to point out that humans are actually the only creatures that possess a mind and that have the ability to fully control it. http://www.4learning.co.uk/support/programmenotes/micro/kntv/prog4.html
Based on Rene Descartes scientific thinking, the Scientific Revolution was greatly affected.

"What do Guts Have to do with It?"

2008-10-30T08:44:00.000-07:00

The concept of our project is to try and explain the shift of belief from pre-cadaver age medicine, to post-cadaver age medicine. Andreas Vesalius was a man ahead of his time. Considered the Father of Modern Anatomy his fascination with the human body began as a student, when he started drawing different parts of the body. This continued with his commission of local artists to draw more accurately and more detailed drawings of the many aspects of the body that he studied. He went on to become a teacher in Italy, where he developed many new teaching techniques. Through his research he began to gain a deep and powerful understanding for how the human body worked, and how we could better understand the inner workings of the body. His teaching practices broke the boundaries of how students were taught. He would have students gather around and watch him dissect bodies, showing them the inner workings of organs, muscles, and tissues. These practices are still used in today’s classrooms. This man is truly a revolutionary mind, his ideas and thoughts have made waves for hundreds of years. Throughout his research and teaching, he wrote a series of books on his findings and techniques. One of the most famous books was De Humani Corporus Fabrica. http://archive.nlm.nih.gov/proj/ttp/flash/vesalius/vesalius.html This is still to this day considered one of the more influential books on anatomy of all time. He went into great detail about each bone, tissue, vein, etc. of the body. His detail and knowledge was unparalleled at the time. It was in this book that the first understandings of mechanical ventilation (artificial breathing) were ever described. At the age of fifty Vesalius died of natural causes. Though he died poor, he left the world of medicine with a wealth of ideas and knowledge. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15378c.htm

Reading Connections #2

2008-10-25T21:52:00.000-07:00

I was faced with a challenge in class that I greatly underestimated. "Where are the women of science in the seventeenth century?" I was asked. I thought someone had to have taught about them. Out there, there was a text book ridden with dates and names of women who made a difference scientifically. I asked my brother if, when covering that time period in his history classes, they reviewed any women philosophers and scientists. There were none. I asked my cousin who attends school in New Jersey, if any women of significant value to the scientific community during this time were ever mentioned during classes. Once again, there were none. I went as far as to even ask a friend of mine living in London, but he couldn't recall learning about any women other than Marie Curie in his science and history courses.

There's no way there could be absolutely no women involved at the time. They had to be out there, they were just hiding in the bindings of overlooked books. I decided to do some of my own investigation, so I started in the place I knew I would get results: the internet.

What I found was more than just a lack of women in 17th century science. Throughout modern history and science books, only men a greatly referenced. There are maybe two or three women mentioned as giving significant contribution in said field. This isn't to say that they didn't give significant input, but there's so little known about them. How many people could tell you where Marie Curie lived, what year she was born, and exactly what her contribution to science was? I'm sure out of those people, at least twice the number of them can tell you at least three facts about Albert Einstein or Issac Newton, and specify exactly what they did.

After searching for a while, I found that there are a lot of women that myself or others have never heard about, but have contributed a lot to the world and it's quest for knowledge. There were women present in science, even as far back as the time of the Ancient Greeks. A good example of this, is a woman named Aglaonike, a philosopher of the Ancient Greek Era. She is one of the earliest known women in astronomy, and is known for being able to predict eclipses. At this time, people with such knowledge were seen through fearful eyes since they had knowledge of what was unknown. She was seen less as a philosopher, and more as a powerful sorceress for knowing such things. She was known enough at the time that she was even mentioned by the great Plato in his writings, but where is she today in modern teachings of astrology and philosophy?

So why is it that we don't know about her? Why do we give all credit to men for all great discoveries, that were originally made by women? I think it's time we do some reevaluating in our textbooks, and start adding the many powerful women that added in uncovering the mysteries of our vast universe.

Works Cited:

Watts, Ruth. "Gender, science and modernity in seventeenth-century England." Paedagogica Historica. 2005. 41,

1, 79-93.

"4,000 Years of Women in Science." University of Alabama Arts and Sciences: Department for Physics and Astonomy. 1999-2008. 24 October 2008. < http://www.astr.ua.edu/4000WS/timelist.shtml >

Reading Connections #2

2008-10-25T13:07:00.001-07:00

Personally I am still trying to figure out in my head how this whole notion of women not being part of the scientific revolution is possible! I mean, in history, there have been a lot of things that women have not been aloud to do, but they still do them anyway. Why would this be so different? My question is, where was all the writing? We know how much Anne Bolyn influenced king Henry, we know about the daughter of Galileo, but why do we know nothing about any other women? Where are the "lost texts" of the age? I just really am trying to understand how this is possible. We have all kinds of texts about women writers during the 16th century. The women listed on this website are just a handful http://web.clas.ufl.edu/users/rhatch/pages/03-Sci-Rev/SCI-REV-Home/sr-women/05-SR-WOMEN%20OF%20LEARNING.html Look at all these women that did all these amazing things!!! Why don't we read about them at all!!!!
I just have a hard time believing the article that we read in class about women and modernity. I think that it makes no sense that just because there were witch trials, or that because a woman's assumed role was to be in the kitchen that there was NO ONE at all anywhere any place at any time involved! But they were! Why is it that we still have this idea that women were not involved, why is this still a common idea and a common view that women were unable to do these things. I think it is just crazy.
Works Cited:
http://web.clas.ufl.edu/users/rhatch/pages/03-Sci-Rev/SCI-REV-Home/sr-women/05-SR-WOMEN%20OF%20LEARNING.html

Watts, Ruth. "Gender, science and modernity in seventeenth-century England." Paedagogica Historica. 2005. 41, 1, 79-93. ISSN: 0030-9230.

Whats News in Science: Bucky Paper

2008-10-25T11:31:00.001-07:00

Ryan Vachon

Whats News in Science: Bucky Balls and Bucky Paper

I first heard about Buckyballs from a sci-fi novel by the author Ben Bova. His novel "Mercury" contained a character who was responsible for developing the first space elevator on a mountain range in South America. The material that this person used to construct the elevator was called "Bucky Balls" and was said to be many times stronger than steel.

Doing research for this paper, I happened accross an article published by Wired Magazine, and written by the Associated Press that talked about bucky paper, a variation on the bucky ball.

Bucky paper is formed from a carbon nanotube that is roughly 50,000 times thinner than hair. When combined into sheets, and layered, the resulting composite material is 10 times lighter and 500 times stronger than steel. They also have the ability to conduct electricity like steel.

The current technology to make this material is currently only able to produce it at a fraction of its estimated potential and with an incredible cost. FSU is currently studying the material and methods on how to make so they can cut productions cost and create a composite that can truely compete with steel and composit materials on the market today.

Due to the strength and weight of bucky paper, some of the first application ideas came from the aeronautics sector. Airplanes and spaceships could use this material to skin their vehicles, or possibly even frame them. Since the material is so strong and leight weight, planes and spaceships would benefit immensely from the improved materials.

Wired magazine is a well know tech magazine that knows what it is talking about. They cover a variety of subjects from chemistry to physics to current and future technology, as well as delving into popular culture. Bottom line is that the articles they publish can be trusted because they are an established magazine with a good reputation. The Associated Press sells their articles to Newspapers and Magazines accross the country. These articles are generally considered to be well written and balanced from bias.

The second article I used was more scientifically oriented than the Associated press article. This is because the website is targeted towards a much more scientifically based community that knows the terminology and basic foundations of the topics. I used it mostly as a reference against the first article to make sure the facts were there and accurate.

Associated Press "Future planes, cars may be made of `buckypaper'." Wired Magazine. 18 Oct. 2008. 25 Oct. 2008. http://news.wired.com/dynamic/stories/T/TEC_BUCKYPAPER?SITE=WIRE&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2008-10-18-03-35-31

"Nanotubes and Bucky Balls." Nanotechnology Now. 29 Mar. 2008. 25 Oct. 2008. http://www.nanotech-now.com/nanotube-buckyball-sites.htm

Debating Science & Religion

2008-10-24T20:52:00.000-07:00

The debate of Science vs. Religion is a funny one. While people claim that the two are polar opposites, one disproving the other in constant argument, it seems only funny that the church itself has the Pontifical Academy of Science. It seems almost hypocritical that science is supported by the church, and that’s what has been attempting to disprove their ideas for decades.
I found the article “God vs. Science” in time magazine; the first thing I noticed was that the same person, Richard Dawkins was in both articles showing that he is an avid representative in debates on the topic. I do find it interesting though, that Dawkins mentioned in “How to Teach Science to the Pope” from his conversation with Father George Coyne, “And he said to me that there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe in God…” when Dawkins asked why Coyne believed God, Coyne had given the simple answer, “It’s quite simple, I was brought up Catholic”
Now it’s this that gets me to think, that after all these years of debates against one another that the two are finally beginning to accept one another? As Dawkins says in the Time article,
“I accept that there may be things far grander and more incomprehensible than we can possibly imagine. What I can't understand is why you invoke improbability and yet you will not admit that you're shooting yourself in the foot by postulating something just as improbable, magicking into existence the word God.”
I believe the two have come to the point where it’s like saying, “I dislike you, but I notify you’re here.”

Works Cited:
Cray, Dan. “God vs. Science.” Time Magazine. November 5, 2006. October 23, 2008 http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1555132-2,00.htmlMason, Michael. "How to Teach Science to the Pope." Discover Magazine. August 18, 2008. http://discovermagazine.com/2008/sep/18-how-to-teach-science-to-the-pope

Bryce Coster: Reading Connections #2

2008-10-24T20:33:00.001-07:00

In today's modernized world, it is impossible to rule out science as a means of explaining why things happen the way they do. However for some topics, science just can't offer the insight necessary to make for a solid understanding of said topic. Prominent evolutionary theorist and Pontifical Academy of Science member Richard Dawkins touched on this dilemma when he stated "Science cannot tell you what is right and wrong. When it comes to really interesting questions like 'Where did the laws of physics come from?' or 'How did the universe arrive in the first place?' I genuinely don't know whether science will answer those deep and at present mysterious questions."(Mason). To explain the unexplainable, people turn to religion to give them answers. This is the standard way of cognitive thinking in the modern world. Recently, the church has been making sincere efforts to try and collaborate with scientists to better their doctrines based on scientific discovery.

Science and Religion weren't always so buddy-buddy. In fact, the church at one point was down-right vicious when it came to new scientific ideas. When Giordano Bruno proposed his scientific theories on the structure of the cosmos, the church's inquisition decided that he should die for his ideas, and not by quiet, gentle means either. An article exploring the reasoning behind Bruno's execution described the event: "Bruno was escorted at dawn on February 17, 1600, to the execution ground at Campo de’ Fiori, stripped naked, and tied to a stake. Most people condemned to burn were quietly garroted before mounting their pyres, but Bruno was burned alive." (Rowland). The Church decided they didn't like what results this scientist's explorations were digging up, so they decided to brutally kill him. Who's to say that if the Pontifical Academy of Science were to make some enormous discovery that could change religion as we know it, the church won't take some similar action. Is it irrational to consider the fact that perhaps the church wants to be involved in the major scientific discoveries of the future so that they can moderate what becomes public knowledge? At one point in time, they were resolute enough in their attempts to stymie scientific exploration that they opted to burn a man at the stake while he was still living. Let me demonstrate what I mean by this. Let’s say 100 years from now, the Pontifical Academy of Science actually disproves the existence of god. Would the church, now a major factor in the upper-echelons of scientific exploration, simply allow this to unfold? Absolutely not. They would reinstate the inquisition and begin killing scientists before that were ever released to the public.

If we allow the church to assimilate science into itself somehow, we need to remain aware and be sure that no information or discovery is sequestered from the public based on the ruling of the church. Based on past examples like Galileo and Bruno, it is reasonable to say that the Church will go to great lengths to maintain its post of authority in the world.

Works Cited

Mason, Michael. "How to Teach Science to the Pope." DISCOVER Magazine 18 Aug. 2008.

Rowland, Ingrid D. "What Giordano Bruno Left Behind Rome, 1600." Common Knowledge 14 (2008): 420-245. Project MUSE. Keyword: Giordano Bruno Inquisition.

Reading Reaction 2

2008-10-24T19:47:00.000-07:00

Ryan Vachon

Reactions 2: How to teach Science to the Pope

"Creation: In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth. Sorry Darwin huggers, but its not "In the beginning a monkey evolutioned gay marriage."-Stephen T. Colbert

How to Teach Science to the Pope is an article written by Michael Mason built upon a series of interviews of Vatican officials. Mason discusses how the Church has set up a series of universities throughout Rome with the goal of pursuing scientific research with the goal of understanding the work and effects of God.
I came into this article a bit skeptical of how religion and science can be tied together in such a manner. As I read along I began to see and admire how science has been approached by the Catholic Church. Here, scientists are finding ways that science and faith blend together, and they do so in a manner that does not exclude one side or the other and that has some flexibility. I wanted to see if this flexibility in science and faith was simply part of the portrayal or was something that actually occurs.
I discovered a USA Today published Associated Press article from a few years back titled: Vatican academy to ponder evolution; pope addresses limits of science. It looks at how two modern popes have view evolution under the light of religion. “Benedict's predecessor, John Paul, told the academy in 1996 that Charles Darwin's theories on evolution were sound as long as they took into account that creation was the work of God and that Darwin's theory of evolution was more than a hypothesis.” This sort of illustrates an idea stated in the Mason article by Consolmagno: “If you think the universe is fundamentally good and that it’s and expression of a good God, then studying how the universe works is a way of becoming intimate with the creator.”
Ultimately, I found a way that science and religion coexist and a manner that I have often wondered about. Can science be the study of the way the universe works, while theology explains how the universe came into being? Mason has lead me to believe it can happen, and the Associated Press has confirmed that belief.

Associated Press. “Vatican academy to ponder evolution; pope addresses limits of science” USA Today 6 Nov. 2006, 24 Oct. 2008 http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2006-11-06-vatican-evolution_x.htm

Mason, Michael. "How to Teach Science to the Pope." Discover Magazine. August 18, 2008. http://discovermagazine.com/2008/sep/18-how-to-teach-science-to-the-pope

AJ Peters, Reading Connection #2

2008-10-24T19:14:00.000-07:00

We live in an age of speedy information and instant satisfaction. What we used to value, like hard work, a hearty meal, and time with the family, is a subtle joke to many of our young adults. We live for the minute and are resourceful beyond any previous generation. So what do we look for in life? Easy answers and quick fixes for our everyday problems. There is no longer a need to pray before meals, thank the faith for having such a wonderful family, or pray for a good day before bed. The notion that God brings all that is good, that the church is a place of redemption and forgiveness, is being replaced by other entities. Science and technology.
The Church, from the 15th to the 17th century, was probably ones of the most powerful organizations in the world. People would start wars or massacre thousands at the word of the pope. Those people lived by the Bible and the holy sacraments of the day, it was all they needed to have a fulfilled life. The Church is now slowly losing its followers. The Bible, which boasts Creationism, is being challenged and defeated by modern science and technology. In the Nashville Conference on the Church and Theology, members of this religious organization are trying to place God back at the center of it. Apparently, God, who was the reason for all that exists, is slowly disappearing from the big picture. It seems that because of Science, God no longer has all the answers. One example could be the Great Flood, which has been disproven by Science. This classic example of Gods wrath is now seen as false, and the fear which one held the peoples beliefs is evaporating.
In an age where the internet seems to hold all the answers, no one seems to be looking up anymore. No one cares if God gets angry when you steal from your neighbors or saying Gods name in vain. We live lives of self-reliance and self-competence. Well, maybe not ourselves, the internet perhaps.

Mason, Michael. "How to Teach Science to the Pope." Discover Magazine. August 18, 2008.

"Nashville Conference on the Church and Theology." 2008. 24 Oct. 2008.
<http://www.churchandtheology.org/>

Reading Connection #2

2008-10-24T17:40:00.000-07:00

The Scientific Revolution was a time of change and discoveries. But while learning about this time we see that all the books that were written and the ideas that were found where found by men. So the question arises where were all the women during this time? Well after reading Ruth Watts article “Gender, Science and Modernity in Seventeenth-century England this question was answered and the fact that we do not see ideas that women come up with during this time is sadly not surprising. The reasons that we do not see women’s work on science during this time is first they were not able to get the same education as men, they were not able to join the Royal Society for the Improvement of Natural Knowledge, and this time period had that highest number of witchcraft trails so women who tried to impute the ideas on science would have been see at witches. But there were still some women that were able to get around this. Two that were mentioned Lucy Hutchinson and Aphra Benn they were able to do this by translating books and adding notes thought out with there own ideas.

Even hundreds of years later in the world of science today women are not equal to men. In the New York Time article "Women in Science: The Battle Moves to the Trenches" by Cornelia Dean we see that even thought more and more women are moving into the field of science and medicine they are not getting equal amount of funding as males in the same position as them. Because of the less money they are getting women also publish less works them men. It is also a lot harder for women to get jobs in these field then it is for men. Although I was not surprised that during the Scientific Revolution women had a hard time entering the world of science I am surprised women are still not even close to being equal to men in today's world of science.

Works Cited

Dean, Cornelia. "Women in Science: The Battle Moves to the Trenches." New York Times 19 Dec. 2006.

Watts, Ruth. "Gender, science and modernity in seventeenth-century England." Paedagogica Historica. 2005. 41, 1, 79-93. ISSN: 0030-9230.

Reading Connection #2

2008-10-24T07:03:00.000-07:00

Religion vs. Science
In our modern society there are still some things that cannot be explained by science, and there are some things in the religious works that has been completely disproven. Science and religion however have always gone hand in hand, especially in the Catholic Church. Some of the first true scientists were men of the cloth; Science has also had the help from the church through the Vatican Observatory and the Pontifical Academy of Science. However it has had some serious hindrances indirectly in the form of public opinion. Some members of the church believe that different kinds of research are sacrilegious, like research into stem cells and evolution.
I’ll be the first to admit that some scientific research fields begin to tamper into things that mankind is better off not dealing with, genetic manipulation being the most predominant one. However there are some things that mankind has a right to know; In the case of evolution for example. There are certain religious elements that would have you believe that God really created the heavens and the earth in seven days, and that the earth as we know it is only 10,000 years old however science has proven with 100% certainty that the earth is over four billion years old. Science has also proven with 100% certainty that our ancestors were ape like creatures, yes I hate to break it to you religious fanatics out there we came from monkeys. These same religious elements also have tried to stop the teaching of evolution in schools during the famous Scopes Monkey trial. After that controversial trial it would still take a few decades and more court cases until creationism was no longer taught in school. Studying where we came from and where we are going can give us insights into who we are and at least start to answer some of the really big questions, like who we are and why we are here. One scientific field that the church has supported for several decades is the study of astronomy. Although the church didn’t avidly support astronomy at first with the trial and imprisonment of Galileo is has today with the construction of the Vatican Observatory and other departments to study dark matter, quasars, and other universal phenomena.
Even though the Vatican and other religious elements in the U.S. and abroad are suppoting different kinds of science it is hypocritical that they only support science that will add to or not take away from their own power base. For example if someone was trying to explain certain phenomena found in the bible, like the burning bush, the parting of the red sea, and several others the church would be against that because it would prove that god in some small way that god did not exist or that everything that we think we know about religion is wrong. Ultimately no matter what our belief there are just some things that science can’t explain and there are some things that we just have to take on faith.
Bibliography:
Mason, Michael. "How to Teach Science to the Pope." Discover Magazine. 18 August 2008. <http://discovermagazine.com/2008/sep/18-how-to-teach-science-to-the-pope>
Robinson, B.A. “A brief history of the conflict between evolution and creation science.” Religious Tolerence.org. 12 August 2007. <http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_hist.htm>

readding connection #2

2008-10-24T06:23:00.000-07:00

Has the role of women changed from that of the women during the scientific revolution? The scientific revolution was a very important period in history. Some of the most famous discoveries where thought of during this time period. These discoveries were made solely by men, unlike today. Women living during the time of the scientific revolution played a different role than they do today. The majority of the women were not educated as well as the men. If a woman’s family was either rich enough or important enough, the girl could attend early childhood education, but after that, she would be forced to learn the role of the women. This consisted of cooking, cleaning, and bearing children. If the woman was lucky, she might be able to go on to a slightly higher form of education. Meanwhile, the males in the class were able to continue learning. From the start, women were at a disadvantage; they had not nearly as much education as the men, and if a woman came up with a revolutionary idea that could change the views of the society, no one would listen to her. Women’s opinions were not valued as much as a man’s. What we do not know today is that is possible that someone could have listened to a women’s idea and stole it knowing she has no right in the science world.

Nicole Beck says in her article that in today's world women are supposed to be equal to men and everyone is supposed to have equal opportunities, while this is true and more and more women are becoming influential figures throughout the world from business to computers has the woman’s roll really changed since the scientific revolution? When you watch television and commercial for a food product comes on who is cooking the dinner? The woman, the same goes for cleaning supplies and any other product along these lines. While times have changed since the scientific revolution and women are given more opportunities to succeed in life the media and most of society still portrays women stereotypically as they were back in the scientific revolution. Adena Young explains in her article that times have not changed spite the fact that women are given more of an opportunity to succeed, she claims that still in today’s world women are not taken as seriously as men and society still have a negative portrayal toward women. We have to wonder if women really play a different role than that they did during the scientific revolution?

Reading Connection #2

2008-10-23T19:47:00.000-07:00

“Gender, Science and Modernity in Seventeenth-century England,” by Ruth Watts raised a great question of where were all the women during the scientific revolutions? Also, did they find ways to become part of the Scientific Revolution or were they fully excluded? Watts pointed out that women were excluded from the Royal Society and were not able to seek out education. Only middle-class and upper-class women were allowed to have education which may suggest that upper-middle class women may have been part of the Scientific Revolution. When talking about the Scientific Revolution we mainly talk about men and what their accomplishments were which makes me wonder why women are not talked about. In my opinion, because women had minimal rights and were seen as traditional where they cooked for the family and cleaned the house, that it made historians believe that there was no way women could have been part of the Scientific Revolution. Also, if women were uneducated compared to the men then how could they have the same kind of thinking or even come up with the ideas that men in the Scientific Revolution came up with. The only time women were talked about in the seventeenth century was when there were the witch trials. Mostly women were seen as witches.

In an article that I had read named “Yesterday and Today: The Top Women Scientists” by Jen Meadows, suggests that women may have participated in science by naming all of their ideas and thoughts through a males name. Just so their thoughts would be looked at. In the article she lists many women scientists ranging from the 1700’s to today. Today, women are equal to men, whereas in the past women were looked down upon, and had a hard time trying to get them to be seen. Seeing that women were part of science in the 1700’s shows that maybe women were starting to have more rights and were more educated whereas in the 1600’s women had to hide and were uneducated compared to men.

Works Cited

Watts, Ruth. "Gender, science and modernity in seventeenth-century England." Paedagogica Historica. 2005 41, 1, 79-93. ISSN: 0030-9230.

Meadows, Jen P. "Yesterday & Today: The Top Women Scientists." Weblog post. Scientific Blogging. http://www.scientificblogging.com/i_can_get_science/yesterday_today_top_women_scientists .

Readings Connection #2

2008-10-23T19:35:00.000-07:00

I have grown up with having the internet available to me my whole life. Of course computers have drastically advanced since the early 90’s. We now have computers that are fully touch screen including the key board, wireless internet, amazing graphics, and innovative software. When we were told to read Nicholas Carr’s article about Google I was automatically interested and knew right then that I would enjoy reading the article. He discusses a lot of his own experiences concerning the fluctuations in technology over time and how these changes have affected his learning, attention span, and laziness. I know from my own experience that if I try to read a book or article, I honestly have to work hard to stay concentrated. I often wonder in my thoughts and find myself having to go back and re-read previous pages. Carr discusses in his article that, “Now my concentration often starts to drift after two or three pages. I get fidgety, lose the thread, begin looking for something else to do. I feel as if I’m always dragging my wayward brain back to the text.” Carr’s problems are the same as mine; however, the difference is that I have had this problem since a very early age so I know how to deal with it better. Carr has only recently had this problem since computers evolved. He stated that he used to be able to sit down and totally immerse himself in a novel and not have to worry about a wondering mind. With today’s available technology, a wondering mind is almost an included and expected side package. E books for example are extremely cost affective and convenient; however, as a college student reading a book online, we might all of a sudden find ourselves browsing face book or listening to Pandora radio without even meaning to.

I feel that technology is an amazing asset to our generation. I do not feel that it makes us stupid or lazy; I do however feel that we could let technology make us lazy or less mentally sharp. An example would be if one could analyze a map in order to navigate themselves to their destination or they could use their Garmin navigation system or go on their laptop and map quest their directions. The different forms of technology are available to us, we are not required to use these products, we choose to use them. This fact is important for us and the media to realize before they state that technology could be making us stupid. The question should be is the human race making themselves stupid with their available technology and resources? Are we taking advantage of our innovative technology? If anything, I feel this is a valid question that should be asked and would bring up a whole new realm of ideas and questions.

All of today’s innovative technology is converting our world to a different way of thinking, learning, and merely living. Just because past generations did things different doesn’t mean that our generation shouldn’t try and improve our way of living and improve all aspects of our world. By saying that technology and Google is making us stupid, does this mean that we should still be watching black and white televisions and using crank telephones? Take reading for example… we are still reading the same material and getting the same message but it is on the internet instead of in a book. The other aspect is that it can be found in minutes on the web whereas finding specific information in a specific book could take hours. So are we being lazy or are we just making life easier for us in order to get work done faster, be more productive, and get more done more efficiently in order to have a healthier and more sustainable economy.

After surfing YouTube, I came across a brief video of an IT specialist discussing how our world is shifting completely to computers and what that entails. This relates to what Carr discusses and also what we have discussed in class, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-KqDXHB__M. Everyone in today’s world realizes that we are shifting completely to computers and technology and resorting back to books and libraries less and less. We discuss this subject extensively in class because of the thought of the future of education; will there be books, will there be mandatory computers at each desk, and will there even be a teacher or will it all be transmitted through the internet onto our computer screens. The future has much in store for us that we would never have believed to be possible. I’ am very excited for this change because I feel it will help our world and give us resources to succeed far more than we currently do. However, some might have a different outlook upon this subject and are scared of change, and think maybe it will make our society languid and unready similar to what Carr is discussing in his article about Google.

Works Cited

Carr, Nicholas. “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” July/August 2008. theatlantic.com. 21, October 2008. http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200807/google

View our Course Readings for any other information on in class resources available.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-KqDXHB__M.

Reading Connection #2

2008-10-23T19:29:00.000-07:00

Casey Norton

Reading Connection #2

“Gender, Science and Modernity in seventeenth-century England” by Ruth Watts answers questions that I had never thought of bringing up. In previous history classes, the great minds of the time period were spoken of, but the fact that they were all males was not brought up. After reading this article, it brought me to the realization that women were at a great risk for attempting to join the voices of the seventeenth-century. Women’s voices in this time period were rarely accounted for and criticized. As a woman in today’s society, it made me think about how much I take my voice for granted. If the women that had an interest in voicing their opinion saw how mindlessly we sit I class, they would be enraged. The idea that I could be killed or accused of being a witch for being intelligent or wanting to learn more frightens me. This fear could have also lead women to use a man’s name to get published and to put their ideas out into the world. I wonder if I lived in that time period I would write under a man’s name. It would be frustrating because I would want my ideas, under my name put out into the world. I would not want to give another man credit for my discoveries and my beliefs.
As I searched for more reasons why women were not present, I found that people/men of that century believed that it was unnecessary and harmful for a women to be educated because it may ruin their marriage prospects according to the Norton Anthology of English Literature in the section Contesting Cultural Norms (http://www.wwnorton.com/college/english/nael/17century/topic_1/hutchins.htm). It upsets me to think that so many of these women’s lives of this century revolved around a man. It is shocking that in that time period I could not better myself through education because it would ruin my chances of getting a husband.

Reading Connection #2: Women in the Scientific Revolution

2008-10-23T19:08:00.000-07:00

Although it would be presumptuous to say that women appeared nowhere in the Scientific Revolution of 1550-1700, there surely is an overwhelming majority of well-known male scientists. Some of the most well-known names in science come from this time period: Francis Bacon, Galileo, Descartes, Robert Hooke, Robert Boyle, and Newton all spring to mind. However, what about Virginia Galilei, the famous Galileo’s daughter, who was rumored to be as intelligent as her father? We certainly have heard and read about her father, who has an entire section in The Scientific Revolution by Michael R. Matthews devoted to himself and his theories, but who has heard of her, or any of the other women interested in the sciences during that time period?
Although she was touted to have the same great mind of her famous father, Virginia Galilei spent her life in a poor convent in Florence that her father admitted her and her younger sister to when they were both teenagers, a common occurrence of the time. People of means often sent their daughters to convents when they reached teenage years, so they could learn skills such as sewing, cooking, cleaning, music, and were taught religion until the day when their parents arranged a marriage for them and they were swept away to a new household. Unfortunately, this was not the case for Virginia, who ended up dying at a relatively young age due to weak health. However, the letters she wrote to her father have survived her, and we have records of a bright young woman who undoubtedly could have flourished in the scientific world if given the chance, which just wasn’t done. In a letter from 1623, she writers to her father… “Moreover, I beg you to be so kind as to send me that book of yours which has just been published, so that I may read it, for I have a great desire to see it.” The book that she writes of was The Assayer, and she would have undoubtedly had her own opinions and ideas of her father’s work. It’s inferred from her letters that she had the intellectual capability to think and work on a level comparable to her father’s, but she was never given the chance. A book has recently been published with many of Virginia’s letters to her father, and focuses on her own tremendous talents, a Rice college has started a project on Galileo’s life, a large part of which focuses on his eldest daughter, the website from which this quote of hers was taken.
A similar tragedy is seen in another letter, this one written by Margaret Cavendish, the Duchess of Newcastle, who was a woman of scientific mind interested in becoming a member of the newly-founded Royal Society in England. She writes, “I cannot publicly preach, teach, declare or explain (my work) by word of mouth, as most of the famous philosophers have done, who thereby made their philosophical opinions more famous than I fear mine will ever be.” Here we see that Cavendish is remarking on a fact of her time: that women were not regarded on an equal plane as men when it came to matters of the mind. Although this way of thinking no doubt stilted a great many accomplishments that could have been achieved had women been given a chance publicly to practice in the sciences, Margaret Cavendish did well for herself. She went on to write 13 novels, some of which focused on science, with an emphasis on atoms and matter in motion. She also published under her own name when most women who dared to write about the sciences published their works anonymously. Cavendish never did become a member of the Royal Society, but she was friends with many male members.
In just these two examples, we can see that it is not the fact that there were no women interested in the ground-breaking science of the time, it’s just that they weren’t allowed or even encouraged to have such a hands-on role. For the time, it would have been scandalous and considered taboo for a woman to seem to be as intelligent as a man or show similar interests or ideas, and for this, we have lost a great many opportunities for brilliant women to let themselves shine.

Bibliography:
1.) Rice College and the Galileo Project’s Website devoted to Virginia Galilei: http://galileo.rice.edu/fam/maria.html

2.) Iowa State University’s record of women in the Scientific Revolution, a section of which is devoted to Margaret Cavendish: http://www.public.iastate.edu/~hist.380/revolution.html

Reading Connections #2

2008-10-23T18:10:00.000-07:00

For centuries religion has been there to explain the world around us and to give us a feeling of reassurance that everything happens for a reason. A so called “divine plan” put together by a supernatural force. Religion is a way of answering all of lives mysteries which cannot be solved with common knowledge. Within the last couple hundred years the development of scientific ideas has brought up many questions regarding the confidence in previous religious beliefs. This has brought lots of tension between the church and science since each side’s beliefs cancel out the others.
The articles “God vs. Science” by Dan Cray http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1555132-1,00.html and “How to Teach Science to the Pope” by Michael Mason discuss the ongoing joint existence between religion and science and how they are working together to bridge the gap between the two. “How to Teach Science to the Pope” talks about the Vatican Observatory and how it assumes a large role in determining the facts and fictions of science. Consolmagno is quoted in this article saying “The idea that the universe is worth studying just because it’s worth studying is a religious idea.” This is because the church believes that understanding the universe is a way to worship Gods creation. The Academy of Science is made up of the best scientists in the world, some religious and some not. Father George Coyne has said there are no adequate reasons to believe in God, he believes that you only need to believe that there is a “mysterious unknown at the root of the universe.” In the article “God vs. Science” I found something that I thought was interesting. It discussed the Multiverse hypothesis which says that our universe may be one in a cascade of universes which negates the idea of divine intervention and significantly increases the odds of a universe containing human life.
After reading these two articles I think that the use of the Vatican Observatory to link religion and science is a great idea. Both can be used together to come to a conclusion on many complicated questions. Sometimes science cannot deliver any reasoning as to why things exist, this is a perfect time to apply religious ideas.

Works Cited

Cray, Dan. “God vs. Science.” Time Magazine. November 5, 2006. October 23, 2008 http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1555132-2,00.html

Mason, Michael. "How to Teach Science to the Pope." Discover Magazine. August 18, 2008. http://discovermagazine.com/2008/sep/18-how-to-teach-science-to-the-pope

Reading Connections #2: Creation of Nature: Then and Now

2008-10-23T16:52:00.002-07:00

After reading a segment of 'nature and god, wisdom and will' from Shapin's "The Scientific Revolution," I got a better idea of the common perception of people at that time regarding the creation of 'nature.' Shapin refers that nature shows solid evidence of design, that it's 'artfully' contrived, which was generally accepted by mechanical philosophers. If this design isn't accounted for by the intelligence of nature itself, then this artful design had to arise from something outside of nature. This train of thought was the basis of one of the most important 17th century arguments for the existence, intelligence and creation of nature from a deity, or God. This argument of design links the practice of science and religious values in this early period. This wide idea or argument, or common perception that God, or a deity is responsible for the intelligent and specific design of nature was the cornerstone of common or natural theology. Shapin was essentially pointing out that around the end of this period religion and science meshed and reconciled fairly well. Generally, the blend between religion and science at this point coincided together without many disagreements. There was a widely perceived common thought that God truly exists, and the evidence of the creation of nature exists, due to a seemingly highly detailed natural world so perfect that it only is attributed to God's creation. As i read about Shapin's take on how many people of the 16th and 17th centuries were deeply rooted in the 'ethical' belief of this intelligent design from a higher power, I did some research on some current beliefs on the theories and thoughts of the creation of nature.

I located an article from BBC news, titled, "Universe child of previous one." Which refers to how a joint UK-US team has attempted an alternative theory of cosmic evolution. The article suggests that the Universe undergoes cycles of "Big Bangs" and "Big Crunches", meaning our Universe is merely a "child of the previous one". It challenges the conventional view of the cosmos, especially the views of the 16th/17th century scientific revolution. The new ideas may explain why the expansion of the Universe is accelerating. Professor Paul Steinhardt of Princeton University is quoted from the article, "at present the conventional view is that all of space, time, matter and energy began at a single point, which then expanded and cooled, leaving the Universe as it is today...It can be thought of as a child of the previous universe." This new theory suggests that there's a continuous cycle of universes, with each a repeat of the last, but not an exact replica. The new idea builds on previous work by the same team, and is set to challenge the current model. When observations showed the Universe to be expanding, this caused some of the biggest unanswered questions about the origin and characteristics of the universe and cosmic physics.
The article outlines the modern thought and theories of the creation of the universe, Professor Neil Turok, of Cambridge University have developed a theory to explain the cosmological creation. They suggest that time actually began before the Big Bang, meaning there was a preexisting universe. This would also mean that the current Universe is much older than presently accepted. "At present there may be an alternative 'dark matter' universe that exists at the same time as ours, but we could never reach it," explains Professor Turok. He says the best way to think of this is to think of a pane of double glazing with a fly on it. The fly is unable to cross over from one side to another, just like we are unable to get from one universe to another. These two universes are drawn together by the force of gravity and will eventually collide. This means that things that are happening now will help to create another universe in the future. This modern article expands concepts in our class because it shows the massive evolution and knowledge that humans contain of the universe and nature itself, and the massive evolution of the theories and thoughts of thinkers of how and why the universe exists and was created. This source is relevant to our class because it shows the modern scientific conception of how our universe was initiated. This source depicts how our modern lifestyle seems to lack a strong connection between science and religion. This study, and other scientific studies are mostly reliant on the science, rather than any religious aspects. There seems to be a lot more disagreement, and less of a friendly connection on issues between science and religion in modern times. Scientific study, at least in my mind, appears to have a less direct involvement and agreement with religion in our modern day rather than the time Shapin was referring to.

Works Cited:

Cruddas, Sarah. Universe 'child of previous one'. 5 May 2006. BBC News. 24 Oct. 2008 <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4974134.stm>

Shapin, Steven. The Scientific Revolution. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1996.

Trish Tomlins Reading Connection #2

2008-10-23T16:19:00.000-07:00

Science is incapable of supplying manking with answers to the ultimate questions - why things exist, what their purpose on Earth is, etc. - and these philosophical questions can be met with an answer in religion. Michael Mason's article "How to Teach Science to the Pope" discusses that science does not have to be an answer to religion and that it does not have to explain it. Instead, he suggests that both can remain present and powerful social factors in the present day world. It is impossible, after all, for science to provide mankind with all the answers. Science does not explain many aspects of human life such as love, friendship, etc. However, more and more the Catholic Church is beginning to accept the finding of science as truth and is beginning to re-examine the way the clergy members interpret the Holy Scripture, as they are historically known to have done. Bible interpretations are beginning to move from a literal perspective to a spiritual one.
The current relationship between religion and science is this, according to the Mason article: scientific issues have received unprecedented levels of importance within the church. The Vatican readily admits the increasingly dominant role that science and technology is beginning to play in society and even has gone as far as to acknowledge that science, for the most part, is yielding positive results. It is the persistence of a mechanistic view of humanity that troubles church officials. Ethical issues (cloning, euthanasia, contraception) are a large concern for the church because they immediately affect the human body and are not scientific questions. It has been proven by science that they are possible and now it is up to religion to say whether they are ethical.
After reading this article, I began to think about the chruch and its stand on ethical issues, such as cloning. I found an interesting article explaining the church's stand on the topic and why it has decided that cloning is immoral. In Terese Auer's article "Cloning: A Catholic Moral Evaluation", he tells the reader how cloning is done. Through in vitro fertilization, an embryo splits two cells to begin development. At this point scientists remove the coating around the embryo, split the two developing cells, and apply an artifical coating around the new embryos in which they could grow. This is known as cloning because the new cells formed are the exact replicas of the original ones.
The act of splitting the cells within the embryo with the purpose of producing a new human life is immoral to the Catholic Church because it opposes the idea that human procreation is preserved for the union of a man and a woman. The embryo is not being brought into existence though a personal act in which the spiritual love of the spouses is being demonstrated. To seperate the physical from the spiritual is to act in an unhuman way, according to Auer, thus degrading those involved in the act of creating a human life. It is not humane to either the parents or the child to be raised in such a scientific environment - a human child shown not be a piece of technology and the scientist who concieved him or her should not be the master of the destiny of the embryo. That job should be left up to God.
In order to obtain a balanced argument, I sought to find an article that would explain all the benefits of cloning. The problem that arouse while doing this was that all I was able to find where useless pages that did not reference and were not written by experts in the field of cloning. Finally I found an article that i think might be creditable, at least in comparison to the other sites I looked at.
"Human Cloning Benefits" by Jayashree Pakhare discusses that cloning has many benefits to society. Firstly, the production of clone tissue could prove to be helpful in rejuvenation, or making skin look more youthful and could one day reverse the aging process. More helpful to society, however, cloning could aid in heart attack treatment by cloning healthy heart cells and injecting them into the damaged area of the heart to help it recover from a heart attack. Combining clone cells with stem cells could help to repair or place damaged organs in suffering people and help to save lives. The benefit that most relates to the Catholic argument against cloning is the treatment for infertility. Right now, the success rate for infertility treatment is extremely low, but with cloning it would increase the chances for infertile couples to concieve a child.
Although the Catholic Church and modern day science may never agree on ethically blurry issues, they are building bridges between science and religion. The Mason article has proven that you can be Catholic and scientific.

Works Cited:
Auer, Terese. "Cloning: A Catholic Moral Evaluation." Jan-Feb 1994. Trinity Communications. 23 Oct 2008. <http://www.ewtn.com/library/prolife/cloning.txt>
Mason, Michael. "How to Teach Science to the Pope." Discover Magazine. 18 Aug 2008. 22 Oct 2008. <http://discovermagazine.com/2008/sep/18-how-to-teach-science-to-the-pope/article>
Pakhare, Jayashree. "Human Cloning Benefit." Buzzle.com. 27 Apr 2007. 22 Oct 2008.

Where Were All the Women?

2008-10-23T10:11:00.000-07:00

For the last couple of weeks during class, we’ve been discussing women’s places and roles in society during the seventeenth century. We’ve especially been discussing where all the women were during the Scientific Revolution. Reading the Article “Gender, Science and Modernity in Seventeenth-century England” by Ruth Watts, provided me with a better understanding and explanation for the women’s so called “absence” from this time period. The article speaks of how the Seventeenth century was filled with a “reconstruction of knowledge based on inductive methods, empirical investigation and cooperative research.” (Watts) What launched the apparent absence of women during the Scientific Revolution was The Royal Society, established in 1661, forbidding membership to women. There have been many speculations about the roles of women during this time period, but this article help brings to light the real reasons of where the women were. Women were not provided with as high a degree of education as the men of this century were. They were excluded from formal education from grammar schools and universities. Their roles were considered to have a more domesticated focus than that of the men. Their responsibility was to run the household and look after the children. However, this article establishes a woman’s role in science through culinary and medical practices. Upper and some middle-class women were allowed to take part in the intellectual ferment of the day because of the growth of scientific lectures and the excess printing of the day.
Some women, the ones who were related to those who advocated scientific and educational reform were involved in the changes. Women were also affected by the theories and speculations of magic and occult philosophies. They were seen as witches and beings of magic, who practiced and supported these ideas, and fell under the terrible claws of the witch hunts and witchcraft trials of Europe.
Reading this article and participating in these discussions has made me truly sit down and think about how glad I am to live in a time where women have rights and a defined place in society. I am thankful for the fact that I am allowed to express my ideas, thoughts, and opinions without being forbidden to do so. I appreciate the freedom I have to experience a higher degree of education, to decide my own course in life, and to establish my own place in society and the world. I don’t have to worry about having to live under a husband’s or father’s thumb because in this world, in my life, they have no control over who I am or what I do. I have the right to my freedom and my independence and I am the only person in control of my future and destiny. I’m so thankful to live in a time where my opinions or my ideas and work can contribute or even change the world. I’m so happy to live in a time where, in general, gender is equal and women have a standing of importance.

Another article I found that relates to this idea and question of women during the Scientific Revolution and the seventeenth century was “Partners and Rivals During the Scientific Revolution.” This article can be found at www.faculty.fairfield.edu/jmac/sj/cj/cj5science.html.
This article discusses how men partnered with women during the Scientific Revolution to provide education through the Jesuit schools. This article discusses the background and foundations of the schools and the roles of both women and men in the process and how they could be partners yet rivals during a time of great reform and how this overcame the general attitudes towards women during the time period.

17th Century Women in Science

2008-10-21T16:06:00.000-07:00

We recently read and discussed the abstract from the article, "Gender, Science and Modernity in Seventeenth-century England", which answered the question "where were all the women?". I think this is a great article that discussed why women were not heard of during the scientific revolution when it came to new ideas and discoveries. The article talked about the different reasons why we never heard of a lot of, if not any, women scientists in England during that time period.
Even though I am not a scientist, reading the article still made me upset to hear about the different reasons why women could not come forth with their ideas. When I think about our society today, and how much women have progressed it makes me appreciate the fact that I have the ability to say what I want to say without having to worry. Reading that women feared being hung if they came right out with their ideas, because they would of been considered witches, really disturbs me. Another point the article made is the lack of equality in England during that time. Women were not as well educated as men were because they simply were not allowed to get as good of an education. Their "job" was to take care of the house and the children, it was so uncommon for a women to be smarter and of a higher status than a man.
This made me very curious and think about the women that were in fact able to get their ideas out there and how they were able to do so. In an article I found titled, Scientists Anonymous, by Asha Gopinathan, she discusses one major way women found a way to get their thoughts and ideas out there to the world. One of the main points she discussed is how women disguised themselves as men in order to say what they wanted to say. This fact makes me think in two different ways. My first thoughts are, "good for them", they found a way to get what they wanted to say out there despite the many challenges holding most other women back. Then I think about how disturbing it is that women had to pretend to be men.
Even if women were able to get their ideas out there they still had to degrade themselves by pretending to be men. Overall the challenges women had to face were extremely unnecessary and pretty upsetting.

Works Cited

Gopinathan, Asha. "Scientists Anonymous." Current Science 90 (2006): 1175. 21 Oct. 2008 .

Watts, Ruth. "Gender, science and modernity in seventeenth-century England." Paedagogica Historica. 2005. 41, 1, 79-93. ISSN: 0030-9230.

Reading Connections #2; Where were the women?

2008-10-21T12:18:00.000-07:00

Many discoveries were made in the Scientific Revolution, however the only ones that are talked about today were made by men. Which brings up the question where were the women in the scientific revolution? In class a couple weeks ago we discussed this question and were able to make some connections to why women's ideas were not taken into account during this time period.

Using the article handed out in class titled Gender, Science and Modernity in Seventeenth-century England, by Ruth Watts, helped us come to various conclusions. It was stated that women were affected by educational reformation, politics, and the mindset that they were just not educated enough to contribute. Women in that time period were said to have their place in medicinal or culinary roles, not in science research. Not only these reasons held women back but they were also not able to attend institutions and university's to further their education and they could not attend the Royal Society for the Improvement of Natural Knowledge. In this society men were able to further their understanding of science and experiment to come up with new ideas. Not being able to attend such places made it clear that men thought women in the seventeenth century had no place in science.

Even though women had all of these struggles during the scientific revolution some found ways around it and began to research regardless. Such as Maria Cunitz who was stated as the first female scientist. She was a natural philosopher and was most interested in astronomy. She was never able to attend any formal university because she was a women but her father, Dr. Henrich Cunitz, taught her himself. She wrote Urania Propitia in 1650, which was her first work that included new tables, methods, and solutions. Only a few copies were printed and she published it privately since women were not supposed to be writing on science. She went on to continue researching astronomy and join the Republic Of Letters where she could share more of her findings. Maria never went on to publish anything after Urania.

Although Maria Cunitz is considered the first female scientist of this time period there were many others. Their work was and is not widely known today because it was not right for a woman to be so knowledgeable on natural science. Mostly important men like Bacon, Aristotle, and Newton are considered the key players in the revolution. If the women's work was accepted and known about back then the scientific revolution could have been completely.

What's New(s) in Science?

2008-10-17T12:22:00.000-07:00

What's news in science? Sensor System Runs On Electricity Generated By Trees. For my study of what's new, and news worthy in today's modern science, I found a couple articles, describing that MIT is constructing a new type of sensor on trees that detect several amounts of data. This is particularly important due to the world’s energy crisis. Anywhere we can get clean electricity and energy is always important and beneficial in the long run. This topic is also potentially interesting because of the several uses that come from harnessing natural energy from trees.

I initially found an article by browsing on ‘Google’ from science news searches and found “Can Electricity From Trees Power Gadgets?” from dailygalaxy.com. I learned from reading this source that the scientific explanations are simplified for a general audience to understand. This article is just a basic overview of the science and research of the energy captured from trees. The second source I found was from ‘Google’ after browsing under searches of ‘tree sensor systems’, I came up with an article from MIT discussing the science and process of how energy is harnessed from trees, where the energy comes from, and the analysis and research of the subject in more detail than the first source.

To summarize and evaluate the first source I accessed, according to dailygalaxy.com, a new sensor system is under development from MIT that runs on electricity generated by 'ordinary' trees. Trees are capable of self-sustaining a reliable source of electricity. MIT researchers believe they can power a network of sensors connected directly to trees to perform a variety of tasks. While a tree may not seem like much of a source of power, according to the article trees have a "trickle charge" that adds energy up. The article quotes, "just like a dripping faucet can fill a bucket over time," said Shuguang Zhang, one of the researchers on the project and the associate director of MIT's Center for Biomedical Engineering (CBE). The U.S. Forest Service says that manually recharging or replacing batteries in remote automated weather stations makes things impractical and costly, especially since they are usually located in hard-to-reach places. This would be alleviated by the new sensor system. In the past these weather sensors and forest fire sensors were run off batteries. Now MIT has developed new sensors that can derive their own power from the tree itself. The system would bypass power issues by tapping into the trees very own self-sustaining power supply. This would utilize energy we have on earth, save batteries, and save manual hassle and cost changing them. It would also alleviate landfill usage from batteries. Each sensor is equipped with a battery that can be slowly recharged using electricity generated from the tree. The sensors would be self-sustained with power as a result of the energy emanating from trees. The uses for harnessing the trees power could serve as what the article refers to as “silent sentinels,” sensors along the nation's borders to detect potential threats such as smuggled radioactive materials. The sensors can also track forest fire models and data, as well as detect and prevent fires, by sending early reports to authorities. The new self powered sensor system is a scientific innovation that harnesses secure and efficient data of weather, forest fires, and potential smuggling effectively. How the system transmits information, is from the tree producing enough electricity to allow temperature and humidity sensors to wirelessly communicate signals of information four times a day, or immediately if there's a fire. Each signal hops from one sensor to another, until it reaches an existing weather station that transmits the data by satellite to a forestry command center in Boise, Idaho. The article then proceeds to discuss where this energy from trees actually comes from, and scientifically how the self-powered sensor system works in general terms.

Exactly how is the generating power produced in trees accessible for us to take advantage of? According to the article, MIT colleagues recently reported the answer in the Public Library of Science. "It's really a fairly simple phenomenon: An imbalance in pH between a tree and the soil it grows in," said Andreas Mershin, a postdoctoral associate at the CBE. Voltree Power and the MIT team plan to test the wireless sensor network in the spring on a 10-acre plot of land provided by the Forest Service. Christopher J. Love, creator of the ‘bio-energy harvester battery charger module’ and the ‘sensors’ at MIT said, "We expect that we'll need to instrument four trees per acre…Right now we're finalizing exactly how the wireless sensor network will be configured to use the minimum amount of power." Love also suggests that unskilled workers can design the system for easy installation. If this is all successful in the near future it will function as a wonderful scientific revolution for data collection, weather collection, fire prevention, and smuggling detection.

My opinion on this innovation, in which the original sources don't have, is that we need to be doing things like this more often. We have the capabilities to innovate, create, develop and research new beneficial inventions for our society. As a nation, and as a world, we should have institutions like MIT and others developing and researching new ways to harness energy and other developments more often to propel our existence in prosperity for the future, and in contemporary society. We have the money and the capabilities to develop innovations like this more often, and to utilize these developments like this more often. Instead we have our priorities in racking up debt in Iraq, ruing the economy, and doing other political malfunctions as a country (cough *Bush* cough) instead of developing our time, energy and money into developments like this that save energy, and would strive for the future. This piece of new scientific news matters to me because harvesting energy in new ways is something we need to do more frequently. Anywhere where I see innovations in the right direction of energy preservation, matters to me. It should matter to our class and the rest of the world for the same reasons; the energy crisis is very pressing right now. In general, this innovation doesn’t have a large effect on us, however the data collection from the sensors provides a better way to study weather and forest fire patterns, which indirectly will have an effect on us. This strictly benefits data collection more than us personally. The sources appeared where they did because I accessed the more general article first, through Google, and then I found where that article originated from with more detail on the second source, once I put more effort in research. If this innovation is completed and tested successfully from MIT, then in my mind it will definitely be revolutionary since we found a way to harness energy that’s coming from the very Earth we step foot on.

First Source:

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2008/10/researchers-say.html

Second Source:

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/trees-0923.html

Reading Connections #2 The Women in Scientific Revolution

2008-10-15T17:13:00.001-07:00

In a previous class, we had discussed why women were not represented in the science area during the Scientific Revolution. We read an article, Gender, Science and Modernity in Seventeenth-century England, that really got me thinking where were the women? It never even crossed my mind before to ask this question.While thinking about this topic further, I decided to find the rare women who were contributing to the Scientific Revolution. I first started with notes from a professor’s teaching plan outline where I got the names of the women. It was under the sub heading of Roman numeral four; http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:w7PqiIkyWhwJ:www.danville.k12.ky.us/dhs/activities/classroom/apeuhistory/pages/notes/hoover/scientificrevolution.pdf+women+during+the+scientific+revolution&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us&client=firefox-a

The first woman I found was Margaret Cavendish. Margaret was the Dutchess of Newcastle and was alive from 1623 to 1673. She traveled with the exiled Queen Henrietta Maria where she was given an extraordinary education. She was passionate about science, and this was reflected in her book The Blazing World. In this book she hints at such things as atoms being one of the smallest things on Earth, as well as she puts the thought out there that there might be more worlds than just Earth in the Universe. For being a woman and having these ideas she was criticized a great deal for expressing her thoughts on science. For as much criticism she went through she still kept writing books which I believe brought inspiration to females everywhere. I think she brought women inspiration because all of her books were directed towards women instead of everyone in the science community. However, I think it helped Margaret a great deal that she was lucky to be born into a wealthy and educated family and later in life lived with the Queen, which allowed her the resources to be able to study and learn more about science as well be able to even write a book then have it published under her name during this time period when everything was dominated by men. I found a website online all about Margaret that I found very interesting. Here is the link: http://www.luminarium.org/sevenlit/cavendish/index.html

Many women were known to help their husbands with their research and findings. One came up by the name of Maria Winkleman. Her husband, Gottfried Kirch, was an astronomer for the Berlin Academy of Science. After the death of her husband, Maria had applied to finish her husband’s work at the academy but was denied because of her gender. She kept trying to get back to the academy to finish the work she set out to do, but every time she was denied and could not finish even though she was a very talented astronomer. Many men had accepted that women could be very useful in the area of science and allowed them to help them, such at Krich.

It is evident that the only women we hear about influencing the Scientific Revolution are those who were lucky enough to have the educational background and the connections in order to succeed. There were probably many other discoveries made by common folk women that went un-talked about because the women didn’t have the tools to explain what was happening in their experiments due to lack of education as well as a lack of being able to publish or write their findings and share with others. While researching these women I came across a website that had many women and their discoveries all in one place. Here is that link: http://www.h-france.net/vol6reviews/wellman4.html

In the article I mentioned at the very beginning, the one that sparked my interest, there were some very good theories on why women were never really mentioned. One, the author says, "they (women) were shut out from membership of the Royal Society" So many publishings and findings came to life because the authors were members of this exclusive society. There was also a fear for women who spoke out during this time. Witchcraft trials had greatly increased which many did not want to be accused of because if they were they would be sentenced to death. Taking in these considerations, the women who did get a chance to share their ideas were very couragous and brave women.

Works Cited:

Murray, BJ. "English Renaissance Drama." Margaret (Lucas) Cavendish, Duchess of Newcastle. 10 Aug. 1999. 14 Oct. 2008 .

Ruth, Watts. "Gender, Science and Modernity in Seventeenth-century England." Paedogogica Historica 2nd ser. 41 (2005).