What Not to Teach in School (medicine)
By Maxine Clarke
As rumours persist that the Republican vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin believes in the teaching of Creationism in American schools, it is pertinent to offer an opinion focusing on why religious opinions should not be imposed on children.
The sheer magnificence of scientific achievements should be held in reverance; a celebration of the ability for humanity to understand and influence the world for the greater good. Without some of the world’s greatest scientists we would not have vaccinations for diseases. That is not to say that followers of religion do not acknowledge the fundamental need for scientific endeavour, but when it comes to the greatest question of all, the reason of the religious is cast from the mind.
The major point of contention that separates atheists with the deeply religious is, of course, the origins of the universe. The very likelihood that a super-being (aka God) completed such a task just six days is preposterous for such an occurance can be countered with the simplest of questions: if God created heaven and earth, then who created God? A childlike question for which religious beliefs provide no answer.
Creationists, however, often refute such an issue with what is often called the ‘argument from design’: an argument stating that if something is complex it must be designed by a super-intelligent being, God being the very being in question. Ergo, God exists. However, should that be the case, God itself is an extremely complex entity that would have required an even greater being to be its designer, and so on and so on for infinity.
For this very reason alone, Creationism has no place in schools, particularly as a substitute for the widely-evidenced theory of evolution. Yes, Darwin’s theory is just that - a theory. Yet some of mankind’s greatest minds have studied his work to find the evidence irrefutable. Many of these same minds have also turned their attention to the views of the Creationists, only to fall at the first hurdle: there is no evidence to examine. Creationism is not a science, it is a faith. Forcing impressionable children to believe that one being was the architect of the universe, which itself is only 10,000 years old, is a nonsense.
What’s more, Creationists often appeal to the scientific to open their minds to the realms of faith and the possibility that God was the almighty creator. However, such a request is highly hypocritical since the majority of Creationists will dismiss any notion that science is correct. Accordingly, for those in-between, the presence of evidence should be the defining factor.
Perhaps it is a deeply-set part of the human psyche that makes many so insecure in their own existence and so scared that their time in life is all that there is that the need to believe in something more is all that keeps them going. If that is the case, then having a personal belief in a greater being is fine. It is the enforcing of this belief in others - namely children - that shouldn’t be allowed. After all, living life in fear is barely living at all. Let children make their own decisions on whether to follow reason or seek comfort in faith.
Max Clarke is a copywriter for holiday services company, Holiday Extras, currently writing about Gatwick airport parking, Manchester airport hotels, Heathrow airport parking and UK music.
Your Source For Sciene News And Information
It’s the End of the World As We Know It
By Patrick Omari
Wednesday the 10th of September could be the last day in the history of the World, which wouldn’t be very convenient for those with travel plans at the weekend. What could cause the end of the world; a meteor strike? A mass tsunami? Or something man made? Something mechanical in the good name of ’science’ perhaps.
It could either be the end of the world or the start for a great period of scientific discovery in one of the most highly debated areas.
Fears are building as quick as protests can be mustered as scientists in Geneva at the European laboratory for particle physics (CERN) prepare to switch on its Large Hedron Collider. If the fears are held true we will all vanish into a black hole as the Earth and the solar system cease to exist. In this dimension at least.
While many are opposed to the experiment and fear it means the end, the physicists and scientists all agree that the collider is perfectly harmless and the chances of destroying the Earth through the experiment are infinitesimally small. CERN, who have been building the collider since 2003, have dismissed the risk of micro black holes and quasars being created by the experiment.
The idea is to gain a greater understanding of the Big Bang and the Universe as the Large Hedron Collider will explore the tiniest particles and come closer to re-enacting the Big Bang. The LHC will smash two beams of particles head-on at speeds close to the speed of light and scientists hope to see new particles in the debris of the collisions.
Proton beams - nuclei - will spin 11,000 times a second around the 17 -mile tunnel, nestled under 150-500 feet of earth on the French-Swiss border. Once a beam has been successfully fired counter-clockwise a clockwise test will follow before the scientists will aim the beams at each other so that the protons collide. Enough energy will be created to recreate conditions that existed one trillionth of a second after the Big Bang.
The energy will liberate thousands of quarks and gluons, normally imprisoned in the proton beams, which will then form the quark-gloun plasma. The plasma then cools and the quarks and gluons stick together forming protons and neutrons, the building blocks of matter and thus enabling scientists a greater understanding of the creation and makeup of matter.
The size of the tunnel and superconducting magnets give a hint but the size of this project is a monster in itself, black hole or no black hole. Researchers of 80 nationalities are involved and the price of the project sits at a cosmically large 5 billion pounds.
The first beams of protons will be fired to test the strength of the superconducting magnets, the largest on Earth, on Wednesday 10th and it will still be almost a month before the beams travelling in opposite directions are bought together in the collisions that so many are worried about.
So worried, in fact, that some protesters have filed suit in the U.S District Court in Hawai and in the European Court of Human Rights in an attempt to stop the project - citing that it incurs upon the basic human right to live.
It’s not just the potential calamity that could ensue that people are protesting over. The cost of the experiment has got a lot of people rattled especially considering the contributions from individual countries. With pressing issues such as climate change, many feel that the funding and research could be better spent.
While it may sound like the readings of an overly complicated science-fiction novel to some, the ideal cure for insomnia to others, a terrifying portent of doom to protesters or a huge waste of money and resources to those remaining nay-sayers, Wednesday’s experiment has certainly fired up a lot of debate before the machine has even been fired up.
Patrick is an expert travel researcher and writer currently researching Manchester Airport Parking, Manchester Airport Hotels and Airparks Gold Manchester
Biodiesel and Compressed Natural Gas (CNG)
By Joseph
It is normal for people to weigh possible fuel alternatives. In fact, that is about the only way to find out which one is the best. Definitely, you would like to find out the best alternative which can help you save money the most and the best option for your automobile and the earth.
You have to look at many contributing factors. Do not make a choice base on popularity because being popular may not be the best. Get the facts and learn what you can so your decision is an informed one.
Compressed Natural Gas (CNG)
CNG, Compressed Natural Gas, is an alternative fuel. It is mostly available only in in California, although it can be found randomly throughout the United States. Only CNG vehicles can use CNG as a fuel source. Home based production is possible through a special unit available mostly from manufacturers of CNG vehicles.
CNG also has been criticized for producing high levels of carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide.Also it provides less power than regular fuel. CNG, however, is more affordable compared to any other fuel alternative.
Looking at Biodiesel
Biodiesel is made from vegetable oil, lye and ethanol. It is a safe fuel that does not have the high risk of explosion or fire. It runs smooth and offers the same level of power as regular diesel fuel Biodiesel can also be used in any vehicle that currently uses diesel fuel.
Biodiesel can be sourced out from gas stations around the country. %LINK2% is also possible. Biodiesel burns clean and produces no emissions.
The Bottom Line
Between CNG and Biodiesel, the latter appears to be more user friendly. Moreover supply is more accessible. You are not required to invest on equipment to make it either. Biodiesel production is doable since inputs are readily available from commonly used everyday items .
Biodiesel is also much safer. It is environment friendly since it contains no pollutive components. It also will not reduce the power your vehicle has so you will not notice the switch to an alternative fuel.
CNG may prove to be more applicable to consumers residing in California and those with funds for running a CNG vehicle For the majority of people who do not live in California and can not afford to buy a CNG vehicle or the CNG equipment to refuel, biodiesel is a much better choice.
Consider biodiesel as the best alternative fuel. You can first have Biodiesel for your car as a start. Learn more about homemade biodiesel by going to our website at http://www.biodieselathome.biz
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Leave a Reply