- Utah-Astronomy - mailman.xmission.com

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

RE: [Utah-astronomy] science and religion
by Joan Carman 09 Aug '05

09 Aug '05

Thanks for the link Michael. An excellent editorial - and that's saying a lot for the SL Tribune. It is my guess that Buttars didn't receive a warm welcome when he proposed ID in schools in June and now with the help of Bush, who has let his deeply religious beliefs spill over in to secular/science based matters before, he thinks he will get a warmer reception in the DN (sorry Joe - it is owned by the LDS Church). Too bad the DN doesn't have a Letters to the Editor forum.

7 11

"ID" in the D News
by Patrick Wiggins 09 Aug '05

09 Aug '05

'Intelligent design' in school is a no-win move http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/1%2C1249%2C600154412%2C00.html Patrick

1 0

Re: [Utah-astronomy] The Pits
by Olhomorto＠aol.com 09 Aug '05

09 Aug '05

As a matter of fact I did see a "strange" guy. I left the site about 2:30-3:00 and about 1/2 mile from the site a middle-to-old-aged-looking guy was walking along. I wondered who would be out walking at that spot at that time of the night. I wondered whether he reached Roger and Daniel. Didn't see any girlfriends. Mike

2 1

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

09 Aug '05

Hi Steve, I haven't spent but a few minutes with any Lanthanum eyepiece, so I can't really comment about the overall quality. But I think their main claim to fame is long eye-relief. This is a tremendous benefit to folks who must wear eyeglasses when they observe. But it seems that of the people who observe without glasses, very few choose the Lanthanums. If you were willing to spend $245 on an eyepiece, you've got a lot of options. The Celestron Axioms aren't bad. They're not up there with Panoptics, but they're half the price and are very good except at the edges. The Harry Siebert's aren't bad in that price range, although they're sort of crude looking. And you might want to wait a couple of months to see if Televue does another holiday special. I picked up a 13mm Nagler last year for $250 (about $50 off), so perhaps they'll do something like that again. F/8 is a real nice place for a 12.5" scope. and you should be able to use just about any eyepiece you like in it. Michael -----Original Message----- From: steve.nielsen(a)comcast.net Sent: Aug 8, 2005 11:54 PM To: Utah-Astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Eyepieces 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. _______________________________________________ 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

Article from deseretnews.com
by Joe Bauman 09 Aug '05

09 Aug '05

Joe Bauman (bau(a)desnews.com) thought you might be interested in reading the following story, which appeared on deseretnews.com on Tuesday, August 9, 2005. Do not reply to this messsage. To send a message to the sender, use the address here: bau(a)desnews.com. NOTE FROM SENDER: Hi All, I thought you would enjoy a column by one of my friends, Marjorie Cortez. Best wishes, Joe 'INTELLIGENT DESIGN' IN SCHOOL IS A NO-WIN MOVE My neighbors just returned from a year in France. Their daughter, who will enter 8th grade in the fall, had a very un-Utah-like school experience. For starters, there were seven kids in her class. The school schedule resembled a college routine, early classes one day, a late start the next. Sometimes lunch was about 45 minutes, other times it lasted three hours. FULL STORY: http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/1%2C1249%2C600154412%2C00.html

1 0

Re: [Utah-astronomy] Orion OIII filter
by Michael Carnes 09 Aug '05

09 Aug '05

Haven't tried it, but I can pass along this tidbit. Until a couple of years ago, the Orion filters were manufactured in Japan. I have one of the older Ultrablocks, and it's an excellent filter. Then Orion changed to a Korean manufacturer. There's no reason to expect that quality would go down, but it's reasonable to expect there might be some differences. I haven't seen any comparative reviews of the older vs. newer filters. Michael -----Original Message----- From: Chuck Hards <chuckhards(a)yahoo.com> Sent: Aug 8, 2005 4:40 PM To: Utah-Astro <utah-astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com> Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Orion OIII filter Has anyone tried the Orion OIII filter? The price for the 2" is particularly attractive. __________________________________________________ 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

(no subject)
by Tyler Allred 08 Aug '05

08 Aug '05

Hello everyone, I made the trip to Wolf Creek last Friday night, and like others, I fought the clouds all night. However, I did manage to get a couple of decent images. Here is a link to one that I really like. In fact, I think this is the best image I have ever captured. It is a luminance only image of the Pinwheel Galaxy (M33). Here is the link to the thumbnail. Click on the thumbnail for the larger version. http://www.utahastronomy.com/album16/M33_L_2x20_min_avg_NI I hope someone out there enjoys this image. I will try to get color data sometime soon. Cheers, Tyler

5 5

Re: [Utah-astronomy] The Pits
by Olhomorto＠aol.com 08 Aug '05

08 Aug '05

Saturday night Daniel, Roger, and I showed up at the gravel pit, and the sky was pretty darn good. The clouds to the southwest reflected a lot of glare from the cities, but the view to the east was good. We also had some pleasant company from a local farm dog who made friends with us, and spend the entire evening. Mike Bailey

2 1