One other thought (then I'll stay off-list for awhile - got to leave town for the rest of the day anyway). My objections to teaching creationism are not based so much on my own religious or political views but on the fact that it is simply unscientific. Oh, I believe that to teach creationism is contrary to the Constitution and unfair to other religious views (shouldn't we then have to teach all religious beliefs regarding how the universe and life came to be? what about Native American creation myths? Hinduism? teachings of Mohammed?). However, I am concerned more that reason and science will be discarded for the mystical and the unknowable. Western civilization once took that path. We call that period of history the Dark Ages. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Don J. Colton" <djcolton@piol.com> To: "'Utah Astronomy'" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 11:39 AM Subject: RE: [Utah-astronomy] science vs. religion |I do think there is reason to be skeptical of blind evolution as the | mechanism for the creation of life. Statistically it is incredibly | unlikely; and as Fred Hoyle asserted it is as unlikely that a cell would | be created from the primordial amino acids as a 747 airplane being | created from a tornado going through a junkyard. This is not to say | that I believe the earth was created in six literal days. But I do | believe the evidence for intelligent design from some source stretching | from the anthropic principle to life on earth is overwhelming. But I am | not saying no evolution occurs. | | Evolution has also been used by scientists to explain the development of | civilization from hunters gatherers to villages etc., ignoring the fact | that some of the earliest Egyptian and Sumerian civilizations were much | more sophisticated than later civilizations. The evolutionary rule of | thumb is the ultimate cope out in trying to explain history. | | I think the current secular "monotheism" of evolution is just as | stifling to progress as the church was in Galileo's day. In fact it was | really the scientific establishment of the day based on the Greek | science of Aristotle and Ptolemy that opposed Galileo not religious | beliefs from the Bible. | | To limit discussions in school to only topics "enlightened atheists" | believe are appropriate is just as wrong as a state religion. I think | no topics regarding the creation of life should be off limits as long as | they do not promotes a single religion including the religion of | evolution. | | | | -----Original Message----- | From: utah-astronomy-bounces+djcolton=piol.com@mailman.xmission.com | [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+djcolton=piol.com@mailman.xmission.com] | On Behalf Of Kim Hyatt | Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 10:41 AM | To: Utah Astronomy | Subject: [Utah-astronomy] science vs. religion | | | Warning: The following is critical of President Bush. If you do | disapprove, do not read on. | | News item (courtesy of Patrick Wiggins): | | Science Leader Says President Bush Confuses Science and Belief | | To the chagrin of scientists, President Bush said Monday he believes | schools should discuss "intelligent design'' alongside evolution when | teaching students about the creation of life. | | http://www.livescience.com/othernews/ap_050802_bush_design.html | | I think that scientists (professional and amateur alike) should speak | out about this trend. Remember, there will likely be a bill introduced | in Utah's next legislative session to require that Utah schools teach | "intelligent design" alongside the theory of evolution. "Intelligent | design" is the new catch phrase that proponents of creationism use to | make this religious "theory" sound more scientific. | | I think of myself as a religious person, but I feel strongly that | religionists should stop interfering with science. The Catholic Church | used to do so and pursued that course to its logical end: the | persecution, imprisonment and execution of scientists. Scientists don't | pretend to instruct us about religion; unknowledgeable persons of faith | shouldn't instruct us about science; politicians, including and | especially Mr. Bush, shouldn't instruct us about either. | | I respect my friends (and those who are not my friends) who hold | differing views. But, I believe that religion in any guise should only | be taught in our homes and places of worship. I believe this to be a | correct interpretation of the Constitution and I will oppose politicians | and lobbyists such as the Eagle Forum who have said that they will work | toward having intelligent design taught in public schools. | | This may open a barrel of snakes, but I think the persons of this group | have a responsibility to protect science from interference from | religionists. So, how do others feel? | | | Kim | _______________________________________________ | 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.utahastronomy.com | | | | _______________________________________________ | 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.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 | ______________________________________________________________________ | |

Comments interspersed At 01:18 PM 8/3/2005 -0600, Guy wrote:

You believe in science, yet science can't prove everything.

Well, yeah, that is why research is an integral part of science, it's called learning new stuff.

Scientists believe in black holes but no one has really ever seen one. No one has ever been in one. We take it on faith that they exist because science can't prove otherwise.

Hmm, seen gravity lately? How about atoms? Ever seen an ultrasonic wave?, nope, you may have seen the effects of those things on the surrounding areas, and therefore you can deduce that they exist, but you have never actually "seen" those.

How many times have scientists been wrong about something? No ones

perfect. As far as I'm concerned, there is only one person who was ever perfect, and God

help us if we should mention him. We don't want to upset those who choose to believe in someting else. Science doesn't know the origin of life. They speculate a lot about it, but no one knows for sure. Science can create human life in a test tube, but, they need a donated egg and sperm to make it work. Let's see science make the egg and sperm from scratch, using raw materials. Let's see them make man, or beast from scratch for that matter.

You assume scientists don't believe in God? I have met hundreds, and I think only a handful did not believe in a God of some sort, although the box that some use to limit their view of God may be different than the box another person uses. As to the prior statement about scientists being wrong, well that is the whole point of science. It is constantly evolving, as we learn more, we add detail to those things that were right, and we come up with new theories in those places where it becomes clear that we were wrong. It's called learning, and that is what science is all about. We hypothesize and theorize and experiment, and we apply a large body of existing knowledge, and we try to figure it out. Some scientists have a lack of flexibility in learning, as Don will attest to, but, eventually the truth will stand out, because the facts support it. When the facts quit supporting it, we try to think of what will accommodate all the facts. Kind of like fixing a car engine or solving a mystery.

I think there is a place for both views. Beyond that which we can actually handle, measure and test, both are theory's, each requiring a certain amount of faith and belief. Expose the kids to both views and see what happens. I don't think it will harm them in any way. It might help open their eyes. As long as my tax money is helping to fund public education, then I don't have any problem with the public schools offering both. Big deal!

Oh, and for the record, that Fred Hoyle quote is just a great line that is absolutely meaningless. No one has ever actually calculated the chances of a tornado making a 747, or the chances of life evolving out of primordial soup (and the next question, how many primordial soups have there been, on all the possible planets. I know of no way of calculating that part of the equation with any certainty). Hoyle and his co-writer proposed that dormant life spores from outer space landed here on earth and found conditions suitable for life (panspermia). He believed an unknown and unknowable force created this life form that found a hospitable home on earth. Can we all say Creationism? I do not "know" how life started, but I suspect that the God that I believe in may have had a hand in nudging a few of the early combinations in the primordial stew. Others believe that is not the case. None of us have scientific proof enough to meet the standards of a scientific theory. That is why we do not teach it in school as science. I would like to mention something I heard that I enjoyed. It was called "the God of the Gaps". It says that those of us who use God to explain what we do not yet understand, are cruelly used by science, which keeps shedding light on new areas that were previously a mystery, forcing our God to become ever smaller and less powerful, or forcing us to reject science. Let us keep God and science separate, and enjoy the mystery and beauty of both. Jo

Patrick, tofu isn't food. It's what food eats. --- Patrick Wiggins <paw@trilobyte.net> wrote

Now I'm going to have to check my next veggie burger for poison (or even worse, pieces of steak).

__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

I believe in both science AND Star Trek, but I promise to not lobby my congressman to have ST taught in public schools. --- daniel turner <outwest112@yahoo.com> wrote:

And if you don't want to "believe" in science, then stop by Walmat for a pack of di-lithium crystals and have Scotty beam you aboard.

DT

____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

Since when did anyone actually read anything I wrote??? I'm impressed... ;) Look, all I am saying is that I believe in a higher power. Do I believe that a super power created everything in the universe by hand, and in 6 days? No. I believe that the force which formed and structured everything in the universe, was intentional, and that the path is set. I believe that the universe and everything around us continues to evolve, and as far as man goes, I believe we have the ability to either adapt (read: evolve) or perish. For the record, I believe in Black Holes and to a degree, evolution. I'm not so sure about the crawling out of the sea thing, but I was in a branch of service that did a lot of that, so maybe there is something to it. ;) Also, there was something pretty fishy about my exwife, and she couldn't swim, so, who knows. ;) And as far as there being a Big Bang and then creation of life, I don't know many parents who never experienced that. ;) I'm in favor of leaving religion for seminaries and sunday school, and for keeping the science in science. I don't want religion jammed down my grandkids throats, but on the other hand I don't want them to be force fed only one side in an 'educational' setting. I want my kids to hear ALL points of view, the good and the no so good. I want them to ask questions, and I want someone who will give them the straight scoop. I want my kids to form their own opinions based on a 'fair and balanced' education. None of this one sided crap. If someone can come up with a way to present both sides and leave the religion thing out of it, then I'm fine with that. Quoting Richard Tenney <retenney@yahoo.com>:

Don and Guy, I highly recommend them to you in particular)

On 8/4/05, Scott Catron <zaui@yahoo.com> wrote:

Somewhat related to the current discussion:

http://venganza.org/

This is a good point. I personally am not worried about this issue. Why? Because I'm going to teach my children on top of what the schools teach. I'm not going to be a lazy parent and push off ALL of the teaching onto the public school system. I will teach my children about all of the ideas that currently exist. Evolution, Intelligent Design (of many types) and whatever else comes up. Then on top of that, I'm going to teach them what I believe to be correct, and let them know where I stand. Ultimately, it's up to them to decide what they believe for themselves. But in order to do that correctly, they need as much information as possible about the entire situation. Public school can't do that. I learned a long time ago that the public school system is a joke anyway. If you want a child to learn something important, don't expect the public school system to teach it to them, let alone teach it correctly. -TJ