God vs. Science?

Flipping through archived covers of old issues of Time, I wasn't sure what exactly I was looking for. I suppose I hoped to find a cover with leading cover lines, a loaded question, some sexist or racist pictorial representation; basically a magazine cover that forwarded some of Galacian's myths or an advertisement that created unrealistic or harmful expectations. A cover meeting any of those prerequisites would make this assignment easier and I could neatly apply our new terms and concepts. Coming across the the November, 2006 issue I paused after giving the cover the same cursory glance I had given the ten previous covers before hitting the 'next' button. "God vs. Science" written in black jumped out at me from the all white background. To the right of the cover line--the only cover line-- a DNA helix descended, transforming into a rosary with a cross attached to the end.

This cover didn't seem like a convenient venue for an application of my newly acquired 'unrealistic expectation debunkers,' but the statement "God vs. Science" immediately implied and perpetuated notions that many us have come to accept casually, without much challenge or worry. First, this seems like an acceptable statement. God and science are at odds, or so it seems, each representing ideals and standards of knowledge. While that notion--perpetual conflict between the two--seems troubling to me, many people, when picking sides line up exclusively under one of these banners. Those choosing God see their understanding as grounded in faith, approaching the idea of truth as a transcendentalist concept that must be studied with a firm, literal interpretation of scripture. Those choosing Science will claim that reason, discovery, and empirical verification provide the only means of true understanding. But is this notion a myth? Why do people in both camps accept the battle, and why to observers see the debate as an unavoidable confrontation and corollary of the two biggest modern influences?

This notion of the diametric opposition of God and Science is furthered by a contentious history: the execution of Copernicus, Galileo's forced abjuration, the John Scopes trial and a continuing debate over evolution, as well as the way modern society's cultural progression erodes fundamentalist values.

The media's habit of sensationalizing, taken together with the foundational purpose that God and science serve in our approaches to life blind us--the debaters and observers from asking different questions and making different statements, such as: "God and Science"; "Can scriptures be reinterpreted in light of recent scientific discoveries?"; and "Does scientific discovery require the disregard of comprehensive moral doctrines on the basis of a few inconsistencies?" A dialog needs opened without the parties bringing an uncompromising approach, or an arrogant certainty to the table.

Introduction

Hello. My name is Robert Abdalla and I'm a 3rd year pre-law philosophy major. I was born in Pittsburgh PA, but grew up in Granville and Newark Ohio. I have a couple brothers, one substantially older, the other slightly younger.

As far as interests, hobbies, recreational activities, and what not: I enjoy golf, tennis, political philosophy, economics, logic, chess, nature walks, food, and... I suppose it would take me a while to exhaust a list of my enjoyments, so I'll leave it at that.

My writing experience remains limited, which in conjunction with graduation requirements serves as the impetus for me taking this class. Antecedent to attending Ohio U., I served in the U.S. army as an infantryman. Occasionally I wrote letters and short stories as well as maintaining a journal (I use "maintain" loosely, perhaps "occasioned" would be a better fit).

The inspiration for my unsophisticated, stodgy short stories during my time in the army was mostly made up of other short story authors. I enjoy Tobias Wolff, Raymond Carver, Hemingway, and others with more-or-less a minimalist bent. I've found inspiration in Joyce (The Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man especially), agility in Stephen King (The Body and Shawshank Redemption are of note here), and amusement and fascination in Alexander Dumas. Besides fiction I spend a good deal of time reading history, philosophy--mostly political or Zionist--, and the occasional scientist's memoir.

I believe my strengths and weaknesses as a writer nullify each other, leaving me very average. I think I have a decent vocabulary, but my attempts at precision or perspicuity are invariably frustrated by poor structure and grammar errors--for example, I sometimes use an adjective as an adverb (highlighted in the 2nd paragraph above by my use of "antecedent"), and I consistently have trouble with punctuation.

During this class I hope to improve my ability to communicate my arguments in an effective, professional way. Specifically, I would like to learn how to build on and support my thesis without sounding dull or cluttering my contentions with redundancy.