Original Message Follows:
=========================
evolution-digest Tuesday, April 13 1999 Volume 01 : Number 1405
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 03:03:26 -0600
From: PostMaster <Mailer-Daemon@navyouth.org>
Subject: Message Not Delivered: evolution-digest V1 #1403
The message you sent could not be sent to the following recipient(s):
SMTP:bgmsm@navyouth.org
Original Message Follows:
=========================
evolution-digest Monday, April 12 1999 Volume 01 : Number 1403
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 18:35:00 -0700
From: Sona Thorburn <sthorburn@mindspring.com>(by way of \"Arthur V. Chadwick\"
<chadwicka@swau.edu>)
Subject: extraterrestrial intelligence
The following article indicates that scientists believe they can detect
extraterrestrial intelligence by merely using mechanical devices, viz.
antennas. I ask you, isn't detector-man more capable of detecting
intelligence than mere machines? If you do not believe in a supernatural
component in man, then you must believe that man is the most complicated
machine---much more than a petty antenna. It is so self-evident to me that
we detect intelligence in nature and its workings. That is to say, there is
at least a brain orders of magnitude more powerful than ours that gave rise
to the whole thing is. Of course, I believe that that entity is God who is
actually beyond our comprehension. Speculations about how He did create the
whole thing are nothing but musings of proud minds.
Moorad
P.s. I am sending this from my daughter's computer in Raleigh, NC and will
have to wait till Monday to see your comments.
02/12/99- Updated 05:19 PM ET
Telescope to search for alien intelligence
By Tim Friend, USA TODAY=20
The world's first telescope dedicated primarily to the search for
extraterrestrial intelligence will be built over the next four years and
have the power to scan for signals at the edge of the universe, scientists
announced Monday.=20
The unique radio telescope will be built by the Search for Extraterrestrial
Intelligence (SETI) Institute and the University of California-Berkeley,
using 500 to 1,000 inexpensive antennas 12 to 18 feet in diameter and
similar to backyard TV satellite dishes. The antennas will be electronically
coupled to form a single "radio ear" spread out over 2.5 acres, or 1
hectare. It is called the One Hectare Telescope, or 1hT.=20
Leo Blitz, director of the UC-Berkeley Radio Astronomy Lab, says the new
telescope will cost less than $25 million and easily can be expanded by
adding new antennas. It will be located at UC-Berkeley's Hat Creek
Observatory in the mountains of northern California.=20
The SETI Institute is the privately funded radio astronomy group that
listens for strong, single-frequency radio signals and pulsed signals that
repeat. Such signals stand out markedly from the background hiss generated
by different stars and natural objects in the universe. (The hissing sound
you hear between radio stations is what the universe normally sounds like.)=
=20
Scientists have developed racing heartbeats on more than one occasion after
picking up radio signals from stray or secret satellites.=20
SETI is based on the idea that intelligent life beyond our solar system
would generate radio waves similar to those made by humans on Earth. So far,
SETI astronomers have had to rely on buying and competing for time at radio
astronomy observatories such as Arecibo in Puerto Rico and the Very Large
Array in New Mexico.=20
Now the group will have its own permanent site, reducing operating costs and
dramatically increasing the amount of time spent on searches, SETI's Jill
Tarter says.=20
The first task of the 1hT will be to search 1,000 nearby sunlike stars, then
expand outward to 100,000 and finally to 1 million suns in the Milky Way.
UC-Berkeley astronomers also will use the telescope to conduct studies of
pulsars and to survey stars in other galaxies. Tarter says the telescopes
will have capabilities beyond those available on other radio telescopes.=20
=A9 Copyright 1999 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc. =20
=20
- ------------------------------
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 19:40:24 -0700
From: Pim van Meurs <entheta@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: extraterrestrial intelligence
Moorad: The following article indicates that scientists believe they can =
detect
extraterrestrial intelligence by merely using mechanical devices, viz.
antennas.
Unlikely.
Moorad: I ask you, isn't detector-man more capable of detecting
intelligence than mere machines? =20
You tellme
Moorad: If you do not believe in a supernatural component in man, then =
you must believe that man is the most complicated machine---much more =
than a petty antenna.=20
Why is that a requirement. I fail to see how you reached that conclusion
Moorad: It is so self-evident to me that we detect intelligence in =
nature and its workings.=20
Yes, it's much harder to turn that "self evident fact" into something =
more scientific. If your faith is that this is the case then fine =
otherwise your belief is worth little without some supporting evidence.
Moorad: That is to say, there is at least a brain orders of magnitude =
more powerful than ours that gave rise to the whole thing is. Of course, =
I believe that that entity is God who is
actually beyond our comprehension. Speculations about how He did create =
the
whole thing are nothing but musings of proud minds.
There is no evidence of such a requirement. But perhaps you could =
enlighten us where others have failed ?
- ------------------------------
End of evolution-digest V1 #1403
********************************
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 08:35:20 -0700
From: Pim van Meurs <entheta@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: extraterrestrial intelligence
Moorad: Man is a detector of the material and the supernatural. If you =
do not agree
with this, you are not a man.=20
How convenient. If you do not agree with me then you are not a man... =
Perhaps you should try a more scientific approach
MooradThat man is the most complicated "machine" around is obvious. Give =
me a counterexample. Just one! =20
Why not try to support your own assertions ?
Moorad: What is self-evident to man may not be able to be written down =
as a scientific theory.=20
Indeed, that is exactly what your own argument shows, you are unable to =
treat it scientifically. It is all based upon your "belief"/
Moorad: Please tell me what love is in scientific terms---not the =
physical manifestations
of it but its very essence.
What is the very essence of love ?
Moorad: Newton used Kepler's laws to develop a theory that gave rise =
to such laws by means of mathematical logic. Of course, Einstein's =
theory superceded Newton's theory. But all dealt with nonexistent models =
that reassemble better and better the real thing. Man is the creator
of the theories of nature and reason is something that is not in the =
models
but in its creator--man reasons, matter does not. Accordingly, the =
reason
that we find in nature also needs a Creator. Obviously, this is not a =
proof
in the mathematical sense, but the contrary assumption---that there is =
no
creator--is less plausible.
On the contrary, you have neither increased nor decreased the =
plausibility. Personal (dis)belief is just not very useful one way or =
the other. That man creates theories is no evidence that there is reason =
in nature or that there is a creator.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 12:03:47 -0400
From: Moorad Alexanian <alexanian@uncwil.edu>
Subject: Re: extraterrestrial intelligence
The reason you and I can carry this exchange is that we are both of the same
nature. There is much that we know inherently that is not contained in the
words we exchange. For instance, an extraterrestrial that intercepts our
messages may not get the same info as you do. You show me a machine more
complicated than man. What is your counterexample, dolphins? Beauty is
self-evident to man. Write down the Schrodinger equation that will contain
beauty as a solution. It can't be done. Why is that so hard to understand?
To know what love is you may have to invoke God. Poets have written about
love for a long time and will continue to do so in the distant future. My
advice to you is to find a quiet room and sit there for an hour with a blank
mind. Then start thinking whether it makes more sense that there is a
Creator or not. That is your homework. I have done that homework myself
already and have conclude that the notion of a Creator in unavoidable.
Moorad
- -----Original Message-----
From: Pim van Meurs <entheta@eskimo.com>
To: 'Moorad Alexanian' <alexanian@uncwil.edu>; asa@calvin.edu
<asa@calvin.edu>; Pim van Meurs <entheta@eskimo.com>
Cc: evolution@calvin.edu <evolution@calvin.edu>
Date: Monday, April 12, 1999 11:31 AM
Subject: RE: extraterrestrial intelligence
Moorad: Man is a detector of the material and the supernatural. If you do
not agree
with this, you are not a man.
How convenient. If you do not agree with me then you are not a man...
Perhaps you should try a more scientific approach
MooradThat man is the most complicated "machine" around is obvious. Give me
a counterexample. Just one!
Why not try to support your own assertions ?
Moorad: What is self-evident to man may not be able to be written down as a
scientific theory.
Indeed, that is exactly what your own argument shows, you are unable to
treat it scientifically. It is all based upon your "belief"/
Moorad: Please tell me what love is in scientific terms---not the physical
manifestations
of it but its very essence.
What is the very essence of love ?
Moorad: Newton used Kepler's laws to develop a theory that gave rise to
such laws by means of mathematical logic. Of course, Einstein's theory
superceded Newton's theory. But all dealt with nonexistent models that
reassemble better and better the real thing. Man is the creator
of the theories of nature and reason is something that is not in the models
but in its creator--man reasons, matter does not. Accordingly, the reason
that we find in nature also needs a Creator. Obviously, this is not a proof
in the mathematical sense, but the contrary assumption---that there is no
creator--is less plausible.
On the contrary, you have neither increased nor decreased the plausibility.
Personal (dis)belief is just not very useful one way or the other. That man
creates theories is no evidence that there is reason in nature or that there
is a creator.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 15:21:47 -0400
From: "Steven H. Schimmrich" <sschimmr@calvin.edu>
Subject: RE: Design of the eye
At 09:56 AM 4/12/99 -0600, Susan Brassfield wrote:
>
>At 9:37 PM -0700 4/8/99, Pim van Meurs wrote:
>>"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting
>>the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light,
>>and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have
>>been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the
>>highest degree." (Darwin C., "The Origin of Species," 6th Edition, 1928,
>>reprint, p167).
>>
>>The usual out of context quotation by a creationist. Thanks Art.
>
>yes. Darwin, of course, goes on to spend most of a chapter explaining why
>things are not as they seem.
>
>In scientific circles quoting someone out of context in a way that is
>intended to deceive someone about the true intention of the writer is
>considered a lie. I'm pretty sure it's considered a lie in Christian
>circles as well.
No, it's not. Most Christians obviously don't consider anything at all
wrong with this since it's tolerated, financially rewarded (who supports
the YECs making these absurd claims - the Christian church), rarely if ever
criticized, and those Christians who do point out that all non-Christian
scientists consider this practice akin to lying and quite despicable are
pilloried and shunned for not showing Christian charity toward their brothers
and sisters in Christ (i.e. having the poor taste to point out the lies and
mistakes of fellow Christians). Most Christians act as if the ends (proving
their version of Scriptural interpretation true) justify the means (lying and
misrepresenting science and scientists). Sorry, but I feel exceedingly cynical
today (not a good attitude for a Christian college professor, I've been told but
too bad).
- - Steve.
- --
Steven H. Schimmrich, Assistant Professor of Geology
Department of Geology, Geography, and Environmental Studies
Calvin College, 3201 Burton Street SE, Grand Rapids, Michigan 49546
sschimmr@calvin.edu (office), schimmri@earthlink.net (home)
616-957-7053 (voice mail), 616-957-6501 (fax)
http://home.earthlink.net/~schimmrich/
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 23:01:01 -0400
From: "M.A. Johnson" <michaelj@america.net>
Subject: Evolution vs. Biblical creation: The conflict continues
Of interest ... or not
Evolution vs. Biblical creation: The conflict continues
By KATE BEEM - The Kansas City Star
The honeymoon could be over for the Kansas Board of Education.
Last year, disagreement over math curriculum standards resulted
in a 5-5 vote and deepened a moderate-conservative rift on the
board.
This year, the board, with five new members but the same
moderate-conservative split, announced an effort to avoid such
deadlocks.
But new science standards that the board will receive Tuesday
could disturb the peace, pitting board members' beliefs against
what they want Kansas students to learn, and putting the state
in the middle of a national debate over what constitutes science.
The problem can be summed up in one word: Evolution.
In the new science curriculum standards, evolution is presented
as one of five unifying concepts that cut across the scientific
disciplines. The standards are important because they will spell
out what students in Kansas public schools learn and are tested on.
Some Kansans have urged the board to reject the standards because
evolution goes against their beliefs that God alone created Earth
and its creatures.
Celtie Johnson of Prairie Village says evolution is the belief of
a religion called humanism that seeks to glorify man. The fact that
it is taught in public schools shows how pervasive the religion is,
she said.
"It'd be nice if we got to a point where both theories could be
equally investigated, and let the chips fall where they may," said
Johnson, who spoke to the state board in March.
Many scientists and teachers have asked the board to focus on the
overwhelming consensus among scientists that biology, and other
aspects of science, cannot be understood without first understanding
evolution.
"I see this as an attack on science in general, not just on biology.
And that sort of worries me," said Adrian Melott, a University of
Kansas physics professor who also spoke to the board in March.
The board may discuss the standards during its meeting Tuesday in
Garden City, Kan., but members won't vote on them until May at the
earliest.
Some board members have said they won't vote for the revised science
standards, which would require that students understand evolution
regardless of their religious beliefs. Others think compromise could
come quickly if the board agrees to leave evolution out of the
standards and allow school districts to settle the debate as they
see fit.
But cutting and pasting science to keep everyone happy creates its
own set of problems, said Steve Case, director of the Kansas
Collaborative Research Network at KU and a member of the committee
that wrote the science standards. "It's pointless to have standards
because it wouldn't reflect science," he said.
The Scopes trial
More than 70 years after Tennessee science teacher John Scopes was
convicted of violating the state's law against teaching evolution,
the debate over the theory continues across the country.
The science community says evolution is the common thread running
through the life sciences. The National Academy of Sciences said
last year that evolution must be taught in public schools if
children are to understand biology.
But over the last five years, the National Center for Science
Education in Berkeley, Calif., has logged scores of complaints
from parents and educators worried about attacks on evolution
education.
Consider:
Earlier this year, the Melvindale-Northern Allen Park School
Board in suburban Detroit decided to supply some of its libraries
with books that raise questions about the validity of evolutionary
theory.
In 1995, the Alabama Board of Education approved a plan to place
disclaimer labels inside science textbooks. The labels explain
that evolution is a theory and that text statements about the
origins of life should be considered as such. A Christian publisher's
textbook called Of Pandas and People has grown in popularity. The
book, and others like it, subscribe to the theory that the world
and its living creatures came about by "intelligent design."
U.S. courts have repeatedly struck down state laws requiring that
the theory of evolution and stories of how God created the universe
be presented on an equal footing in science classes.
Science is a constantly changing body of information, and theories
are frameworks for more research, Case said. Scientists can't know
exactly what happened in the past, but they can look at what's
going on now and extrapolate, he said.
"People want absolute answers, and science doesn't provide them,"
Case said.
Tom Willis, president of the Creation Science Association of
Mid-America, spends his time away from his Cass County blueberry
farm speaking out against evolution. He and a group called the
National Committee for Excellence in Science Education are trying
to help the Kansas board rewrite its science standards to exclude
evolution.
Willis said evolution can't be repeated or tested as other
scientific theories are. Evolution is based on the supposition
of what happened many years ago, so it's not provable, he said.
"I believe that history is only available to us in detail if you
have a reliable witness," Willis said. "If you believe a reliable
witness, then there's no evolution. The testimony in the Bible
goes against it."
Public hearings
State board members received a draft of the standards in January.
Later that month, public hearings were held across the state. In
some locales, such as Salina, Kan., the hearings were packed with
evolution opponents. Turnout was lower in other places, including
Olathe.
Board members Scott Hill of Abilene and John Bacon of Olathe, both
conservatives, said they can't agree to the standards as they're
written. Hill said the standards focus too much attention on
evolution. Bacon wants to include other theories of how life began,
and moderate member Sonny Rundell of Syracuse has said he would
consider that.
Conservative board member Steve Abrams of Arkansas City, Kan.,
believes evolution should be included in the standards but not
in the way it's presented in the revised standards.
The strong feelings over evolution have surprised Janet Waugh, a
moderate board member elected in November from Kansas City, Kan.
She said she thought the court cases striking creationism from
public schools and supporting evolution had settled the issues.
Val De Fever, a former teacher and moderate board member from
Independence, Kan., said she believes evolution is valid because
it is based on a theory that is observable.
But as she considers the views of her more conservative colleagues,
she believes a compromise might prevent the standards from becoming
hostage to a political battle with religious overtones.
Mary Douglass Brown, a conservative from Wichita, said she could
go for a compromise, too.
"Because I sure don't want it to come down to a donnybrook over
it," she said.
All content (c) 1999 The Kansas City Star
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 20:56:56 -0700
From: Pim van Meurs <entheta@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: extraterrestrial intelligence
Moorad: The reason you and I can carry this exchange is that we are both of the
same
nature.
I'd surely hope so.
MooradL There is much that we know inherently that is not contained in the
words we exchange. For instance, an extraterrestrial that intercepts our
messages may not get the same info as you do.
Most likely which is why I believe it is hard to detect "intelligence"
Moorad: You show me a machine more complicated than man.
How do you define complicated ?
Moorad: What is your counterexample, dolphins? Beauty is self-evident to man.
What about other animals ?
Moorad: Write down the Schrodinger equation that will contain beauty as a
solution.
That's a bit silly, beauty is a "personal" thing so some might "recognize" it
and others not, that is not a very effective standard.
Moorad: It can't be done. Why is that so hard to understand?
Because it is inherently subjective
Moorad: To know what love is you may have to invoke God. Poets have written
about
love for a long time and will continue to do so in the distant future. My
advice to you is to find a quiet room and sit there for an hour with a blank
mind. Then start thinking whether it makes more sense that there is a
Creator or not. That is your homework. I have done that homework myself
already and have conclude that the notion of a Creator in unavoidable.
So you would have my personal belief, so what ? You believe that a Creator is
unavoidable, good for you but that carries little weight.
------------------------------
End of evolution-digest V1 #1405
********************************