RIVERSIDE CITY COLLEGE ANNUAL FACULTY LECTURES

The Faculty Lecturer is chosen each year by vot~ of his colleagues to deliver an address on a schola~ly sub1ect of general interest. The series was inaugurated m 1961 by Associate Professor Cecil Stalder. Other Faculty Le~tur~ ers have been Professors Lee Gladden, Thomas Meidell Johnson, Howard Burton,. David. Mac~uish, J~hn R. Horton, Allan 0. Kirkpatrick, Keith Bailor, Cecil John-son, and Richard Schneider.

Cover design by Richard Cantu student artist

.. ..

In The Search For Life by

ROBERT T. DrxoN

The publication of a book is about as close as a man can come to giving birth . During its four-year pregnancy, there are birth pains, those are the deadlines one has to meet. But then there is a complete release at the time of publication to enjoy the newborn child and to receive compliments like, "Isn't she beautiful," or "You must be proud." This becomes a time of assessment of just who was involved in making such a venture possible.

All our lives are influenced by other people, some­times unseen, content to work behind the scenes . Often we fail to recognize who it is that has been most effective in providing opportunities for us to become the person we are capable of becoming. You would surely call such a person a friend . I had a friend who took me on a field trip to Griffith Planetarium. Spe was my fifth grade teacher, Miss Laura Stroud. Another friend made me write so many papers I lost my fear of writing: She was my ninth grade English teacher, Mrs. Close. The man who prompts this reminiscing was my math professor in college. He taught me more about how to teach than all the education courses combined. He said, "It's more important to teach than to show how much you know." The sad part is that I never expressed to Professor Beegle my feeling and now it's too late.

While in college I met a friend who said "yes" when I said "will you" and she has done nothing but help me become a more complete person since that time, my wife Marian.

Then there was a man who joined me for lunch in the Commons at the University of Wisconsin and who

- 3 -

has been a friend always, Pres. Ralph Bradshaw. Even before that I had come in contact with R.C .C . through the Dean of Extended Day. He not only hired me to teach a night class but he forced me to think straight. When I came to him with a half-baked idea, he shot it down every time. When I came with a valid, well-thought out argument, he bought it. I always knew where I stood and I appreciated that. A man who works behind the scenes to efficiently administer, for each one of you, these facilities for the educational process, Mr. John Ohmen. Then there was a man we see a lot of as teachers. He was a book salesman by the name of Bob Howland. Bob walked into my office as he might on almost any day, but this day was different for me because he said to me, "How would you like to write a book?" and that's the way it began . I am deeply grateful to him-that was four and one-half years ago .

There is a source of friendship which we seldom draw upon as faculty, that of interacting with our col­leagues. One day I had a problem, trying to illustrate adequately the motions of a comet for the text. I took an idea to a colleague to see what he thought. He came up with a better suggestion. Why not use the Walt Dis­ney approach of cartooning? Thereby, Professor Kroger gave me an idea which grew into one of the most unique features of the book. After the book was in the works, a former student came to me and said, "Aren't you going to need some help typing? I'd like to be a part of the project." Her only compensation was just that, being a part of the project. Bessie Weigel both criticized, con­structively, and typed the entire manuscript. I have one other friend who is very important to me. She typed the teacher's manual and she does many things each day which make life easier for me, our division secretary, Janet Hardcastle.

While there are many other friends who relate to R.C.C., there is one who, in my mind, epitomizes the

-4-

•I

spirit of this college and who has worked for the past fourteen years, without financial compensation, to pro­vide you, the students, with the very best opportunity for an education. The facilities and the programs now avail­able to you at R.C.C. are better and broader than ever before offered. A large share of all that R.C.C. is today must be to the credit of Mrs. Carolyn Diffenbaugh.

I wish to introduce one more friend but must wait until nearer the end of our session today.

Man has always exhibited an interest in life, yet his search has taken many different directions and has been pursued at various level. I would like to quickly survey typical approaches and then proceed to what I would term a cosmic approach to our search for life. I am going to pass over the most obvious approach, that of anthropol­ogy, because I assume that you are familiar with the advancement of this science in its search for the origin and evolution of life.

I will pass to something I am more qualified to talk about. In 1877 an Italian observer name Schiaparelli described a network of straight lines which he observed on the planet Mars. Later an American astronomer named Percival Lowell allowed his imagination to build on these observations, speculating that this network of lines con­sisted of canals which had been dug by the little Martians to irrigate their fields and transport their produce by barges. The surface of Mars does take on a greenish-brown appearance in the Martian spring, turning brown in the summer, thus suggesting the possibility of vegetation. While we still see these straight line features today as we look through a telescope, we have had several superior views of the planet Mars using space probes which fly by and radio back TV closeups of the planet. These pictures show no such canals and no hint of vegetation but rather a barren, era tered surface somewhat like the moon. Yet researchers who have duplicated the soil and atmospheric

.5.

conditions which exist on Mars and with the aid of ultra­violet radiation, now have indications that organic ma­terial may be developing there at the present time. So there is still hope that life may one day be found on Mars. Even today a probe is being launched which will reach Mars in November, will be placed in orbit around the planet, and will take over 1,000 photographs as com­pared to the 100 we have taken thus far. The question of life on Mars may be answered in 1975 when we land a probe on its surface, dig up some Martian soil, and ., analyze it to determine any organic content.

If we find no evidence of life, even in its simplest form on Mars, our hopes will be substantially lessened for finding life on any other planet in our solar system. Our consideration of temperature alone would discourage us, for Mercury ranges from 650° F on its sunlit side to 450° below zero on its dark side, a difference of ll00° between day and night time readings. Venus boasts a high of 1300° F and a low of 400°. There is a possibility that, in the clouds of Venus, where the temperature is more rea­sonable ( 30° F) life might develop and actually change the very nature of that planet. Living organisms could change the makeup of its atmosphere and perhaps make it more suitable for life. This we would think of as the evolution of the planet to bring it to a condition within which life might be sustained. On the other hand, Jupiter and all those planets beyond are so far from the sun that their temperatures range downward from a high of 200° below zero to 450° below zero, just about as cold as any­thing can get. While it may not be impossible for life to develop and survive at these temperatures, it seems highly improbable. Only Mars, with its more earth-like range of temperatures ( +100° to-200° F) , appears a reason­able habitat.

But haven't we made a basic assumption that life exists only in forms at least similar to those we experience on earth? This assumption is merely a starting point,

- 6-

from which we might ask the fundamental question, "What is life, what differentiates the living from the non-living, and what factors are essential for the origin of life?" Persons competent to answer these questions paint a picture of a very simple beginning, then a very long series of minute changes, occurring over millions of years, which resulted in the present state of all living ma­terial. They would specify that the essential elements which are necessary as building blocks for life as we know it are hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, carbon, phosphorus, and sulfur, all examples of non-living matter. When these elements are combined in the correct proportion and energy is supplied, as from the sun, life may be created. From that point forward in time and with the process of reproducing itself, a single living cell or conglomerate of cells changes to create new forms. This process of re­peated creation events is called evolution.

In no sense is the process of evolution in conflict with the events of creation. Evolution is a process; crea­tion is an event which produces a new form, distinct from other forms. Does creation mean something from nothing? Was the first living cell created from nothing? Absolutely not. "\Ve have already established the necessity for hydro­gen, oxygen, nitrogen, carbon, phosphorus, and sulfur. But what of the origin of these elements? How were they created? There is no evidence that such elements are being created on earth today or that they ever have been. It is true that combinations of elements (compounds) are being formed, but not the elements themselves ( ex­cept a few radioactive derivatives). Then how does it happen that the earth contains these elements? In the next few minutes, I hope to answer this question and another, the possibility of life elsewhere in the universe.

We should not stop with a search of only the planets of our own solar system, for our sun is like one grain of sand on the beaches of this earth as compared to the myriad of other stars which compose the known universe.

-7-

In order to discuss the possibility of other stars possessing planets on which life might exist, it seems appropriate to look to the origin and evolution of stars in general. Here we will find, in a sense, a parallel to the approach men have taken to try to discover the origin and evolution of living organisms on this earth. The astronomer has one significant advantage. The ancient history which he stud­ies is still current when he perceives it. This sounds like double-talk for how can something that is old be per­ceived as being in its youth?

First, let's consider the relationship between space and time. Albert Einstein thought that time and space so entwined that he called time the fourth dimension. I think we can show their relationship by considering light, the primary means by which the astronomer studies his subject. Light travels at a speed of 186,000 miles per second. This is one of the big numbers of astronomy, but big numbers lose their meaning unless visualized. Let's imagine flying southward to the equator, then flying around the earth directly over the equator. Suppose our jet has unlimited speed capabilities and it accelerates until it is traveling at the speed of light, 186,000 miles per second, and you're on it. You would then be capable of making 7Y2 complete trips around the earth in one second.

With this in mind, what is indicated if we say that light from the moon requires 1 Y2 seconds to reach us, or that the light of the sun requires 8Y2 minutes? This is a statement of time, yet it indicates distance because we know how fast light travels. Let's push out to Pluto, outermost planet of our solar system. The light from Pluto requires 5~ hours to reach us. Next let's move to the brightest star we see called Sirius. Its light requires 8Yi years to reach us. Another bright star, Rigel, requires 850 years. Even without a telescope we may see stars in our own galaxy at distances in the order of 10,000 light years. A light year is equal to the distance light travels in

-8-

a year (6 trillion miles). The telescope extends that view of the Milky Way galaxy to approximately 75,000 light years, revealing many of its estimated 100 billion stars.

The next logical step out into space would carry us to another galaxy, a collection of stars separated from our own Milky \Vay galaxy by virtually empty space. One such galaxy is within the grasp of the naked eye, if viewed under ideal seeing conditions. It is the Great Galaxy in Andromeda, located so far from us that its light requires

.. over two million years to get to our eyes.

But let's halt this space travel long enough to see how the ancient history of the universe is beginning to reveal itself. Since our sun is only 8Yi minutes away, as light travels, if it went out you would not know it until 8Y2 minutes later. If Sirius went out, you wouldn't know it for 8Yi years; or Rigel, 8Y2 centuries; but for the Androm­eda Galaxy there is a delay of over 2 million years. This is to say that when the astronomer studies the stars in that galaxy, he sees them as they were 2 million years ago, not as they are today. On the other hand, Andromeda is one of our nearer neighbors as galaxies go; hence this effect will only increase as we journey onward.

If we think of the Andromeda Galaxy as our first giant step out into space, we will not run out of known objects until we have taken at least 3000 more steps just like the first, with each step equal to 2 million light years. Then 3000 such steps will carry us to a distance of 6 billion light years, the likely home of the quasars. As we look at such objects, we are witnessing a part of the universe, as it existed 6 billion years ago, at least one billion years before the sun or earth or moon were created.

Recent dating of moon rock samples suggest that the moon is about 4Y2 billion years old, an age which agrees very closely with the estimated age of the earth and sun, which tends to suggest a common origin of these three objects and perhaps of the entire solar system. But what

-9-

do we know of origins of stars and galaxies 5 or 6 or 10 billion years ago? We may be actually witnessing the birth of galaxies when we observe the most distant qua­sars, but we need not leave our own Milky Way galaxy nor go so far back in time to witness the creation of stars.

In spite of the fact that all of man's recorded history is but a moment when compared to the time scale of stars and galaxies, he is still privileged to see examples of each stage in the life cycle of a star. For, like men, stars , are being continuously created, and they too go through a life cycle. It is, in fact, here that he seeks clues to the origin of the sun, the earth and to life itself. Evidence is building that we may witness the birth of several new stars in the region of the Orion Nebula within the next 40 years. This is rather remarkable when you think that a star pregnancy requires, on the average, about 100,000 ( sometimes one million) years.

What happens during this time, and why does it happen within a nebula? A nebula is a huge cloud of gas and dust, whose particles are in continual motion in a random fashion. However, the word random should not be construed to mean uncontrolled. For if under the influence of a force called gravity the motions of a suffici­ent number of atoms move toward a common point, a chain reaction may result in which additional atoms are attracted to this same region. The result, very high tem­perature and pressure, and H-bombs start going off. A star is born, and from its surplus material the planets are formed. Once stabilized, a star spends much of itsJife converting hydrogen to helium; but later _it may change its nature quite drastically, becoming a red giant, a vari­able star. In still later stages, the star may become much hotter and instead of manufacturing helium, it proceeds to manufacture heavier elements like nitrogen, carbon, and sulfur.

The simplest atom, hydrogen, has only one particle

- 10-

in its nucleus and one electron orbiting around the center. To visualize the nature of the atom, imagine sitting in a large stadium. The nucleus may be pictured as a golf ball placed at the center of the playing field, and a small gnat flying around the outside of the stadium may represent the electron. You can see that the atom is mostly empty space. Helium is the next more complicated atom, with the equivalent of four golf balls ( protons and neutrons) in the center and two gnats (electrons). Progressing to

.,. heavier elements, we come to carbon with twelve golf balls (protons and neutrons) and six gnats (electrons), and so most elements have been formed in the cores of very hot stars.

Then in the case of some of these stars with very hot cores, an explosion occurs, producing a super nova, a star which brightens until it may be seen in the daytime. The heavier elements are thrown off into space and inter­mixed with hydrogen gas, as revealed by spectral analysis; later to be gathered up as suns, planets and eventually people like you and me. What I'm saying is that at least some of the atoms which compose this planet and your body are the same atoms which were created in the cores of very hot stars and then spewed out into space when the star became a super nova.

How long ago must this have happened? Is the uni­verse old enough that some stars could have evolved to a supernova stage before our sun was created? The answer to this question is based on the fact that the astronomer observes the universe as an expanding universe, every galaxy moving away from every other galaxy; and those that are farther appear to be moving faster. Now if we know the distance to a galaxy and how fast it is moving we can calculate how long it took to get to its present position. Such calculations would set the age of the uni­verse at approximately 10 billion years, ample time for stars to form, evolve and erupt as super novae, spewmg their heavier elements back into space.

-11-

Other approaches to dating the universe result in ages between 10 and 30 billion years, but there was a beginning. If we could reverse time and all the processes of evolution, we might visualize all the material of the universe turning back into hydrogen gas and moving back into a single region of space. The clump of material is often called the primordial atom and the tremendous explosion which set it on its way is called the Big Bang. But what of the origin of the primordial atom and the forces which caused it to explode? These questions no scientist has answered. Or what of man's creation on this kind of time scale? The scientist estimates that the cre­ative step which produced man occurred no more than two million years ago. \Vhat he would call modern man is probably not over one-half million years old.

If the life span of the universe ( 20 billion years) were compared to the life span of a man (70 years) then the last evolutionary step which produced modern man required only one day. I think that this analogy is quite significant when we realize that the traditional hangup between "Evolutionists" and "Creationists" is centered in this matter of time. To be specific, the Bible states that man was created in a day, the scientists say it took at least a million years. Perhaps the difference is only a matter of perspective.

Let's leave that topic temporarily to answer the final question we posed, regarding the possibility of life exist­ing on planets which orbit other stars in our galaxy or anywhere in the universe. We have reviewed theories regarding the formation of the sun ( a star) and the earth ( a planet) and we cannot help but surmise that similar processes take place throughout the universe. Astronomers conservatively estimate that 100,000 other stars, out of the 100 billion in our galaxy, are almost identical to our sun; hence it is reasonable to assume that many of these are circled by planets on which living forms may have been created. \Vhile we would not expect to see such

-12-

a planet, we might detect its presence by the star's motion. A single star, with no planets, would move in a straight line through space; but the presence of planets would produce a wavy motion in the star's motion. Barnard's star is such a star.

It is rather interesting to speculate concerning the problems of communication with intelligent beings, if they do exist, on a planet at a distance of perhaps 1,000 light years. If we sent a radio message to such a being, it would take 1,000 years to get there and 1,000 years for the answer to return. That's not much of a dialogue, is it?

Our discussion to this point has dealt with a search for physical life and yet physical life and health become important to the individual only when he appears in danger of losing it. The apathetic attitude toward solving the smog problem tends to prove this statement.

I perceive that many of you, the youth of today, are saying that the physical life is not enough, that life does not consist in the abundance of things, but rather that there is another dimension to life. It is a dimension which says that it is more important to relate to people than it is to things. This involves feelings and emotions, aspects of life which we might term non-physical, aspects of life which cannot be described organically. For in­stance, can you tell me where love or hate resides in your body? These are not attributes which can be analyzed in the biochemist's test tube. Let me illustrate. Consider a very simple physical activity, a handshake. \Vhile al­most anyone could describe the physical aspects of a handshake, the real significance of a handshake is non~ physical and eludes description by anyone except the per­sons involved. A handshake, although given in the same way physically, may have a wide range of non-physical interprestations - from a big fat nothing to a sexual experience. Yet the interpretation depends almost en­tirely upon a non-physical relationship between the two

-13-

parties involved. The one party may not fully know what the other party is experiencing at this point in time be­cause the non-physical world of the individual is always private to some degree. The innermost being of one person cannot be known to another.

Friendship is another aspect of life whose very es­sence is non-physical. Again, friendship does not reside in any fixed organ of the body. We all experience it to varying degrees but cannot explain exactly what it is. However, the lack of explanation does not hinder us from enjoying it. The expressions of friendship may be physical, such as giving of gifts or fixing a faucet or whatever, but the physical expression never is friendship itself.

If I could break into the privacy of your non-physical world and look at the aspects of life you hold most im­portant, I think I would find, in addition to friendship, love ( perhaps near the top of the list), wisdom ( the knowledge of truth), peace, freedom , happiness.

The search for truth and the ability to love are two of the most demanding but rewarding aspects of life. When I speak of love being demanding, I do not refer to physical love, which the Greeks called eros and from which derives the word erotic. This is the animal level of loving; however, erotic forms of love become beautiful when they are expressions of a higher level of loving which the Greeks termed phileo. This is the level of loving which places one's concern for his partner on a par with his concern for himself. It is a love which causes a person to give of himself to others. Perhaps the hardest thing to give is time, time to listen, time to communicate, time to really know the other person. Love is kind, love is pa­tient, love never seeks its own desires. Man, that's de­manding, and frustrating too, because it seems so unreach­able; yet it is this possibility for a higher level of loving which separates man from animal.

What about this matter of truth? Some would say

-14-

that absolute truth does not exist or that it cannot be known, and yet those same people practice judgment based on some element of truth. Even if every external ethic were removed, every person has a knowledge of truth to a certain degree. It is not man's inability to know truth that frustrates his life, but rather the imbalance between what he knows to be true and what he lives out every day.

There are essentially two ways to bring the "Actual Me" into balance with the "Potential Me" One is by the denial of what I know to be true, thus reducing my concept of the "Potential Me." The immediate result of such a procedure may be a reduction in frustration, but the end result is emptiness. On the other hand, to hold to what is known to be true and implement this in one's life always produces a more advanced level of living. I am firmly convinced that to live out the truth one knows is the gateway to a greater understanding of truth, but I am equally aware of the frustrations and apparent limitations one experiences in this attempt. The net result of the attempt is, however, a degree of inner peace, peace with oneself.

The noted psychologist, Carl Jung, said, "About a third of my cases are not suffering from any clinically definable neurosis, but from the senselessness and aim­lessness of their live." If we were to assess the general trend in America today, we would have to conclude that more is being subtracted from the "Potential Me" than is being added to the "Actual Me."

The signs are materialism, the ism of getting all -one can get by whatever means. It enters big business in the form of money considerations placed ahead of people considerations, and it takes the form of undue expenditure of natural resources and pollution because it's cheaper that way. Materialism enters into politics when it be­comes more important that the "right people" be served

- 15 -

than that "all people" be served. It enters our personal lives when the profit motive supplants the love motive and robs us of the time and will to love others.

Scientism is another insidious threat to the moral strength of America and to the individual. Many people who condemn science because it produced the atom bomb or for some other reason are worshipping science as a god. They expect miracles from their god. They think that they can go on polluting this earth and somehow the scientist will save them with some cure-all method of air purification, resource replenishment or new fuels, etc. I would suggest that the solution does not lie with the scientist but with the individual.

I see one more "ism," that of the worship of the physical. If there is one clear-cut distinction between man and animal, it is the capacity of man to transcend the physical. I have made that point earlier. Yet many people today are giving themselves to physical pursuits which represent compromise with their innermost selves, thus denuding themselves of much of what they know to be true. Ultimately, they wake up to find only emptiness.

To define a problem and not suggest a solution would be absurd, and yet this is precisely where many academic disciplines have left us. Any solution which has been suggested is of the "do it yourself" variety. Furthermore, a careful analysis of most world religions must fall in this same category. I have experienced nothing more frustrat­ing than to sit in a place of religious instruction and be p_resented with elements of truth in relation to my own life, which I could accept and then go from that place powerless to practice these truths.

One day I realized that I had a friend whom I had known for sometime, but yet I had never really heard what he was saying. He told me I ought to love my neighbor as myself. Man, if he only knew my neighbor,

- 16-

he'd never ask me to do that. But that isn't all he said. He said, "If you have seen me, you have seen God," for He claimed to be the Son of God. Many of the people who heard Him cried, "Blasphemer," while only a few recognized the truth of His statements. Who called Him a liar? It was the religious leaders of that day, those who had power and feared its loss, those who thought they had the world by the tail, those who thought they had all the answers to life. What a parallel today!

But who recognized the truth He spoke? There was Matthew, a tax collector who did not fear the sure loss of his job because of this new-found friendship. There were James and John, fishermen who had fished all day and had caught nothing, but who at His word lowered their nets and caught more fish than they could pull in, then left all to follow Him. There was Luke, a doctor who had a very high income, but who evidently thought it was more important to follow Christ than to make money. There was Simon, a member of a political party which advocated the overthrow of the Roman government. His life was revolutionized when he met Christ, and he pro­claimed the truth of God's word to everyone he met. There were thousands of others, from all walks of life, who also believed that Christ was the Son of God.

Now comes the most important question that you or I will ever ask. Were these people fooled? Is Jesus Christ the Son of God, or is He the biggest liar who ever lived? I don't see any middle ground at this point. When He said, "I have come to give you life, that your living may be full and meaningful," or "Through my death you may know God personally," were these just empty words or were they the very words of Zif e?

Though shelves of libraries are lined with books pro and con on this question, you will not find the answer there. In fact, you will never know the answer unless you are willing to perform an experiment. It is a non­physical experiment, but let me first illustrate using a physical one. The Greek philosophers of the second and

- 17 -

third centuries had agreed that if two objects of different masses ( different weights) were simultaneously dropped from a high place, the heavier one would surely hit the ground first. This was a very reasonable theory indeed. So reasonable was the theory that no one bothered to perform any such experiment, until Galileo arrived on the scene in the late 1500's. He must have reasoned ... why buy a theory about which you can perform an experi­ment and see for yourself if it is true or false? Galileo selected a number of objects of different mass (weight) ., and climbed the Leaning Tower of Pisa. From this van­tage point, he dropped two objects simultaneously and to the amazement of all observers, the two unequal ob­jects fell side by side and struck the ground at the same time. There were skeptics in the crowd, and they said, "I don't believe it. Try it again, Galileo." Again it was demonstrated that two objects of differing mass fell side by side. Now perhaps a few of the skeptics were con­vinced, but perhaps some thought that the whole matter was a trick and they went away disbelieving. But then the news of Galileo's experiment spread and many said, "I won't believe it is true until I see the experiment per­formed or perform it myself."

Not all of us would require such personal observa­tion of physical phenomena, but everyone of us must of necessity require personal observation of non-physical phenomena. Much of what I presented to you concern­ing life in the universe was based on the observations of professional astronomers and we are willing to buy these observations and their interpretations to a degree because they are purely physical in nature. We do not have the possibility of personal verification anyway.

But I would urge you not to treat the non-physical aspects of life in the same manner. I would urge you not to accept the statements I have made regarding God or His Son on basis of my experience. Because of the private nature of non-physical experiences, one man's experience can never suffice for another person. It is the denial of

-18-

this truth, in practice, that has led to frustration in the lives of many persons.

What kind of an experiment can you perform which will answer the questions concerning Christ's identity? It must be of a voluntary nature, something you decide to do yourself. The experiment is simply an act of inviting Christ to enter your Zif e as the controller of all that you are and all that you do and accept Him for exactly who He said He is. I'm not talking about just another religion, a religion for those who are afraid to die, but rather I'm talking about an experience, a personal experience, for those who are desiring to live right here and now. It rep­resents a willful act which links you with the power of God, the power of the cosmos; hence here is the cosmic approach to life. If you perform this simple experiment, you may expect results; solid results like a peace that no man can explain nor can he give, a freedom to be your­self in a way you've never experienced before, a love that transcends any level of loving you have experienced be­cause the love of God (agape) lives out through you and affects every aspect of your life, a life which is meaningful to you. Impossible? Sure it is, in your own ability. That's exactly why you have to let go and let Christ empower your life.

If I were to describe the way I feel about my life right now, I'd call it a blast, a blast without drugs, a blast which leaves me fuller rather than emptier. In fact, life is so exciting I can hardly wait to see what Christ has for me next or how He plans to use me in relation to other people.

Many friends have influenced my life, but only One gave me life, and whatever is good or true or productive about my life is a direct result of God being invited to live through me. If you really want to experience life, in the fullest meaning of the word, then go to the source of life. God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your Zif e, but that plan will never be implemented until you make the first move.

I wish each one of you success in your search for life.

- 19-

ROBERT T. DIXON

Author of a new junior college text, Dynamic As­tronomy, Prof. Dixon has been director of the Riverside City College Planetarium since its opening in 1968. He first came to the college in 1964 as a mathematics and astronomy teacher. Since then he has taught mathematics, physics, data processing, and astronomy. Currently, he is chairman of the faculty curriculum committee, and presi­dent-elect of the Faculty Association.

Born and raised in Ontario, Dixon attended Chaffey High School and after wartime service as a Navy photog­rapher (Hawaii, Philippines, Saipan, Guam), he took a baccalaureate degree ( cum laude) from Seattle Pacific Col­lege ( where he was elected to Who's \Vho in American Colleges and Universities), and a master of science at the University of Wisconsin. Since then he has studied at USC and UCLA on National Science Foundation grants.

Prof. Dixon came to Riverside in 1950, teaching math, photography and astronomy at Poly and Ramona High Schools and serving as math coordinator for the City Schools.

Active in community affairs, Dixon has served on the Board of Directors for Watkins House and as chairman of the Board of Christian Education for First Baptist Church of Riverside. In 1964 and again in 1966 Dixon and his wife led tours of high school students to Europe, and in 1967 he conducted a similar tour of Mexico for adults.

Professor Dixon and his wife Marian have four children: Eleanor, Cynthia, Brian and Kristen.

-20-

ROBERT T. DIXON