Class questioned -- a rejoinder

Dear Editor,

What distinguishes the physical sciences from the social sciences is the fact that physical sciences build, accommodate, correct, incorporate and tolerate. The physical sciences do not destroy without an attempt of rebuilding.

The article of the 7th and 8th of April, 2007 edition of the Gazette written by Dr. Robert I. Price of the University of Kearney, Nebraska, captioned Class Questioned, questions the relevance of Physics 2990 and puts the future of the physical sciences in jeopardy. This issue needs be addressed properly for the future of physical sciences in our time.

The writer, Dr. Robert I Price, argues that the subject matter of Physics 2990, Creation Science, "is not relevant to any course in a science curriculum". To buttress his point, he cites that he will write the same article if "an instructor was allowed to teach Chemistry 2990: Earth, Air, Water, Fire and Quintessence as though Earth, Air, Fire, Water and Quintessence is a serious scientific alternative to the Atomic Theory of Matter". However, this assertion is wrong. By this statement, the writer makes a fundamental mistake of scientific oversight. The writer simply forgets the basics and foundations of science. From where does science originate? He forgets that science begins with wonder, with inquiry. Science grows out of wonder and out of inquiry. This is what led the early scientists to arrive at what they thought were the fundamental basics of life. They wanted to find out what constitutes life. They wanted to know the principle behind everything that lives. This inquiry made Thales to come up with the answer that water is the source of life. Anaximenes said that it was air. Heraclitus posited that it was fire. Empedocles maintained that it was a combination of water, air, fire and earth. Others like Plato and Aristotle included the fifth element, the quintessence. Plato called this fifth element, the solid, the dodecahedron and Aristotle called it aether, the substance. This fifth element is pure energy. This was the beginning of the scientific mind. Dalton's atomic theory also started from wonder. The early scientists showed the way even though their answers to what constitutes life as it stands today might have been overtaken. Their effort, dedication and direction gave rise to Dalton's atomic theory in the 19th Century. Dalton even stated that everything is made of atoms, that smallest, indivisible particle of the matter, which can never be created nor destroyed. Though Dalton made a stride in the shaping of modern science, some of his proposals have been overtaken by time and event. We know now that the atom is not the smallest, indivisible particle as Dalton earlier stated. An atom is made up of the proton, the electron and the neutron. The French philosopher-scientist, Rene Descartes recognized the importance of wonder, thought and inquiry in his "cogito, ergo sum- -- I think, therefore, I am".

Wonder, (thought and inquiry) is what made the change from the Ptolemaic geometric theory, which viewed the earth as the center of the universe and was accepted for about 1400 years. Nicolaus Copernicus, after many years of wonder and research came up with his Copernican revolution of heliocentric theory that holds the sun as the center of the universe and the solar system. Albert Einstein's atomic physics has changed our previous view of some aspects of science because he gave in to wonder. Time was when Biologists believed that the total number of species of fish in the sea was a hundred and fifty three. Nevertheless, today that view is no longer held. DNA structure, discovered a few years ago has changed a lot beliefs, notions and understandings in the physical sciences, thanks to the wonder that began in the minds of the fathers of DNA, Francis Crick and James Watson. Yet, science has not been destroyed because some of the things believed in the past have been modified. In one of his speeches in an interview in 1989, Crick said, "If Jim (Watson) and I hadn't discovered DNA, which easily could have happened, I think somebody else was bound to." Einstein is quoted as saying, "imagination is more important than knowledge." By these independent but complementary statements, Crick and Einstein give credence to wonder as the basic and fundamental beginning, the foundation of science. Hence, Creation Science can still impact new knowledge of the physical sciences if it is tolerated and allowed to thrive.

Furthermore, the writer's assertion that Creation Science is not a serious scientific alternative to the theory of evolution is again faulty. Creation Science is an independent theory of its own that can compete favorably with evolution and even help explain its gaps. Creation Science has much to offer to science and scientists. Actually, many of the things evolution claims it knows and discovers are found to be faulty and baseless. The recent Newsweek of March 19, 2007 The Evolution Revolution writes,

"If you had asked paleoanthropologists a generation ago what lice (human hair lice) DNA might reveal about how we became human, they would have laughed you out of the room. But research into our origins and evolution has come a long way. Starting with the first discovery of a fossil suggesting that a different sort of human once lived on this planet.

"The science of human evolution is undergoing its own revolution. Although we tend to see the march of species down through time as a single-file parade, with descendant succeeding ancestor in a neat line, the emerging science shows that the story of our species is far more complicated that Biblical literature would have-but also more complex than secular science suspected. By analyzing the DNA of today's humans as well as chimps and other species (even lice), scientists are zeroing in on turning points in evolution, such as when and how language and speech developed…

"And by comparing the impressions that brains left on the inside of skulls, "paleoneurology" is documenting when structures that power the human mind arose, shedding light on how our ancestors lived and thought. Whether or not you believe the hand of God was guiding these changes, the discoveries are overturning longstanding ideas about how we became human." p.54.

"DNA makes clear that Homo erectus was almost certainly a dead end and not, as some scientists had argued our ancestor." p.55.

Evolution has not answered the many of the questions completely right. We simply need the Creation Science to help us get answers to many of our scientific questions. Though Creation Science has much to do with religion, it should not be automatically discounted. After all, religion has always been a part of the sciences. Many scientific laws, observations and norms have arisen from religion. Newton's third law of motion, which states that, action and reaction are equal and opposite, developed from religion, the law of karma, the law of retributive justice. Even Einstein, the renowned scientist of our time is quoted to have said, "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium (1941) ch. 13

What is evolution and what is Creation Science? Evolution cannot negate the principle of causality. If there is no causality, then there is not and there will never be evolution. In addition, what is creation science if not causality? Causality gave rise to evolution and its progeny. Creation Science is all about causality. Causality caused evolution. If evolution can comfortably be taken to be scientific, Creation Science should be recognized in the same category and will be able to offer much to science, other arguments about them taken into consideration.

Dr. Robert I Price maintains that he wrote because of "his interest in the integrity of science education in Nebraska". With this view to insure the integrity of science, may I suggest then that the best approach is not to criticize the lecturer and question the class, but meet with Jim Garretson to know what he has to offer. He may discover a new knowledge in the subject matter and out of interest call a seminar where Jim Garretson will come to present his ideas. Can scientists afford to be closed off to new developments? After all, Nebraskan scientists and schools may have something new to offer to humanity. A class of this type in some of the revered institutions can make a difference in the area of science. If the early scientists were so criticized and forced not to air their views about life, they would not have achieved what they did. Hence, the world of science would not have reached where it is today.

McCook Community College should not be discouraged by the article written by Dr. Robert I. Price. It should rather be a challenge for them to reach greater heights and to give to the world their best. History makes it clear that many who made remarkable discoveries and changes did not find it easy during their time. Those people saw beyond their contemporaries. Many of them suffered. Some were physically persecuted. Many of them in teaching positions were even denied their teaching posts. Today those people are revered and given credits for their great work, endurance and persistence. It will be sad if we in our time allow history to repeat itself before we learn.

Mr. Jim Garretson should be praised for the honest, bold step he has taken to reconsider the Creation Science as a physical science that can compete not only favorably but can go beyond evolution theory. He should be encouraged to give out what he has for science and humanity.

Bravo, Mr. Garretson, for that bold step.

Father Lawrence Ejiofo

St. Patrick Catholic Church, McCook.