- Utah-Astronomy - mailman.xmission.com

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

05 Aug '05

Kim Darn, I can't find it, but I just read it this morning. It is an article from the Daily Herald (Rich, can you help here?). A professor of Zoology at BYU wrote about testing ID. He used as examples the East Indian Gods Vishnu,________- and Shiva. Very well done. It goes straight to your concern. >>> kimharch(a)cut.net 08/05/2005 9:27 AM >>> Hey, Joe. Is there a chance that you'll be writing something to address this? I realize, of course, that you wouldn't wish to editorialize, but are our concerns regarding this issue worthy of an article? On a related matter, I appreciated Don's remarks about problems some scientists have with evolutionary theories and arguments in favor of intelligent design or something akin to it. However, Don, it wasn't clear to me whether or not you favor teaching these positions in the science classroom. For me, the issue isn't whether such opinions are valid or not, the issue is whether they are testable, and therefore, could be investigated scientifically. I don't recall if any of the sources you cited had any thoughts in this regard. If Joe or someone else were to write a piece for publication that highlights the concerns of many of us, I sure hope that you would address an alternative viewpoint. You seem to be more versed in arguments that question evolution than I am. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joan Carman" <jcarmen(a)utah.gov> To: <utah-astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com>; <mwkwan(a)sisna.com> Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 9:10 AM Subject: RE: [Utah-astronomy] science and religion | 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. | | | _______________________________________________ | 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 | | ______________________________________________________________________ | This e-mail has been scanned by Cut.Net Managed Email Content Service, using Skeptic(tm) technology powered by MessageLabs. For more information on Cut.Nets Content Service, visit http://www.cut.net | ______________________________________________________________________ | | _______________________________________________ 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

New Images Posted
by Tyler Allred 05 Aug '05

05 Aug '05

Hi all. I just posted a couple of images to my gallery and I hope someone will enjoy seeing them. Here are the links to the thumbnails.... click the images for the larger versions. M31 - taken with a Takahashi Sky90 at f/4.5 http://www.utahastronomy.com/album16/Utah_Astronomy_M31_Lum M57 - taken with a Takahashi CN-212 at f/9.9 http://www.utahastronomy.com/album16/Utah_Astronomy_Ring Cheers, Tyler

3 3

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