- Utah-Astronomy - mailman.xmission.com

Re: [Utah-astronomy] Chris Buttars letter
by Michael Carnes 11 Aug '05

11 Aug '05

Well done Kim. The letter's quite good and maintains the appropriate tone.

1 0

divine design
by Kim Hyatt 10 Aug '05

10 Aug '05

Senator Buttars: I have read comments attributed to you in the Salt Lake Tribune regarding your support of the alternative creation premise you refer to as "divine design." The Tribune reported on August 3 that there is to be "no curriculum change yet in Utah" [public schools], yet your own online article in Yahoo News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20050809/cm_usatoday/evolutionlacksfossill…) seems to indicate your continuing support for such a change. I would appreciate it if you could clarify for me your position and whether you intend to pursue this issue as reported in The Tribune earlier, that is, by introducing legislation requiring that "divine design" be taught in Utah public schools. I have copied this email to my own Senate representative and to an on-line list to which I belong, Utah Astronomy, a group of mostly amateur scientists/astronomers who have recently been debating this topic in its on-line forum. Regards, Kim A. Hyatt, Architect P.O. Box 124 Mt. Pleasant, Utah 84647 T: 435.462.9207 F: 435/462.5013 M: 801.631.5228 kimharch(a)cut.net

2 2

RE: [Utah-astronomy] science and religion
by Lambert, Aaron 10 Aug '05

10 Aug '05

Allow me to show the flip-side of the coin. I strongly resent some evolutionists as characterizing rank and file creationists as being "non-scientists". HOW DARE THEY?!! This reeks of intellectual elitism. How can "scientists" admit that, "the fossil record is not complete..." yet also argue so vehemently that any alternative ideas are preposterous? The THEORY of evolution is just a THEORY. It is an idea that someone came up with to try to describe observations. According to the tenets of science, anyone can come up with a theory that they feel supports a specific group of data. Much of what is proposed by the theory of evolution is just as unprovable and unobservable as are those things claimed by the "theory" of ID. Many will probably argue that in time we will have the ability to prove the theory of evolution or test its claims. That is likely true, but if we are making up technology to prove our points, I could also claim that we may also develop the technology to test things of a spiritual nature. We will then be able to prove or disprove whether IDs claims are accurate. It's too bad that some people feel a need to marginalize spiritual beliefs in order to validate their "science". Aaron > -----Original Message----- > From: Chuck Hards > Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2005 11:59 AM > To: Utah Astronomy > Subject: RE: [Utah-astronomy] science and religion > > > > > And while I'm at it, I have to say that I strongly > resent some creationists and ID proponents > characterizing rank & file evolutionists as "Godless". > How dare they? HOW DARE THEY?!! What a terrible, > gross misjudgment. This reeks of the dark side of fundamentalism. > > __________________________________________________ > 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 >

13 20

RE: [Utah-astronomy] science and religion
by Dale Hooper 10 Aug '05

10 Aug '05

Of course, I guess we haven't really dredged through everything yet because I haven't heard the following: Analogous to the fact that in astronomy we say we have hydrogen, helium and a bunch of metals (i.e. elements heavier than helium)... It can also be said that there is really only one science, aka physics (i.e. the study of the laws that govern nature). Everything else is just probability and statistics. <g> -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+dale.hooper=sdl.usu.edu(a)mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+dale.hooper=sdl.usu.edu@mailman.xmission. com] On Behalf Of Cynthia Blue Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2005 7:33 AM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] science and religion Gah, I thought it was going rather well. :) Not that I'm reading them all... I get to work today and I have 36 new emails from the UA list! I don't think I can keep up! :) If anyone really thinks the stream should end, send me a direct email. ;) Cyn Chuck Hards wrote: >I keep hoping Cynthia kills this thread...I need to >hold onto some adrenalin for my daily run! > >--- Kim Hyatt <kimharch(a)cut.net> wrote: > > > >>I feel bad that you thought I might have been >>mocking - I certainly wasn't. >>I respect your training and occupation. >> >> > >__________________________________________________ >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 > > > > _______________________________________________ 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

Re: Re: [Utah-astronomy] On the other hand...
by astrodeb＠charter.net 10 Aug '05

10 Aug '05

I know what you mean Joe. Some words we have to spell instead of saying them because our beagle understands those words. Debbie > > From: Joe Bauman <bau(a)desnews.com> > Date: 2005/08/10 Wed AM 09:21:16 MDT > To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com> > Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] On the other hand... > > Not only have I always been amazed by the bond among the humans and > the cat in our family, I'm astonished by Fur-Fur's understanding of > many things, including our language. She definitely understands many > words. -- 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 >

1 0

Re: [Utah-astronomy] science and religion
by Michael Carnes 10 Aug '05

10 Aug '05

>I am having a hard time making the point that ID is just as testable as >blind evolution.. That's because you haven't made the point. Let's examine something you claim as a basis for your argument: >If an event is exceedingly improbable - it probably never happened. Probability theory doesn't say that at all. Probability theory says that a single roll of the dice/flip of the coin/division of the cell has a certain likelihood of each possible outcome. If you've got billion-to-one odds against something happening, then it probably won't happen on one try. But after a billion tries, it's quite likely that the event in question actually does happen. I think you really know this. The fossil record indicates that simple algal life (the stromatolite) goes back half the age of the earth. When you have billions or trillions of organisms reproducing at the rate of every few days, perhaps every few hours, then lots of seemingly unlikely things happen. Extend that over hundreds of millions of years, and a few of those mutations might actually turn out to be useful. Then when some clever pair of organisms invents sexual reproduction, then the combinations go through the roof. Those folks that play poker don't expect to get a royal straight flush on every hand, but it does happen from time to time. Apply environmental pressure (temperature, oxygen, food, etc) and you get adaptation and evolution. Danged if it doesn't look intentional. >As a side note, I have been involved in oil exploration for over 25 >years and I have seen numerous geological theories fall by the wayside >in that time. Geologists (at BYU and Utah) in the 1960's were adamantly >opposed to continental drift and would essentially heckle anyone who >gave it credence as I witnessed at a presentation made at BYU. >Continental drift is now the accepted theory. So much for objective >science. And the anti-drift people gradually became comfortable with drift, accepted the theory and moved on, doing good science along the way. Most of the religious community did the same with evolution, focusing on how humans should live in the world rather than outmoded mythology on how it came to be.

1 0

Sen. Buttars
by Kim Hyatt 10 Aug '05

10 Aug '05

I just sent an email to Senator Buttars and copied this list. My intent, as you can read, was to request clarification of Sen. Buttars' current position on teaching creationism in public schools. I thought I'd give him a chance to let me/us know directly where he stands before I write him formally. Perhaps I shouldn't have copied this list, but since I was only asking for clarification, I didn't think there would be any harm. Any other communication that I might have with Mr. Buttars will be between him and me (and those who have requested that I include their names in my formal correspondence) only. I will not involve this list further. Kim

1 0

Obs rep - Rise with the ISS - August 10 pass - Next pass 8/11 5:25am -2.0mag
by Canopus56 10 Aug '05

10 Aug '05

Because of high cirrius clouds, I didn't bother to pull out the camera. Nonetheless, the ISS passed over my OP in the avenues about 1 minute after the predicated SkyCal time at a low altitude 25 deg angle on a south to east track. I used a shortwave radio tuned to the NTS time broadcast for a time reference. The ISS was clearly visible through the high clouds and was between 0-1 mags, dimmer than Mars but brighter than alp Aries. You really get a sense of the term "faster mover" and "topocentric position" as the ISS barrels by at a low horizon angle. At 5:00am, the stars of the Peg Great Square were visible at the zenith and in the transition between astronomical twilight and nautical twlight. There are three more passes in the next few days - all of which may be clouded out based on current conditions - are listed below. The next best pass is tomorrow morning, 8/11 at 5:25am, when the ISS will possibly brighten to -2.0 mags, on a good near zenith track. Although I do not have a precision track for the pass, it looks like a wide-angle lens could catch both the ISS and Mars in the same frame. The Saturday morning track also features brightening to about -2.0 mags. But all this is tenuous due to the current monsoon weather pattern. - Canopus56(Kurt) ======================= Pass data for 3 more passes through Saturday Times are MDT, not UTC. Thursday 11 August 2005 5h25m45s ISS Appears 5h24m14s -0.9m az:228.0d SW h:25.8d Transit 5h25m45s -1.9m az:142.5d SE h:82.1d Disappears 5h30m44s 6.3m az: 54.6d NE 5h26m27.40s ISS Close to Capella, Alp Aur (SAO 40186, HIP 24608 HD 34029), mag=0.1. Separation: 0.541d Position Angle: 355.2d Good zenithal track on star chart Nautical twilight: 5:27am Sunrise: 6:33am Friday 12 August 2005 5h52m31s ISS Appears 5h49m58s 0.3m az:267.1d W h:11.0d Transit 5h52m31s -0.5m az:331.7d NNW h:31.3d Disappears 5h57m22s 5.7m az: 48.6d NE Good zenithal track on star chart Nautical twilight: 5:28 Sunrise: 6:34am Saturday 13 August 2005 4h43m45s ISS Transit 4h43m45s --.-m az:323.5d NW h:85.2d Appears 4h44m00s -1.7m az: 38.6d NE h:71.9d Disappears 4h48m44s 5.3m az: 53.7d NE Partial good zenithal track on star chart Nautical twilight: 5:29am Sunrise: 6:35am __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

1 0

On the other hand...
by Chuck Hards 10 Aug '05

10 Aug '05

I've said before that cheese, cold beer, and beautiful women are proof of the existence of God and His love for us. Further, I have seen evidence that not all humans have evolved from a more primitive state; some are still primitive- the australopithecene who changed my oil last week and didn't tighten the filter, the early hominid at the DMV who screwed-up my license three times last time I renewed, the Neanderthal telemarketer who can't depart from his script, the young Quest for Fire refugee who keeps calling my daughter and doesn't realize his life is in danger despite repeated warnings, the primate who cut me off in traffic this morning while absorbed with his cell phone. The missing link never went missing, it's still all around us. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

5 12

RE: [Utah-astronomy] science, religion and politics
by Dale Hooper 10 Aug '05

10 Aug '05

While I think we could have a lively debate about what each party stands for (or doesn't stand for <g>), who forms the base of each party, what are the dis/merits of the Kyoto treaty, etc., etc. -- I don't think this is the proper forum. I think this sub-thread pushes things past the boundary of where we can go and remain civil on this list. So, you are entitled to your personal political philosophy - but I hope that we can kill this sub-thread before this whole thing turns into a political argument. Clear skies, Dale. -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+dale.hooper=sdl.usu.edu(a)mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+dale.hooper=sdl.usu.edu@mailman.xmission. com] On Behalf Of William Biesele Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2005 8:03 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: [Utah-astronomy] science, religion and politics Kim: You had it right on your first post in this thread; but you put the wrong subject on the message. This is NOT about religion and and science. It is about politics and science. Intelligent design did not spring from a groundbreaking scientific discovery, but from a court decision. It is kept alive not by a series of scientific discoveries supporting the premise, but by a collection of politicians. Despite Don's protestations "It's hard to get published"; if scientific evidence did support intelligent design it would get published in scientific journals. Unpopular ideas have been published in peer reviewed journals, Stephan Jay Gould comes to mind; his work on 'punctuated equilibria' was not popular at first and did not fit the paradigms of the time. But he had evidence to support his conclusions. If there was evidence to support intelligent design it would be published. Probably in Nature with banner headlines. And the author would not have to worry about grants or tenure for the rest of his life. But there is NO scientific evidence to support intelligent design. So who keeps bringing it back up? Scientists? Espicopalians? Lutherans? Nope, Republicans and evangelical Christians. Why? The Republican Party has come to power by forming a coalition of corporate money and the religious right. How are these two served by denigrating science. Look at the Republican position on global warming and the Kyoto treaty. The public position is that by reducing green house gas emissions we would hurt our economy. Let me simply restate that. Reducing greenhouse gasses will cost corporate america money lowering profits. So is Bush's 'the evidence is still out on global warming' from reviewing the scientific literature or from a fear of cutting his politcal donors' profits? But where does the religious right fit into this problem? Without the religious right the republicans would not be elected. Estimates of evangelical christians are about fifteen to twenty percent of the population. And they vote republican. Without the evangelical vote Republicans may have lost the last election. So it is to the republicans advantage to get the evangelicals involved in elections. Was the push for the Defense of Marriage amendment from a fear of gay marriage or a desire to get the evangelicals voting. Where's the amendment, seems like the republicans have spent more time promoting tax breaks for the rich and corporate america than promoting the marriage amendment. How many tax breaks have they passed in the last year, have they even bothered to introduce the 'defense' of marriage amendment? So, those who believe in 'intelligent design' please spend your time ripping my post to shreds, enjoy. And to all those think scientifically, write your representatives, become politically active, vote, support your party, write letters to the editor. So why are we talking about science vs creationism on this list? Kim, it's all your fault - you put the wrong subject on your post. Bill B. _______________________________________________ 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

5 7