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

Re: fever swamp
by James Cobb 05 Aug '05

05 Aug '05

Have you considered the case of Antony Flew? He found something convincing in the ideas behind ID. Excerpted from http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=315976 > Famous Atheist Now Believes in God > > One of World's Leading Atheists Now Believes in God, More or Less, > Based on Scientific Evidence > > The Associated Press > > NEW YORK Dec 9, 2004 — A British philosophy professor who has been > a leading champion of atheism for more than a half-century has > changed his mind. He now believes in God more or less based on > scientific evidence, and says so on a video released Thursday. > > At age 81, after decades of insisting belief is a mistake, Antony > Flew has concluded that some sort of intelligence or first cause > must have created the universe. A super-intelligence is the only > good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of > nature, Flew said in a telephone interview from England. > > Flew said he's best labeled a deist like Thomas Jefferson, whose > God was not actively involved in people's lives. Here is an interview with Flew: http://www.biola.edu/antonyflew/index.cfm Regards, Jim On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 21:05:45 -0700 (PDT), Richard Tenney <retenney(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > I respectfully but completely disagree. And therein > lies the rub -- most professional scientists are just > plain sick and tired of the whole debate, because in > fact there ISN'T a serious challenge of facts -- they > exist only in the the minds of religionists that want > to force their beliefs on others. >

1 0

From Mr. Darwin himself
by Michael Carnes 04 Aug '05

04 Aug '05

One of the many invalid points that creationists often make about evolution is that it is somehow dry and uninspiring, stealing from the mystery of their particular creation myths. Here are the final lines of "On the Origin of Species": "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved." Dry? Uninspired? Hardly. That is one beautiful chunk of writing, coming from a scientist filled with wonderment. The entire book manages to be both solid science and worthy literature. This is why Darwin belongs in the Pantheon with Newton, Einstein, Kepler and the rest of the greats. Just had to get that said.

1 0

Re: Utah-Astronomy Digest, Vol 30, Issue 12
by James Cobb 04 Aug '05

04 Aug '05

OK, I'll bite. For what years was evolution known as the "Thesis of Evolution" (a term I've never read in any literature), and what year did it become the "Theory of Evolution"? What triggered the transition? Inquiring minds want to know. Jim On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 13:04:03 -0700 (PDT), South Jordan Mom <sjordanmom(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > See, even the deseret news is misusing the word "theory". It > should be the Thesis of Intelligent Design against the theory of > evolution. Evolution did once start out as a thesis, a hypothesis, > and over time it became a theory. Intelligent Design needs to go > through the same processes before it can correctly identify itself > as a theory.

2 1

Wolf Creek Friday Night
by Richard Tenney 04 Aug '05

04 Aug '05

I'm probably going to leave the scope in the car after tonight's star party (for the girl's camp in AF canyon) and head up to Wolf Creek Friday. Anyone else planning to be up there? Rich ____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

2 1

Re: [Utah-astronomy] Wolf Creek Friday Night
by Michael Carnes 04 Aug '05

04 Aug '05

>I'm probably going to leave the scope in the car after >tonight's star party (for the girl's camp in AF >canyon) and head up to Wolf Creek Friday. Anyone else >planning to be up there? Whaddaya mean, interrupting this group with talk of astronomy ;-) Wish I could go, but it's off to NC to see my parents. Have a great time.

1 0

reply to Sjordanmom e-mail
by Joan Carman 04 Aug '05

04 Aug '05

You know, I still think a lot of this comes down to the fact that most lay people do not use the word theory in the same way and with the same definition as the scientific community does. I think there needs to be more effort to make sure that everyone is actually speaking the same language. I see the word theory misused all the time on TV (even on the news), in movies, in politics, etc. To most lay people the word theory means a conjecture, a guess. The definition of theory for most lay people I have personally known means no more than " a guess." The definition doesn't even approach the meaning of the word hypothesis, let alone the true meaning of the word theory. I think if people were more educated about the true meaning of the words "hypothesis" and "theory" there might be a lot less argument about evolution vs. ID/creationism being taught - sjordanmom. My e-mail actually meant to reply to this. Excellent point.

1 0

Re: [Utah-astronomy] science and religion
by Joan Carman 04 Aug '05

04 Aug '05

That is an excellent point! One that should be presented at the public hearing if and when this bill is presented to the Utah Legislature next year. I will make a point to remember it and if someone else does not cover it, I will.

1 0

Re: [Utah-astronomy] Wolf Creek Friday Night
by Joan Carman 04 Aug '05

04 Aug '05

I was definitely planning on Wolf Creek Friday night. Got some great pictures a few weeks back from that location. Will post them eventually. See ya there!

1 0

science and religion - long
by Joan Carman 04 Aug '05

04 Aug '05

Now for my position.....I haven't been able to read all the e-mails (so many) but here it is anyway First, to Don Colton - I respectivefully disagree with your comments about Galileo. "The Church" of Galileo's time was all-powerful and it charged him with heresy and called him before the Inquisition to answer the charges. He was tried and convicted of hersesy for teaching that the Earth revolved around the sun. In a major change of policy, he was not burned at the stake. He was given the "option" to recant his teachings (which he did) and was placed under house arrest for the remainder of his life (10 years) in which he was unable to travel, unable to teach or have friends visit. He was only allowed interaction with his immediate family members. In 1993 (approximately) "The Church" was reviewing its records and noted that Galileo's name was still on the books as a heretic. They have now removed his name from the list with an apology (350 years later). It was not the scientific community that stood against Galileo, it was "The Church." As to Kim Hyatt and the bruhahah he has created (well it got me to sign on didn't it?) Legislators often pose a possible "bill" to gage the citizenry reaction. While you may have just heard of it, this was first reported by the SL Tribune in June. The Letters to the Editor in the Tribune were numerous and mostly against the proposal and went on for weeks. (refreshing to see) Just because the reaction was negative, doesn't mean that Chris Buttars and Gayle Razicka will back down. I refrained from submitting my own letter to the editor to the effect of "bring it on bozos," with what may be naive expectations that Utah, in general, isn't that narrow minded. If they do present a bill, there will be public hearings on it and I anticipate attending and speaking at the hearing to express my displeasure with such a proposal and it appears you will be there as well. I am sure many more from universities and educators would also speak, but MANY must respond. While this mixture of science and religion has reared it's ugly head in Utah, this state is by no means unique and is, if it were really possible, behind the times. Some states have already had to deal with the Creation/intelligent design versus evolution problem and they are stumbling because of it. What I see is a far more disturbing trend - the wholesale rejection of science, scientific research and scientific inquiry on religious grounds. That has been tried, it was called the Dark Ages and, apparently, there are many who want to return to it. It is far more important and necessary, that "science minded" types speak out loudly and often to turn the situation around. My very personal view is that God (intelligent design) created the world on which I reside. It is glorious in its variety and balance. However, my view differs from pure creationism in that it took 4.5 billion years to do so and God used his entire range of "scientific" understanding to do it. If a person were to read Genesis with a fairly good understanding of evolution, they would be quite surprised to see how well evolution and Genesis compliment one another. It is only the time frame that is at issue. Moses was a prophet and honorable God-fearing man. Had God told Moses that he took trillions and trillions of hyrdogen atoms ..... Moses would not have understood. God gave him an explanation that he could understand. Moses dutifully reported it as accurately as possible. It is a simple explanation for a simple man (note, I did not say simpleton, just simple - as in simplier times) More importantly, - that is my personal belief. My personal belief and anyone else's personal beliefs do not belong in the science classroom. Let's teach facts, as best we know them, and not personal beliefs. Well, now to compose my response to the Pluto, Sedna, "Xena" thing. (It will have to wait a while, I do work for a living).

2 1

Re: Utah-Astronomy Digest, Vol 30, Issue 10
by James Cobb 04 Aug '05

04 Aug '05

On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 21:05:45 -0700 (PDT), Richard Tenney <retenney(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > James, > > You stated: > > "Intelligent Design aggressively challenges the status > of many professionals currently laboring in secular > academia". > > I respectfully but completely disagree. Actually, I was quoting. Jim

1 0