May 2005 - Utah-Astronomy - mailman.xmission.com

RE: [Utah-astronomy] Scientists Boycott Evolution Hearings
by Richard Tenney 11 May '05

11 May '05

I believe the late Pope John Paul II said something to the effect that "Science can purify religion from error and superstition". I'll give my hearty "amen" to that. I was recently talking with a friend of mine, Duane Jeffrey, a zoology prof. at BYU, about an allegation that is brought up several times in the debate, which is the claim that "there is no direct evidence for macro-evolution", that is, one species evolving into another. He pointed out that there are, on the contrary, countless living examples, including the ones I tossed out recently about horses and donkeys and mules and ligers. In the plant kingdom for example, he said there are times when it's virtually impossible to tell where one species starts and another ends. And one example from the animal kingdom he gave me was of our own State bird, the seagull, which is found in virtually every part of the world. As you go from region to region, the gulls will vary slightly, but remain breed compatible with adjacent regions. So for an analogy, let's start in California with Gull "A". In Nevada you'll have Gull "B", which is breed compatible with A, and in Utah Gull "C", in Colorado Gull "D", and so forth; each adjacent Gull, however slightly different than the previous, remains breed compatible. But what's fascinating is where the ends meet, and it turns out that's someplace in Siberia; Gulls A and Z live in the same region, but are no longer breed compatible! Z however is compatible with Y, Y with X, X with W, and so forth on down the line, but the ends no longer are. For me anyway this is a perfect example of how the process works. The "ends" (Gull A and Gull Z) are no longer the same species. This is a simple example, but I believe it illustrates perfectly how it works. He told me there are hundreds of other examples that could be cited. -Rich --- South Jordan Mom <sjordanmom(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Point taken. The Catholics are definitely a good > example. Yahoo! Mail Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html

1 0

RE: [Utah-astronomy] Scientists Boycott Evolution Hearings
by South Jordan Mom 11 May '05

11 May '05

Point taken. The Catholics are definitely a good example. But let's take my deep south southern baptist cousins for example. They are avid creationists who take the Genesis story in the bible completely literally. There is no entertaining the thought that it might be meant to be viewed in more of a metaphorical sense and there is no room for evolution in their view. If you try to have any type of scientific discussion with them, they don't want to hear any of it. And most of them are college educated people too, but in their own words "they don't need to explore these 'alternative views' of how the world came to be because their pastor says Evolution is wrong, the bible story is 100% correct, and their pastor is more of an authority than any scientist is." And of course, they have the right to their opinions but I think it is those kinds of right wing opinions that get the scientific community so exasperated they end up lashing out at religion. That, and the misunderstandings and misuses of the term "theory." As for myself, I have always encouraged my children to be open minded. I have exposed them to varying religious beliefs and to science. I told them what my opinion was and added that they are just my opinions and my opinions are ever evolving the longer I live and experience and observe things. They may come to different conclusions than I do and that's fine, as long as they are always thinking and evaluating things for themselves. I don't want them ever just taking someone else's word (not even mine) about something. I want them to always be looking at all the evidence they can possibly find and reaching their own thoughtful and ever evolving conclusions. Michael Carnes <michaelcarnes(a)earthlink.net> wrote: Just a little correction here. I didn't intend my remark about control to be a blanket statement about organized religion. It was intended to refer to the ID/Creationist types and perhaps some other religious conservatives. It's not really news that many denominations (Catholics for instance) appear quite comfortable with the idea of Evolution (and even Astronomy, although too late to do Galileo any good). The last thing I want to do is come down hard against religion. There are a number of quite reasonable people who consider themselves believers of some sort, and the last thing I want to do is alienate them. Healthy religions have always shown the ability to grow and incorporate new knowledge into a coherent world-view. When times get a little scary is when the demagogues arise to take advantage of the situation. Michael _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. Learn more.

2 1

RE: [Utah-astronomy] Scientists Boycott Evolution Hearings
by Lambert, Aaron 11 May '05

11 May '05

This has turned into a rather long dissertation. It is mostly a collection of my thoughts on this issue. Feel free to delete it, but I welcome other's opinions on what I have said here. I have been following this debate in different forums now for a while (as I am sure many of you have). It seems to me that there are several different issues going on. First, there are many, many levels of belief in the ID view. These range from "the world was created in six literal days and is 6000 years old" to "a higher intelligence guided evolution of the galaxy and life over billions of years". Most people, I believe, fall somewhere in the middle or towards the latter, but most scientists' arguments seem to attack ID on the basis of a belief in the 6-day, 6000-year theory. The most vocal of the ID supporters seem to also come from this group because they have the biggest beef with evolution (as they understand it). The main problem here, as I see it is that they want to "throw out the baby with the bath water". These people IMO will most likely not change their minds and these arguments do not address the concerns of mainstream "believers". There are many aspects of evolution that can be taught that do not disagree with the latter group's beliefs (micro-evolution, for example). The scientific community would do better to focus on this common ground. Secondly, the scientific community also has a range of support for evolution (as to its methods, macro vs. micro, etc). The problem on this side is that the most vocal of the community also seem to have some beef with God. They do not seem happy just to teach their theories and the studies supporting them, but also are on a crusade to prove that God does not exist. Many directly attack faith by comparing belief in God to a belief in the Easter Bunny or Tooth Fairy. Just as Jon Christensen said, "I still do not understand why the theory of evolution precludes intelligent design," I do not see how evolution precludes the existence of God. It seems to me that they are separate issues and attacking the existence of God based upon the theory of evolution seems to contradict the scientific method (which the evolutionists invoke to disparage ID). You can read any evolution-based discussion on slashdot.org to see many examples of this condescending attitude. One recent headline was "The Pseudo-science of Intelligent Design". Now I am not speaking for or against whether or not there is a scientific basis for ID, but the topic alone is enough to aggravate supporters of ID and does not improve the chances of an intelligent debate or dialog. I also refer you to a recent National Geographic article on Darwin which many of you may have read. The first few paragraphs of the article basically state that if you do not fully accept the current theory of evolution as explained in the article and all its implications than you are unintelligent, uneducated, or both. It also expressed incredulity that anyone in this day and age would still believe in a God. There were some well-written replies to this article by other scientifically-minded folks who took exception to this, saying it is perfectly acceptable to question parts of the current theory and for scientists to have faith in a higher power. In fact science is required to question itself in order to refine its views. Having an unquestionable theory contradicts the very basis of the scientific method. I liked the recent article in the Deseret News about evolution being taught in Utah schools. The article stated that it was taught but not generally believed. This adds fuel to the fire, because what it should have said is that certain aspects or repercussions of macro-evolution (we are not created specially in God's image, for example) are disregarded while other aspects are accepted (genetic inheritance and micro-evolution). But the main point is that parents teach their children faith at home and church, and the schools teach scientific theories and discoveries at school, without attacking that faith. I think faith is being attacked on so many levels that some parents feel defensive. Objectively teaching the theory of evolution (pointing out its strengths and its weaknesses) would be better than how it is currently taught (as Gospel truth, if you'll pardon the pun) and ridiculing those who may not fully accept parts of it. I also think that science needs to be more accommodating in general to religion. Many scientists whose opinions I have read state that nothing about religion is scientifically or experimentally verifiable. I find this to be blatantly untrue. Perhaps the experiments cannot be conducted using test tubes and a bunsen burner and the results cannot be measured using a balance, but there are many experiments which can be performed to give evidence of a God. This is by no means "proof", but it is strong evidence which cannot be simply ignored or classified on the same level as the Easter Bunny. I consider myself a scientist and I have conducted many experiments which have served to verify the validity of my faith in God. I believe I am following the same scientific method as when I am trying to determine the mass of an atom in a lab experiment. In any case, I know there are several on this list who are open-minded to both a belief in God and are scientifically minded, and I am interested in how you view these issues. Thanks for your time, Aaron Lambert > -----Original Message----- > From: Jon Christensen > Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 1:17 AM > To: utah-astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com > Subject: RE: [Utah-astronomy] Scientists Boycott Evolution Hearings > > > I still do not understand why the theory of evolution > precludes intelligent > design. Perhaps Evolution is the design. Unless the > opponents to Evolution > are claiming to know the mind of god, arguments like this are > futile. Faith > can not be proven, and schools are not the place to use as a > battleground > for idealistic crusades. > > ~Jon > > >From: Patrick Wiggins <paw(a)trilobyte.net> > >Reply-To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com> > >To: utah astronomy listserve <utah-astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com> > >Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Scientists Boycott Evolution Hearings > >Date: Mon, 09 May 2005 22:56:13 -0600 > > > >http://www.livescience.com/othernews/ap_050509_scientists_boycot.html > > > >Patrick > > > >_______________________________________________ > >Utah-Astronomy mailing list > >Utah-Astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com > >http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy > >Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > Utah-Astronomy mailing list > Utah-Astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com > http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy > Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com >

2 1

Re: [Utah-astronomy] More nice sunspots and Boycott
by Brent Watson 11 May '05

11 May '05

Looks like you opened up a "sucker hole" on the discussion board too. Discussions like this one tend to get a bunch of agitation, but not much motion towards a solution of any kind. People seem to like the (pointless) debate though. (Pointless because there can be no solution, and the end result is ususally only further polarization.) Brent --- Patrick Wiggins <paw(a)trilobyte.net> wrote: > I've got a sucker hold passing over the house at the > moment and was able > to see what the folks at SpaceWeather are talking > about. > > While not as easy to see at 1 power as the last big > spot this one is > still impressive (looks kind of like a tear in the > photosphere). > > Patrick > > > Space Weather News for May 10, 2005 > http://spaceweather.com > > DEJA VU? A big spot is growing on the sun--again. > Today sunspot 758 is > almost as wide as the planet Jupiter; two days ago > it was sparse and > unimpressive. Like sunspot 756 in late April, this > new active region > reminds us how quickly big sunspots can > materialize--even during solar > minimum. > > _______________________________________________ > Utah-Astronomy mailing list > Utah-Astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com > http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy > Visit the Photo Gallery: > http://www.utahastronomy.com > Discover Yahoo! Find restaurants, movies, travel and more fun for the weekend. Check it out! http://discover.yahoo.com/weekend.html

1 0

Re: [Utah-astronomy] More nice sunspots
by Canopus56 10 May '05

10 May '05

--- Patrick Wiggins <paw(a)trilobyte.net> wrote: > This one [Sunspot 758] is still impressive (looks > kind of like a tear in the photosphere). I don't know enough about solar dynamics to say if they are related, but Sunspot 758 - http://spaceweather.com/images2005/10may05/midi140.gif looks like it is growing at the intersection of two coronal holes - http://spaceweather.com/images2005/10may05/coronalhole_soho.gif - Canopus56 (Kurt) P.S. - I'd like to see any Sun after our local "Seattle spring." __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail Mobile Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail

1 0

More nice sunspots
by Patrick Wiggins 10 May '05

10 May '05

I've got a sucker hold passing over the house at the moment and was able to see what the folks at SpaceWeather are talking about. While not as easy to see at 1 power as the last big spot this one is still impressive (looks kind of like a tear in the photosphere). Patrick Space Weather News for May 10, 2005 http://spaceweather.com DEJA VU? A big spot is growing on the sun--again. Today sunspot 758 is almost as wide as the planet Jupiter; two days ago it was sparse and unimpressive. Like sunspot 756 in late April, this new active region reminds us how quickly big sunspots can materialize--even during solar minimum.

1 0

RE: [Utah-astronomy] Scientists Boycott Evolution Hearings
by Michael Carnes 10 May '05

10 May '05

>The jury is still out for me as to whether there may be some type of Supreme Being(s) or not, but as for >organized religion, Michael is right IMHO. Organized religion is more about gaining control and authority over >people and their money than it is anything else. Just a little correction here. I didn't intend my remark about control to be a blanket statement about organized religion. It was intended to refer to the ID/Creationist types and perhaps some other religious conservatives. It's not really news that many denominations (Catholics for instance) appear quite comfortable with the idea of Evolution (and even Astronomy, although too late to do Galileo any good). The last thing I want to do is come down hard against religion. There are a number of quite reasonable people who consider themselves believers of some sort, and the last thing I want to do is alienate them. Healthy religions have always shown the ability to grow and incorporate new knowledge into a coherent world-view. When times get a little scary is when the demagogues arise to take advantage of the situation. Michael

1 0

RE: [Utah-astronomy] Scientists Boycott Evolution Hearings
by Michael Carnes 10 May '05

10 May '05

It's really pretty simple. The Theory of Evolution has been subject to test, criticism and re-evaluation for 150 years. It has met every single challenge. As with any valid scientific theory, it also has predictive power. It is strongly supported in both the fossil record and in observation in everyday life. While it is certainly open to new data, it is one of the most robust theories in science. And if you actually READ Darwin, you realize how close to the mark he was. Many scientists are religious and many aren't. Most scientists realize that it makes no sense to force religion--concerned with how you should live--into science--explaining how the universe works. They also realize that the process of science may not yield the answers about how people should live with each other. Science and Religion are two separate spheres. The boundaries may be hazy at times, but they are important to each other. Many mainstream religions realize the importance of this. If anything, Science makes people realize that they have to upgrade their view of God and the Universe. They are grander and more elegant than the picture that comes from simple myths. If intelligent design is anything other than pure B.S., then its propents have to stop whining about being 'excluded'. They have to posit testable hypotheses, they have to subject their results to peer review, and they have to admit when they're wrong--just like real scientists. Of course they won't do that, because that's not really what this is about. This is about gaining authority and power over people.

1 0

Scientists Boycott Evolution Hearings
by Patrick Wiggins 10 May '05

10 May '05

http://www.livescience.com/othernews/ap_050509_scientists_boycot.html Patrick

3 2

Re: Re: [Utah-astronomy] New Images Posted
by astrodeb＠charter.net 08 May '05

08 May '05

Tyler, What were your exposure times on the Leo Triplet? I'd like to get at least an hour of exposure with my Rebel. I sure like your CCD camera. Debbie > > From: <astrodeb(a)charter.net> > Date: 2005/05/08 Sun PM 05:36:00 MDT > To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com> > Subject: Re: Re: [Utah-astronomy] New Images Posted > > I believe the faint galaxy is IC 2763. I saw it also on a picture taken with the Canon Digital Rebel. I'm waiting for the weather to clear. > > Debbie > > > > > From: Joe Bauman <bau(a)desnews.com> > > Date: 2005/05/06 Fri AM 09:52:52 MDT > > To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com> > > Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] New Images Posted > > > > My Gosh, those are amazing! Did anyone else notice that he turned the > > "trio" in to a quad (maybe more)? Also, is it possible to send us a note > > spelling out exposure times and aparatures, etc., for each? I'm especially > > interested in M81 because I want to start using my little SBIG on > > galaxies, if the weather ever clears. Best wishes, Joe > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Utah-Astronomy mailing list > > Utah-Astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com > > http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy > > Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Utah-Astronomy mailing list > Utah-Astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com > http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy > Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com >

1 0