Shay Says: Religion in Schools

I have never understood the conflict between Creationism versus Darwinism. There is no reason for confliction. Creationism is the explanation of the world based on faith, Darwinism is the explanation based on observation. The policy of separation of Church and state effectively bans public schools from teaching religion as school is a government run institution. On the other hand, this does not ban the teaching of Darwinism. Though this explanation of the origin of humanity conflicts with Creationism, it is not a religious teaching. As a result it is legitimate to teach, but not legitimate to teach as the only correct version of the story. It must be offered as the scientific explanation of the creation of humanity, nothing more and nothing less. Whether one chooses to believe this version of the story is still of personal choice, but people should be offered the scientific explanation because it is a necessary part of operating in modern society. Evolution is a central part of modern biology and as a result, anyone interested in scientific pursuits must be aware of it. Depriving children of its explanation could put some children at a disadvantage should they be interested in science. The only disadvantage of teaching Darwinism is that it has the potential of shaking a child’s faith in his or her religion. Still, since it is only being provided as an alternative explanation, the child would be making a choice to value science over religion, and thus his rights to religious freedom remain unscathed. Though I understand that parents might be uncomfortable with the chance that their child might make this choice, such choices are part of what being an American is. Freedom to identity is a central American value and providing options of belief only helps make each individual just that.

.the blog.: The Environment Journal Response

Blaming Americans for pollution is unfair. Yes much of pollution is a result of American consumerism, but it is not the average American’s fault that he is well off enough to purchase a large number of goods. Anything that is produced by humans damages the environment. Just because Americans have the power to purchase many of these man made goods does not make them accountable. Sure, there are many American corporations that have made environmentally irresponsible decisions such as Asarco, but the majority of Americans are not directly affiliated with these businesses. Also, such environmentally irresponsible decisions are an international problem. Things are cheaper when made dirty; that’s just business. Until green business becomes profitable, there will be unnecessary pollution for the sake of profit. Even if is this accomplished, there will still pollution because humanity has failed to reach an equilibrium point in its population growth. Humanity has exceeded its carrying capacity and inevitably takes more from the environment than the environment can safely give. Until technology brings humanity to the point where people no longer rely on the Earth to provide the raw materials for the things humanity desires and needs, the environment will suffer. It is ignorant to blame America for pollution. Environmental instability is a problem larger than any one nation or even group of nations. It is a problem as large as humanity itself.

Sarah Says: Native Americans Vs. Americans Response

While I am aware that Native Americans have been persecuted by Americans throughout our history, there were a few details that really surprised me. One of which was the Handling of the Indian Removal Act of 1830. President Jackson to completely defied the Supreme Court and remained the President of the United States without so much as a slap on the wrist. He violated the intentions of the constitution by ignoring his role in the government and the theory of separation of powers. His ability to do this really calls into question the power of laws. If the most public government official can publicly ignore the supreme court and, in doing so, ignore the highest law of the land (the Constitution) without punishment, then what do laws really mean?
In regard to the contemporary issue of Native American mascots, I am completely against their use. Though the intention is not to make fun of Native Americans, the result is that many Native Americans are insulted by their use. Arguing that these symbols are central to school culture is just silly. These symbols are a part of another culture that has nothing to do with school rivalries and basketball, and it is insulting to use these religious and cultural symbols as logos for school teams. Imagine the controversy that would arise if a school had a stereotypical Muslim as their mascot. The difference is that Native Americans have become so far removed from most American societies that people have trouble identifying parts of their culture that are commonly used in mascots and logos as either sacred or offensive. The point is that changing a school mascot is a fairly easy and painless process. There really is no reason not to change considering the dignity of a historically mistreated people is at stake.

Final Product

Best viewed in full screen.

Words

Literary Analysis

In Columbus Was a Dope by Robert Heinlein, scientific progress is described as an inevitability. It is human nature to desire progress and, over time, accept change caused by attempts to progress. Humans, as a species, are not content with the status quo. People are hungry for improvement and believe that everything can always be better. Heinlein demonstrates this through a conversation between acquaintances in a futuristic setting discussing the motivation of exploration.

It begins with a few men in a bar talking about an eminent voyage to Proxima Centauri. One of them, Dr. Appleby, is to be aboard the ship bound for the distant star. Mr. Barnes, one of the other men, is arguing with Dr. Appleby, writing off the adventure as a waste of time. When Barnes asks Dr. Appleby why he is taking the trip, inquiring what motivation he had for putting his life and the lives of his wife and daughter at risk, the Appleby responds, "It can't be explained... What took Peary to the North Pole? Why did Columbus get the Queen to hock her jewels? Nobody has ever been to Proxima Centauri — so we're going." In other words, he was going for the sake of progress. He was pushing his limits and the limits of human kind for the sake of advancement that he could not yet understand. Despite its mystery, Dr. Appleby felt this progress was still inexplicably important. Though he could see no gain from the expedition, he knew that it was so valuable that he was willing to give the rest of his life up to the journey, as it would take over sixty years. He knew that his children would be the ones to see the trip finished, and his grand children would be the ones to finally return, and he was willing to make this decision for all of them because he felt the allure of a new, exciting future so strongly.

Though Barnes couldn’t understand Dr. Appleby’s value in exploration for the sake of unknown progress, the kicker to this story is that the very place he was speaking was the result of people taking value such risks. Indeed, the bar that they were lightly conversing in was located on the moon, yet Barnes couldn't see the irony in his statements. This further demonstrates humanity's tendency to embrace change. Even though it was in Barnes's character to be satisfied with the status quo, the status quo that he accepts is the result of thousands of years of sometimes violent and dangerous progress that he has no trouble justifying.

Thus, humanity is in constant, purposeful motion towards a different future, and, upon the arrival of something new, humanity is quick to accept the change and continue moving forward. Scientific progress is in human nature.

Current Events Analysis

Space exploration, while vastly popular in the 1960s, has begun to lose such strong support. There are questions of its value as well as questions regarding the way in which it is being operated. On top of this, President Obama has recently suggested a change in direction for America’s space exploration which will massively alter the way in which NASA functions.

A few years ago, NASA released a document describing the goals of space exploration.
The document took the position that space exploration is vital to America’s future. Its argues that exploring the cosmos inspires children to become new generations of scientist, creates a potential for technological breakthroughs that could benefit the economy as well as national security, and promotes democracy as a government system capable of achieving great things. In addition to this, the article states that "because the very purpose of exploratory voyages and research is to understand the unknown, exact benefits defy calculation." This shows that beyond the potential of inspiring prospective scientist, beyond the possibility of developing technologies that could be useful for private industry and national security, and beyond evoking national pride, NASA believes space exploration has great, unknown benefits that will only be discovered if America continues to reach for the stars. The fact that space holds so many mysteries is part of what draws the human mind to ponder about it and part of what allows space exploration to be so easily justifiable. Even opponents to NASA cannot refute the possibility of such grand, unrevealed rewards. (National Aeronautics and Space Administration)

There are, however, opponents to NASA who desire not the end of space exploration, but the relocation of it. Those of this opinion believe that the heavens should be studied by private businesses and organizations streamlined by competition. One notable person of this opinion is Steve Bonta, the Director of Indianapolis operations of the Defense Finance and Accounting Service, the largest government finance and accounting operation in America. Not only does he believe that private enterprise could carry out space exploration more efficiently, he feels that government should not have financed this project to begin with. He wrote in the San Diego Greenhaven Press, “the federal government is not constitutionally authorized to use taxpayer dollars to promote science for its own sake.” In other words, as space exploration doesn’t directly affect national security, the government has no business spending inordinate amounts of tax payers’ money on it. This view neglects the indirect benefits of space exploration as described in the previous paragraph as well as the possibility of rewards beyond current comprehension. At the same time, this argument makes a good point. The benefits are not direct or definite, so it is hard to justify their cost. Only in by being truly profitable, as it would have to be in the private sector, can space exploration be absolutely defensible. (Bonta)

Recently, there has been a proposed hybrid of these ideas. Last week, President Obama presented a plan in which private enterprise would provide the ships for near Earth space exploration. The goal is that eventually NASA will simply be able to buy tickets to the moon, orbit, or to the international space station from privately run businesses. Their Ships have not been built yet, so there will be a period of time where NASA will rely on Russia to ferry Astronauts to and from space. While private enterprise would take over manned near space flight, NASA would be free to devote all of its efforts to developing new technologies that will hopefully bring human kind further into the reaches of space. The plan would now, instead of focusing on another landing on the moon, devote its efforts to developing new launch and space travel technologies; there is no written goal of sending man or machine to other planets. Florida Democrat Representative Suzanne M. Kosmas complained that the plan had a "lack of direction," but this may be more of a positive attribute than negative. Without set goals, the NASA is free to determine the most beneficial goals to set and natural phenomenon to study. This plan also demonstrates understanding that the benefits of space exploration have yet to be fully revealed and that such rewards may not necessarily be found in the romantic adventures of manned missions to the moon and beyond. (Chang)

The space exploration of today is indeed very different than that of the Space Race. Questions are being raised about the necessity of government involvement in this extravagant field of science, and changes are being made to spread its development beyond the bounds of government control. Space exploration has taken a new direction and has an uncertain future due to both the changes being made and its unknown value to society. With some calling Obama’s plan for NASA the death of space exploration and others claiming it will lead to the revitalization of the field, these are very unsettling times for believers of its value.

Background Analysis

America’s international competitive edge has been fueled by science since its creation. The colonies were created at the point in Europe’s history in which medieval ideas of the nature of the world were being replaced by theories based on examination and experimentation. This realism and desire to understand was funneled into the pioneers of America. Indeed, soon after settling into their new locale, many prominent members of society began to study the world around them motivated solely by a thirst for knowledge. (Science in America)
This thirst resulted in the creation of the American Philosophical Society. Founded by Benjamin Franklin, the goal of the society was simply to further develop America’s scientific knowledge and share that knowledge with the public. This was the beginning of America diverging from Europe in a scientific sense. While science in Europe was mostly speculative, America’s scientists were determined to find definitive answers through, admittedly crude, scientific method. In addition to this evolution in science, the society’s choice to share the knowledge they discovered with the public was a tremendous step forward. This created a public interested and educated in scientific advancement and excited by how new technology could improve their lives. (American Philosophical Society)

As the public become more aware of science, scientific development began to shift into the hands of the masses. Indeed, the middle class began to use their crude understanding of the world to create inventions designed to improve living and working conditions. Practical, applied science became the focus, and as new inventions were being created, the positive implications of scientific progress became increasingly apparent to the public. Science became more of a tool for success than a useless topic of discussion for the wealthy. However, just as this movement of public, practical science was fueling its existence by creating a public interest in science, it was simultaneously causing its own demise. (Science in America)


Science was becoming more complex and began to require more formal training. As a result, organizations began to form only accepting those with advance scientific education. During this period, science became more organized and standards began to be established. While science was becoming more professionalized out of necessity, Americans were still kept informed. Organizations, such as the Smithsonian and publications such as Scientific American, kept the public up to date on scientific knowledge and achievement. This was both a product and a contributing factor to the American public’s concern with modern science. (Science in America)

Jumping forward to the 20th century, science was now more theoretical and could no longer be utilized without a formal education. While scientific advances were still strongly related to public affairs — many scientific breakthroughs went into the vast urbanization of the 20th century — the government was now viewing science as a matter of national security. After Albert Einstein and other scientist lobbied the federal government to support the creation of a nuclear weapon in retaliation to German research, the Office of Scientific Research and Development was formed. Thus ,the importance of science grew beyond a social, practical, and even economic importance, it became deeply rooted in American government. (Manhattan Project)

Science continued to play a central role in American government, even becoming a symbol of national pride. Beginning 1957 when the Soviet Union launched the first satellite into space, Sputnik, the United States and the Soviet Union entered a competition in which the goal was space exploration, and the ultimate challenge was getting a man on the moon. At the time, the major purpose of the expedition was to achieve an impossible task in very little to demonstrate America’s strength as a nation. As John F. Kennedy said in his speech to Rice University, “We choose to go to the moon... because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills.” Science, at this point, had become the measure of the success of a nation. It required educated citizens, money, and organization, and, as a result, was the perfect method for demonstrating international success without conquest.

About twenty years after the end of the Space Race, the united states entered another seemingly impossible task. The Human Genome Project began under the direction of the United State, but soon became an international effort. By leading the global effort to crack the human genome, America remained on the cutting edge of scientific discovery and technological achievement. (Human Genome Project)

Throughout its history, America has remained at the forefront of science and has even lead the movements that have changed the way science operates. By constantly being at the head of this race towards knowledge and its practical applications, America has risen from a powerless group of states to an international powerhouse. An unparalleled adherence to science has made America what it is today.

Reactions To Obama's NASA

Obama's new plan for NASA would shift the NASA's focus from returning to the moon to developing improved launching technologies. His plan, as mentioned in a previous post, would outsource the launching of astronauts to private enterprise. Many politicians located near NASA projects are critical of the Obama's proposal. Florida Democrat Representative Suzanne M. Kosmas complained that the plan had a "lack of direction." This past Wednesday, there was a hearing regarding the new NASA budget comprised of organizations that watch over NASA. This panel came to the conclusion that outsourcing would be less cost effective and more time consuming. On the other hand, NASA officials claim that this plan will, in fact, expedite the process of sending more people into space by cutting costs and investigating new technologies. It is important to note that NASA will still be monitoring all of the programs and is creating guidelines for the products of these programs to insure safety for future astronauts.In the wake of this large proposed policy change, I am finding it hard to sort fact from fiction. Oponents and proponents are arguing the same points with oposite positions. Those in favor of the change say it will be quick and cheep, those against say it will be slow and expensive. From what I can tell, it is a gamble. Private enterprises are just as likely to make breakthroughs in space exploration as NASA if given the proper tools, but the difference is that the status of their projects influence the economy as well as the progress of our astronomical knowledge. With the rewards unknown, it is hard for me to see past the risks. Still, the chance that this change may bring new progress is an exciting possibility.


Chang, Kenneth. "House Panel Sees Pros And Cons In NASA Plan.(National Desk)." The New York Times. (Feb 4, 2010): A16(L). Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Deerfield High School. 8 Feb. 2010 < http://find.galegroup.com >

Obama's NASA

President Obama has just unveiled a new plan for NASA that will, if implemented, vastly change the way that NASA functions. In addition to adding six billion dollars to NASA's budget over the next five years, this new approach would halt NASA's development of spacecrafts. Indeed, instead of creating their own space shuttles, NASA would fund private industries developing rockets and purchase tickets abord suck rockets. In addition to this, the plan calls for a much more multinational approach to space exploration, though the details of such ventures beyond Earth's orbit have not been revealed. While this plan could reinvigorate Space Exploration, it also could result in the death of it. By removing total government control from the development of space programs, Obama runs the risk of such programs failing and moving on. In other words, if the private sector is unable to deliver the tools NASA needs, NASA has no where to go. This plan, however, is clever in that it has fused government run and privately developed space technologies into a team working towards a better understanding of the cosmos. Still, I can't help but worry that by not allowing NASA to have complete control of their projects, space exploration might become less efficient. With the unbridled success of NASA's Mars explorer Spirit, it is obvious that NASA is still on the forefront of space travel and observation. As a result, I am left to wonder, "If it isn't broke, why is Obama trying to fix it?" I hope that this new strategy proves my concern invalid, and I must point out that, despite my uneasiness about the change, I am glad to see more money flowing to a section of our government that has consistently delivered.

Chang, Kenneth. "Billions for NASA, With a Push to Find New Ways Into Space.(National Desk)(NEWS ANALYSIS)(National Aeronautics and Space Administration)." The New York Times. (Feb 2, 2010): A16(L). Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Deerfield High School. 7 Feb. 2010 < http://find.galegroup.com >

Space Exploration Should Be Funded By The Private Sector

The author of this article, Steve Bonta, is strongly convinced that space exploration should not be done through the government, but rather through private enterprise. Citing historical examples such as Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Edison, he proclaims that scientific progress has been created efficiently though the private sector in the past, and continue to do so in the future. He claims that "private enterprise might achieve comparable advances in space exploration with greater efficiency and at no cost to the taxpaying public." He goes further to write off such extreme scientific achievements such as the Hubble Space Telescope and the International Space Station as "colossal waste[s] of public funds." What he fails to mention is the key benefit of such ambitious and admittedly expensive programs. Such projects presented some of the toughest scientific problems in history. Finding solutions required ingenious engineering that either created stepping stones for new advanced technology for the private sector, or vastly improved upon existing technology. These breakthroughs have fueled our technology development since the creation of NASA and cannot be overlooked. In addition to this, Bonta fails to provide evidence that the private sector would be more efficient than NASA except for the idea that competition would streamline Space Exploration. My question is what competition? What incentive does the private industry have of effectively exploring the cosmos for the sake of discovering benefits to the human race still unknown and developing technology to share with other companies for the good of the global economy? None. In the hands of the private sector, I am confident that Space Exploration would need to become profitable and would thus become exploited by whatever company supports it. It is an expensive field and would need to yield great rewards, and great rewards usually come to those who are only looking to benefit themselves, not humanity. Space Exploration is in a way a humanitarian effort too expensive and requiring far too much human dedication to be supported by private funds if operated for the purpose of improving life for all people. Saying that it can be carried in such a way is ignoring the facts of America's economy.

Bonta, Steve. "Space Exploration Should Be Funded by the Private Sector." At Issue: Space Exploration. Ed. Daniel A. Leone. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2005. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Deerfield High School. 7 Feb. 2010 < http://find.galegroup.com >

Space Exploration: Pro

This article takes the position that space exploration is vital to America. Its reasons includes inspiring children to become new generations of scientist, the potential of technological breakthroughs that can benefit the economy as well as national security, and promoting democracy as a government system capable of achieving great things. Beyond this, the article states that "because the very purpose of exploratory voyages and research is to understand the unknown, exact benefits defy calculation." This steadfast sureness that such extreme, incalculable benefits lay beyond the borders of Earth's atmosphere further domonstates — as discussed in previous posts — society's tendency to desire progress, even undefined progress. So sure is America that great opportunity lies in exploring this vast new territory, the government has pushed several hundred billion dollars towards NASA since its creation. NASA is the symbol of America's hope for a better future, for the the unknown benefits of the new.

Please take a moment to click on the picture provided. It is an image from the Hubble Telescope and is really amazing to see in its full size.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration. "Space Exploration Will Play an Important Role in America's Future." Opposing Viewpoints: America in the Twenty-First Century. Ed. Andrea C. Nakaya. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2006. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Deerfield High School. 7 Feb. 2010 < http://find.galegroup.com >

Columbus Was a Dope

Columbus Was a Dope is a short story by Robert Heinlein about a few guys in a bar talking about exploration. One man, Dr. Appleby, is to go on a spaceship bound for a distant star. Another, Mr. Barnes, argues with him, writing off the adventure as a waste of time. When Barnes asks Dr. Appleby why he is taking the trip, the Appleby responds, "What took Peary to the North Pole? Why did Columbus get the Queen to hock her jewels? Nobody has ever been to Proxima Centauri — so we're going." In other words, he was going for the sake of progress. He was pushing his limits and the limits of human kind for the sake of advancement that he could not yet understand, yet this progress was still inexplicably important. Though he could see no gain from the expedition, he felt that it was so valuable that he was willing to give the rest of his life up to the journey, as it would take over sixty years. He knew that his children would be the ones to see the trip finished, and his grand children would be the ones to finally return, and he was willing to make this decision for all of them because he felt the allure of a new, exciting future so strongly. The kicker to this story is that though Barnes was speaking against exploration for the sake of unknown progress, the very place he was speaking was the result of such actions. Indeed, the bar that they were lightly conversing in was located on the moon, yet Barnes couldn't see the irony in his statements. This further demonstrates humanity's tendency to embrace change. Even though it was in Barnes's character to be satisfied with the old, the old that he accepts is the result of thousands of years of sometimes violent and dangerous progress that he has no trouble justifying. Thus, humanity is in constant, purposeful motion towards a different future, and, upon the arrival of something new, humanity is quick to accept the change and continue moving forward. The growing popularity of science is no coincidence.

Heinlein, Robert. Short Science Fiction Tales. Ed. Isaac Asimov. New York: Collier Books, 1963. Print.

Where I Am Now

Science in America has changed greatly over time. It has become more fine tuned, more precise, and perhaps a bit less practical, yet, despite this change, there is a common thread between the science of today and yesterday. Among all the variables of scientific change, the motive is constant. Indeed, the motive is deeply rooted in American values. The motive is progress, change for the better. As the founding fathers created a new form of government to better the old, so has science been used to rid Americans of the old for the better new. Weather the new be something physical like the lightbulb or intangible like the knowledge that has been gained by satellites about the universe we live in, all that has been gained has been new and all that has been kept has been considered improved. The reason our nation has been at the forefront of science since its creation is because the people of this nation have long been motivated by their curiosity, their desire for exploration, their desire to find something new, their desire to change. Science offered an outlet for these desires and so it was supported.

JFK: We Chose To Go To The Moon

The Space Race between The U.S. and the U.S.S.R. has always an object of wonder to me. It was a story of exciting exploration, of entering the vast and harsh reaches of the unknown universe beyond our comforting blue sky. Hearing President Kennedy speak of the motivations for the United State's space program has taken a bit away from my romantic image of the Space Race, but has also done a bit to confirm it. Many times while listening to President Kennedy speak, I was shocked to hear what space exploration meant at the time. Not only was it a matter of international pride and scientific advancement, it was also a matter of national security. Kennedy spoke of traversing this final frontier for the sake of having a role in the way in which it is used. Kennedy stated, "only if the United States occupies a position of preeminence can we help decide weather this new ocean will be a sea of peace or a new terrifying theater of war." In other words, without the guiding hand of the United States, this new extraterrestrial territory could become a tool of violence instead of knowledge and peace. Thus, it was the United State's duty to participate in the Space Race for the good of mankind. Such self righteous claims of the program being a necessary watchdog over the exploration of the universe beyond the world is obviously a statement of distrust towards the soviet union, the main competitor and enemy of America at the time. Still, in the midst of this convoluted motive, there was a message of scientific advancement for the good of all mankind. Being that this was the motivation that has lasted, that drove America's desire to crack the human genome, that now drives America's desire to create clean energy, the other less noble motivating factors are negligible. Thus, the Space Race brought a new era of scientific progress for the sake of humanity instead of international competition, though not all at once. Stil, this achievement marks the Space Race as a landmark alone, before even considering the obvious turning point of sending machines, life, and eventually humans past the bounds of Earth's atmosphere.


Kennedy 's speach at Rice University on September 12, 1962