Question #3

The scientists response appeared dismissive, which alienated the intelligent design community. This response creates unnecessary tension amongst both groups. As scientists we need to develop better communication skills. Our response to the intelligent design community may perhaps be more important then winning the argument. Developing good communication between the intelligent design community and the scientists will create a higher likelihood the intelligent design community eventually accepts evolution. The general public is much more receptive to a respectful scientist. In the long run, public perception is very useful which perhaps is key to evolution acceptance.

Question #2

Well, for the most part scientists believe intelligent design is a bunch of crap!! Scientists believe the theory of intelligent design is closer to "hocus pocus" then factually supported. They believe intelligent design is a gimmick provided by the intelligent design community in hopes of discrediting the science behind evolution. Another words, an explanation proposed to create controversy over the facts supporting evolution that develop doubt amongst the greater populous.

Question #1

I think scientist are quick to dismiss the intelligent design community because each group have their own interpretation of facts! Another words, scientist formulate their conclusions around what they can prove scientifically, while the intelligent design community formulate their conclusion around what science can not prove! The scientific community appear dismissive to the intelligent design community, perhaps even arrogant in their assumption that evolution is fact, as defined scientifically. Whereas, scientists appear to regard the intelligent design community as having NO intelligent at all. The intelligent design community focuses on the lack of proof regarding "The Beginning" or as scientist refer to as "The Big Bang". Intelligent design believers focus on the complexity of life systems as proof that a higher power was needed for such diverse systems. My belief is the intelligent design community does have a valid point. Science can not prove The Big Bang beyond a reasonable doubt(at least not yet) but they can prove a vast majority of evolution as fact scientifically. I believe the intelligent design community relies on one specific issue(The Big Bang) to discredit evolution. Scientist need to lay out all the scientific factual evidence and compare to the intelligent design evidence. Start the discussion as if both groups know nothing and build a foundation of knowledge. Only later, begin to link evidence that would support evolution.

Strat Column

Here is the strat column proposed in class, using illustrator.

Picture

Research Topic

I plan on presenting Superfund site locations in relation with soil/formation permeability. Still not sure how I plan to approach the topic but I will continue to research and will keep you informed.

More Articles

1. Seven-year performance evaluation of a permeable reactive barrierRemediation Journal Volume 18, Issue 3, Date: Summer 2008, Pages: 63-78 Peter Richards
This article follows the success of a permeable reactive barrier(PRB)in regard to the reduction of plume velocities containing Trichloroethene(TCE). Some surprising results are discovered.


2. Distinguishing Natural Hydrocarbons from Anthropogenic Contamination in Ground Water Ground Water Volume 35, Issue 1, Date: January 1997, Pages: 149-160 Suzanne Lesage, Hao Xu, Kent S. Novakowski
Just an interesting article that relates to source contamination with regard to natural and man-made hydrocarbons. Distinguishing leaky fuel tanks from natural subsurface formations containing hydrocarbons.

3. Paleosols in Central Illinois as Potential Sources of Ammonium in Groundwater Ground Water Monitoring & Remediation Volume 29 Issue 4, Pages 56 - 64 Justin J. G. Glessner 1 and William R. Roy 2
This article examines the nateral reliese of ammonium into the water supply. Quaternary age paleosols are thought to release significant amounts of ammonium which create water quality issues. Bacteria and fungi levels within these paleosols fluctuate over given time periods creating waves of increasing/decreasing ammonium levels.

4. Investigating the in situ degradation of atrazine in groundwater. Pest Management Science Volume 62, Issue 4, Date: April 2006, Pages: 299-306 Robert Pearson, Andrew Godley, Elise Cartmell
This is a important article in regards to locality. Most of the local water sources in Kansas and for that matter the midwest contain, at minimum, trace amounts of atrazine(2-4D). The primary source for this chemical is pesticide runoff from local farm land. In this particular research(UK) the local bacteria were inept for degrading atrazine but in other localities this attempt may prove more helpful.


5. One-dimensional contaminant transport through a deforming porous medium: theory and a solution for a quasi-steady-state problem International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics Volume 24, Issue 8, Date: July 2000, Pages: 693-722 D. W. Smith
This article examines the potential effects soil deformation beneath landfills has on contaminate mobility. As the strategically placed clay barrier beneath a landfill deforms/degrades soil properties are lost/gained that affect its ability to decrease liquid flow.