Wow. I go away for a few hours and my computer is jammed with email about my earlier note. I know this is an emotional debate, but that's also part of the problem. I plan to get involved much more politically to defeat Representative Buttars and others who propose that creationism be taught in Utah public schools. Thanks, though, for all your thoughts on the topic. I enjoy a lively debate now and then, but this thing really set me off. I shouldn't be so naive, however. Politicians, by definition, haven't the sense to keep this issue out of public education. (Apologies to all rational politicians, whoever she may be.) Kim
There is a big difference between creationism and intelligent design. Many prominent scientists such as Roger Penrose, David Berlinski, Michael Behe and Frank Tippler support some aspects of intelligent design. They are not creationists and cover the spectrum of believing the universe is fine tuned to allow life to believing that blind evolution is mathematically and statistically impossible. Even small changes in physical constants would make life untenable. Some like the microbiologist Micheal Behe show that many small organisms and organs in animals have what is called irreducible complexity - they can't be created by blind natural selection. As David Berlinski has stated: Evolutionary thought is suffused in general with an unwholesome glow. "The belief that an organ so perfect as the eye," Darwin wrote, "could have been formed by natural selection is enough to stagger anyone." It is. The problem is obvious. "What good," Stephen Jay Gould asked dramatically, "is 5 percent of an eye?" He termed this question "excellent." The question, retorted the Oxford professor Richard Dawkins, the most prominent representative of ultra-Darwinians, "is not excellent at all": Vision that is 5 percent as good as yours or mine is very much worth having in comparison with no vision at all. And 6 percent is better than 5, 7 percent better than 6, and so on up the gradual, continuous series. But Dawkins, replied Philip Johnson in turn, had carelessly assumed that 5 percent of an eye would see 5 percent as well as an eye, and that is an assumption for which there is little evidence. (A professor of law at the University of California at Berkeley, Johnson has a gift for appealing to the evidence when his opponents invoke theory, and vice versa.) ... What is at work in sight is a visual system, one that involves not only the anatomical structures of the eye and forebrain, but the remarkably detailed and poorly understood algorithms required to make these structures work. "When we examine the visual mechanism closely," Karen K. de Valois remarked recently in Science, "although we understand much about its component parts, we fail to fathom the ways in which they fit together to produce the whole of our complex visual perception." These facts suggest a chastening reformulation of Gould's "excellent" question, one adapted to reality: could a system we do not completely understand be constructed by means of a process we cannot completely specify? The intellectually responsible answer to this question is that we do not know-we have no way of knowing. But that is not the answer evolutionary theorists accept. According to Daniel Dennett (in Darwin's Dangerous Idea), Dawkins is "almost certainly right" to uphold the incremental view, because "Darwinism is basically on the right track." In this, he echoes the philosopher Kim Sterenly, who is also persuaded that "something like Dawkins's stories have got to be right" (emphasis added). After all, she asserts, "natural selection is the only possible explanation of complex adaptation." Dawkins himself has maintained that those who do not believe a complex biological structure may be constructed in small steps are expressing merely their own sense of "personal incredulity." But in countering their animadversions he appeals to his own ability to believe almost anything. Commenting on the (very plausible) claim that spiders could not have acquired their web-spinning behavior by a Darwinian mechanism, Dawkins writes: "It is not impossible at all. That is what I firmly believe and I have some experience of spiders and their webs." It is painful to see this advanced as an argument. 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. This is certainly true with both the Big Bang and evolution. I think it is the height of arrogance for scientists to dogmatically assert they have solved the major problems of the origins of the universe and man and seek to censor any opposition. A little history is in order. At the end of the 19th century physicists thought they had solved all the laws of the universe and all that awaited scientists was just collecting data and refining theories... and then came Albert Einstein. The history of science is full of dogmatic men such as Rutherford who held so much power they had to die before their frustrated subordinates could bring out new theories. -----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 11:14 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: [Utah-astronomy] science and religion Wow. I go away for a few hours and my computer is jammed with email about my earlier note. I know this is an emotional debate, but that's also part of the problem. I plan to get involved much more politically to defeat Representative Buttars and others who propose that creationism be taught in Utah public schools. Thanks, though, for all your thoughts on the topic. I enjoy a lively debate now and then, but this thing really set me off. I shouldn't be so naive, however. Politicians, by definition, haven't the sense to keep this issue out of public education. (Apologies to all rational politicians, whoever she may be.) 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
Are you guys psychic? Published today: http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,600153351,00.html I'm still reading all of the posts to catch up on this thread. I will try to post some thoughts later. In the meantime, why can't ID be studied in schools? Isn't that what theology class is for? Michael W. Kwan Chances are high that one or more of the foregoing statements was intended as humor by an individual with little to no discernible sense of humor. No offense was intended to any person, animal, reglion, political party, spirit, race, ethinicity, gender, sexual orientation, plant, fungus or other as-of-yet-to-be-discovered form of life or death. If you find any statement to be offensive, I sincerely apologize and humbly beg for your forgiveness.
Thanks for the link Michael. In June I read Mr. Buttars ideas about including ID in Utah's science curriculum for public schools - I believe the article was in the SLTribune. I was afraid Mr. Bush's comments the other day might jolt Buttars into action. Seems I was right. I will work HARD to see that Buttars, creationism and ID stay out of public schools. Ideally, I'd work toward keeping him out of public office, as well. Michael also wrote: | In the meantime, why can't ID be studied in | schools? Isn't that what theology class is for? Absolutely right! But these idiots (now I'm letting emotion cloud my highly evolved thinking apparatus) want ID taught as a scientific "theory" as valid as evolutionary theory, to be taught in the science classroom and not in theology classes. Buttars' statements in June clearly indicate that he is woefully ignorant of the scientific method and thinks that ID should be included in the State's science curriculum. For what it's worth, I'm never offended by viewpoints expressed in this forum. I may disagree, but I try not to let these discussions get personal. If, however, I have offended anyone, please accept my apologies now. And, feel free to contact me off-list to rail on me if you need to.
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. Kim Hyatt <kimharch@cut.net> wrote: Michael also wrote: | In the meantime, why can't ID be studied in | schools? Isn't that what theology class is for? Absolutely right! But these idiots (now I'm letting emotion cloud my highly evolved thinking apparatus) want ID taught as a scientific "theory" as valid as evolutionary theory, to be taught in the science classroom and not in theology classes. Buttars' statements in June clearly indicate that he is woefully ignorant of the scientific method and thinks that ID should be included in the State's science curriculum. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
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. Michael Kwan <mwkwan@sisna.com> wrote:Are you guys psychic? Published today: http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,600153351,00.html I'm still reading all of the posts to catch up on this thread. I will try to post some thoughts later. In the meantime, why can't ID be studied in schools? Isn't that what theology class is for? Michael W. Kwan Chances are high that one or more of the foregoing statements was intended as humor by an individual with little to no discernible sense of humor. No offense was intended to any person, animal, reglion, political party, spirit, race, ethinicity, gender, sexual orientation, plant, fungus or other as-of-yet-to-be-discovered form of life or death. If you find any statement to be offensive, I sincerely apologize and humbly beg for your forgiveness. _______________________________________________ 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 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
I don't feel so threatened with folks like South Jordan Mom, Joan C., Michaels K. & C., & Kim H. on this list. The Inquisition will have a fight on it's hands this time around. Kim, contact me off-list and let me know what I can do to support you, including standing beside you on the hill. I agree with all of those who expressed a belief in a higher power starting it all in motion, but that has nothing to do with the process of evolution itself. The problem is that if something can't be tested, it isn't science. Nobody's arguing anybody's right to believe in creationism if they want to, but it simply can't be taught in science class because it isn't. It belongs in theology or philosophy class, as Michael K. pointed out. Soulful, pleading, impassioned debate & circular reasoning isn't enough, you need proof. ANY "theory" that involves "higher power" simply IS NOT SCIENCE. Go ahead and teach it, in it's proper venue, NOT SCIENCE CLASS! The Doug Wright Show touched on this topic today, briefly. I heard, repeatedly, a common misconception held by creationists: That according to evolution, humans evolved from "monkeys". This is blatantly false, a phrase promoted by creationists to cast evolution in a bad light. Actually, the convention is that humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor. All forms of life evolved from a common ancestor... How wonderful! What an amazing capacity for change and adaptation does life have, what a truly divine design bequeathed to us ultimately from our Creator. The real irony is that Evolution, Darwinism, speaks of a much more wonderful, intelligent, omniscient Deity than any creationsim/ID "shortcuts"- which are really just disguised attempts to justify "what my daddy told me"- a reinforcement of the "us vs. them" mentality of pan-fundamentalism. Oops, and here I promised not to pontificate anymore. Back on the wagon... ____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Oh I wish you would just continue to pontificate, you have such an eloquent and intelligent way of putting things. I really hope you will pass your thoughts on to the media. I did just send a letter off to the reporter who wrote the article about Buttars and ID in today's Deseret News. jtcook@desnews.com. I wish you would send her your thoughts too, you are so much more eloquent than I am. That goes for the other posters also, btw. I really think you would be doing the classrooms of Utah and also the nation a huge service by getting your thoughts out there beyond this list. Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts, I for one really appreciate it. And thanks to Kim for bringing up this off-topic thread. These off-topic thoughtful discussions are actually what I like most about this list. Chuck Hards <chuckhards@yahoo.com> wrote: I don't feel so threatened with folks like South Jordan Mom, Joan C., Michaels K. & C., & Kim H. on this list. The Inquisition will have a fight on it's hands this time around. Kim, contact me off-list and let me know what I can do to support you, including standing beside you on the hill. I agree with all of those who expressed a belief in a higher power starting it all in motion, but that has nothing to do with the process of evolution itself. The problem is that if something can't be tested, it isn't science. Nobody's arguing anybody's right to believe in creationism if they want to, but it simply can't be taught in science class because it isn't. It belongs in theology or philosophy class, as Michael K. pointed out. Soulful, pleading, impassioned debate & circular reasoning isn't enough, you need proof. ANY "theory" that involves "higher power" simply IS NOT SCIENCE. Go ahead and teach it, in it's proper venue, NOT SCIENCE CLASS! The Doug Wright Show touched on this topic today, briefly. I heard, repeatedly, a common misconception held by creationists: That according to evolution, humans evolved from "monkeys". This is blatantly false, a phrase promoted by creationists to cast evolution in a bad light. Actually, the convention is that humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor. All forms of life evolved from a common ancestor... How wonderful! What an amazing capacity for change and adaptation does life have, what a truly divine design bequeathed to us ultimately from our Creator. The real irony is that Evolution, Darwinism, speaks of a much more wonderful, intelligent, omniscient Deity than any creationsim/ID "shortcuts"- which are really just disguised attempts to justify "what my daddy told me"- a reinforcement of the "us vs. them" mentality of pan-fundamentalism. Oops, and here I promised not to pontificate anymore. Back on the wagon... ____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs _______________________________________________ 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 --------------------------------- Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
South Jordan Mom wrote:
These off-topic thoughtful discussions are actually what I like most about this list.
"Off topic"? I don't think so. All of us here are interested in astronomy, and for that matter, science in general. I don't see that anything we discuss here that may help keep science from turning into pseudo-science can be called off topic. Let's keep it up, Patrick
Well that's a good point and I agree. I meant that because the list is entitled Utah-astronomy, as opposed to Utah-science, that a discussion about anything that isn't strictly about astronomy could be considered off-topic. Patrick Wiggins <paw@trilobyte.net> wrote:South Jordan Mom wrote:
These off-topic thoughtful discussions are actually what I like most about this list.
"Off topic"? I don't think so. All of us here are interested in astronomy, and for that matter, science in general. I don't see that anything we discuss here that may help keep science from turning into pseudo-science can be called off topic. Let's keep it up, 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.utahastronomy.com --------------------------------- Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
To demonstrate that this discussion is indeed "on topic," consider the following theoretical scenario: Senator Buttars, the Eagle Forum lobbyists, et. al. successfully push through legislation requiring that creationism/intelligent design instruction be included in Utah's science curricula for all public schools, grades K-12. A provision of the legislation requires that any person using public school property for demonstrations or discussions of science must also give ID equal time. SLAS membership finds that to continue to provide its FREE public star parties to public schools its members must first undergo "creationism/ID sensitivity training" and give equal time to this "theory" during any event it hosts on public school property. I could be wrong (my wife says I am wrong more often than not) but I don't think this scenario is all that far-fetched. Off-topic? Don't think so, either. Thanks Patrick and South Jordan Mom ----- Original Message ----- From: "South Jordan Mom" <sjordanmom@yahoo.com> To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2005 6:01 PM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] science and religion | Well that's a good point and I agree. I meant that because the list is entitled Utah-astronomy, as opposed to Utah-science, that a discussion about anything that isn't strictly about astronomy could be considered off-topic. | | Patrick Wiggins <paw@trilobyte.net> wrote:South Jordan Mom wrote: | > These off-topic thoughtful discussions are actually what I like most about this list. | | "Off topic"? I don't think so. All of us here are interested in | astronomy, and for that matter, science in general. | | I don't see that anything we discuss here that may help keep science | from turning into pseudo-science can be called off topic. | | Let's keep it up, | | 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.utahastronomy.com | | | | --------------------------------- | Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page | _______________________________________________ | 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 | ______________________________________________________________________ | |
Quoting Kim Hyatt <kimharch@cut.net>:
SLAS membership finds that to continue to provide its FREE public star parties to public schools its members must first undergo "creationism/ID sensitivity training" and give equal time to this "theory" during any event it hosts on public school property.
As ludicrous as that sounds, try this. We could have someone pointing out constellations to one group, while Patrick reads quotes from the scriptures, to the other group. ;)
Here is proof-positive we are on-topic: http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_2915082 Michael W. Kwan Chances are high that one or more of the foregoing statements was intended as humor by an individual with little to no discernible sense of humor. No offense was intended to any person, animal, reglion, political party, spirit, race, ethinicity, gender, sexual orientation, plant, fungus or other as-of-yet-to-be-discovered form of life or death. If you find any statement to be offensive, I sincerely apologize and humbly beg for your forgiveness. -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+mwkwan=sisna.com@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+mwkwan=sisna.com@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Kim Hyatt Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2005 6:26 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] science and religion To demonstrate that this discussion is indeed "on topic," consider the following theoretical scenario: Senator Buttars, the Eagle Forum lobbyists, et. al. successfully push through legislation requiring that creationism/intelligent design instruction be included in Utah's science curricula for all public schools, grades K-12. A provision of the legislation requires that any person using public school property for demonstrations or discussions of science must also give ID equal time. SLAS membership finds that to continue to provide its FREE public star parties to public schools its members must first undergo "creationism/ID sensitivity training" and give equal time to this "theory" during any event it hosts on public school property. I could be wrong (my wife says I am wrong more often than not) but I don't think this scenario is all that far-fetched. Off-topic? Don't think so, either. Thanks Patrick and South Jordan Mom ----- Original Message ----- From: "South Jordan Mom" <sjordanmom@yahoo.com> To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2005 6:01 PM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] science and religion | Well that's a good point and I agree. I meant that because the list is entitled Utah-astronomy, as opposed to Utah-science, that a discussion about anything that isn't strictly about astronomy could be considered off-topic. | | Patrick Wiggins <paw@trilobyte.net> wrote:South Jordan Mom wrote: | > These off-topic thoughtful discussions are actually what I like most about this list. | | "Off topic"? I don't think so. All of us here are interested in | astronomy, and for that matter, science in general. | | I don't see that anything we discuss here that may help keep science | from turning into pseudo-science can be called off topic. | | Let's keep it up, | | 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.utahastronomy.com | | | | --------------------------------- | Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page | _______________________________________________ | 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 | ______________________________________________________________________ | | _______________________________________________ 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
Thanks again, Michael. A great piece that I hadn't seen yet this morning. I will be writing a letter to Senator Buttars and other legislators regarding this issue, probably tomorrow. If anyone wishes to sign on, I'll create some appropriate letterhead and add your name to the letter. It won't be possible to circulate it for everyone's signature before I want to get it in the mail (next week), but it will alert Mr. Buttars that others are concerned, as well. Contact me off-list if you want to pursue this with me. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Kwan" <mwkwan@sisna.com> To: "'Utah Astronomy'" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 8:52 AM Subject: RE: [Utah-astronomy] science and religion | Here is proof-positive we are on-topic: | | http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_2915082 | | | Michael W. Kwan | | Chances are high that one or more of the foregoing statements was intended | as humor by an individual with little to no discernible sense of humor. No | offense was intended to any person, animal, reglion, political party, | spirit, race, ethinicity, gender, sexual orientation, plant, fungus or other | as-of-yet-to-be-discovered form of life or death. If you find any statement | to be offensive, I sincerely apologize and humbly beg for your forgiveness. | -----Original Message----- | From: utah-astronomy-bounces+mwkwan=sisna.com@mailman.xmission.com | [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+mwkwan=sisna.com@mailman.xmission.com] On | Behalf Of Kim Hyatt | Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2005 6:26 PM | To: Utah Astronomy | Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] science and religion | | To demonstrate that this discussion is indeed "on topic," consider the | following theoretical scenario: | | Senator Buttars, the Eagle Forum lobbyists, et. al. successfully push | through legislation requiring that creationism/intelligent design | instruction be included in Utah's science curricula for all public schools, | grades K-12. A provision of the legislation requires that any person using | public school property for demonstrations or discussions of science must | also give ID equal time. SLAS membership finds that to continue to provide | its FREE public star parties to public schools its members must first | undergo "creationism/ID sensitivity training" and give equal time to this | "theory" during any event it hosts on public school property. | | I could be wrong (my wife says I am wrong more often than not) but I don't | think this scenario is all that far-fetched. Off-topic? Don't think so, | either. | | Thanks Patrick and South Jordan Mom | | | ----- Original Message ----- | From: "South Jordan Mom" <sjordanmom@yahoo.com> | To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> | Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2005 6:01 PM | Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] science and religion | | || Well that's a good point and I agree. I meant that because the list is | entitled Utah-astronomy, as opposed to Utah-science, that a discussion about | | anything that isn't strictly about astronomy could be considered off-topic. || || Patrick Wiggins <paw@trilobyte.net> wrote:South Jordan Mom wrote: || > These off-topic thoughtful discussions are actually what I like most | about this list. || || "Off topic"? I don't think so. All of us here are interested in || astronomy, and for that matter, science in general. || || I don't see that anything we discuss here that may help keep science || from turning into pseudo-science can be called off topic. || || Let's keep it up, || || 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.utahastronomy.com || || || || --------------------------------- || Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page || _______________________________________________ || 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 || ______________________________________________________________________ || || | | | | _______________________________________________ | 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 | ______________________________________________________________________ | |
Hmmm, of all the alternative theories competing for equal time, that I'm aware of so-far, the "Spaghetti Monster" hypothesis has the most appeal (and about as scientific as ID). And you know, I've always harbored a sneaking suspicion about the Phoebus Apollo hypothesis. Is it safe to look at the chariot with aluminized mylar? ;) --- Michael Kwan <mwkwan@sisna.com> wrote:
Here is proof-positive we are on-topic:
____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Picked up a copy of _Catalyst_ tonight and found, surprise surprise, an article on teaching ID in school. It proposed an interesting series of topics that teachers could use to discuss ID. http://www.catalystmagazine.net/issues/story.cfm?story=664 On Aug 5, 2005, at 9:24 PM, Chuck Hards wrote:
Hmmm, of all the alternative theories competing for equal time, that I'm aware of so-far, the "Spaghetti Monster" hypothesis has the most appeal (and about as scientific as ID).
And you know, I've always harbored a sneaking suspicion about the Phoebus Apollo hypothesis. Is it safe to look at the chariot with aluminized mylar? ;)
--- Michael Kwan <mwkwan@sisna.com> wrote:
Hey, once the door is opened, come one, come all! So to speak... Thanks, Bill, good stuff! --- William Biesele <bill@biesele.net> wrote:
Picked up a copy of _Catalyst_ tonight and found, surprise surprise, an article on teaching ID in school. It proposed an interesting series of topics that teachers could use to discuss ID.
http://www.catalystmagazine.net/issues/story.cfm?story=664 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
I think Chris just needs to be touched by His Noodly Appendage: http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20050809/cm_usatoday/evolutionlacksfossilli... Evolution lacks fossil link By D. Chris Buttars Tue Aug 9, 6:52 AM ET The campaign to eliminate God from the public forum has been going on for decades, having accelerated greatly since the Supreme Court's ill-advised decision in 1963 to eliminate prayer from public schools. And I believe those fighting against the teaching of intelligent design in schools have an ulterior motive to eliminate references to God from the entire public forum. The argument over classroom discussion of evolution vs. divine design is just the latest attack on everything that would mention a belief in God. If you talk against Darwinian evolution in the classroom, you immediately incur the rage of those who don't want God discussed in any way, shape or form. These vehement critics claim that there are mountains of scientific proof that man evolved from some lower species also related to apes. But in this tremendous effort to support Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, in all these "mountains of information," there has not been any scientific fossil evidence linking apes to man. The trouble with the "missing link" is that it is still missing! In fact, the whole fossil chain that could link apes to man is also missing! The theory of evolution, which states that man evolved from some other species, has more holes in it than a crocheted bathtub. I realize that is a dramatic statement, so to be clear, let me restate: There is zero scientific fossil evidence that demonstrates organic evolutionary linkage between primates and man. Darwin's famous The Origin of Species concludes that over eons of time, and through countless mutations, man evolved from an ape-like ancestor. It takes an enormous leap of faith (oh my, there's one of those terrible religious words!) to conclude that man evolved from ape without any empirical fossil evidence. Teaching evolution is really about the determined drive by activists to eliminate any reference to an intelligent power in the universe. That said, could it be that the reason they can't find the missing link is that human evolution didn't happen at all? Utah State Sen. D. Chris Buttars, R-West Jordan, is active on the evolution-education issue.
Here is proof-positive we are on-topic: http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_2915082 Michael W. Kwan Chances are high that one or more of the foregoing statements was intended as humor by an individual with little to no discernible sense of humor. No offense was intended to any person, animal, reglion, political party, spirit, race, ethinicity, gender, sexual orientation, plant, fungus or other as-of-yet-to-be-discovered form of life or death. If you find any statement to be offensive, I sincerely apologize and humbly beg for your forgiveness. -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+mwkwan=sisna.com@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+mwkwan=sisna.com@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Kim Hyatt Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2005 6:26 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] science and religion To demonstrate that this discussion is indeed "on topic," consider the following theoretical scenario: Senator Buttars, the Eagle Forum lobbyists, et. al. successfully push through legislation requiring that creationism/intelligent design instruction be included in Utah's science curricula for all public schools, grades K-12. A provision of the legislation requires that any person using public school property for demonstrations or discussions of science must also give ID equal time. SLAS membership finds that to continue to provide its FREE public star parties to public schools its members must first undergo "creationism/ID sensitivity training" and give equal time to this "theory" during any event it hosts on public school property. I could be wrong (my wife says I am wrong more often than not) but I don't think this scenario is all that far-fetched. Off-topic? Don't think so, either. Thanks Patrick and South Jordan Mom ----- Original Message ----- From: "South Jordan Mom" <sjordanmom@yahoo.com> To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2005 6:01 PM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] science and religion | Well that's a good point and I agree. I meant that because the list is entitled Utah-astronomy, as opposed to Utah-science, that a discussion about anything that isn't strictly about astronomy could be considered off-topic. | | Patrick Wiggins <paw@trilobyte.net> wrote:South Jordan Mom wrote: | > These off-topic thoughtful discussions are actually what I like most about this list. | | "Off topic"? I don't think so. All of us here are interested in | astronomy, and for that matter, science in general. | | I don't see that anything we discuss here that may help keep science | from turning into pseudo-science can be called off topic. | | Let's keep it up, | | 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.utahastronomy.com | | | | --------------------------------- | Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page | _______________________________________________ | 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 | ______________________________________________________________________ | | _______________________________________________ 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
Patrick, Has the re-entry path been announced yet? I know it is in the middle of the night, but I havn't seen the ground path. Any news? Brent ____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Kim: You had it right on your first post in this thread; but you put the wrong subject on the message. This is NOT about religion and and science. It is about politics and science. Intelligent design did not spring from a groundbreaking scientific discovery, but from a court decision. It is kept alive not by a series of scientific discoveries supporting the premise, but by a collection of politicians. Despite Don's protestations "It's hard to get published"; if scientific evidence did support intelligent design it would get published in scientific journals. Unpopular ideas have been published in peer reviewed journals, Stephan Jay Gould comes to mind; his work on 'punctuated equilibria' was not popular at first and did not fit the paradigms of the time. But he had evidence to support his conclusions. If there was evidence to support intelligent design it would be published. Probably in Nature with banner headlines. And the author would not have to worry about grants or tenure for the rest of his life. But there is NO scientific evidence to support intelligent design. So who keeps bringing it back up? Scientists? Espicopalians? Lutherans? Nope, Republicans and evangelical Christians. Why? The Republican Party has come to power by forming a coalition of corporate money and the religious right. How are these two served by denigrating science. Look at the Republican position on global warming and the Kyoto treaty. The public position is that by reducing green house gas emissions we would hurt our economy. Let me simply restate that. Reducing greenhouse gasses will cost corporate america money lowering profits. So is Bush's 'the evidence is still out on global warming' from reviewing the scientific literature or from a fear of cutting his politcal donors' profits? But where does the religious right fit into this problem? Without the religious right the republicans would not be elected. Estimates of evangelical christians are about fifteen to twenty percent of the population. And they vote republican. Without the evangelical vote Republicans may have lost the last election. So it is to the republicans advantage to get the evangelicals involved in elections. Was the push for the Defense of Marriage amendment from a fear of gay marriage or a desire to get the evangelicals voting. Where's the amendment, seems like the republicans have spent more time promoting tax breaks for the rich and corporate america than promoting the marriage amendment. How many tax breaks have they passed in the last year, have they even bothered to introduce the 'defense' of marriage amendment? So, those who believe in 'intelligent design' please spend your time ripping my post to shreds, enjoy. And to all those think scientifically, write your representatives, become politically active, vote, support your party, write letters to the editor. So why are we talking about science vs creationism on this list? Kim, it's all your fault - you put the wrong subject on your post. Bill B.
Bill, Kurt, and Michael, you guys get my vote for Benign Dictator and advisors. Work it out amongst yourselves whom gets the big chair. You all express yourselves with such clarity- I wish I could express my own thoughts half as well. ____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Chuck: Nope, I must decline the nomination as dictator, too many predenders already. Bill B. On Aug 9, 2005, at 8:16 PM, Chuck Hards wrote:
Bill, Kurt, and Michael, you guys get my vote for Benign Dictator and advisors. Work it out amongst yourselves whom gets the big chair.
You all express yourselves with such clarity- I wish I could express my own thoughts half as well.
____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
_______________________________________________ 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
In a good faith effort to assuage my conservative friends on this list, with the sincere hope of heading off any political firestorm, I give you Charles Krauthammer's own take on the current discussion... -Rich --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.time.com/time/columnist/krauthammer/article/0,9565,1088869,00.htm... Time, Monday, Aug. 01, 2005 Let's Have No More Monkey Trials To teach faith as science is to undermine both By CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER The half-century campaign to eradicate any vestige of religion from public life has run its course. The backlash from a nation fed up with the A.C.L.U. kicking crèches out of municipal Christmas displays has created a new balance. State-supported universities may subsidize the activities of student religious groups. Monuments inscribed with the Ten Commandments are permitted on government grounds. The Federal Government is engaged in a major antipoverty initiative that gives money to churches. Religion is back out of the closet. But nothing could do more to undermine this most salutary restoration than the new and gratuitous attempts to invade science, and most particularly evolution, with religion. Have we learned nothing? In Kansas, conservative school-board members are attempting to rewrite statewide standards for teaching evolution to make sure that creationism's modern stepchild, intelligent design, infiltrates the curriculum. Similar anti-Darwinian mandates are already in place in Ohio and are being fought over in 20 states. And then, as if to second the evangelical push for this tarted-up version of creationism, out of the blue appears a declaration from Christoph Cardinal Schönborn of Vienna, a man very close to the Pope, asserting that the supposed acceptance of evolution by John Paul II is mistaken. In fact, he says, the Roman Catholic Church rejects "neo-Darwinism" with the declaration that an "unguided evolutionary process--one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence--simply cannot exist." Cannot? On what scientific evidence? Evolution is one of the most powerful and elegant theories in all of human science and the bedrock of all modern biology. Schönborn's proclamation that it cannot exist unguided--that it is driven by an intelligent designer pushing and pulling and planning and shaping the process along the way--is a perfectly legitimate statement of faith. If he and the Evangelicals just stopped there and asked that intelligent design be included in a religion curriculum, I would support them. The scandal is to teach this as science--to pretend, as does Schönborn, that his statement of faith is a defense of science. "The Catholic Church," he says, "will again defend human reason" against "scientific theories that try to explain away the appearance of design as the result of 'chance and necessity,'" which "are not scientific at all." Well, if you believe that science is reason and that reason begins with recognizing the existence of an immanent providence, then this is science. But, of course, it is not. This is faith disguised as science. Science begins not with first principles but with observation and experimentation. In this slippery slide from "reason" to science, Schönborn is a direct descendant of the early 17th century Dutch clergyman and astronomer David Fabricius, who could not accept Johannes Kepler's discovery of elliptical planetary orbits. Why? Because the circle is so pure and perfect that reason must reject anything less. "With your ellipse," Fabricius wrote Kepler, "you abolish the circularity and uniformity of the motions, which appears to me increasingly absurd the more profoundly I think about it." No matter that, using Tycho Brahe's most exhaustive astronomical observations in history, Kepler had empirically demonstrated that the planets orbit elliptically. This conflict between faith and science had mercifully abated over the past four centuries as each grew to permit the other its own independent sphere. What we are witnessing now is a frontier violation by the forces of religion. This new attack claims that because there are gaps in evolution, they therefore must be filled by a divine intelligent designer. How many times do we have to rerun the Scopes "monkey trial"? There are gaps in science everywhere. Are we to fill them all with divinity? There were gaps in Newton's universe. They were ultimately filled by Einstein's revisions. There are gaps in Einstein's universe, great chasms between it and quantum theory. Perhaps they are filled by God. Perhaps not. But it is certainly not science to merely declare it so. To teach faith as science is to undermine the very idea of science, which is the acquisition of new knowledge through hypothesis, experimentation and evidence. To teach it as science is to encourage the supercilious caricature of America as a nation in the thrall of religious authority. To teach it as science is to discredit the welcome recent advances in permitting the public _expression of religion. Faith can and should be proclaimed from every mountaintop and city square. But it has no place in science class. To impose it on the teaching of evolution is not just to invite ridicule but to earn it. ____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
I was just going to say the same thing, LOL. Seriously though, thanks for writing your posts and for writing them so well. In my humble opinion, you're spot on. Chuck Hards <chuckhards@yahoo.com> wrote:Bill, Kurt, and Michael, you guys get my vote for Benign Dictator and advisors. Work it out amongst yourselves whom gets the big chair. You all express yourselves with such clarity- I wish I could express my own thoughts half as well. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Oh, gosh, SJM, thanks, but you're pretty darn eloquent and intelligent writer yourself. Right now my IN box is so full of posts (and unrelated emails) that it's going to be days before I can read them all thoughtfully...my next few days are just packed and my "vacation" ends this weekend so free time is evaporating quickly. I have do de-compress for a while anyway to get away from the stink of fundamentalism. I can't possibly read one-more meaningless quote from an ID beiliever or 'death-bed conversionist' for a while. This list has a DesNews writer in-residence so all of our comments are available to that institution, as well, I have a friend on-staff at the Trib...both papers know where to go to get all of our opinions. With Kim leading the charge, we'll certainly get this light out from under the bushel. And here's a personal request from me: I'd like to continue reading your posts- yours are some of the first I read, regardless of chronological order. Always interesting, keep it up! Have we ever met? --- South Jordan Mom <sjordanmom@yahoo.com> wrote:
Oh I wish you would just continue to pontificate, you have such an eloquent and intelligent way of putting things. I really hope you will pass your thoughts on to the media.
____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
LOL, well thanks. I am pretty sure we've met on more than one occasion. I'm pretty sure most everyone here knows me in fact, I thought everyone knew I use South Jordan Mom as my online moniker. But in case not, I'm Ken Warner's wife, Kathleen. We're the SLAS website people if that jars your memory. Chuck Hards <chuckhards@yahoo.com> wrote: Oh, gosh, SJM, thanks, but you're pretty darn eloquent and intelligent writer yourself. Right now my IN box is so full of posts (and unrelated emails) that it's going to be days before I can read them all thoughtfully...my next few days are just packed and my "vacation" ends this weekend so free time is evaporating quickly. I have do de-compress for a while anyway to get away from the stink of fundamentalism. I can't possibly read one-more meaningless quote from an ID beiliever or 'death-bed conversionist' for a while. This list has a DesNews writer in-residence so all of our comments are available to that institution, as well, I have a friend on-staff at the Trib...both papers know where to go to get all of our opinions. With Kim leading the charge, we'll certainly get this light out from under the bushel. And here's a personal request from me: I'd like to continue reading your posts- yours are some of the first I read, regardless of chronological order. Always interesting, keep it up! Have we ever met? --- South Jordan Mom wrote:
Oh I wish you would just continue to pontificate, you have such an eloquent and intelligent way of putting things. I really hope you will pass your thoughts on to the media.
____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs _______________________________________________ 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 --------------------------------- Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://cartoonbox.slate.com/view/?date=2005-08-04&fc=ta __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
South Jordan Mom wrote:
Good one! Considering this whole discussion got started courtesy of a piece in News, I think it appropriate this cartoon show up in tomorrow's News. Carpe Noctem! Patrick
Now I'm LOL! I never made the connection since I'm sure I've seen you post under your real name. Yep, I've met you and Ken several times over the past few years. I don't get to club functions very often but I do try to remember the club "movers and shakers". --- South Jordan Mom <sjordanmom@yahoo.com> wrote:
LOL, well thanks. I am pretty sure we've met on more than one occasion. I'm pretty sure most everyone here knows me in fact, I thought everyone knew I use South Jordan Mom as my online moniker. But in case not, I'm Ken Warner's wife, Kathleen. We're the SLAS website people if that jars your memory.
__________________________________ Yahoo! Mail Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html
I found this link posted on a religious philosophy board I like to read: http://www.seekfind.net/Amazing_Facts/Is_There_A_Quick_Explanation_Of_Why_Ev... yikes. --------------------------------- Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
South Jordan Mom wrote:
See, even the deseret news is misusing the word "theory".
History Channel will be airing "The Evolution of Evolution: Ape to Man" Sunday night at 7:00PM and 11:00PM. The ads they are running feature a human and an ape (both in business suits and reading newspapers) arguing about evolution and calling each other names. Funny ads. I hope the show is as good. Patrick
Quoting Patrick Wiggins <paw@trilobyte.net>:
The ads they are running feature a human and an ape (both in business suits and reading newspapers) arguing about evolution and calling each other names.
Don't you just love those family reunions... ;)
participants (11)
-
Brent Watson -
Chuck Hards -
diveboss＠xmission.com -
Don J. Colton -
Kim Hyatt -
Michael Kwan -
Patrick Wiggins -
Richard Tenney -
Scott Catron -
South Jordan Mom -
William Biesele