D. E. Guenther - Academia.edu (original) (raw)
Papers by D. E. Guenther
Journal of Vacuum Science & Technology A, 1994
This paper examines the damage created by an electron beam on layered specimens consisting of a (... more This paper examines the damage created by an electron beam on layered specimens consisting of a (CH[sub 2])[sub 17] self-assembled monolayer (SAM) deposited on an oxidized Si wafer. Beam effects on both the SAM and substrate were observed. X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) measurements indicate that less than 20% of the carbon from the film is lost during the beam damage,
Journal of Vacuum Science & Technology A: Vacuum, Surfaces, and Films, 1994
Abstract This paper examines the damage created by an electron beam on layered specimens consisti... more Abstract This paper examines the damage created by an electron beam on layered specimens consisting of a (CH 2) 17 self‐assembled monolayer (SAM) deposited on an oxidized Si wafer. Beam effects on both the SAM and substrate were observed. X‐ray ...
Design in the Universe, 2007
In keeping with the ancients, I would argue that one role of science is to inform our deeper thin... more In keeping with the ancients, I would argue that one role of science is to inform our deeper thinking about meaning in the universe.
The debate about the presence of “design” in nature is just so. Since the Hebrews and Greeks, people have viewed the extraordinary beauty and order of the cosmos—near and far—as an indication of a greater purpose in the universe. An mindful intelligence (telos) perhaps ordered the world for human existence. Others argue that the material universe itself is what brings order, that somehow—inherently—it must be this way. Owen Gingerich notes that this argument cannot fully solve the issue, since one can always ask, “But why this universe and not another?” Therefore both the teleological and the materialistic stances are philosophical viewpoints. Although the interpretive framework practiced by natural scientists today is methodological naturalism, many still participate in the current debate about “design” by the question we have just posed: what can a scientist say about final causes?
This debate is popularized by the writers of the Intelligent Design (ID) movement, who maintain that certain empirical examples in nature conclusively point to the hand of a designing intelligence, or God. In opposition to this view are many scientists who, perhaps by transgressing the finite conclusions of science, assert that meaningful design is a no more than illusion. So far Intelligent Design has failed to carry the day. In an endeavor to win an apologetic argument against materialistic science, ID proponents rely heavily on empirical and rational proofs; but as we shall see, absolute certainty in science is an illusion. Beginning with representative historical viewpoints, we will focus on aspects of the Intelligent Design presentation in its current form, highlighting its strengths and analyzing where (in my mind) the argument fails. In some cases, this failure will be that of the proof itself; in others it will be due to the tone of the discussion in limiting real dialog. Our end goal will be to formulate a healthy balance for scientist and theologian alike in the quest to unravel the mystery of our universe—the final cause.
The purpose of this study is to discover what influences are the most helpful for a typically con... more The purpose of this study is to discover what influences are the most helpful for a
typically conservative Christian university student in reconciling his/her faith with issues in the modern sciences. Many such students come from church or family backgrounds which stress a recent creation of the earth (“young-earth”) and reject the conclusions of the scientific establishment—for example, the long age of the universe, the geological history of earth, and the evolutionary origins of life. When introduced to the secular university environment for the first time, these students can face a significant personal struggle. Some feel antagonized by their professors, some are fearful of losing their faith in the classroom, and others compartmentalize their religious and academic thought worlds. The goal of my research is to provide a useful baseline for developing a curriculum which can be given to Christian students in their first year at university. My aim is pastoral: to help students move from fear to engagement. I want to identify the experiences and resources which enable a typically conservative Christian to engage in a truly open dialogue with the natural sciences.
There is a moment familiar to all Bible readers: the discovery of a scripture that, on the face o... more There is a moment familiar to all Bible readers: the discovery of a scripture that, on the face of it, seems contrary to modern sensibilities. Theologians have often sought to resolve such discrepancies in the Scripture by an informal doctrine of accommodation. John Calvin argued it was necessary for God to speak to his people by using language that accommodated the imperfect viewpoints they could understand. In fact, many scriptural difficulties can be resolved in this way: ancient views of nature, ethical inconsistencies, anthropomorphisms, irregular histories, genealogies and numerical problems. However, some contemporary theologians take issue with the idea that God would speak in “errant” language—making his Word less than completely truthful. This paper will argue that the doctrine of accommodation is fully consonant with the doctrine of inerrancy, when (a) accommodation is understood as an essential guide for biblical interpretation, and (b) inerrancy is understood in light of its motivating principle.
The popular version of Galileo’s final trial goes something like this: Galileo, the free- thinkin... more The popular version of Galileo’s final trial goes something like this: Galileo, the free- thinking scientist who confirmed Earth’s motion around the Sun, was forced by the authorities of the Catholic Church to abandon his scientific views because they conflicted with the established (but erroneous) religious dogma of the day. Subsequently, “The Affair” was commonly viewed as a conflict between science and faith. However, numerous historians have come to the conclusion that Galileo's trial is grossly misunderstood. What was really at stake in the Galileo Affair? What were the real reasons that he was silenced in 1633 by the Catholic Church? This paper will argue that acceptance of the Copernican system was undermined by three factors which ultimately brought about Galileo’s condemnation: a conservative scientific academy, a politically defensive Church, and Galileo's own imprudent personality.
Journal of Vacuum Science & Technology A, 1994
This paper examines the damage created by an electron beam on layered specimens consisting of a (... more This paper examines the damage created by an electron beam on layered specimens consisting of a (CH[sub 2])[sub 17] self-assembled monolayer (SAM) deposited on an oxidized Si wafer. Beam effects on both the SAM and substrate were observed. X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) measurements indicate that less than 20% of the carbon from the film is lost during the beam damage,
Journal of Vacuum Science & Technology A: Vacuum, Surfaces, and Films, 1994
Abstract This paper examines the damage created by an electron beam on layered specimens consisti... more Abstract This paper examines the damage created by an electron beam on layered specimens consisting of a (CH 2) 17 self‐assembled monolayer (SAM) deposited on an oxidized Si wafer. Beam effects on both the SAM and substrate were observed. X‐ray ...
Design in the Universe, 2007
In keeping with the ancients, I would argue that one role of science is to inform our deeper thin... more In keeping with the ancients, I would argue that one role of science is to inform our deeper thinking about meaning in the universe.
The debate about the presence of “design” in nature is just so. Since the Hebrews and Greeks, people have viewed the extraordinary beauty and order of the cosmos—near and far—as an indication of a greater purpose in the universe. An mindful intelligence (telos) perhaps ordered the world for human existence. Others argue that the material universe itself is what brings order, that somehow—inherently—it must be this way. Owen Gingerich notes that this argument cannot fully solve the issue, since one can always ask, “But why this universe and not another?” Therefore both the teleological and the materialistic stances are philosophical viewpoints. Although the interpretive framework practiced by natural scientists today is methodological naturalism, many still participate in the current debate about “design” by the question we have just posed: what can a scientist say about final causes?
This debate is popularized by the writers of the Intelligent Design (ID) movement, who maintain that certain empirical examples in nature conclusively point to the hand of a designing intelligence, or God. In opposition to this view are many scientists who, perhaps by transgressing the finite conclusions of science, assert that meaningful design is a no more than illusion. So far Intelligent Design has failed to carry the day. In an endeavor to win an apologetic argument against materialistic science, ID proponents rely heavily on empirical and rational proofs; but as we shall see, absolute certainty in science is an illusion. Beginning with representative historical viewpoints, we will focus on aspects of the Intelligent Design presentation in its current form, highlighting its strengths and analyzing where (in my mind) the argument fails. In some cases, this failure will be that of the proof itself; in others it will be due to the tone of the discussion in limiting real dialog. Our end goal will be to formulate a healthy balance for scientist and theologian alike in the quest to unravel the mystery of our universe—the final cause.
The purpose of this study is to discover what influences are the most helpful for a typically con... more The purpose of this study is to discover what influences are the most helpful for a
typically conservative Christian university student in reconciling his/her faith with issues in the modern sciences. Many such students come from church or family backgrounds which stress a recent creation of the earth (“young-earth”) and reject the conclusions of the scientific establishment—for example, the long age of the universe, the geological history of earth, and the evolutionary origins of life. When introduced to the secular university environment for the first time, these students can face a significant personal struggle. Some feel antagonized by their professors, some are fearful of losing their faith in the classroom, and others compartmentalize their religious and academic thought worlds. The goal of my research is to provide a useful baseline for developing a curriculum which can be given to Christian students in their first year at university. My aim is pastoral: to help students move from fear to engagement. I want to identify the experiences and resources which enable a typically conservative Christian to engage in a truly open dialogue with the natural sciences.
There is a moment familiar to all Bible readers: the discovery of a scripture that, on the face o... more There is a moment familiar to all Bible readers: the discovery of a scripture that, on the face of it, seems contrary to modern sensibilities. Theologians have often sought to resolve such discrepancies in the Scripture by an informal doctrine of accommodation. John Calvin argued it was necessary for God to speak to his people by using language that accommodated the imperfect viewpoints they could understand. In fact, many scriptural difficulties can be resolved in this way: ancient views of nature, ethical inconsistencies, anthropomorphisms, irregular histories, genealogies and numerical problems. However, some contemporary theologians take issue with the idea that God would speak in “errant” language—making his Word less than completely truthful. This paper will argue that the doctrine of accommodation is fully consonant with the doctrine of inerrancy, when (a) accommodation is understood as an essential guide for biblical interpretation, and (b) inerrancy is understood in light of its motivating principle.
The popular version of Galileo’s final trial goes something like this: Galileo, the free- thinkin... more The popular version of Galileo’s final trial goes something like this: Galileo, the free- thinking scientist who confirmed Earth’s motion around the Sun, was forced by the authorities of the Catholic Church to abandon his scientific views because they conflicted with the established (but erroneous) religious dogma of the day. Subsequently, “The Affair” was commonly viewed as a conflict between science and faith. However, numerous historians have come to the conclusion that Galileo's trial is grossly misunderstood. What was really at stake in the Galileo Affair? What were the real reasons that he was silenced in 1633 by the Catholic Church? This paper will argue that acceptance of the Copernican system was undermined by three factors which ultimately brought about Galileo’s condemnation: a conservative scientific academy, a politically defensive Church, and Galileo's own imprudent personality.