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

Evolution still being debated in Kansas
by Patrick Wiggins 10 Aug '05

10 Aug '05

Evolution still being debated in Kansas Board Chairman Steve Abrams told the Kansas City Star he expects the standards to be approved and sent to an education laboratory in Denver for review, with a final board vote likely in October. A majority of the 26-member committee that drafted the standards objected last week to changes made this summer by conservatives on the board, the newspaper reported. The changes use "intelligent design-inspired language," and intelligent design has no scientific basis, the committee wrote in a reply to the board. Aside from calling for a more critical look at evolution, the new language also changes the definition of science. The new definition no longer would limit explanations of the world to "natural" phenomena. Supporters of the intelligent design theory insist some aspects of the universe are too complex to be explained by natural causes. Copyright 2005 by United Press International

2 2

science and religion
by Kim Hyatt 09 Aug '05

09 Aug '05

Wow. I go away for a few hours and my computer is jammed with email about my earlier note. I know this is an emotional debate, but that's also part of the problem. I plan to get involved much more politically to defeat Representative Buttars and others who propose that creationism be taught in Utah public schools. Thanks, though, for all your thoughts on the topic. I enjoy a lively debate now and then, but this thing really set me off. I shouldn't be so naive, however. Politicians, by definition, haven't the sense to keep this issue out of public education. (Apologies to all rational politicians, whoever she may be.) Kim

11 32

Re: Regarding Design
by James Cobb 09 Aug '05

09 Aug '05

On Aug 9, 2005, at 8:27 PM, Canopus56 <canopus56(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > SETI is based on extrapolation from the probable > frequency of habitable planets that it is a reasonable > thing to look for electronic emmissions evidencing > possible inhabited planets. It does not presuppose > that ET exists and allows for the falsification of the > hypothesis that ET does exist. > > ID exploration is not based on the falsifable > hypothesis that a divine being does not exist. It > allows only that her or his existence may be proved by > further inquiry. If not proved, then the "researcher" > will simply continue with their faith based belief > that a divine being does exist. That is not > scientific reasoning; it is religious based-faith. Yes! Being falsfiable is fundamental for a scientific theory. Please tell me, how is SETI falsfiable? How is the theory of the rise of life from an inanimate chemical stew falsfiable? Regards, Jim

1 0

Eyepieces
by steve.nielsen＠comcast.net 09 Aug '05

09 Aug '05

I have a dilema. I have a 12.5" f 8 I made in one of Brent Watson's workshops. You know, the one where 8 or 9 people in trench coats wait for the sun to go down and then they all drive seperately to an airplane hanger to grind mirrors. Sounds like something from a Dick Tracy cartoon. Oops, I'm off topic. The mirror and the scope turned out really well. I'm pleased. My dilema is with the eyepieces. I can't find the next eyepiece to fit in to what I already have and I don't understand why. I have my starter scope, a 6" reflector from Orion and 3 eyepieces. The eyepieces are 1.25", 25mm, 17mm and a 10mm Explorer II's from Orion. They cost $28 a piece. My 12.5" scope has a 2" focuser. I bought a 50mm and a 32mm eyepiece from Orion. Optiluxe, $139 and $149. They both work great. The lagoon and swan nebula's looked great, but I wanted more power. Something in the 15 to 20mm range. I looked around and couldn't find that many that are reasonably priced, so I bought a 17mm Lanthanum from Orion. $245. It's a 1.25" that fits a 2" focuser. I tried the new 17mm and compared it to the old and inexpensive 17mm a saw no noticeable difference. I looked at the moon, nebulas, clusters and M31. Not in that order of course. So I'm sending back the new 17mm. I'm within the 30 day period for a refund. Why was there no noticeable difference? Does a 2" eyepiece give you better views and clarity than a 1.25" of equal size? It seems like it should to me. More glass surface in the lens. Please explain this to my tiny little brain. If a 2" eyepiece in the 15-20mm range is where I should go, please give me suggestions on which one to get. Do I need to spend more money for a good lens? I've thought about this and just can't reason it out. Any help would be most appreciated. PS. Thanks for helping me with the mirror Brent.

5 5

Regarding Design
by James Cobb 09 Aug '05

09 Aug '05

Many in this discussion have taken the dogmatic view that the design inference cannot be part of science--it's religion and the two cannot be mixed. I would be interested to know where those who are so strongly inclined against even considering the design hypotheses stand on SETI. Does not SETI consist of combing through EM signals looking for sign of intelligence? Does not ID consist of combing the signals embedded in DNA searching for sign of intelligence? By all means, do not teach in the high schools as certainty that ET exists. Is it OK to mention in that venue that the search for ET is an ongoing activity? Regards, Jim

3 2

Re: [Utah-astronomy] Regarding Design
by Michael Carnes 09 Aug '05

09 Aug '05

>I would be interested to know where those who are so strongly >inclined against even considering the design hypotheses stand on >SETI. Does not SETI co Good and fair question, Jim. As one who is completely comfortable with the general framework of evolution (and one who believes that ID is absolute hoo-ha) here's my take. We have increasing proof that complex organic molecules exist all around the universe. I expect that we may eventually find that simple life is an almost inevitable process of the chemistry. BUT THAT IS NOT PROOF. As far as the famous Drake equation (the equation wherein you calculate the number of possible planetary systems * number of habitable planets * time needed for a civilization to evolve, etc), it's all fun and interesting speculation. BUT THAT IS MOST CERTAINLY NOT PROOF. A great many people find it appealing to believe there are other civilizations out there. Maybe so, maybe not. Nobody wants to be alone, and some people use a God to keep them company, while others use alien civilizations. But we don't even have evidence of those civilizations, much less irrefutable proof. In other words, we don't even have a hypothesis, much less a theory. I think it's fine to search for signals from other civilizations. At the very least, we've learned a lot about information theory from the process. But no reputable scientist could claim we know whether or not anyone's there. Michael

1 0

RE: [Utah-astronomy] science and religion
by Michael Carnes 09 Aug '05

09 Aug '05

>That's where David Berlinski and other mathematicians come >into the argument. Their claim is that blind evolution is wildly >improbable and that some other mechanism or intelligent design is far >more probable. Yet another straw man argument Don. No one says there's any such thing as "Blind Evolution". There is Natural Selection (you really ought to actually READ Darwin). Natural Selection means than the less effective mutations get eaten or die from being less fit in some other way. What's left over (the critter with superior DNA) gets to reproduce. The ID Creationist crowd loves to win arguments nobody is having. It's easier than dealing with facts.

1 0

RE: [Utah-astronomy] science and religion
by Lambert, Aaron 09 Aug '05

09 Aug '05

I see where you are coming from now, Chuck. You said: > Religion IS inherently unscientific. Religion is > above science, apart from it. Science can never > approach religion and remain science. Science is > concerned with the physical aspects of the natural > world, religion is the human interpretation of the > spiritual world. The two exist on incompatible > planes, unrelated, apart. Science is a tool to > understand mechanics, religion is a tool to understand > the soul. To me, science and religion are not that different. Both are tools to discover "truth". I do not believe that there is one truth for science and another truth for religion. I do generally believe that (as someone posted here) the religion answers "why" and the science answers "how", but to my mind, that does not preclude the two from mingling. It seems to me that a scientist who believes in God, but chooses to ignore that set of data when making interpretations is not using all the pieces of the puzzle available to him or her when trying to decide what the picture is supposed to look like. Therefore, I would consider myself unwise to accept everything proposed by the current theory of evolution. Again, that is a totally separate issue from what should be taught in public schools. I am a strong believer in democracy and allowing local people to decide what is best rather than the federal government, but I think it would be unwise to introduce a fundamentally religious concept as part of a science class. Aaron

2 1

RE: [Utah-astronomy] science and religion
by Lambert, Aaron 09 Aug '05

09 Aug '05

Kim Hyatt wrote: > Sorry, Aaron - you'll get beat up a bit for > your post, but I must add my $0.02 as well. That's OK. I'm getting used to it. :) > Aaron, didn't know that you were a scientist. > If so, then why do you call evolution ONLY > (my emphasis, not yours) a theory? I agree with what you have said regarding the scientific definition of "theory". In my mind there is a very large chasm between what is theory and what is fact. That is not to say that the theories are not true. A fact cannot be changed. A theory may change with new information. Jim Gibson just stated it rather well: > The theory idea in science is a great idea. > Some smart person(s) comes up with a giant > virtual jigsaw puzzle and then people can > go out and try to find the real pieces. > When unexpected pieces are found, then the > smart people figure out how to make the new > pieces fit until the theory more closely > approximates reality or a better theory is > conjured up. I could not agree more. I accept a lot of what is proposed by the theory of evolution, as I understand it. To continue with the puzzle analogy, the problem I guess is that I am not convinced that the border of the puzzle has been completed. I still feel that there is a lot of possible explanations for how things got where they are. Sure the theory of evolution seems to be a good one, but then a lot of theories seemed like good ideas until they were overthrown by new evidence and information. Kim also asked: > How does that invalidate the theory and/or > evidence in favor of it? It does not. Being only a theory does not do anything about the evidence. It just means that it is someone's best guess at how the evidence all fits together. > Using the same criteria, how is > creationism/ID an equally valid theory? They are someone's idea of how the pieces fit. That is how all theories start. You defined a theory as: > ... a theory is a proposition that can > be tested or demonstrated through > inquiry and rational thought processes. In the very next line you said: > By definition, the broader implications > for Darwin's theory of evolution, that is, > evolution on a macro scale (geologic > timescale), cannot be tested in the > laboratory. Instead, the theory appears > to hold generally true for evidence gleaned > from the fossil record. If you claim that ID is not a scientific theory because it cannot be tested, then you must, by your own criteria, admit that the theory of evolution cannot be a scientific theory. It cannot be tested. We can only think "rationally" and see if it makes sense. How does that differ from ID? I am certain that the ID supporters believe that they are thinking just as rationally as the evolution supporters. Who decides who is most rational? Remember, there are PhDs on both sides. Aaron

2 2

RE: [Utah-astronomy] science and religion
by Lambert, Aaron 09 Aug '05

09 Aug '05

Chuck, I agree with the majority of your post. I do not believe that ID should be taught in schools for the same reasons you do not. That is the crux of this entire discussion and we are in agreement. In my post I was trying to point out the irony that while posting how you hated being labeled, you were guilty of the very same crime. You said: > My belief is that if > one is to teach a certain religious idea, > unsupportable scientifically BY IT'S VERY NATURE You also said: > I do feel that the religious right tries to cast their > opponents in a less-than-spiritual light, and I feel > that is unfair. I also feel that ID proponents can't > be indignant at being called unscientific when they > really are unscientific. Why are supporters of ID automatically "unscientific"? It seems to me that you are applying your own narrow definition of "science" to them just as they are using a narrow view of "religious" as their basis to label you. Jim Stitley posted: > I mentioned very early on in this thread that I am a > trained and practicing scientist (biochemist and also > amateur astronomer), BUTT I am a very spiritual person > and have my own belief in God. It is not either/or > UNLESS someone says it is (and then it still isn't). I am also a trained and practicing scientist, yet according to many posts here I am "unscientific". That is just as offensive to me as if someone called me non- religious. As an intelligent, educated person with a scientific bent, I believe that I have weighed evidence and come to a conclusion. I do not believe that religion is inherently unscientific. That is a large can of worms, I realize, and probably not worth discussing. If we are to have an intelligent, open debate about any topic we must drop the labels. We can't just wave our hand and say "Bah!" like Dogbert and cast an entire section of the populace (the majority, according to recent elections) into a bucket labeled "unwashed masses" and discount their opinions. That is the "intellectual elitism" I was referring to. Aaron > -----Original Message----- > From: Chuck Hards > Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2005 1:36 PM > To: Utah Astronomy > Subject: RE: [Utah-astronomy] science and religion > > > Aaron, respectfully, if one does not follow scientific > principals, one cannot be a scientist, and to invoke > deity as part of a technical solution is to clearly > set science aside. > > Yes, of course evolution is a theory, but it seems to > be very well supported by hard evidence- creationism > and ID is not. Just because some ID proponents have > science degrees and backgrounds does not mean they > have used valid science in their arguments. I have > yet to see any hard evidence in direct support of > creationism or ID, only testimonials, circular > reasoning, and otherwise unsuported "psuedo science" > that never stands up to critical analysis. There are > too many leaps of faith required to embrace it. Faith > is, after all, by definition, belief without works. > Science will never be able to test religion, by > religion's own self-defintion. > > On the other hand, I personally have seen massive > evidence of evolutionary principals. The fossil > record need not be absolutely complete in order to > bolster the theory. It may never be complete. For > that matter, our knowledge of physics and chemistry > isn't nearly absolute, yet the theories seem to hold > up just fine. Your car still runs, your telescope > works, your computer works, your prescriptions help > your health. Yet we still don't know the absolute > true nature of light and matter itself. > > I suppose a higher intelligence directly makes my > computer work and burns the gasoline in my cars > engine, yes? No need for all that molality and > Avogadro's number stuff after all. > > I am not sure what you mean by "intellectual elitism". > I personally am hardly a great intellect, there are > much more intelligent people on this list and all > around me. When I say "how dare they", I express my > concern at being called a non-spiritual person, when > my belief in God is very firm, and my daily life > embraces Christian principals. I do not believe in > Old Testament scripture as the literal Word of God, > and I think there is the great rift between the > creationist/ID proponent and the evolutionary > Christian. Some people are just not willing to > question what their elders have told them, and are all > too quick to question what their own eyes and minds > behold. Perhaps fear of ostracism lies at the heart > of this, who knows for sure. There are probably > thousands of reasons why some people will cling to one > view in the face of massive counter evidence. And I'm > sure creationsist/ID proponents feel that I'm just as > blind as they think I'm saying they are. Maybe > stubborn is a better word. > > I think it far worse to question one's belief in God > than to question one's grasp of techincal procedure. > > You see, I do believe in God, very much so, but that > belief is between me and Him. My belief is that if > one is to teach a certain religious idea, > unsupportable scientifically BY IT'S VERY NATURE in > public schools as science, then all religious ideas > must be taught in public schools as science, not just > fundamentalist Christian views. A Pandora's Box will > be opened, a door that leads ultimately to civil > conflict, religious rift, civil war and anarchy. It's > happening in other parts of the world right now. It's > happened sporadically in this country in recent times > (Clinic bombings & murders, for example, always > carried out by someone "doing God's work".) > > We have a remarkable country and constitution here. > We have the right to believe as we wish as long as it > hurts no one else. The only way it continues to work > though, is to stay vigilant and not let any particular > religious ideas creep into government. This is not a > stifling of freedom, it is what makes the guarantees > of freedom keep working for everyone- not just the > ones who happen to believe what you do. It either > works for all, or it works for none. > > Now, by changing a few labels in my post you made a > clever statement. But upon closer examination, are we > just raging in each other's faces, or really trying to > keep the issue in perspective? > > I do feel that the religious right tries to cast their > opponents in a less-than-spiritual light, and I feel > that is unfair. I also feel that ID proponents can't > be indignant at being called unscientific when they > really are unscientific. You can't take a > non-scientific idea and make it science just by > wishing hard and calling scientists "elitists". > > Aaron, ID is not science. It's relgion. Let's teach > it in religion classes, for those who want to attend, > not science class. Otherwise one day you may be > finding your kids being exposed to government > sponsored Zoroastrianism, Satanism, (gasp) Islamic > fundamentalism or....God knows what. >

3 2