- UVAA - mailman.xmission.com

Reminder - Frontiers of Science Lecture Tonight, 7:30pm, U of U
by Richard Tenney 15 Feb '06

15 Feb '06

FRONTIERS OF SCIENCE LECTURE The RNA World: Forerunner of Our DNA World? Lecturer: Raymond F. Gesteland, distinguished professor of human genetics, University of Utah Date: Wednesday, Feb. 15, 2006 (TONIGHT!) Time: 7:30 p.m. Place: Aline Wilmot Skaggs Biology Building Auditorium, University of Utah FREE AND OPEN TO THE PUBLIC In our modern biological world, all the functions of life are carried out by cells. The core machinery is made of proteins that direct the cellsÂ complex chemistry and behavior by precisely triggering chemical reactions within the cell. Proteins are synthesized by particular components of the cellular machinery (made mostly of proteins themselves) that take their instructions from the deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) of genes. The DNA, in turn, is copied by other components that also are made of proteins. Thus, each kind of primary, large biological molecule Â protein and DNA Â depends directly on the other for its existence, and cells need both, working together, to grow, divide and function normally. This absolute interdependence between proteins and DNA in modern life gives rise to a profound chicken-and-egg problem: How could our DNA-and-protein world have evolved if neither DNA nor protein can exist without the other? The answer may be found in ribonucleic acid (RNA). RNA is similar to DNA, and like DNA it can carry genetic information. But it can also fold into complex shapes and act as a catalyst Â like proteins do Â to trigger chemical reactions. This makes it a candidate for solving the chicken-and-egg problem. Many lines of reasoning and evidence suggest that an RNA world early in EarthÂs 4.5-billion-year history could have supported the gradual evolution of both DNA and proteins. Although this theory may help solve the chicken and egg problem, it does not explain how the RNA world itself might have arisen. Gesteland earned his Ph.D. in biochemistry at Harvard University in 1965 and conducted postdoctoral research at the University of Geneva, Switzerland. In 1967, John Cairns hired him to work at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in New York, where he became assistant director for research with James Watson, who received the Nobel Prize in 1962 for his discovery of the DNA double helix. Gesteland was attracted to Utah in 1978 as a full professor of biology. In 1984, he accepted a faculty appointment in human genetics and became a distinguished professor in 1996. Gesteland is currently the vice president for research at the University of Utah, as well as a distinguished professor of human genetics and the recipient of the Helen Lowe Bamberger Colby Presidential Endowed Chair in Human Genetics. He has nearly 200 publications and is a member of the RNA Society and the American Academy of Microbiology. University of Utah College of Science 1430 E. Presidents Circle, Room 220 Salt Lake City, Utah 84112-0140 (801) 581-6958 fax: (801) 585-3169 www.science.utah.edu __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

1 0

Fwd: Frontiers of Science Feb. 15
by Richard Tenney 02 Feb '06

02 Feb '06

Frontiers of Science Lecture The RNA World: Forerunner of Our DNA World? Raymond F. Gesteland / Wed, February 15, 2006 In our modern biological world, all the functions of life are carried out by cells. The core machinery is made of proteins that direct the cell's complex chemistry and behavior by acting as highly specific and precise catalysts. Proteins are synthesized by particular components of the cellular machinery (made mostly of proteins themselves) that take their instructions from DNA, while DNA, in turn, is copied by other components that are also made of proteins. Thus, each kind of primary biological macromolecule (protein and DNA) depends directly on the other for its existence, and cells need both, working together, to grow, divide and function normally. Date: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 Time: 7:30 p.m. Location: Aline Wilmot Skaggs Biology Auditorium, University of Utah campus. 275 South 1430 East (map) Admission: Free and open to the public! Contact Info: (801) 581-6958 jdegooyer(a)science.utah.edu www.science.utah.edu Frontiers of Science lecture: The RNA World: Forerunner of Our DNA World? This absolute codependence of proteins and DNA in modern life gives rise to a profound chicken-and-egg problem: How could the DNA-and-protein world have evolved, if neither side can exist without the other? In modern cells, RNA plays many key roles. RNA is similar to DNA, and like DNA it can carry genetic information. But it can also fold into complex shapes and act as a catalyst, like proteins. This makes it a candidate for solving the chicken-and-egg problem. Many lines of reasoning and evidence suggest that an RNA world could have supported the gradual evolution of both DNA and proteins. Although this theory may help solve the chicken and egg problem, it does not explain how the RNA world itself might have arisen. Frontiers of Science lecture: The RNA World: Forerunner of Our DNA World? __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

1 0

Fwd: Frontiers of Science Jan. 25
by Richard Tenney 25 Jan '06

25 Jan '06

I'm looking forward to this lecture; the timing is perfect. If only we could convince that idiot Buttars to attend...<sigh> --- James DeGooyer <jdegooyer(a)biology.utah.edu> wrote: > Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 10:15:15 -0700 > To: office(a)science.utah.edu > From: James DeGooyer <jdegooyer(a)biology.utah.edu> > Subject: Frontiers of Science Jan. 25 > CC: mortensen(a)science.utah.edu > > Dear Frontiers of Science patron: > > You are cordially invited to attend the first FOS > lecture of the year > on Weds, Jan. 25, 7:30 PM, in the Aline Skaggs > Biology auditorium! > See the U. of U. press release below. Campus map = > http://www.map.utah.edu/index.jsp?find=82 > Note: Whiting will give a live radio interview Tues, > Jan. 24 on KCPW > 88.3 and 105.3 FM, at 10:40 a.m. Tune-in! > > > > UNIVERSITY OF UTAH MEDIA ADVISORY > > FRONTIERS OF SCIENCE LECTURE > Harvesting the Tree of Life: > Reaping What We Sow > > Lecturer: Michael F. Whiting, associate professor > of integrative > biology, Brigham Young University > Date: Wednesday, Jan. 25, 2006 > Time: 7:30 p.m. > Place: Aline Wilmot Skaggs Biology Building > Auditorium, University of > Utah > > FREE AND OPEN TO THE PUBLIC > > > Charles Darwin recognized that all biological > species are > connected in a great Tree of Life that represents > the evolution - or > pattern of ancestry and descent - among all species. > However, > reconstructing this Tree of Life has remained a > complicated and elusive > endeavor, and only recently have the tools and > technology been developed > to place all the branches of the tree together into > a single blueprint > of life. > > Large collaborative efforts are now underway > throughout the > world to reconstruct this tree, and for the first > time we are beginning > to piece all of biodiversity together into a whole. > This talk will focus > on the steps required to assemble the Tree of Life > for the insect > family, from trekking through the rainforests of the > world, to using > innovations in gene sequencing technology and > supercomputing. > > "Even in the early stages of reconstructing this > tree, it is > becoming clear that this tree will help us refine > our understanding of > the evolutionary process," says Whiting. > > Whiting provides two examples of how the Tree of > Life project > benefits society and the environment: > > -- It serves as an early warning system for > tracking and > controlling disease. When a new pathogen emerges, it > is critical to > figure out what it evolved from, because that will > reveal how best to > contain and combat the pathogen. The Tree of Life > provides a map of all > organisms and their evolutionary relationships to > each other, so it > allows researchers to determine the new pathogen's > closest relative. > When the virus that caused the 1918 flu pandemic was > placed in the Tree > of Life, it became clear that it was derived from a > virus that lives in > birds, which is why everyone is concerned about the > recent emergence of > a new avian flu. > > -- It plays a critical role in preserving the > threatened species > on the planet. One of the rationales behind trying > to conserve species > is that we do not want to lose genetic diversity. If > it is not possible > to save all of the species on the planet, then we > need to prioritize > which species should be saved. The Tree of Life > allows us to look at two > threatened species, compare them to their closest > neighbors that are not > threatened, and decide which one provides the most > genetic diversity if > it is protected. > > Michael F. Whiting is an associate professor of > integrative > biology, associate curator of insects at the Monte > L. Bean Life Science > Museum, and director of the DNA Sequencing Center at > Brigham Young > University. He earned his Ph.D. from Cornell > University in 1995 and was > a Sloan Fellow at the American Museum of Natural > History in New York > before joining the BYU faculty in 1997. > > His research focuses on using DNA sequencing to > unravel the > evolutionary history of the major groups of insects, > and correlating > this history with major biological or morphological > shifts. > > His work is known internationally for: > > -- Innovations in insect phylogeny, which is the > study of > evolutionary relationships among insect groups. > > -- Innovations in mitochondrial genomics, the study > of genetic > information within mitochondria, the "power plants" > that help convert > food into energy inside cells. > > -- Methods of phylogenetic reconstruction, which is > the theory > and practice of deciphering evolutionary > relationships among organisms. > > -- Computational biology, involving using computers > to sort > through all possible evolutionary relationships to > select the optimal > evolutionary pattern. > > In 2003, Whiting and colleagues demonstrated that a > certain > group of insects lost the ability to fly and then > re-evolved it 50 > million years later - the first time any organism > was shown to do what > scientists previously thought almost impossible: > re-evolve a complex > trait. > > Whiting has been honored as the recipient of a > National Science > Foundation CAREER Award, the Ernst Mayr Research > Award for Evolutionary > Biology, the Brigham Young University Young > Investigator Award, and the > Phi Kappa Phi Distinguished Faculty Lecturer Award. > He has more than 80 > publications, including high profile work published > in prestigious > journals such as Nature and Systematic Biology. > > [You have received this email invitation because you > are listed on > the College of Science/Frontiers of Science email > registry. You may > or may not receive a letter invitation through U.S. > mail. If you wish > to unsubscribe to this service, simply 'Reply' with > subject line > 'Unsubscribe.'] > -- > James R. DeGooyer > Public Relations Specialist > College of Science > 1430 E. Presidents Cir. Rm. 220 > Salt Lake City, UT 84112 > Ph. (801) 581-3124 > Fax (801) 585-3169 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

9 13

Re: [UVAA] Off Topic: Darwin and LDS doctrine
by David Moulton 25 Jan '06

25 Jan '06

>Rich, let's get one thing straight- I do not agree with President >Bush or Chris Buttars on any form of teaching ID or Creationism or >whatever in our public schools at all. Do not confuse me on this >point whatsoever. I only stated that the Darwin's theory of the >origin of man was in direct conflict LDS doctrine, but I do support >some of Darwin theories of evolution. > > Steve while I don't agree with some of what you are saying, I do think you've been a bit misunderstood here. I think we need to continue dialogue like this. We all deserve to be understood. >I don't understand why some of you evolutionary-mormons can not have >faith in a creation process and why are you so willing to jump on >board with the rest of world because "it makes sense". "Faith is the >substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." > > Clearly faith can and should be a very important part of our lives. We're lost without it. However, I feel that on this and many other subjects, our faith is well served by scientific discovery, and tring to make up our own mind about things. I hope to spend eternity learning about this. I'd like to get a start now. I have faith that God created all that we see. I'd like to try to figure out how he did it. The thing that irks me most about Buttars is how he tailors his message to the audience. When he knows he's going to be on TV, or in front of a crowd that he doesn't know, its all about "Intelligent Design" and how this is not about religion. This is just a bill to put a little chink in Evolution's armor in relation to how its taught in school. That all changes when he speaks to the <expletive> Eagle Forum. Then the skirt comes up, as it were. Its all about getting creationism taught in the schools. I'd like him to say it like it is, no matter who he's talking to. Its a slippery slope we're on the verge of. Can't somebody in his district run against him? dave

1 0

OT: Evolution and LDS doctrine
by Richard Tenney 25 Jan '06

25 Jan '06

Darn browser and my clumsy fingers -- I prematurely hit send mid-sentence. Back to my question: When did God ever give ANYTHING away for free? That's not, nor ever has been in the history of mankind, how He has operated. We must seek, knock, search, ponder and pray to get at the various truths. That's true for ANY endeavor or field of study, eligious or secular. It works the same. Finding truths in the world work the same for philosophers or scientists or prophets -- we have to seek, ask, ponder, study, work work work. It's always the same. You think God's going to just up and tell us how He created us? Why should He when He filled up the planet with all the evidence we need (and more) to figure it out "line upon line, precept upon precept", the very foundation of how science puzzles out the mysteries of life?! I see this God of ours as a loving parent, who has no desire to spoil his children by just giving away knowledge -- we have to WORK for everything! Even prophets have to pester, plead, get on their knees and CRY for days sometimes to get the wisdom they seek. Evolution is a process. It ties ALL LIVING THINGS together into a beautiful, symbiotic masterpiece of creation. Man wasn't just dropped in here, some rogue "special" creation -- I refuse to believe that 99% of my DNA shared with chimps is just some dumb coincidence meant to "test my faith" (what a bunch of CRAP those kinds of sentiments are!). God loves us and wants us to be like Him -- to have knowledge of all of creation, as we are meant to partake in the creation process. We (and all living things in fact) partake of this creative process in the choices we make (agency), in the things we do and learn, etc. This is a very cool thought. The creation wasn't some static event long ago -- it's an ongoing process, dynamic, rich, beautiful and fascinating. But don't tell me it's incomprehensible (what I meant by magic) -- that I will never believe, however many misguided GA's (Packer, McConkie, JFSmith, etc.) might think otherwise. That kind of intellectual laziness will get us absolutely nowhere. And why we simply have to be environmetally savvy stewards of this incredible planet we call home. Our "dominion" is as a loving, careful steward, not as a reckless tyrannical "other" creation that has carte blance to pollute, kill, rape pillage and plunder to consume it upon our various lusts. And in order to do that we absolutely MUST comprehend how all the pieces fit together. There's a whole microbial world for example that we've just scratched the surface of. Okay, enough rambling. I hope I'm making sense here. -Rich __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

1 0

Re: [UVAA] Entropy Evolution and even Optics
by Onandagus1＠cs.com 25 Jan '06

25 Jan '06

Entropy is the increase of disorder that inevitably occurs *in a closed system*. In a system that receives energy from the outside, however, order can be maintained or even increase. Is the biosphere a closed system or an open one? Plainly, it is an open one, with enormous amounts of energy provided by the sun. Thus the concept of entropy is simply butchered by anti-evolutionists. Don Bradley

1 0

RE: [UVAA] Off Topic: Darwin and LDS doctrine
by Wendy Madsen 25 Jan '06

25 Jan '06

Having spent time in some of the science teaching circles, both inside and outside Utah, most teachers DO present evolution as a scientific theory, based on evidence, and are not trying to destroy any students fundamental belief in whatever form of spirituality they believe in. It is not generally taught as a "belief", as it's not a belief. It's a theory that is supported by evidence. Most teachers try to strictly adhere to the evolution as science idea, in part because they don't want to be accused of "brainwashing" students. Another misheld belief is that teachers are teaching human evolution. Basically what most teachers present is the process of natural selection and how different species can emerge over time. This involves an understanding of genetics and ecological evolution as well. It is not the goal of science teachers to destroy the faith of their students and turn them all into little atheists. We want them to think, and use reason. Some of these messages remind me of the old adage - There are none so blind as those who will not see. By the way, I think it is quite presumptuous of people who believe in an omnipotent God to say that evolution could not be a means to an end. Just because it offends your sensibilities doesn't make it impossible. Who do you presume to be putting limits on God?? Wendy Madsen Biological Quality ICU Medical SLC (801)262-2688 ext. 5039 -----Original Message----- From: uvaa-bounces+wendy.madsen=icumed.com(a)mailman.xmission.com [mailto:uvaa-bounces+wendy.madsen=icumed.com@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Jonathan Cavendar Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 9:38 AM To: Utah Valley Astronomy Association Subject: RE: [UVAA] Off Topic: Darwin and LDS doctrine Ok, this is a topic that I can actually discuss, so here goes... My wife is an evolutionist and LDS. I am a creationist and LDS. She is a biophysicist, I am a lawyer. Both of us are educated and both of us have different (albeit rational) views on the subject. Our ultimate conclusion is that it doesn't matter, and we will ask the Lord how he really did it when we get up there (assuming we make it up there). There is the kicker, though. If we are only discussing evolution in the sense of discussing "how it was done" then I believe the evolution debate is harmless at worst and an enjoyable intellectual exercise at best. But evolution is NOT being used for that purpose. Evolution and Darwinism has been piggy-backed by materialism, atheism, and agnosticism. When teachers in most of the country (maybe not so much in Utah) teach evolution they are in fact teaching romantic secularism. That is the greatest concern (I believe) in the way evolution is being taught. If we could add language to the teach of evolution to the effect of "Evolution is a scientific theory and as such is ill-suited to either prove or disprove the existence of Deity. Darwin and other supporters were strongly religious men, still other supporters were atheist or agnostic. Ultimately, the question of the existence of Deity is a question outside the scope of Darwinism to answer." So if you don't want religion to enter the evolution debate, get evolution out of the religious debate. You cannot have it both ways. Just my two cents... Jonathan ________________________________ From: uvaa-bounces+jonathan=cavender-group.com(a)mailman.xmission.com on behalf of Steven Goodwin Sent: Tue 1/24/2006 6:16 PM To: Utah Valley Astronomy Association Subject: Re: [UVAA] Off Topic: Darwin and LDS doctrine Rich, let's get one thing straight- I do not agree with President Bush or Chris Buttars on any form of teaching ID or Creationism or whatever in our public schools at all. Do not confuse me on this point whatsoever. I only stated that the Darwin's theory of the origin of man was in direct conflict LDS doctrine, but I do support some of Darwin theories of evolution. If you find the two incompatible then maybe that is where we differ. Teaching my faith in values belong in my home to be taught to my children not in public school. To think God inserted his spirit in Adam as man evolved to a certain point has been rejected by LDS leaders- this idea of "theological evolution" as it has been sometimes been coined has been rejected. Do a search of Elder Packard's General Conference talks within the last two years (I can't remember which). I also refer you to the "official" statement on the Origins of Man by President Joseph F Smith and his Counselors in 1909 (found recently in Feb 2002 Ensign). Here is an excerpt from that: "It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men. The word of the Lord declared that Adam was "the first man of all men (Moses 1:34), and we are therefore in duty bound to regard him as the primal parent of our race." It is wrong to say the LDS Church has never made a statement about Darwin's origin of Man. They have avoided the mean-spirited rhetoric that many extreme christians group have taken though. As whether creation of man = magic I'm not sure where you are coming from there. Adam did not just appear- he was created like any other of God's creations. Saying God formed Adam from the dust of the earth doesn't equate "magic" but it involves a process we do not understand of at the present time. We are just trying to understand where man was created from- According to modern evolution it was from Homo Erectus and other hominids that we evolved. Adams progenitors were not Hominids- Adam was the first man and how he was created wasn't magic but it wasn't from a lower species. I don't understand why some of you evolutionary-mormons can not have faith in a creation process and why are you so willing to jump on board with the rest of world because "it makes sense". "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." It is interesting that because I have expressed an opinion that is contrary to the "hard core" evolutionists that I must be in the camp with the right-wing extremists. I simply believe in the creation story of man and I also believe in some of the theories of evolution-- this may sound like they are in conflict but they aren't. Faith binds it together. On Jan 24, 2006, at 11:44 AM, Richard Tenney wrote: >> I find it interesting Mark, that considering yourself and the biology >> staff at BYU devout Mormons when embracing Darwin's theory on the >> origin of man is in direct conflict with LDS church doctrine. > > On this point you are flat wrong Steve. The LDS Church (of which I > too am an active HP) CONTINUALLY REFUSES TO TAKE A DOCTRINAL POSITION > ON HOW HUMANS WERE CREATED. However, commonly held LDS belief that > God somehow created humans (completely separate from all other life > forms) with a magic wand in a puff of hocus pocus, or from a literal > lump of clay is simply pure ignorant superstition (from a literal > reading of the creation myth in Genesis/Moses) that flies in the face > of mountains of evidence to the contrary. Such a position in fact > paints a doctrinal picture in which either God is a capricious, wicked > prankster that loves to decieve his curious children, or one in which > He is laughing His head off (or shaking it in amazed > disbelief) at our gross myopia and willful ignorance of what He has > placed here all around us to discover and learn for ourselves. > > Can someone please tell me why there are seemingly so many of you > (fellow Mormons) that insist that creation == magic? > > Why is (creation == evolutionary_process) such a bitter, difficult > pill to swallow? I simply do not/cannot understand it. > > -Rich > > PS, As to any political overtones you might object to, Pres. Bush > opening his politically-motivated mouth on the subject of ID is in > fact the very ammunition Butters cites to pursue this ridiculous bill > of his, and citing that is relevant to such a discussion, > unfortunately. So fault him and his fundamentalist "christian" > supporters, not folks like Mark that object to what is clearly > political hay-making by the president (and one has to believe Buttars, > who doesn't have a doctrinal leg to stand on). > > Any politician that insists on micro-managing professional science > educators should first be forced to pass a basic HS science exam, > which Buttars would clearly fail to do. > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > > _______________________________________________ > UVAA mailing list > UVAA(a)mailman.xmission.com > http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uvaa _______________________________________________ UVAA mailing list UVAA(a)mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uvaa

1 0

Entropy Evolution and even Optics
by G, L. Wallace 24 Jan '06

24 Jan '06

Re: ">Wow! I find it interesting that the astronomy list has turned into an >evolution debate." Evolution has a problem called Entropy, the Second Law of Thermodynamics: Everything on its own tends to a lower state of organization. Does your car fix itself? What happens to us when Entropy takes over our body? Cancer If you chose to ignore Entropy then I can show how Automobiles evolved from iron ore. Over billions of years iron ore turned itself into steel. The Conestoga wagons put iron rims on their wheels in 1800. Those wagons by Natural Selection survived and they made baby wagons with metal rims. We can prove the evolution of the automobile because each step along the way is displayed in the "fossil" museum record. Of course if you choose to ignore the Law of Gravity then Reindeer can fly! I definitely agree that students should learn all about Evolution. But they need to learn its flaws too. It is funny that scientists have no problem with 2 theories on Light: Wave Theory and Photon Theory. Life is vastly more complex than light. Alabama has the following sticker placed in all biology textbooks: http://www.eagleforum.org/educate/1995/dec95/textbook.html Gary Wallace, CEO Delta Meta Solutions Cedar Hills UT

1 0

RE: [UVAA] OT: Darwin and LDS doctrine
by Wendy Madsen 24 Jan '06

24 Jan '06

Wow! I find it interesting that the astronomy list has turned into an evolution debate. As a former HS biology teacher, I know how uptight people can get about their "religion vs. evolution" ideas. When the question would come up in my classes I would tell students to research it for themselves, talk to their religious leaders and see what they had to say. Most who took the time came back with a better understanding of where their religion stood, and a willingness to learn about and understand evolution. One of the biggest "mis-educations" that I had to dispel was the idea that evolution = humans came from monkeys. Humans descending from monkeys is like saying that you are the child of your cousin. Sure, you share ancestors, but that DOES NOT mean the human line contains monkeys anywhere (it's not monkeys anyway... It's apes. There's a big difference.) If a student would persist I would invite them to see me after school/class, if they wanted, and we could talk about it further. If they decided they wanted to take me up on it, we would discuss two things: 1. If your Mom spent the day at home by herself, and when you came home there was a home made cake in the kitchen, what can you infer about who made it? Does that inference tell you the recipe that was used? The cake in the kitchen and the inferences you can make could be an analogy to the creation story. The recipe, which isn't stated in the bible, is where evolution and all that other scientific "stuff" comes in. It doesn't say "who" but "how". 2. As a person who gets a well rounded high school education, they need to understand the concepts involved with evolution, even if they choose to disagree. They need to be able to discuss intelligently why they are opposed to evolution and be able to defend their opposition with knowledge (unlike Buttars whose lack of understanding is insulting!) Anyway... That's just my two cents worth. Wendy Madsen Biological Quality ICU Medical SLC (801)262-2688 ext. 5039 -----Original Message----- From: uvaa-bounces+wendy.madsen=icumed.com(a)mailman.xmission.com [mailto:uvaa-bounces+wendy.madsen=icumed.com@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Richard Tenney Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 11:45 AM To: Utah Valley Astronomy Association Subject: [UVAA] OT: Darwin and LDS doctrine > I find it interesting Mark, that considering yourself and the biology > staff at BYU devout Mormons when embracing Darwin's theory on the > origin of man is in direct conflict with LDS church doctrine. On this point you are flat wrong Steve. The LDS Church (of which I too am an active HP) CONTINUALLY REFUSES TO TAKE A DOCTRINAL POSITION ON HOW HUMANS WERE CREATED. However, commonly held LDS belief that God somehow created humans (completely separate from all other life forms) with a magic wand in a puff of hocus pocus, or from a literal lump of clay is simply pure ignorant superstition (from a literal reading of the creation myth in Genesis/Moses) that flies in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary. Such a position in fact paints a doctrinal picture in which either God is a capricious, wicked prankster that loves to decieve his curious children, or one in which He is laughing His head off (or shaking it in amazed disbelief) at our gross myopia and willful ignorance of what He has placed here all around us to discover and learn for ourselves. Can someone please tell me why there are seemingly so many of you (fellow Mormons) that insist that creation == magic? Why is (creation == evolutionary_process) such a bitter, difficult pill to swallow? I simply do not/cannot understand it. -Rich PS, As to any political overtones you might object to, Pres. Bush opening his politically-motivated mouth on the subject of ID is in fact the very ammunition Butters cites to pursue this ridiculous bill of his, and citing that is relevant to such a discussion, unfortunately. So fault him and his fundamentalist "christian" supporters, not folks like Mark that object to what is clearly political hay-making by the president (and one has to believe Buttars, who doesn't have a doctrinal leg to stand on). Any politician that insists on micro-managing professional science educators should first be forced to pass a basic HS science exam, which Buttars would clearly fail to do. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ UVAA mailing list UVAA(a)mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uvaa

3 2

Tickets sent
by Patrick Wiggins 24 Jan '06

24 Jan '06

I just finished emailing tickets for Thursday's IMAX screening to all of the astronomy club members who requested one. If you requested a ticket and it does not show up in your in box today please let me know. Patrick

1 0