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

What is to be taught in our schools?
by James Cobb 30 Aug '05

30 Aug '05

Earlier I asked how one falsifies SETI. I also asked how one falsifies the current evolutionist theory of abiogenesis, the rise of life from an inanimate chemical stew. I was surprised to receive zero answers. I think abiogenesis should not be taught in our schools because it is not scientific. Is anyone else disturbed that it is, or are the concerns only allocated to the teaching of intelligent design theory? Here are some other items that I think we should question being taught in our high schools: o The fraudulent Haeckel embryonic images. In the march 2000 issue of "Natural History," Stephen Jay Gould noted that Haeckel "exaggerated the similarities by idealizations and omissions," and concluded that his drawings are characterized by "inaccuracies and outright falsification." British embryologist Michael Richardson, interviewed by Science after he and his colleagues published their comparisons between Haeckel's drawings and actual embryos, put it bluntly: "It looks like it's turning out to be one of the most famous fakes in biology." o Haekel's biogenetic law, "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny." No research level embryologist accepts this, yet it plants an image in impressionable minds that appears to be very persuasive toward acceptance of evolution of species; o The fraudulent linkage of Haekel's images with von Baer's laws; o Pictures of pepper moths on tree trunks as evidence of natural selection. It turns out that pepper moths do not rest on tree trunks, but hidden under branches. For this picture, the moths (dead or alive) had to be *placed* on the tree trunks and photographed. Yet this picture is endlessly republished to provide evidence for natural selection; o Citation of Darwin's finches as conclusive evidence of speciation induced by natural selection. Someone else in this discussion has acknowledged that this is no longer considered by biologists as a legitimate example. Yet it remains in the textbooks; I'll stop the list here, but there are others. These items are routinely taught to impressionable minds, but are not accepted by the best biologists. Does this concern anyone? Note, for more on this subject I cite Jonathan Wells, "Icons of Evolution," from which some material above is quoted. Jim ---- Jim Cobb jcobb(a)acm.org

14 68

Evolution statement excludes 'design'
by Patrick Wiggins 29 Aug '05

29 Aug '05

Buttars threatens public referendum on the issue By Jennifer Toomer-Cook Deseret Morning News The state school board's proposed position statement on teaching evolution doesn't give an inch for a state senator's "intelligent design" concepts. That bothers Sen. Chris Buttars, R-West Jordan. He wants the board to insert language saying humans didn't evolve from any other species. If the board doesn't, he'll carry a bill that could require intelligent design be taught in public schools to counterbalance human evolution discussions. Or he may go for a public vote on the issue. Continued: http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,600158989,00.html Patrick

8 13

Re: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Evolution statement excludes 'design'
by astrodeb＠charter.net 29 Aug '05

29 Aug '05

I found this on the origin of man. This was published in 1909 by the First Presidency of the Church. Now if man is made in the image of God and man evolved from apes then God is an ape? right? Sorry Rich, I couldn't resist. My skies have been too clear lately. Debbie http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates$fn=default.htm$xhitlist_… > > From: Richard Tenney <retenney(a)yahoo.com> > Date: 2005/08/28 Sun PM 10:59:07 MDT > To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com> > Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Evolution statement excludes 'design' > > For the record, no LDS prophet (speaking as such) has, > to my knowledge anyway (and I've researched this a > fair bit), ever said that "evolution isn't true". > > That said, there have been some church leaders who > have made statements to that effect; most notably, > Joseph Fielding Smith (in his awful work "Man, His > Origin and Destiny", which at the time was strongly > countered by Apostle James E. Talmage, a geologist), > his son-in-law Bruce McConkie (backing JFS up) in > "Mormon Doctrine", and more recently, Boyd K. Packer > at a talk at BYU several years ago. Both the books > cited were categorized by church prophets David O. > McKay and Spencer W. Kimball as "the author's opinion" > only. > > The "official" position of the LDS Church is "we > really don't know". > > FWIW, > -Rich > > --- Chuck Hards <chuckhards(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > I haven't yet read Ms. Toomer-Cook's article, but- > > > > I'm in discussion right now with a person who has > > met > > with Buttars. Waiting for permission to quote this > > person on the list, but for now I can tell you that, > > by Buttars' own admission, Buttars said that the > > reason he doesn't believe in evolution is because an > > LDS prophet stated once that it isn't true. > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.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: RE: [Utah-astronomy] New Image Posted - M33 Pinwheel Galaxy in Color
by astrodeb＠charter.net 29 Aug '05

29 Aug '05

Awesome image Tyler. Superb detail. I think M33 is your best image so far. I hope to buy the SBIG ST2000XCM camera some day. Debbie > > From: "Tyler Allred" <tylerallred(a)earthlink.net> > Date: 2005/08/27 Sat PM 04:33:40 MDT > To: "'Utah Astronomy'" <utah-astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com> > Subject: RE: [Utah-astronomy] New Image Posted - M33 Pinwheel Galaxy in Color > > Thanks Rich. I really like that Wolf Creek site. I will be there if I can > swing another sleepless night! :) > Cheers, > Tyler > > __________________________________________ > > -----Original Message----- > From: utah-astronomy-bounces+tylerallred=earthlink.net(a)mailman.xmission.com > [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+tylerallred=earthlink.net@mailman.xmission.co > m] On Behalf Of Richard Tenney > Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2005 4:13 PM > To: Utah Astronomy > Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] New Image Posted - M33 Pinwheel Galaxy in > Color > > Tyler, > > Fabulous as usual. It's also a visually intriguing > target when you have some aperture and dark skies. > > Will you be coming up to Wolf Creek next weekend? > > > > > ____________________________________________________ > Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page > http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs > > > _______________________________________________ > 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

Power of the net
by Patrick Wiggins 29 Aug '05

29 Aug '05

Tonight's star party at SPOC simply underlined how much people reply on the web for information. The parking lot was packed and so were the scopes. But not because the skies were so clear but because many (most?) had heard that tonight was the night that Mars was to be at its best. To the credit of main stream media I did not see a single sensationalized story about Mars being huge tonight. In fact, those mentions that I did see all explained that the story going around on the web is false. But still they came. Happily, most who asked about Mars tonight took the real story quite well. Some even joked about paying too much attention to the web. But it does seem to show where many people are now getting their news. Sigh... Patrick

2 1

Intelligent Design: Utah Governor weighs in
by Canopus56 27 Aug '05

27 Aug '05

Roche, L. and Toomer-Cook, J. Aug. 26, 2005 (Friday). Huntsman opposes 'design' as science. Deseret Morning News http://deseretnews.com/dn/print/1,1442,600158730,00.html - Canopus56 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

1 0

Re: [Utah-astronomy] Darwin wasn't about science?
by Michael Carnes 26 Aug '05

26 Aug '05

>Digging a little deeper still, I found the boards actual hidden agenda for >Sept 2. You? A cynic? Guy, that's hard to believe...

2 1

RE: [Utah-astronomy] Missing mass (was: Wolf Creek and Meeting last night)
by Michael Carnes 26 Aug '05

26 Aug '05

>Michael, I think I remember something about this- >nature truly does abhor a vacuum- so vacuums are >unstable, and matter tends to 'pop' into existence on >a quantum scale due to the vacuum energy- or something >like that? It had to do with entanglement (Einstein's 'spooky action at a distance'), virtual particles and all sorts of weird stuff like that. I'm hanging on for dear life as I read it and I probably get more wrong than I get right. But it's still fascinatingly peculiar stuff.

6 13

Re: [Utah-astronomy] Darwin wasn't about science?
by Michael Carnes 26 Aug '05

26 Aug '05

No, they're just making it up. Darwin was all about a strict scientific explanation that matched the evidence and gave a basis for prediction and experiment. The Discovery Institute is all about power and money. They've been practicing this lie for years. They are very bad people. >OK, from all I remember from The Origin of Species, and it's been quite a few years, I don't remember it being >about a metaphysical view of the world. Anyone have any idea where they are getting this from? Is there any >truth in their statement or are they twisting things or just plain making this up?

7 9

Re: [Utah-astronomy] Egads, there are _two_ of us!
by Michael Carnes 25 Aug '05

25 Aug '05

>the wife >and kid are taking the telescope straight to eBay ten >minutes after he's dead! Or ten minutes before...

1 0