Letter to the Editor
Evolve or become extinct
As last week’s Manitoban squabbled over creationism and evolutionism,
the Vatican was once again holding its conference of more than 200 leading
scientists from around the world at the Papal University in Rome. There they
debated not over a young Earth, but how the universe formed more than 13 billion
years ago.
Roman Catholics are taught to embrace Truth — in whatever form it
takes. Similarly, scientists must believe in the most credible and reliable
theories. Therefore, not accepting the theory of evolution is not only bad
science, but bad faith too.
Gregory Schmidt
RE: “In The Beginning...”
I cannot but commend the masterful use of satire which graced the Manitoban
in the form of the article “In The Beginning...” in the October
3rd issue of the paper. While the title of the article in question strongly
suggested that it would be a serious attempt to lend credence to a scientifically
unfounded, untestable, and unfalsifiable theory which has no basis in experimentation
or actual discovery, my initial cursory assessment of the raison d’etre
of the article was quickly proven incorrect (when — contrary to my usual
treatment of such articles in the Manitoban — I chose to continue reading
past the title) by the clearly and obviously satirical nature of the article.
The presence of easily refutable arguments used in conjunction with outdated
or simply incorrect facts and assumptions invoked in defence of said untenable
Creationist position with the explicit purpose to create a debater’s
antinomy proved to be just the literary juxtaposition that would brighten
my day. But, it was not satire you say? It simply had to be!
Position is gained against the theory of evolution by faulting the shortcomings
of its modern day derivatives. The article calls to question the possibility
of creation of life from inorganic compounds by acknowledging scientists’
continuing struggle with the problem. In reality, extraordinary progress has
been made in the field of synthetic biology. For example, Craig Venter’s
lab engineered a virus that can reproduce itself when inside a host, USA Today
reported in 2003; Giovanni Murtas’ lab produced synthetic organisms
capable of creating proteins in 2007. I refer the reader to the February,
2007 issue of Scientific American which proposes a radical new life initiation
theory, the paradigm of the “compositional genome,” to the statistically
unlikely “RNA World” theory.
The article says that Genesis does not necessitate that the young Earth
hypothesis be true, but none the less, the article has the audacity to suggest
that such a hypothesis is well-founded, in light of some ludicrous evidence.
Of the critical implication that Genesis does not limit belief to the young
earth, I cannot find fault, for as the Apostle Paul — himself a Jew
— writes in Titus 1:14, one should not pay attention to “Jewish
myths,” a classification of which Genesis is certainly a member. As
a sidebar, many Churches have no qualms with the old Earth hypothesis or evolution
in general.
In response to the “space proofs” of the young Earth, they pass
off bad science as good science. Concerning the slowing of the earth’s
rotation, this problem is rectified by calling into question an assumption
made by the article: that the current rate of slowing is constant throughout
time. It is, in fact, not, because of resonance effects related to the earth’s
oceans, which place us today in a particularly fast period of rotational decay.
Similarly, the observations that caused the claim that the space dust on the
moon is inconsistent with an old Earth hypothesis are incorrect. Studies that
in some cases have utilized satellite mapping of extra-planetary dust accumulation
have shown that the initial figures were off by several orders of magnitude,
and that observations today are consistent with an old Earth hypothesis. Finally,
the existence of short period comets today, like the famous Haley’s
Comet, is not proof of a young Earth, either. In short, it has been demonstrated
by gravitational inference and other sound methods that there are hundreds
of millions of comets in the far reaches of the solar system. However, these
Kuiper belt comets are occasionally drawn into the inner solar system by gravitational
effects of the proximal large gas giant planets. As such, the supply of comets
we can see is being perpetually replaced as they are being gradually evapourated
by solar radiation, creating an equilibrium that is sustainable for long periods
of time. In response to the other presented “proofs” of Creationism,
I will limit myself to saying that they will always invoke a confused, an
unclear, or an intentionally misleading interpretation of what is at best
capricious and opportunistic science.
This does not mean that I personally place all my faith in the theory of
evolution and abrogate Divine involvement in our origin. Far from it, for
as the late Pope John Paul II said, “Truth cannot contradict Truth,”
but I cannot stand by idly when the Manitoban publishes such good satire.
Michael Willcock is a U of M Physics and Biochemistry student
Money has its price
I have to agree with Mr. Marcoux in regards to his article “Business
Students will sell you the rope to hang them with”, as a fellow student
in the Asper School of Business, I see and feel the lack of ethics being taught
in the faculty. As Mr. Marcoux pointed out, students are only required to
take 3 credit hours of a 126 credit hour program, in other words, less then
10% of our curriculum is dedicated to ethics, again, as Mr. Marcoux pointed
out, this does not even have to include business ethics. It can include courses
such as ethics and biomedicine, or ethics and world religion! Shouldn’t
the future leaders of business learn how to run a business with social responsibility
rather then grow up with the idea of raping, pillaging and plundering, clawing
their way to the top. There are other, better, courses that teach ethics properly,
and as a former student of Contemporary Societal Issues in Business (CSIB),
I can whole heartedly say that this single course has taught me more ethics
in regards to business then any other course in the faculty combined, though
I will mention that the one class per course dedicated to ethics does not
go a long way, rather then stating the obvious of “Try to do the right
thing”.
Going into CSIB, I thought that the way to the top is climbing over anyone
and doing what ever I can to get there, whether it is the “right”
thing or not, it isn’t illegal if I don’t get caught, right? Coming
out of CSIB, I contemplated if business was the right path for me. Do I want
to be associated with people that are known to get ahead at any cost? My final
conclusion leads me to believe that I can do more good by staying in business
and doing the right thing for the people that I am responsible for rather
then for myself.
Firms should no longer be judged on the way they generate profit, but unfortunately
there is no other way to measure how much good a firm is doing. If you have
seen “The Corporation”, they make a great comparison between corporations
and a psychopath:
