s u m m e r

fal

l20

12

m i n i m a l m ag a z i n e

“to shoWcase eMerging professionals of all prograMs offered at the

art institutes international Minnesota With forWard thinKing design.”

mi

ni

mA

l

mA

gA

Zi

ne

mi

ss

iO

n

st

at

em

en

t

l e t t e r f r O m

t H e e D i t O r

MiniMAL. the word means negligible, nominal, smallest— to relate or to

be the least possible amount of something. this is the type of space

that we want to create for our viewers. A place where your work can

be beautifully displayed with no distractions. we heard your voice, and

have re-branded ourselves to be a high-end design magazine, with a

focus on exceptional student work.

And to be, in a word MiniMAL.

editor in Chief

Chelsea hammerbeck

P h oto g r A P h By A dA m vA l l e y

DO

ll

HO

us

eA

lly

Wu

rt

s -

Ph

ot

og

rA

Ph

y (B

FA) Q

. Al

um

ni s

Pr

ing

12

Da

na

nis

se

n P

HD

. H

um

an

itie

s i

ns

tr

uc

tO

r.

min

ne

aP

Ol

is,

min

ne

sO

ta

Br

An

do

n l

eP

As

ti

- P

ho

to

gr

AP

hy

(B

FA)

Q.

Al

um

ni

sP

rin

g 1

2

be

st

in

sh

ow

(Co

nt

.) m

ar

le

ne

DO

He

ny.

ex

ce

ls

iOr

, m

inn

es

Ot

a (Co

nt

.) ma

rk

f. He

ima

n. n

Or

tH

fie

lD

, min

ne

sO

ta

tr

ain

De

PO

t H

Om

eB

rA

d s

tu

lC

- in

te

rio

r d

es

ign

(Bs

) Q. A

lu

mn

i su

mm

er

12

be

st

in s

ho

w

DISCOVER

HOTSPRINGS

s o m e t i m e s , t h e r e ’s m o r e t o

i n l i f e t h a n n e o n l i g h t s ,

c l u b s , a n d h o t e l b e d

a t 5 i n t h e m o r n i n g .

W H AT E V E R Y O U R R E A S O Nn a t i o n a l p a r k s . o r g

DISCOVER

HOTSPRINGSSPRINGS

s o m e t i m e s , t h e r e ’s m o r e t o

i n l i f e t h a n n e o n l i g h t s ,

c l u b s , a n d h o t e l b e d

a t 5 i n t h e m o r n i n g .a t 5 i n t h e m o r n i n g .

W H AT E V E R Y O U R R E A S O NW H AT E V E R Y O U R R E A S O Nn a t i o n a l p a r k s . o r gn a t i o n a l p a r k s . o r g

C

M

Y

CM

MY

CY

CMY

K

HOTSPRINGS.pdf 1 6/19/12 1:50 PM

W H AT E V E R Y O U R R E A S O N

VISITJOSHUA

TREE

m y w i f e ’ s b e s t f r i e n d w a n t s t o

t h i s w e e k e n d , s o I t h i n k

a n d I a r e g o i n g t o m a k e l i k e a

a n d g e t t h e f * * * o u t o f h e r e .

n a t i o n a l p a r k s . o r g

W H AT E V E R Y O U R R E A S O N

VISITJOSHUA

TREE

m y w i f e ’ s b e s t f r i e n d w a n t s t o

t h i s w e e k e n d , s o I t h i n k

a n d I a r e g o i n g t o m a k e l i k e a

a n d g e t t h e f * * * o u t o f h e r e .

n a t i o n a l p a r k s . o r g

C

M

Y

CM

MY

CY

CMY

K

joshuatree2.pdf 1 6/19/12 2:03 PM

Dis

cO

ve

r H

Ot

sP

rin

gs

Co

no

r C

hA

mP

le

y -

Ad

ve

rt

isin

g (

Bs

) Q

. 8

vis

it JO

sH

ua

tr

ee

(C

on

t.)

ra

xm

an

De

r i

re

tA

yl

or

PA

yt

on

- m

ed

iA A

rt

s &

An

imA

tio

n (

Bs

) Q

. 12

tH

e m

ag

icia

nK

Ar

l K

lo

os

- P

ho

to

gr

AP

hy

(BFA

) Q. 4

Da n c es A m P lu C K e r - P h oto g r A P h y ( B FA ) Q . A lu m n i s u m m e r 1 2

Wa

te

rm

el

On

in t

He

ga

rD

en

af

te

r m

iDn

igH

tK

At

e e

ng

el

mA

nn

- P

ho

to

gr

AP

hy

(BFA

) Q. 12

(Co

nt

.) PB

r c

OO

le

r

un

tit

le

D m

Ov

em

en

t #

11K

At

he

rin

e t

ol

en

e -

Ph

ot

og

rA

Ph

y (

BFA

) Q

. 12

(Co

nt

.) u

nt

itl

eD

mO

ve

me

nt

#7

(Co

nt

.) u

nt

itl

eD

mO

ve

me

nt

#3

WO

Ol

ite

® (l

eF

t)

Ad

Am

vA

ll

ey

- g

rA

Ph

iC d

es

ign

(Bs

) Q. 6

rO

xa

nn

e

(Pr

ev

iou

s s

Pr

eA

d)

Bu

Dg

et

miC

hA

el

gA

ur

Ke

e -

gr

AP

hiC

de

sig

n (B

s) Q

. 4

AS A SPECIES, WE NEED TO HAVE A

SERIOUS CONVERSATION ABOUT HOW OUR LIFESTYLE

CHOICES ARE AFFECTING THE LIVABILITY OF

OUR PLANET.

these issues when casting their vote, because the decisions they make while in office will affect our lives—and I, for one, want those decisions made in the light of reason. The longest standing clash between science and religion that seeps into today’s politics revolves around the Theory of Evolution. Scientists argue that life evolved into its present form over millions of years through the process of natural selection. This is inconsistent with a literal interpretation of the Bible, which maintains that life was created approximately five thousand years ago in the exact form we see today. Unfortunately for critics of evolution, many of the arguments they present against it are based upon simple misunderstandings concerning the scientific method in general and the Theory of Evolution in particular.

For example, it is frequently argued that evolution is “just a theory” and therefore should not be taken too seriously. This criticism confuses the everyday use of the word theory with the much stronger

and more profound use of the word within a scientific context. Everything

in science is just a theory, including basic concepts

like gravity, electromag-netism, and the laws

of thermodynamics. When scientists speak of the The-ory of Relativity or the Theory of Evolution, they mean something quite different

than an untested hypothesis, as

is denoted by the more common use

of the term.

Several criteria must be met before a scientific idea is

elevated to theory status. Firstly, a theory must be thoroughly tested and

explain all known data. In science, a theory is represented by a vast body of evidence from many different sources, both observational and experi-mental. Secondly, there must be no contradictory

Everyone is familiar with the story. In 1633, Galileo was tried by the inquisition, found guilty of heresy, forced to recant his views under threat of torture, and placed under house arrest for the remainder of his life. His crime: discovering and reporting irrefutable evidence that Earth is not the center of the universe. While this happened almost four centuries ago, the unpleasantness that occurs when science disagrees with ideology is still very much in existence.

Science, religion, and politics are such integral parts of the human experience it is inevitable that they intertwine. But when scientific issues become political issues, the facts are often lost in the turbulence of emotion that follows. Everyone has an opinion. Faith and reason collide. Politicians and pundits pontificate and are given far more media attention than actual scientists.

The irony is that for many of these issues, there is very little debate within the scientific community. Public perception of present scientific controversy is a poor reflection of what is actually going on in science. As an example, scientists seriously disagree over the legit-imacy of String Theory and the cause of certain dis-crepancies between the Theory of Relativity and the Standard Model of Quantum Mechanics, but very few doubt the Theory of Evolution or the basic mechanics of climate change.

This November, we will once again have the opportunity to choose our leaders. In this column I will outline some of the facts, controversies, and misconcep-tions surrounding two contemporary scientific/political issues. It is not my intention to promote Republicans, Democrats, or any other political party, nor is it my intent to disparage anyone’s religious faith. I do, however, encourage readers to strongly consider candidates’ views on

V O T E S C I E N C E !

I T ’S A L L R E L AT I V E by Jeff Burkett, Mathematics & Natural Sciences Instructor

“I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who hasendowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has

intended us to forgo their use.”

–Galileo Galilei

ULTIMATELY, SCIENCE DOES NOT

MAKE CLAIMS CONCERNING

ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY OR TRUTH

their genetic code, and even small mammals like mice share 90 percent. In fact, all animal life on Earth shares at least some DNA.

Finally, we can witness evolution in action. Mi-croscopic organisms like bacteria and viruses can produce many generations within a matter of days. In fact, bacteria are evolving so quickly that every antibiotic ever developed is in danger of becoming useless in the very near future. On a larger scale, speciation has occurred so recently in some animals that although they can still interbreed, they cannot produce viable offspring. Examples include the liger, which is the sterile offspring of a lion and a tiger, and the mule, which results from mating a

donkey with a horse.

Despite the overwhelming evidence, resistance to the Theory of Evolution

is as strong today as resistance to a heliocentric solar system was in Gal-ileo’s time. Ironically, much of this resistance is founded in yet another misconception about evolution. The

Theory of Evolution is not a theory about the origins of life, and does

not preclude an intelligent designer. Evolution only describes how organisms

develop into other organisms over a long period of time through the process of natural selection. It says nothing about how life actually began. For anyone except the most stringent literal interpreters of the Bible, evolution and faith are not mutually exclusive ideas.

A second and far more dangerous conflict that has arisen between science and politics is the threat of climate change. While it remains politically expedient, financially profitable, and enormously convenient to continue to burn fossil fuels in mas-sive quantities, it is also changing the atmospheric composition of our planet in ways that may not be conducive to our survival.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide traps heat in the bio-sphere that would normally be radiated back into space. This is a scientific fact. A fact based on basic chemistry and physics that anyone who’s taken a high school science course can understand. You can prove it using nothing more than a terrari-um, full spectrum light, tank of carbon dioxide, and thermometer.

evidence. A single, confirmed observation to the contrary is enough to topple a scientific theory. Finally, and most importantly, a theory must have practical applications. It is not enough that a theory be mathematically and observationally consis-tent. It must also be useful. If you can’t use the knowledge to build something, observe something, or make future predictions about some natural phe-nomenon, than the idea is not a theory. The Theory of Relativity, for example, is used every day in aircraft navigation, global positioning systems, and nuclear power plants.

Likewise, the Theory of Evolution meets all of these criteria. The volume of empirical evi-dence accumulated in favor of this theory is so overwhelming that listing it all in detail would easily fill an entire library. What follows is a brief overview of some of the key facts.

Most obvious is the fossil record. Millions of fossils have been recovered and dated using several different methods to ensure accuracy. Methods such as potassium-argon radiometric dating and biostratigraphic dating use vastly different techniques to estimate the age of a fossil, but they typically agree quite well. Many fossils are hundreds of millions of years old, and evolutionary tracks are clearly documented for thousands of species, including Homo sapiens.

Next, most plant and animal species have vestigial structures. These are parts in the body of an organism that presumably played some role in the past, either for that species or for its evolutionary ancestors, but have little or no current function-ality. Examples of vestigial structures in humans include the tonsils, wisdom teeth, appendix, and tail bone. Human fetuses have tails for part of their development, and occasionally babies are born with tails—although they’re usually surgically removed.

More recently, additional evidence has been uncov-ered as a consequence of mapping the genomes of humans and other animals. Chimps and bonobos, our closest cousins, differ from us by approximately 2 percent. All primates share at least 93 percent of

It is exactly this type of politicking that this col-umn seeks to address. Climate change is a scientific, philosophical, and moral concern that should be assessed according to the best available evidence. Whether one is liberal or conservative has nothing to do with the massive experiment we’re currently performing on our atmosphere. Democrats and

Republicans alike burn fossil fuels, and both will suffer the consequences of doing so to excess.

Perhaps the most painful thing about the whole problem is

this: fossil fuels are great. They’re cheap, they’re abundant, and they store energy in a highly concen-trated, easily accessible form. Like most people, I love being able to jump in my car and go wherever I want, whenever I want. I love having light when it’s dark outside, and I really love being warm in the winter and cool in the summer. Unfortunately, unforeseen side effects of burning such vast quan-tities of these fuels are dangerously altering the chemistry of Earth’s atmosphere. As a species, we need to have a serious conversation about how our lifestyle choices are affecting the livability of our planet. Painful choices must be made. It is difficult to see that happening when large numbers of people, including many of our leaders, are in denial of basic scientific facts.

Ultimately, science does not make claims concern-ing absolute certainty or truth. Theories have been disproved in the past. On the other hand, scientific ideas are rooted in empirical facts and are not a question of opinion or belief. A person who makes a statement such as “I do not believe in climate change” or “I do not believe in evolution” is com-mitting a grievous error in judgment. Aren’t they tacitly admitting that they have not made decisions and formed beliefs on these matters based on the best available evidence? If that is the case, what does it say about their ability to make important financial decisions, write and enforce laws, negotiate with other nations, and govern in general? A candi-date’s stance on these two issues provides a valuable litmus test concerning their ability to make rational decisions based on factual information. In Novem-ber, I encourage you to pay attention, apply reason to each issue, and vote Science!

Unfortunately, many politicians, pundits, and media outlets continue to operate in a state of denial and create a false sense of debate over this issue. We live in a world in which there are hypersonic jets, open-heart surgery, and space stations, yet many people steadfastly refuse to “believe” in science when it comes to climate change.

Nevertheless, the evidence that global warming is occurring has become so overwhelming that it would be impossible to cover it all within a single column. I strongly urge you to visit climate.nasa.gov and discover what one of the most respected scientific agencies in the world has to say regarding sea level rise, global temperature rise, warming oceans, declining arctic sea ice, glacial retreat, extreme weather events, and ocean acidification.

It is important to understand that this is not some hypothetical, future disaster. It is something that is happening right now, it is accelerating more rapidly than many of the more dire predictions anticipat-ed, and it is a worldwide problem that is affecting every country on Earth including the U.S.

June represented the 328th consecutive month in which the average global temperature exceeded the 20th century mean. In the United States alone, 3,215 high-temperature records were matched or exceeded that month. Midwestern drought condi-tions are so severe that the entire corn crop is at risk. Virginia’s Hampton Roads region has become so susceptible to flooding due to rising sea levels that the state recently commissioned a $50,000 study to examine adaptation strategies to address

the problem. In a ridiculous display of partisan bickering, some

politicians have forbidden the authors of the

study to refer to “sea level rise”

because the term is too

“liberal.”

a D a m va l l e y

l e a d d e s i g n e rg r A P h i C d e s i g n B sQuArter 6

c H e l s e a H a m m e r B e c k

e d i t o r i n c h i e fg r A P h i C d e s i g n B sQuArter 9

k e y

B F A - B A C h e l o r o F F i n e A r t sB s - B A C h e l o r o F s C i e n C eQ . - Q u A r t e r

k at e e n g e l m a n n

M a n a g i n g e d i t o rP h o t o g r A P h y B F AQuArter 12

m i c H a e l g a u r k e e

a s s i s ta n t d e s i g n e rg r A P h i C d e s i g n B sQuArter 4

st

af

f

cO

ve

r

a D v i s O r sc H r i s t O P H e r t i t l e

c o n t e n t/ e d i o r a l a d v i s o rC o m m u n i C At i o n s A r t s i n s t r u C t o r

J e n n i f e r t H O m P s O n

B u s i n e s s a d v i s o rA d v e r t i s i n g i n s t r u C t o r

D O u g l a s s B r u l l

g r a p h i c d e s i g n a d v i s o rg r A P h i C d e s i g n / W e B i n s t r u C t o r

c O l O P H O n

min ima l i s p r i nted us ing a fou r co lo r p rocess on 80 lb d iscovery du l l (tex t) and 100 lb d iscovery du l l (cover) . header and body text i s i n Qor , Qor bo ld , and others . Ar t i c le header text i s i n Futu ra med ium and body text i s i n Be l l mt.

D i s c l a i m e r

the i n fo rmat ion and op in ions expressed and or any a r twork d isp layed here in represent the op in ions and ideas o f i nd iv idua l cont r ibuto rs and do not represent the op in ions o r ideas o f the Art i nst i tu tes i nte rnat iona l m innesota .

D i s c l O s u r e

see a ip rog rams . i n fo fo r p rog ram durat ion , tu i t i on , fees , and other costs , med ian debt , federa l sa la ry data , a lumn i success , and other important i n fo .

t H a n k y O u

We wou ld l i ke to thank express Press fo r the super io r qua l i ty and serv ice they prov ide i n support o f ou r pub l i cat ion .

A d A m vA l l e y

m i C h A e l g A u r K e e