Fwd: Frontiers of Science Jan. 25
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@biology.utah.edu> wrote:
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 10:15:15 -0700 To: office@science.utah.edu From: James DeGooyer <jdegooyer@biology.utah.edu> Subject: Frontiers of Science Jan. 25 CC: mortensen@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
(I'm on this list and enjoy the chat though rarely contribute) Another irony I see of Utah's idiotic efforts to denigrate evolution is the fact that it is generally the cause of hyper-fanatical Christians who think they somehow have insight into the Bible or into God that trained professional scientists are exempt from. In this case, however, the rising star in evolutionary science speaking at the UofU on Jan. 25 also happens to be a devout Mormon teaching at BYU, and I wonder what Buttars would say if he knew that every single Mormon professor in the BYU Biology Department for at least the last three decades (there may be an exception or two in there, but I doubt it and certainly not among the dozens I have known) has been completely convinced by the evolutionary argument. I heard Buttars discuss this topic on NPR a few weeks back and have never heard a public official so utterly ignorant about the most basic principles of science -- with the possible exception, of course, of our very own President George W. Bush. -- Mark Burns (BYU professor, devout believer in both Jesus and Darwin) On Jan 23, 2006, at 7:42 PM, Richard Tenney wrote:
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@biology.utah.edu> wrote:
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 10:15:15 -0700 To: office@science.utah.edu From: James DeGooyer <jdegooyer@biology.utah.edu> Subject: Frontiers of Science Jan. 25 CC: mortensen@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
_______________________________________________ UVAA mailing list UVAA@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uvaa
I don't think intelligent devout christians fault evolution in all aspects it is mainly the issue of the origin of man that is at issue. Christian extremists would have us believe that evolution is evil but thoughtful christians can seek inspiration from Darwin's theory as well without abandoning faith. 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. I wouldn't make blanket statements concerning what you and the BYU biology staff think is what all intelligent science loving Mormons think as well. Some of us find no conflict having faith in the creation account in the Bible as well as finding inspiration in Darwin's theories. I find comments such as yours are made to underscore the fault of religion and politics inflammatory and unnecessary. I don't agree with Chris Buttars either but I find your opinion as extreme as his. There must be common ground where we all can stand together on this issue. Steve Goodwin On Jan 23, 2006, at 10:35 PM, Mark Burns wrote:
(I'm on this list and enjoy the chat though rarely contribute) Another irony I see of Utah's idiotic efforts to denigrate evolution is the fact that it is generally the cause of hyper- fanatical Christians who think they somehow have insight into the Bible or into God that trained professional scientists are exempt from. In this case, however, the rising star in evolutionary science speaking at the UofU on Jan. 25 also happens to be a devout Mormon teaching at BYU, and I wonder what Buttars would say if he knew that every single Mormon professor in the BYU Biology Department for at least the last three decades (there may be an exception or two in there, but I doubt it and certainly not among the dozens I have known) has been completely convinced by the evolutionary argument. I heard Buttars discuss this topic on NPR a few weeks back and have never heard a public official so utterly ignorant about the most basic principles of science -- with the possible exception, of course, of our very own President George W. Bush. -- Mark Burns (BYU professor, devout believer in both Jesus and Darwin)
On Jan 23, 2006, at 7:42 PM, Richard Tenney wrote:
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@biology.utah.edu> wrote:
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 10:15:15 -0700 To: office@science.utah.edu From: James DeGooyer <jdegooyer@biology.utah.edu> Subject: Frontiers of Science Jan. 25 CC: mortensen@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
_______________________________________________ UVAA mailing list UVAA@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uvaa
_______________________________________________ UVAA mailing list UVAA@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uvaa
Right on Steve - Good comment
puhiava@macosx.com 01/24/06 7:54 AM >>> I don't think intelligent devout christians fault evolution in all aspects it is mainly the issue of the origin of man that is at issue. Christian extremists would have us believe that evolution is evil but thoughtful christians can seek inspiration from Darwin's theory as well without abandoning faith.
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. I wouldn't make blanket statements concerning what you and the BYU biology staff think is what all intelligent science loving Mormons think as well. Some of us find no conflict having faith in the creation account in the Bible as well as finding inspiration in Darwin's theories. I find comments such as yours are made to underscore the fault of religion and politics inflammatory and unnecessary. I don't agree with Chris Buttars either but I find your opinion as extreme as his. There must be common ground where we all can stand together on this issue. Steve Goodwin On Jan 23, 2006, at 10:35 PM, Mark Burns wrote:
(I'm on this list and enjoy the chat though rarely contribute) Another irony I see of Utah's idiotic efforts to denigrate evolution is the fact that it is generally the cause of hyper- fanatical Christians who think they somehow have insight into the Bible or into God that trained professional scientists are exempt from. In this case, however, the rising star in evolutionary science speaking at the UofU on Jan. 25 also happens to be a devout Mormon teaching at BYU, and I wonder what Buttars would say if he knew that every single Mormon professor in the BYU Biology Department for at least the last three decades (there may be an exception or two in there, but I doubt it and certainly not among the dozens I have known) has been completely convinced by the evolutionary argument. I heard Buttars discuss this topic on NPR a few weeks back and have never heard a public official so utterly ignorant about the most basic principles of science -- with the possible exception, of course, of our very own President George W. Bush. -- Mark Burns (BYU professor, devout believer in both Jesus and Darwin)
On Jan 23, 2006, at 7:42 PM, Richard Tenney wrote:
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@biology.utah.edu> wrote:
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 10:15:15 -0700 To: office@science.utah.edu From: James DeGooyer <jdegooyer@biology.utah.edu> Subject: Frontiers of Science Jan. 25 CC: mortensen@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
_______________________________________________ UVAA mailing list UVAA@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uvaa
_______________________________________________ UVAA mailing list UVAA@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uvaa
_______________________________________________ UVAA mailing list UVAA@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uvaa ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
well said Richard, right on. it seems that Steve, others like him and Buttars fundementally oppose evolutionary theory and evidence in favor of a literal interpretation of genesis but they hesitate to say so. Buttars needs to loosen his collar and take a second look at genesis. why do they insist that genesis account is literal in that it supports a spontaneous creation of a fully formed modern man (or human, if i desire to avoid sexist language). LDS faith is sophisticated, in my view, because it views God not as a supernatural being but supreme being who is contrained by natural law and conformed to natural law in his creations. If God uses the laws of physics as I would be inclined to believe then his supreme state comes from his superior knowledge of the natural sciences. we certainly are lagging in our understanding as compared to God. How do literalists suppose a prophet of the old testament time could understand enough to explain a literal creation. Creation can equal evolution if one is not married to the idea that Genesis is a literal account, which it seems clear it can not be. --Steve Black PS Because of the persistant literal interpretation, the myth that women have a different number of ribs in their body has lived long after anatomical knowledge should have dispelled this. I see buttars as a child who learned this and other such myths and failed, out of the lack of sincere desire to know truth or laziness, to learn this fact.
From: Richard Tenney <retenney@yahoo.com> Reply-To: Utah Valley Astronomy Association <uvaa@mailman.xmission.com> To: Utah Valley Astronomy Association <uvaa@mailman.xmission.com> Subject: [UVAA] OT: Darwin and LDS doctrine Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 10:44:51 -0800 (PST)
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@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uvaa
well said Richard, right on. it seems that Steve, others like him and Buttars fundementally oppose evolutionary theory and evidence in favor of a literal interpretation of genesis but they hesitate to say so. Buttars needs to loosen his collar and take a second look at genesis. why do they insist that genesis account is literal in that it supports a spontaneous creation of a fully formed modern man (or human, if i desire to avoid sexist language). LDS faith is sophisticated, in my view, because it views God not as a supernatural being but supreme being who is contrained by natural law and conformed to natural law in his creations. If God uses the laws of physics, as I would be inclined to believe, then his supreme state comes from his superior knowledge of the natural sciences. we certainly are lagging in our understanding as compared to God. How do literalists suppose a prophet of the old testament time could understand enough to explain a literal creation. Creation can equal evolution if one is not married to the idea that Genesis is a literal account, which it seems clear it can not be. --Steve Black PS Because of the persistant literal interpretation, the myth that women have a different number of ribs in their body has lived long after anatomical knowledge should have dispelled this. I see buttars as a child who learned this and other such myths and failed to learn this fact, out of the lack of sincere desire to know truth or laziness.
From: Richard Tenney <retenney@yahoo.com> Reply-To: Utah Valley Astronomy Association <uvaa@mailman.xmission.com> To: Utah Valley Astronomy Association <uvaa@mailman.xmission.com> Subject: [UVAA] OT: Darwin and LDS doctrine Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 10:44:51 -0800 (PST)
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@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uvaa
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@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uvaa
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@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@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uvaa
_______________________________________________ UVAA mailing list UVAA@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uvaa
Whew, where to begin... 1. I'm glad to hear you do not agree with Buttars/Bush on the teaching of ID in Science class. Otherwise we'd have to give biology teachers equal time in Seminary. 2. The only "direct conflict with LDS doctrine" I see is in your mind and the way you have chosen to interpret the scriptures and sermons by general authorities. Statements made by Boyd K. Packer, in conference talks, BYU lectures, or whatever, do NOT constitute official church doctrine -- they are his personal opinions. Did you find a "thus sayeth the Lord" in any of his writings? 3. In the 1939(?) first presidency statement, which is quoted in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism (allegedly created to represent church doctrine as officially as possible to the rest of the world), it basically says "...Leave the science to the scientists, while we (the church) concern ourselves with the salvation of mankind", words to that effect (I'm quoting from my very flawed memory). Brother Packer apparently wasn't paying attention to that statement. Probably why some of his buddies in CES failed to quote that statement and instead quote the earlier (1909) statement in the Ensign in 2002, but that's just my guess/opinion. And good grief, what did anyone on this planet know of DNA in 1909? of precise dating techniques? We are living in an exponential EXPLOSION of knowlege from the various scientific frontiers. We simply cannot afford to shut our eyes, plug our ears and refuse to look around us because it might conflict with some sentimental and naiive traditional ways of understanding the world (flat earth, earth-centric universe, etc.) we live in! Um, "theological evolution" is kind of a central, core LDS doctrine, isn't it -- man becoming God? The statement "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." still leaves a lot of wiggle room regarding the origin of Adam's body. To simply wave it off as "we do not understand how" and it's implicit "nor ever will until God reveals it to us" is, in my mind, a big fat cop out, filled with intellectual cowardice. One similar to the often-heard "the fossils in this earth are simply leftovers from another planet" nonsense. What I meant by a wicked prankster God who delights in tripping up and fooling his naturally curious offspring with mountains and museums of false and misleading evidence. I cannot comprehend such a being, and refuse to believe God would be such a cruel and malevolent beast. Let me ask you a 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. That's true for ANY --- Steven Goodwin <puhiava@macosx.com> wrote:
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 Âthe 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@mailman.xmission.com
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uvaa
_______________________________________________ UVAA mailing list UVAA@mailman.xmission.com
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uvaa
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Thanks Rich for a toned down response I guess it is easy to get a little hot on these issues. We're probably not that far apart as maybe we initially sounded.
2. The only "direct conflict with LDS doctrine" I see is in your mind and the way you have chosen to interpret the scriptures and sermons by general authorities. Statements made by Boyd K. Packer, in conference talks, BYU lectures, or whatever, do NOT constitute official church doctrine -- they are his personal opinions. Did you find a "thus sayeth the Lord" in any of his writings?
Agreed-
3. In the 1939(?) first presidency statement, which is quoted in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism (allegedly created to represent church doctrine as officially as possible to the rest of the world), it basically says "...Leave the science to the scientists, while we (the church) concern ourselves with the salvation of mankind", words to that effect (I'm quoting from my very flawed memory). Brother Packer apparently wasn't paying attention to that statement. Probably why some of his buddies in CES failed to quote that statement and instead quote the earlier (1909) statement in the Ensign in 2002, but that's just my guess/opinion. And good grief, what did anyone on this planet know of DNA in 1909? of precise dating techniques? We are living in an exponential EXPLOSION of knowlege from the various scientific frontiers. We simply cannot afford to shut our eyes, plug our ears and refuse to look around us because it might conflict with some sentimental and naiive traditional ways of understanding the world (flat earth, earth-centric universe, etc.) we live in!
The 1909 statement separates what science is doing from what the scriptures say- that is clear. But the underlying message is to have faith in what the scriptures say- All things were created spiritually first and then physically. I do believe that the initial spiritual creation had in mind a specific outcome. I struggle with the idea that it happened by pure coincidence- there was something governing it. Which, if I'm not incorrect, was one of the reasons Einstein formulated his theories on relativity- he felt that God was governing the physics of the universe- he just wanted to understand it. But it began with his faith in Deity. I think keeping an open mind and heart is good science and also good faith. But the caution there is to not let our mind dictate our faith. Where there isn't clear definition, or even conflicting definition, it is easy to become arrogant that we know more than our so-called spiritual leaders (Packard, McKonkie, John Taylor, George Albert Smith, Joseph F Smith and many others who have written about organic evolution). I would recommend temperance where your "belief system" conflicts with our spiritual leaders. As much as we think we understand the world there inevitably comes a new paradigm a new way of thinking that points us in a different direction.
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.
I resoundingly agree- I think science and evolution have it right on in some instances but where they seemingly conflict with the scriptures I am willing to keep an open mind. Study what modern science has to offer and study the scriptures- pray and ask God for inspiration but never get off balanced in that search. We have to work extremely hard to gain knowledge but I also maintain that we need to strengthen our faith where knowledge hits a wall. There are many other controversial subjects which may not make sense right now in terms of current scientific proof but I still maintain my faith. Just because current DNA evidence of the inhabitants of central and south america does not point to an ancestry in Israel do I lose faith in the Book of Mormon and its claims, as well as the origins of the Book of Abraham, the great flood or even the miracles of Jesus. Science is working hard to make sense of the world around us so we can expand our understanding and bridge gaps that our ancestors have never thought possible. But lose sight of our faith in God and the guidance he has given us through his prophets will lead us off track. Maybe we don't see eye to eye in this discussion- but we all love this beautiful expanse above us that hangs like fireflies in an inky black night sky (my memory of a new moon night in Tahiti - not here.... unfortunately). Hopefully we can still get along when we meet at the next dark sky. Thanks again Rich, Mark and others for a stimulating if maybe a little frustrating debate.
Astronomers all: I'll chirp back in, and thought the criticism of my quick off-the- cuff comment was pretty much right on -- it seemed kind of extreme to me when I reread it also, I guess, and I guess should be as open- minded about Buttars in some ways as I would hope he would be about Darwin and me--or at least not so rabid in my knee-jerk "anyone who doesn't believe in evolution is an idiot" response. Actually, I do think they're flat-out wrong and that's okay, it's just when they turn their wrong ideas into legislation that I get bothered. I will say this also in terms of Bush: I actually do think my characterization of him as a relatively lazy man intellectually who probably knows less about science than any president in our history in at least a century and probably less than any other world leader of a major country currently on the planet now is probably quantitatively accurate however you would want to measure that -- and this despite the best education that money could buy. Again, he has all the right in the world to be choose to be lazy and stupid, it's only when he then begins to dictate legislation based on that scant background that I get upset. And there is example after example of this current administration sending science down the tubes in America -- it will still survive, of course, since lots of people spend their free time like reading books and stuff, ya know, but his presidency has been an absolute disaster on all the major issues that will affect the world for generations to come: global warming is only the most pressing of lots of other issues, and the White House has actively attempted to suppress or downplay or even fire those responsible for scientific data which doesn't happen to jive with what they wanted to hear. He's a downright liar on some of this also: noone on the planet has yet to find the I think it was sixty stem-cell lines which he said scientists could still work on. Again, progress continues on this despite his administration, but with federal support who knows how many lives would be saved by this promising line of research? Though in the meantime, I for one take comfort in knowing that all the leftover fertilized eggs in fertility clinics around the country will be flushed down the toilet tonight instead of be used for that wicked, immoral research stuff that biologists do -- and that flusing sound, by the way, is exactly the fate of the thousands of embryos which are now off limits for scientific use. I would also argue that if you include economics as a "soft science" then that doubles his sins: nearly all economists (except the ones he chooses to give him his daily briefings in lieu of actually reading a newspaper) think that the skyrocketing national debt due largely to his 4 trillion plus tax cut going almost exclusively to the upper 5% of wage earners is an absolute time-bomb ticking. Greenspan even said this several times but noone seemed to pay attention. This may seem irrelevant at first to science, but it will mean in the future less money for public education on all levels, less money for basic R&D in all sciences, less federal funding for the kinds of scientific projects that have resulted in such fundamental knowledge in all fields. There is a definite pattern here: don't do the hard work of studying the issues ahead of time, hire only people who will tell you what you want to know, then pick and choose information and sources which will go and confirm what you wish to be true -- that way you can take comfort in thinking that no, there is really is no problem called global warming; or when the evidence for that gets so overwhelming that it can no longer be denied, then you come up with a new argument: okay, so maybe it's happening, but it's not caused by humans. I'm getting heated about all this, I know, and should probably be more detached about these issues, but the kinds of suffering that these decisions around scientific and related issues in the future will cause is immense. As a middle-class, home-owning, health- insurance having American, I and my family will be mostly shielded from it, but there are millions of people in this country and elsewhere who will not be so lucky. Anyways, I promise to be more civil and change the topic back to science minus the politics the next time I venture into a discussion, and I think I'll pull a Whitman and go outside to look at the stars now! Mark p.s. And I'm quite proud that the LDS Church has no official position on evolution, getting back to that original topic -- I think it's the most sophisticated and sane position to take and I think that in most LDS wards now it is no big deal to embrace both evolution and religion. There are still some who will think you are a bit 'secular' if you do, but I would say that in most wards I've been in where over half the congregation would have some kind of college education, that evolution is no big deal -- which is exactly the way it should be. And reminds me of the argument of the late Stephen Jay Gould: we need both religion and science to be a healthy, caring society. Mark K. Burns mark.burns@byu.edu (801)422-1855 3027 JFSB (Dept. of HCCL) Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 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@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uvaa
Speaking as a student of economics, if you think that "nearly all economists think" the same thing about anything you are being very selective in your economics reading. Just a small point, but maybe you aren't as open minded as you think. Having said that, I agree that the Buttars proposal is misguided at best, but I don't think everyone who disagrees is necessarily an idiot. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Burns" <mark.burns@byu.edu> To: "Utah Valley Astronomy Association" <uvaa@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 11:15 PM Subject: Re: [UVAA] OT: Darwin and LDS doctrine
Astronomers all:
I'll chirp back in, and thought the criticism of my quick off-the- cuff comment was pretty much right on -- it seemed kind of extreme to me when I reread it also, I guess, and I guess should be as open- minded about Buttars in some ways as I would hope he would be about Darwin and me--or at least not so rabid in my knee-jerk "anyone who doesn't believe in evolution is an idiot" response. Actually, I do think they're flat-out wrong and that's okay, it's just when they turn their wrong ideas into legislation that I get bothered. I will say this also in terms of Bush: I actually do think my characterization of him as a relatively lazy man intellectually who probably knows less about science than any president in our history in at least a century and probably less than any other world leader of a major country currently on the planet now is probably quantitatively accurate however you would want to measure that -- and this despite the best education that money could buy. Again, he has all the right in the world to be choose to be lazy and stupid, it's only when he then begins to dictate legislation based on that scant background that I get upset.
And there is example after example of this current administration sending science down the tubes in America -- it will still survive, of course, since lots of people spend their free time like reading books and stuff, ya know, but his presidency has been an absolute disaster on all the major issues that will affect the world for generations to come: global warming is only the most pressing of lots of other issues, and the White House has actively attempted to suppress or downplay or even fire those responsible for scientific data which doesn't happen to jive with what they wanted to hear. He's a downright liar on some of this also: noone on the planet has yet to find the I think it was sixty stem-cell lines which he said scientists could still work on. Again, progress continues on this despite his administration, but with federal support who knows how many lives would be saved by this promising line of research? Though in the meantime, I for one take comfort in knowing that all the leftover fertilized eggs in fertility clinics around the country will be flushed down the toilet tonight instead of be used for that wicked, immoral research stuff that biologists do -- and that flusing sound, by the way, is exactly the fate of the thousands of embryos which are now off limits for scientific use.
I would also argue that if you include economics as a "soft science" then that doubles his sins: nearly all economists (except the ones he chooses to give him his daily briefings in lieu of actually reading a newspaper) think that the skyrocketing national debt due largely to his 4 trillion plus tax cut going almost exclusively to the upper 5% of wage earners is an absolute time-bomb ticking. Greenspan even said this several times but noone seemed to pay attention. This may seem irrelevant at first to science, but it will mean in the future less money for public education on all levels, less money for basic R&D in all sciences, less federal funding for the kinds of scientific projects that have resulted in such fundamental knowledge in all fields.
There is a definite pattern here: don't do the hard work of studying the issues ahead of time, hire only people who will tell you what you want to know, then pick and choose information and sources which will go and confirm what you wish to be true -- that way you can take comfort in thinking that no, there is really is no problem called global warming; or when the evidence for that gets so overwhelming that it can no longer be denied, then you come up with a new argument: okay, so maybe it's happening, but it's not caused by humans.
I'm getting heated about all this, I know, and should probably be more detached about these issues, but the kinds of suffering that these decisions around scientific and related issues in the future will cause is immense. As a middle-class, home-owning, health- insurance having American, I and my family will be mostly shielded from it, but there are millions of people in this country and elsewhere who will not be so lucky.
Anyways, I promise to be more civil and change the topic back to science minus the politics the next time I venture into a discussion, and I think I'll pull a Whitman and go outside to look at the stars now!
Mark
p.s. And I'm quite proud that the LDS Church has no official position on evolution, getting back to that original topic -- I think it's the most sophisticated and sane position to take and I think that in most LDS wards now it is no big deal to embrace both evolution and religion. There are still some who will think you are a bit 'secular' if you do, but I would say that in most wards I've been in where over half the congregation would have some kind of college education, that evolution is no big deal -- which is exactly the way it should be. And reminds me of the argument of the late Stephen Jay Gould: we need both religion and science to be a healthy, caring society.
Mark K. Burns mark.burns@byu.edu (801)422-1855 3027 JFSB (Dept. of HCCL) Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602
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@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uvaa
_______________________________________________ UVAA mailing list UVAA@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uvaa
I understand there are different views on every topic. I thought this group was to increase interest in and study of ASTRONOMY not some religious or non-religious view or what some one likes or dislikes about our President. Lets drop the items not related to astronomy. Please take your other issues to more appropriate forums. Thank You, Clark D. Hall Speaking as a student of economics, if you think that "nearly all economists think" the same thing about anything you are being very selective in your economics reading. Just a small point, but maybe you aren't as open minded as you think. Having said that, I agree that the Buttars proposal is misguided at best, but I don't think everyone who disagrees is necessarily an idiot. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Burns" <mark.burns@byu.edu> To: "Utah Valley Astronomy Association" <uvaa@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 11:15 PM Subject: Re: [UVAA] OT: Darwin and LDS doctrine
Astronomers all:
I'll chirp back in, and thought the criticism of my quick off-the- cuff comment was pretty much right on -- it seemed kind of extreme to me when I reread it also, I guess, and I guess should be as open- minded about Buttars in some ways as I would hope he would be about Darwin and me--or at least not so rabid in my knee-jerk "anyone who doesn't believe in evolution is an idiot" response. Actually, I do think they're flat-out wrong and that's okay, it's just when they turn their wrong ideas into legislation that I get bothered. I will say this also in terms of Bush: I actually do think my characterization of him as a relatively lazy man intellectually who probably knows less about science than any president in our history in at least a century and probably less than any other world leader of a major country currently on the planet now is probably quantitatively accurate however you would want to measure that -- and this despite the best education that money could buy. Again, he has all the right in the world to be choose to be lazy and stupid, it's only when
he then begins to dictate legislation based on that scant background that
I get upset.
And there is example after example of this current administration sending
science down the tubes in America -- it will still survive, of course, since lots of people spend their free time like reading books and stuff, ya know, but his presidency has been an absolute disaster on all the major issues that will affect the world for generations to come: global warming is only the most pressing of lots of other issues, and the White House has actively attempted to suppress or downplay or even fire those responsible for scientific data which doesn't happen to jive with what they wanted to hear. He's a downright liar on some of this also: noone on the planet has yet to find the I think it was sixty stem-cell lines which he said scientists could still work on. Again, progress continues on this despite his administration, but with federal support who knows how many lives would be saved by this promising line of research? Though
in the meantime, I for one take comfort in knowing that all the leftover fertilized eggs in fertility clinics around the country will be flushed down the toilet tonight instead of be used for that wicked, immoral research stuff that biologists do -- and that flusing sound, by the way, is exactly the fate of the thousands of embryos which are now off limits for scientific use.
I would also argue that if you include economics as a "soft science" then
that doubles his sins: nearly all economists (except the ones he chooses to give him his daily briefings in lieu of actually reading a newspaper) think that the skyrocketing national debt due largely to his 4 trillion plus tax cut going almost exclusively to the upper 5% of wage earners is an absolute time-bomb ticking. Greenspan even said this several times but noone seemed to pay attention. This may seem irrelevant at first to science, but it will mean in the future less money for public education on all levels, less money for basic R&D in all sciences, less federal funding for the kinds of scientific projects that have resulted in such fundamental knowledge in all fields.
There is a definite pattern here: don't do the hard work of studying the issues ahead of time, hire only people who will tell you what you want to
know, then pick and choose information and sources which will go and confirm what you wish to be true -- that way you can take comfort in thinking that no, there is really is no problem called global warming; or
when the evidence for that gets so overwhelming that it can no longer be denied, then you come up with a new argument: okay, so maybe it's happening, but it's not caused by humans.
I'm getting heated about all this, I know, and should probably be more detached about these issues, but the kinds of suffering that these decisions around scientific and related issues in the future will cause is immense. As a middle-class, home-owning, health- insurance having American, I and my family will be mostly shielded from it, but there are millions of people in this country and elsewhere who will not be so lucky.
Anyways, I promise to be more civil and change the topic back to science minus the politics the next time I venture into a discussion, and I think
I'll pull a Whitman and go outside to look at the stars now!
Mark
p.s. And I'm quite proud that the LDS Church has no official position on evolution, getting back to that original topic -- I think it's the most sophisticated and sane position to take and I think that in most LDS
wards now it is no big deal to embrace both evolution and religion. There are still some who will think you are a bit 'secular' if you do, but I would say that in most wards I've been in where over half the congregation would have some kind of college education, that evolution is
no big deal -- which is exactly the way it should be. And reminds me of the argument of the late Stephen Jay Gould: we need both religion and science to be a healthy, caring society.
Mark K. Burns mark.burns@byu.edu (801)422-1855 3027 JFSB (Dept. of HCCL) Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602
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@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uvaa
_______________________________________________ UVAA mailing list UVAA@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uvaa
_______________________________________________ UVAA mailing list UVAA@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uvaa -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.22/239 - Release Date: 1/24/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.22/239 - Release Date: 1/24/2006
participants (9)
-
Aaron Orullian -
Clark Hall -
John Mulliner -
Jonathan Cavendar -
Mark Burns -
Mark Burns -
Richard Tenney -
steven black -
Steven Goodwin