150 Years After 'Origin of the Species', Science and Religion Remain as Conflicted as Ever

/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- When Charles Darwin published his landmark book On the Evolution of Species in 1859, his theories on evolution were quickly accepted by the vast majority of scientists. The general public, however, was not as eager to accept Darwin's ideas, due largely to the fact that they challenged established religious beliefs.

Today, 150 years after the publication of Darwin's book, science and religion remain as conflicted as ever when it comes to the subject of evolution.

"There is a real disconnect between what science says and what the public believes, at least in the United States," says Ben Pierce, holder of the Lillian Nelson Pratt Chair in Biology at Southwestern University in Georgetown, Texas.

Pierce is organizing one of the first events in 2009 that will mark the 150th anniversary of the publication of the Darwin book. The symposium, titled "Science and Religion: Conflict or Convergence," will be held at Southwestern University Feb. 5-6 as part of the university's annual Brown Symposium series.

Pierce points to Gallop Polls conducted between 1982-2004, which consistently found that 44 to 47 percent of Americans do not believe in evolution. Instead, they believe that humans were "created by God pretty much in their present form less than 10,000 years ago."

Meanwhile, a recent survey of more than 400 university professors in Texas, a largely conservative state, found that nearly 90 percent believe modern evolutionary biology is largely correct.

Pierce says there are four approaches to the conflict between science and religion. The "Warfare Model" presumes that one side is right, the other side is wrong, and the two are permanently conflicted. The "Separate Realms" approach -- which is taken by many scientists -- says there is no conflict between the two because they address very different questions. In the "Accommodation Model," science and religion each adjust their world views to accommodate findings from the other field. For example, some Biblical scholars reinterpreted the Genesis account of creation when science showed that the world is much older than previously thought.

The model Pierce plans to focus on at the February symposium is the "Engagement Model," which says that both fields can profit by understanding what is happening in the other fields.

For example, one of the conference speakers will be Dr. Andrew Newberg, director of the Center for Spirituality and the Mind at the University of Pennsylvania. Newburg has developed brain imaging techniques to determine what happens when people have a religious experience, and is co-author of the best-selling 2001 book Why God Won't Go Away: Brain Science and the Biology of Belief.

Pierce says students today are very interested in the subject of science vs. religion and are seeking ways to find a middle ground between the two fields. In his evolution course at Southwestern University last fall, four students wrote papers for their Biology Capstone project on ways science could be used to better understand religion. For example, one student wrote a paper on the health effects of prayer and meditation and another student wrote a paper on the genetics of spirituality.

"These students put into practice the notion that science and religion can indeed have something useful to say to each other," Pierce says.

-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page

China stops the rain...

Well, maybe China stops the rain... Isn't there a song that has the words "who'll stop the rain" in it? Somehow I don't think the Chinese will succeed in stopping the rain for the Olympics.

I saw a bit on TV a few months ago about the Chinese building an open-air stadium for the Olympics. This is monsoon or the rainy season in China so many thought it was not a very good idea to subject the athletes and crowds to the rain.

However, China decided they would master the rain and stop it from raining over the stadium.

(Can't you just picture an army holding hoses aimed at clouds trying to fill up with so much water that they'll disperse the rain before it hits the stadium? ;-)

I was just talking to a friend about today being 8-8-08, supposedly the luckiest day of the year to the Chinese, thus it is the day they chose to start the Olympics. It reminded me of the story on the rain so I thought I'd wander around and see if I could find out how successful they had been.

My impression from the initial story was that those working on stopping the rain had been told they would succeed, but none of the scientists seemed overly confident when talking to the interviewers.

They have spent a lot of money and time trying to control weather. I can't even begin to imagine how many variables there must be to consider when trying to stop a cloud that is heavy-laden with water from dumping it whenever it wants.

They now have 53,000 working to stop the rain (no, the comma is not in the wrong place, that really is 53 thousand). From the stories I've skimmed, it looks like they may not have succeeded. Does this mean off with their heads? Hmm...

Here's a few stories I found about it with a bit at the end on pollution in China:

March 08 article:
Weather Engineering in China
How the Chinese plan to modify the weather in Beijing during the Olympics, using supercomputers and artillery.
By Mark Williams
To prevent rain over the roofless 91,000-seat Olympic stadium that Beijing natives have nicknamed the Bird's Nest, the city's branch of the national Weather Modification Office--itself a department of the larger China Meteorological Administration--has prepared a three-stage program for the 2008 Olympics this August... http://www.technologyreview.com/Infotech/20463/?a=f

August 8th (today) article in Guardian (UK)
China takes battle to the heavens in search of the sun
It sounds like Star Trek but 53,000 really are employed to change the weather
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2008/aug/08/olympics20081

Cloud Seeding: Changing Weather
Gareth Deighan, Sky News Online
In the weeks and months leading up to the Olympics, China has been firing rockets and cannons into the sky in preparation.
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Beijing-Olympics-China-Uses-Cloud-Seeding-To-Try-To-Change-Weather/Article/200808115073313?lpos=World%2BNews_2&lid=ARTICLE_15073313_Beijing%2BOlympics%253A%2BChina%2BUses%2BCloud%2BSeeding%2BTo%2BTry%2BTo%2BChange%2BWeather

8/7/08
No time to be under a cloud
Hitting every detail, China says it may control tomorrow's weather
http://www.boston.com/sports/other_sports/olympics/articles/2008/08/07/no_time_to_be_under_a_cloud/

8/8/08
BEIJING 2008: RAIN AND SMOG THREATEN OPENING CEREMONY
(AGI) - Beijing, Aug 8 - Smog and rain threaten today's opening ceremony of the Olympic Games of Beijing 2008. Chinese authorities have done much to fight the pollution, only half the usual number of cars on the road, many plants closed. But the air quality still is at the safety limits. Nevertheless, a few hours from the start of the ceremony the organisation has reassured everybody. Then there is the bad weather...http://www.agi.it/world/news/200808080931-cro-ren0004-art.html

Rain Likely at Beijing Olympics’ Opening Ceremony
The China Meteorological Administration (CMA) is predicting a 40 percent chance of rain the day of the Olympics’ opening ceremony. The CMA is also warning that hurricanes could interrupt sporting events held in other cities during the Games. http://en.epochtimes.com/n2/china/rain-olympics-opening-ceremony-2342.html

Here's another little tidbit I found in Sky News Online regarding the pollution:

China Pollution Levels
Sky News has been testing the level of air pollution in Beijing ahead of the Olympic Games and comparing it to UK cities. The results are:
Beijing
333 micrograms per metre cubed
London
56 μg/m3
Glasgow
42 μg/m3
Manchester
29 μg/m3
The UK figures are the latest available from Defra.

Frankenstein rat

Scientists have figured out a way to make hearts from dead rats beat again. Ultimately they're hoping to be able to take this a few (many) steps further. They want to create custom organs for people needing transplants.


Don't we live in a fascinating time? I know this and many of the other discoveries raise many ethical and moral questions. Is it right to clone humans? animals? Stem cell research. Finding out your spouse or child has a disease you opt to get pregnant for the stem cells, bone marrow or organ.


We have a lot of choices we make daily on a small scale. Some questions are too big for me to grasp. I may not agree with the extent of stem cell research (i.e., unborn children), but would I be swayed if I found out my son could be cured of a deadly disease?


For some it's easy to make black and white decisions. Cloning is wrong. Always. Stem cell research is wrong when you reach a certain line. It's never right or always right to have a child to cure another human being.


Now we have scientists mimicking the misguided Frankenstein. Right? wrong? How far will they take it? Lots of questions always. Not much of a chance I'll ever have a say in the direction science and research takes the world. However, someday I might benefit from today's discovery.

Scientists create beating hearts in lab
CHICAGO (Reuters) - U.S. researchers say they have coaxed hearts from dead rats to beat again in the laboratory and said the discovery may one day lead to customized organ transplants for people.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080113/ts_nm/heart_artificial_dc