the PENDULUM
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 22, 2009 // PAGE 11
A failed union of faith, logic
Scott Van Dorn
Guest Columnist
It’s a good thing Frank
Turek wasn't around in
the 15th century, or we all
might still think the world
is flat.
Turek spoke at Elon
Thursday night in a room
overflowing with eager
students and Burlington
residents, many desperate
to hear his evidence for
Christianity. He bragged
about his ability to speak
150 words per minute, and
then dazzled the audience
with an onslaught of
scientific words, theories and clever jokes.
But there was a problem.
When carefully examined, the presentation
was merely the work of a professional apologetic,
peppered with logical flaws, misquoted information
and marketing ploys. It was actually a carefully-
manipulated piece of Christian propaganda for
Turek's own personal benefit.
What his argument boiled down to was this;
Because a world was created with things we can’t
currently explain, God must exist.
This is simply an argument from ignorance. In
mathematics, it would be like saying if a solution is
nine, the problem that created the solution must be
seven plus two.
But what about five plus four, three times three
or 153 divided by 17? There are many possibilities,
claiming that one is “the truth” and polarizing
audiences with ignorance for personal profit is
unethical and harmful to society. It comes as no
surprise that Turek has appeared on such shows as
‘The O'Reilly Factor.”
But, as Turek states in his presentation, there can
be only one right answer in this case. He said that
it is important to be open minded until you have
'enough evidence to close your mind around it.”
So where is his evidence?
He claims that because the universe is so complex,
there must have been a creator. While this is one
possibility that could explain it, what it actually does
is raise a much bigger question: How was the creator
created? If the universe’s complexities require an
explanation, why doesn’t the much more complex
being that created it?
Even if there was “something" that created the
universe, it is illogical to give it other attributes
without any proof, as Turek does. In actuality, he has
“closed his mind” around a concept with extremely
little evidence — making him the definition of
ignorance.
To someone with very little background on the
scientific nature of the universe, Turek’s words might
sound like the word of God.
When talking about his major competitors, most
notably famous atheist Richard Dawkins, he resorted
to jokes when dismissing their ideas. He also blatantly
misquoted Stephen Hawking, asserting the famous
scientist believes there was a single point in time
when everything was created. Hawking’s theories are
much more complex and do not suggest this.
But how is anyone in the audience supposed to
know?
In the Q-and-A session, junior Mike Kleinman
tried to call Turek out on some of the major logical
Haws. Turek, with his doctorate in apologetics, kept
the crowd on his side with a few jokes and ultimately
avoided the question. When Kleinman brought up
some of Hawking’s real theories on time, Turek tried
to discredit the question by joking, “I don’t have time
for this.”
But after another joke during his presentation that
lamely discredited the multi-verse theory, “It looks
like a demented French horn,” Turek may have made a
slip-up that undermined his entire presentation when
talking about what he believed.
“That’s what it seems to be at this point, anyway,”
he said.
The statement proves his speech is a classic
argument from ignorance. Older civilizations thought
solar eclipses were the work of God, but we now know
eclipses can be scientifically explained by the position
of the sun and the moon. \
Turek claims to be proving God with science, but \
what he’s actually doing is using an all-powerful
being to fill in the gaps of science we haven’t figured
out yet — and making a profit doing it.
Think about it. In the 15th Century, it probably
“seemed” like the world was flat too.
Daily upds^cs of the analysis and
commentary
www.pendu!umopmions.wordpress,com
LEARN
MORE.
SEE MORE.
A talent that cannot be airbrushed
How many times have
you witnessed judgment
being passed against
another person? You have
probably observed the
scrawny yet dedicated
football player on your
high school team, who,
despite his work ethic, is
never given the chance
to play because he is
■——considered too weak.
Or the old-fashioned
faculty member you think
won’t understand your
adolescent troubles merely
because their clothes
- past decades. \
ow liberated would our lives be if we skipped
5part in our interactions with one another where
Ij to completely assess another person’s
exm I their appearance? A perfect
Seen ^ aforementioned freedom can be
■ case of Susan Boyle, a recent television
^hley Jobe
^t Columnist
'®ind you of I
Intern
is Got Talent.”
usan Boyle is a 48-year-old, somewhat matronly
'Britain'*^*^^ since her singing debut on
wking Woman who demonstrated her spunk and
auHiti”"^ r *^font of millions of people with her
for the show
fiad as a sort of comedic spectacle that
“'er inV^ judging panel doubled
Wing transformed into a tear-
Boyle began to sing, “I
The 1 * from “Les Miserables.”
‘Wrodu^ 'ri Simon Cowell’s eyes as she
*^shad was instantly recognizable.
seconds, sized her up, put her in
'^fitiean ®tid put a label on it. His
'^isplavth *®®tned to say, this woman can't possibly
talent that Carrie Underwood, Kelly
Clarkson and other young, gifted celebrities had
before her. Why?
The answer sits in plain view. Boyle didn’t
look like she could do it. She didn’t have the look
of someone capable of having enough talent to
make it onto the show. Thus, a warped, inaccurate
correlation is created between her physical
appearance and her potential. Since when did
beauty equal singing talent? . . . ,
I would think on a national stage like “Britain s
Got Talent,” such profiling wouldn’t be so blatantly
obvious as it was on the day of Boyle’s audition.
Her judgment on that stage serves as a testament
to the judgment we all experience on the various
stages in our own lives, big or small.
The most disheartening part of those moments
is the superficiality of the expectations we impose
upon one another. Professional attire seems to
indicate a professional attitude regardless of actual
etiqutte, and unqualified people are constantly
rewarded around the world for their perceived
attractiveness.
If Boyle was 20 years younger, tweezed her
eyebrows and straightened her hair, would she
have been received differently? Why was it that she
had to prove her worth, while others need not even
try because their outward appearance speaks for
itself?
Furthermore, a debate has ensued over the
question of giving the emerging star a makeover,
prompting Americans and Britons to weigh in on
potential physical appearance. Another juc^ge
on tKanel, Arnanda Holden, has already declared
the singer shouldn’t change her look.
“She needs to stay exactly as she is, because
fhat’s the reason why we love her ... she looks just
llte^'nyoTwho could llv. on your s.r..,,' Holden
” Whal Holden said Is Irue, bul Boyle’s appearance
need not precede the talent she possesses or the
peSon she is inside, nor should anyone else s.
Kevin Clang
Columnist
Opinion
Bickering,
stubborn states
Politicians like to
demonstrate the unity of
the country by pointing out
the idea that there are no
red states or blue states,
just the United States. It is a
nice idea if you’re running
for an elected office, but it
could not be farther from the
truth.
While there have always
been major ideological
differences between the
many states, rarely in history
have they been so numerous.
Red and blue political beliefs are growing
farther and farther apart and it is getting
increasingly difficult for the two to understand
each other. Big government versus small
government. Pro-life versus pro-choice. In today’s
America, you’re either a gay-marrying, baby-killing
member of a blue state or a gun-toting, Bible-loving
member of a red state.
So it is really no surprise to hear talks of
sovereignty and even secession from some states
unhappy with Washington’s current spending
policies. Alaska, Vermont and most recently Texas
have all spoken of secession in the past few years.
With the struggling economy, the United States
finds itself at its lowest point in recent history.
Morale is down and the states are starting to point
fingers at each other and the federal government.
Let’s ignore that statements are made to get
attention, not to be taken seriously.
Also, let’s ignore that 75 percent of Texans don’t
even want to secede, and that even mentioning
the action is un-American. Let’s also ignore that
the possibility of secession is unrealistic and
remote at best — states would have to defeat the
most powerful military on the planet to succeed in
seceding. Does the United States have a problem? If
so, how do we fix it?
Since there is no idiot’s guidebook to repairing
feuding states within a country, I consulted the
next-best source: relationshiprich.org, a Web site
that uses Dr. Phil’s books to give advice to troubled
married couples. When you think about it, the
United States is not unlike an unhappy, old married
couple on its last nerve.
We’ve experienced the blissful union of 1776, the
mid-life crisis of the Civil War and moved into old
age with World War II. Now, it's like we’re recently
retired: We worked hard and now have the attention
and respect of everyone around us, but beneath the
surface we’ve grown bitter as we’ve all drifted away
from each other. And all the money we saved up is
running out.
First off, this constant arguing is not helping
anyone. States need to learn to listen to each other’s
gripes rather than constantly trying to defend
themselves.
Simply listening to each other without trying to
advance an agenda may help defuse the situation.
Incessant attacks just exacerbate the problem
and increase potential damage. The first step to
understanding each other’s differences will be to
acknowledge them.
Listening to each other will give us greater
perspective and allow us to see the issues from the
other side’s point of view. This will broaden our
picture, letting us see past red or blue issues and
focus more on America’s issues.
Our differences are what make America great.
The country needs this back-and-forth dialogue of
ideas. If one side secedes, the country loses. The
key is to talk about these matters without allowing
them to anger us.
The blame game also needs to stop. Both sides
have made mistakes. While taking responsibility
off of ourselves and putting it on the other states
may feel good, especially when we know that we
are right, it turns the others into adversaries. This
opens the door to more argument, which only leads
to guilt, shame and resentment.
Being the minority party is just part of politics.
Sometimes you’re up and sometimes you’re down,
but in the end the American people will decide
what is best for themselves and we need to accept
that, even if we don’t agree with current policies.
It would be a tragic shame to lose any one of the
50 states. Each is so unique and special, adding its
own distinctive flavor and culture to the country.
Seceding is equivalent to giving up. By doing so, the
other side automatically wins.
Perhaps Congress could benefit from hiring
a marriage counselor or two to sit in on vitriolic
sessions — maybe then they could see past their
own egos and consider what is best for the country.