- Utah-Astronomy - mailman.xmission.com

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

RE: [Utah-astronomy] science and religion
by Michael Carnes 04 Aug '05

04 Aug '05

>Evolutionary thought is suffused in general withan unwholesome glow. And there it is in a nutshell. The creationists (the term 'intelligent design' is a phrase the creationists use because they think it's more politically palatable) just can't stomach the idea. It's 'unwholesome'. C'mon Don. >"What good," Stephen Jay Gould asked dramatically, >"is 5 percent of an eye?" He termed this >question "excellent." It IS an excellent question and is easily answered (as Gould himself did many times over). Imagine you're a worm on the floor of a shallow Cambrian sea. Your 5% of an eye might just detect the shadow of a hungry ammonite passing overhead. You burrow and your blind neighbor gets eaten. You just conferred an evolutionary advantage on your offspring. The creationists just LOVE this "the eye is too complicated" load of rubbish. They continue to claim there's great scientific controversy, when we're really just focusing on small details. And they flat out lie, too. >I repeat censorship of responsible ideas that oppose the current dogma >of the day is attacked just as rigorously as it was in the days of >Galileo. Nobody's censoring anything, although the religious right sure is trying. As soon as the creationists come up with some testable theses, then put them forward and see if they pass muster. You'll always find a crank scientist or two who'll claim an idea is being censored, but after 150 years, Darwin's original idea has been fleshed out into a wonderful, sustaining structure. The realm of faith and philosophy and that of science are different and complementary. Pseudo-science is what's unwholesome.

1 0

RE: [Utah-astronomy] science vs. religion
by Michael Carnes 04 Aug '05

04 Aug '05

> Statistically it is incredibly unlikely; Don, the statistics are overwhelmingly in favor of evolution. It's everywhere you look. An intelligent designer would have done a better job of it.

4 4

As long as we're wading into the fever swamp...
by James Cobb 03 Aug '05

03 Aug '05

As long as we're wading into the fever swamp, I found something of interest bearing on the grounds upon which this discussion tends to dwell. The remarks below are taken from http://nationalreview.com/comment/ klinghoffer200508030811.asp > One prominent evolutionary psychologist, Harvard’s Steven Pinker, > has written frankly about rivalry in academia, and the use of > cutting rhetoric in the defense of established ideas: “Their > champions are not always averse to helping the ideas along with > tactics of verbal dominance, among them intimidation (‘Clearly…’), > threat (‘It would be unscientific to…’), authority (‘As Popper > showed…’), insult (‘This work lacks the necessary rigor for…’), and > belittling (‘Few people today seriously believe that…’).” > > I bring this up because Intelligent Design aggressively challenges > the status of many professionals currently laboring in secular > academia. And because one of the hallmarks of the defense of > Darwinism is precisely the kind of rhetorical displays of > intimidation, threat, authority, and insult that Pinker describes. > > For instance in a section on the website of the American > Association for the Advancement of Science, entitled “Q&A on > Evolution and Intelligent Design,” you will find numerous > statements as if lifted almost verbatim from Pinker’s examples — > ridiculing ID as “non-scientific,” an idea whose “advocates have > yet to contribute in a scientifically rigorous manner,” who “may > use the language of science, but [who] do not use its methodology.” It will be interesting to watch the discussion here and see whether it exhibits the hallmarks of the defense of Darwinism noted by Pinker and Klinghoffer. Jim

3 2

2005 Perseid Shower
by Canopus56 03 Aug '05

03 Aug '05

See the International Meteor Organization calendar for details. http://www.imo.net/calendar/cal05.html#perseids http://www.imo.net/calendar/per.gif (Position of Perseid radiant for Jul 15 to Aug 25) and - NASA Headlines. The 2005 Perseid Meteor Shower (7/22/2005) http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/22jul_perseids2005.htm http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/images/perseids2005/skymap_north.gif and - Kronk's Meteor Shower Page - http://comets.amsmeteors.org/meteors/showers/perseids.html Jeremie Vaubaillon forecasts likely ZHR for many meteor showers. Here is his June 15 forecast for the 2005 Perseids - http://www.imcce.fr/page.php?nav=en/ephemerides/phenomenes/meteor/PER/2005P… "The expected ZHR is not expected to be higher than the annual activity (recorded by IMO), i.e. ZHR=100 /hr. From the above figure, the maximum is expected to occur on the 12/08/2005 at 3:54 UT (Solar longitude=139.478Â°)." In Utah, 8/12/2005 at 3:54 UTC corresponds to Thursday, 8/11/2005 at 9:54pm. On 8/11/2005, sunset is at 8:32pm, astronomical twilight is at 10:17pm, and moon set of the eight day old Moon is at 11:28pm. The IMO predicts a different time for the peak - 18:30 UTC on 8/12/2005, or around noon MDT on Friday, 8/12/2005. See discussion at the IMO calendar regarding uncertainty in the Perseid peak time. At sunset on Thursday, 8/11, Perseus is just below the horizon. Altitudes for eta Per to the nearest degree, which is a few degrees southwest of the radiant, on 8/11-8/12 are given in the following table, as well an adjusted expected meteor hourly rate. The ZHR is adjusted because the shower's radiant is off-zenith: MDT UTC Alt Adjusted ZHR 10pm 8/11 4am 8/12 14Â° 24 11pm 8/11 5am 8/12 19Â° 33 Midn 8/12 6am 8/12 26Â° 44 1am 8/12 7am 8/12 33Â° 54 2am 8/12 8am 8/12 41Â° 66 3am 8/12 9am 8/12 58Â° 85 (See the Appendix to this post for the computation converting ZHR to an meteor hourly rate where the radiant is off-zenith.) This estimated rate is not adjusted for the unknown decline of the shower in the hours after the peak at 8/12/2005 3:54 UT. My usual way of enjoying the Persieds is to sit either facing north towards the radiant or with my back to the radiant facing south. When facing south in previous years, many fainter widely dispersed meteors were seen on a broad arc. The arc traces a cone back to the radiant. I have prepared two alt-az charts, one north facing and one south facing. I use these to pass the time by roughly plotting meteors seen. These charts are for 1am MDT 8/12 (7:00 UT 8/12). http://members.csolutions.net/fisherka/astronote/finder/PerseusChart2005081… http://members.csolutions.net/fisherka/astronote/finder/PerseusChart2005081… (Right-click on the chart, save it to your desktop and then print to a full landscape page.) Enjoy - Canopus56(Kurt) ========================= Appendix - Conversion of ZHR to hourly rate off-zenith The zenith hourly rate is the rate observed when the shower is at local observer's zenith. The International Meteor Organization gives the following information regarding when the meteor shower's radiant is not on the observer's local zenith: "Table 1 gives the number of meteors an observer might expect to see at different radiant elevations if the ZHR amounted to the impressive value of 100. Now you can imagine what you will see with a radiant elevation of 10Â° if the ZHR is not as impressive as 100. Therefore, when planning your watch you should take care that the radiant will have a reasonable elevation for the whole watch. For several reasons the lower limit is about 20Â°. Table 1: Numbers of meteors visible per hour for a ZHR=100 shower and different radiant elevations h (limiting magnitude of 6.5m) h in Â° | 90 | 70 | 50 | 40 | 30 | 20 | 10 n | 100 | 94 | 77 | 64 | 50 | 34 | 17 " Source: IMO. http://www.imo.net/visual/major01.html IMO Table 1 appears to follow a simple sin function - alpha = altitude of the radiant above the local horizon at a local time * pi() / 180 hr_alpha = zhr * sin(alpha) where hr_alpha is the predicated hourly rate at the selected altitude of the radiant above the local observer's horizon. ____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

1 0

Fwd: Star Party for Fathers and Sons
by Richard Tenney 03 Aug '05

03 Aug '05

Anyone in North SLC or Ogden that could take this one? Morgan/Porterville is a bit far for me! Please respond to Mr. Russell directly, but CC me so I know this has been addressed. Thanks, Rich --- Bill Russell <bruss(a)wfol.net> wrote: > From: "Bill Russell" <bruss(a)wfol.net> > To: <retenney(a)yahoo.com> > Subject: Star Party for Fathers and Sons > Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 16:13:20 -0600 > > Hi Rich, > I came across your website and was hoping you could > help me. > > I'm in charge of a father and son activity scheduled > for the evening of August 26th involving > approximately 400 men and boys (it's an > over-nighter). The outing is located approximately > 5 miles from Morgan, Utah near Porterville. We > would like to provide the boys with an opportunity > to learn more about the stars and astronomy. Are > you aware of someone or an organization that I could > contact that would be willing to provide a > presentation or demonstrate some large telescopes? > Any information you could provide would be helpful. > Thank you and please let me know at your earliest > convenience. > Regards, > Bill > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

4 3

Shuttle tile gap filler repair - the movie
by Canopus56 03 Aug '05

03 Aug '05

http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/highlights/index.html http://wm.nasa-global.speedera.net/wm.nasa-global/RTF/gapfillerremover.wmv This triggered an install of Windows Media Player 10 on my system. - Canopus56(Kurt) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

1 0

Re: [Utah-astronomy] science vs. religion
by Michael Carnes 03 Aug '05

03 Aug '05

You're right on target, Kim. From what I know, the 14th century wasn't all that great, and I'm not eager to return to it.

2 1

Re: [Utah-astronomy] science vs. religion
by Olhomorto＠aol.com 03 Aug '05

03 Aug '05

I believe I agree with you, Kim. I'm remembering when I was in the 8th grade here in Salt Lake, and the science teacher announced that during the next weeks we would be learning about the theory of evolution. A couple of my class mates were excused from the class during that period because their parents didn't want them exposed. I remember the confusion in my mind because they belonged to the same church I did, and I didn't understand the conflict. I also remember the contrast between the days when my teachers in elementary school stood beside us and taught us to say opening and closing prayers in the class-room, and the atmosphere in the classrooms after such prayers were ultimately deemed inappropriate. Again, I felt confused about the similarity between public school and my childhood church meetings. In the end I think I turned out fairly OK as a result of, or maybe in spite of my experiences wioth public and church education. Of course, others may disagree about how I "turned out." Mike Bailey

1 0