I defer to Mr A Einstein, thought by many to have a number of smarts, (sorry, Dan--no noodles) who said, "Science without religion is lame, Religion without science is blind." Another I like is his also: "All religions, arts, and sciences are branches of the same tree." 'nuff said. Not much to do w/Neptune....... lh On 7/11/2011 1:36 PM, Dave Gary wrote:
Don,
First, our environment is not a closed system. ItÂ’s an open system. Second, all you have to do is put forward a naturalistic theoretic construct that explains the data better than Darwinism and IÂ’ll look at your proposal. No religion, no designer, please.
Do you really think that when the Human Genome Project got under way biologists sat around and examined the merits of intelligent design as a working thesis for the project. Exactly, what is a created kind? Taxonomy would be a shambles under an intelligent design model. The fossil record is, exactly, what one would expect from an evolutionary point of view. ThereÂ’s no rabbit fossils in Devonian strata, paraphrasing J. B. S. HaldaneÂ’s famous aphorism. If there was, this finding would completely invalidate natural selection. Under intelligent design, wouldnÂ’t this be a common occurrence? Why wouldnÂ’t mammals be created before Devonian fishes or Cambrian fauna? If youÂ’re one of those that believes Earth is 6,000 to 10,000 years old, youÂ’ve really got some explaining to do.
Molecular biologic data completely validate natural selection. Most organisms are jury-rigged affairs that share genetic material, enzymatic pathways, etc. You share 50% of your DNA with yeast. A large percentage of your DNA is viral in origin. Pretty convincing, even without all the other evidence, that all life on this planet is related through common descent.
No matter how you cut it, creationism or intelligent design or whatever you want to call it is religion. It is not science and we can not bend the definition of science to accommodate this “theory”.
Dave Gary
On Jul 11, 2011, at 12:33 PM, Don J. Colton wrote:
And here (totally unrelated), from yesterday's funnies: http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/archive/2011/07/10
The Doonesbury cartoon, although funny, perpetuates the myth that Neo-Darwinism is settled science and that the opposition believes a fairy tale. Most of the new laws passed in several states allow the biology teachers or students to present other competing ideas to Neo-Darwinism. In Washington State a biology teacher was fired for bringing up problems with Neo-Darwinism although he taught the theory in detail.
Recent advances in information theory, a product to some extent of quantum mechanics, have called into question many of the cherished ideas of Neo-Darwinism. One of the main tenets of information theory is that in a closed system the amount of information cannot increase. David Berlinski, a celebrated mathematician and an agnostic, wrote a seminal article called "The Deniable Darwin" in Commentary Magazine that was later developed into a book by the same name. Stephen C. Meyer has written a recent controversial book, "Signature in the Cell - DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design" that raises many additional problems with Neo-Darwinism.
Jun-Yuan Chen, Research Professor Nanjing Institute of Geology and Paleontology, said recently: "In China we can criticize Darwin but not the government. In America you can criticize the government, but not Darwin."
I think we need to have a free and open exchange of ideas in high school biology as well as all other classes. Thomas S. Kuhn in "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions", notes how difficult it is for scientists to give up cherished paradigms.
Clear Skies,
Don
-----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Patrick Wiggins Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 2:47 AM To: utah astronomy utah astronomy listserve Subject: [Utah-astronomy] SPOC for 1 Neptune orbit? Also, from the funnies
Tomorrow (Tuesday) finds Neptune 1 Neptunian year since it's discovery and located almost exactly where it was when discovered in 1846.
Weather permitting I plan on going to SPOC about midnight tonight and using the refractor to spot Neptune and then to find the exact spot where it was on the night it was discovered.
Anyone care to join me?
Grins,
patrick
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php