RE: [Utah-astronomy] science, religion and politics
While I think we could have a lively debate about what each party stands for (or doesn't stand for <g>), who forms the base of each party, what are the dis/merits of the Kyoto treaty, etc., etc. -- I don't think this is the proper forum. I think this sub-thread pushes things past the boundary of where we can go and remain civil on this list. So, you are entitled to your personal political philosophy - but I hope that we can kill this sub-thread before this whole thing turns into a political argument. Clear skies, Dale. -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+dale.hooper=sdl.usu.edu@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+dale.hooper=sdl.usu.edu@mailman.xmission. com] On Behalf Of William Biesele Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2005 8:03 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: [Utah-astronomy] science, religion and politics 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. _______________________________________________ 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
Dale: I thought long and hard before talking about the elephant in the room. I've watched several mailing lists blow up and die from threads similar to this. But the original post was in response to a politician's actions, Kim's first post mentioned political action. But there was no 'kill the thread' post then. So since I spelled out the R in Chris Buttars (R, South Jordan) and pointed out some inconsistencies in the R positions the topic is now to be 'killed'? 'Intelligent design' is a political movement, not a scientific one. And it needs to be debated in political circles as well as scientific ones. Bill B. On Aug 9, 2005, at 8:26 PM, Dale Hooper wrote:
While I think we could have a lively debate about what each party stands for (or doesn't stand for <g>), who forms the base of each party, what are the dis/merits of the Kyoto treaty, etc., etc. -- I don't think this is the proper forum. I think this sub-thread pushes things past the boundary of where we can go and remain civil on this list.
So, you are entitled to your personal political philosophy - but I hope that we can kill this sub-thread before this whole thing turns into a political argument.
Clear skies, Dale.
-----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+dale.hooper=sdl.usu.edu@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces +dale.hooper=sdl.usu.edu@mailman.xmission
I don't want a political argument, either, but politicians have started this whole discussion (in the case of Mr. Buttars) by insisting that religion be taught in the science classroom. As scientists, even though most of us are "mere" amateur scientists, this should be a concern. For that reason I brought the whole thing up in the first place. But then, it really is Patrick's fault. ;-) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dale Hooper" <Dale.Hooper@sdl.usu.edu> To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2005 8:26 PM Subject: RE: [Utah-astronomy] science, religion and politics | While I think we could have a lively debate about what each party stands | for (or doesn't stand for <g>), who forms the base of each party, what | are the dis/merits of the Kyoto treaty, etc., etc. -- I don't think this | is the proper forum. I think this sub-thread pushes things past the | boundary of where we can go and remain civil on this list. | | So, you are entitled to your personal political philosophy - but I hope | that we can kill this sub-thread before this whole thing turns into a | political argument. | | Clear skies, | Dale. | | -----Original Message----- | From: | utah-astronomy-bounces+dale.hooper=sdl.usu.edu@mailman.xmission.com | [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+dale.hooper=sdl.usu.edu@mailman.xmission. | com] On Behalf Of William Biesele | Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2005 8:03 PM | To: Utah Astronomy | Subject: [Utah-astronomy] science, religion and politics | | 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. | | | | | | _______________________________________________ | 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 | ______________________________________________________________________ | |
Kim Hyatt wrote:
For that reason I brought the whole thing up in the first place. But then, it really is Patrick's fault. ;-)
I resemble that remark! :-) Actually, while I never imagined that little piece I intentionally buried near the bottom of last Wednesday's News would start such a long and in depth discussion, I'm glad it did. A very enjoyable thread to be sure. Hmmm, maybe now I should run a story about "What is a Planet?" Patrick
I've really enjoyed this debate, but if it's time to let it die, I wouldn't be hurt. At the same time, I also don't mind if it continues. A couple of you have let me know that you would like to be included in the correspondence that I will be sending to Chris Buttars and his Eagle Forum friends. (Not finished yet, but started.) I'll try not to plagiarize, at least not obviously so, but I hope y'all don't mind if I borrow heavily from some of your remarks. Like Chuck, I think I lack the clarity of thought that many of you possess. Unlike Chuck, I KNOW I missed that godly gift - uhh, gene. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Patrick Wiggins" <paw@trilobyte.net> To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2005 10:52 PM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] science, religion and politics | Kim Hyatt wrote: | > For that reason I | > brought the whole thing up in the first place. But then, it really is | > Patrick's fault. ;-) | | I resemble that remark! :-) | | Actually, while I never imagined that little piece I intentionally | buried near the bottom of last Wednesday's News would start such a long | and in depth discussion, I'm glad it did. | | A very enjoyable thread to be sure. | | Hmmm, maybe now I should run a story about "What is a Planet?" | | 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 | | ______________________________________________________________________ | 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 | ______________________________________________________________________ | |
Kim Hyatt wrote:
I've really enjoyed this debate, but if it's time to let it die, I wouldn't be hurt. At the same time, I also don't mind if it continues. A couple of you have let me know that you would like to be included in the correspondence that I will be sending to Chris Buttars and his Eagle Forum friends. (Not finished yet, but started.) I'll try not to plagiarize, at least not obviously so, but I hope y'all don't mind if I borrow heavily from some of your remarks. Like Chuck, I think I lack the clarity of thought that many of you possess. Unlike Chuck, I KNOW I missed that godly gift - uhh, gene.
And it would be really great if Joe would use the stuff presented here as the basis for an article in D News. Joe, you listening? Patrick
Hummm. Thanks, Patrick, great idea. I've been listening, haven't read all the posts, but I can go back to the newslist archives. It is a really good idea. Our group has had a memorable, respectful debate with intelligent comments on both sides. This is a very valuable exercise for the noodling appendage, as someone called it. I do like the idea of an article for our "Utah Scientific" feature that runs on most Mondays. I could put together a pro- and con- piece, cherrypicking some of the most telling statement on both sides. I haven't kept the posts but I could go to the archives to pick them out. Could all who are comfortable with my using their comments please drop me a line saying it's OK to print them? I won't quote anyone who doesn't say it's OK. I would request a note with name and location. (I guess we know where South Jordan Mom lives!) If I get a good response I will start working on it. Some with great posts might not see this. Maybe those on either side who do see this and want to make sure others get involved could copy this note to them. I have two caveats: first, I'm not positive I will do it because there are always breaking scientific developments, so don't be disappointed if I can't; second, there have been so many good things said that I could not use all of them, and some worthy people's statements might not be printed -- I don't want them to feel bad. Thanks, Joe
Joe, I'll be completing the promised letter I'm sending to Senator Buttars this afternoon. I will tell him that, as a public servant and one who has embraced this debate publicly, he can have no expectation that the sentiments I express to him will be kept private. I will forward copies of my letter to many others, including you and the SLTrib. Feel free to use (or not) any comments I've made. I'll contact you off-list later. If anyone else in this forum wants to have their names associated with my letter to Mr. Buttars, please let me know this morning. Aren't dreams interesting? Last night I dreamed a great insult for Sen. Buttars. Oh, I won't repeat it, of course. Darn. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joe Bauman" <bau@desnews.com> To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2005 8:41 AM Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Patrick's suggestion about an article | Hummm. Thanks, Patrick, great idea. | | I've been listening, haven't read all the posts, but I can go back to | the newslist archives. It is a really good idea. Our group has had a | memorable, respectful debate with intelligent comments on both sides. | This is a very valuable exercise for the noodling appendage, as | someone called it. | | I do like the idea of an article for our "Utah Scientific" feature | that runs on most Mondays. I could put together a pro- and con- | piece, cherrypicking some of the most telling statement on both | sides. I haven't kept the posts but I could go to the archives to | pick them out. | | Could all who are comfortable with my using their comments please | drop me a line saying it's OK to print them? I won't quote anyone who | doesn't say it's OK. I would request a note with name and location. | (I guess we know where South Jordan Mom lives!) If I get a good | response I will start working on it. | | Some with great posts might not see this. Maybe those on either side | who do see this and want to make sure others get involved could copy | this note to them. | | I have two caveats: first, I'm not positive I will do it because | there are always breaking scientific developments, so don't be | disappointed if I can't; second, there have been so many good things | said that I could not use all of them, and some worthy people's | statements might not be printed -- I don't want them to feel bad. | | Thanks, Joe | | _______________________________________________ | 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 | ______________________________________________________________________ |
participants (5)
-
Dale Hooper -
Joe Bauman -
Kim Hyatt -
Patrick Wiggins -
William Biesele