Reflectorites
Here are excerpts from web articles for the period 21 July - 9 August 2000,
with my comments in square brackets.
Apologies if some of the Kansas articles have been posted before.
Steve
==========================================================================
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20000809/sc/dinosaurs_dc_1.html
Yahoo! ... August 9 ... Study Fuels Debate on Whether Birds Are
Dinosaurs ... WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A close look at the bones of
dinosaurs suggests that some were very much like those of birds, scientists
said ... in a finding sure to fuel the debate over whether birds descended
from dinosaurs. Tiny little channels in their bones show that some
dinosaurs grew bone quickly like birds do today, which suggests that at
least some species of dinosaurs are related to birds, if not their direct
ancestors ... "It doesn't necessarily prove that birds had to derive from
dinosaurs," John Rensberger, a geology professor ... said ... "But, at least
from the data we've seen, that appears to be a logical conclusion." The
image of dinosaurs has been transformed in recent decades. Once believed
to have been plodding and slow-witted, study of their fossilized remains
now suggests they were closer to being hot-blooded, quick and organized.
In other words, they acted more like modern birds and even mammals than
like living reptiles such as lizards and crocodiles. But it is hard to tell when
fossilized bone and perhaps a bit of mummified soft tissue is all there is to
work with. Rensberger, along with Mahito Watabe ... sampled 500 pieces
of bone and compared them to the bones of modern birds, as well as
creatures ranging from kangaroos to squirrels. In all bones, little channels
called canaliculi connect bone cells and blood vessels. These are organized
differently in reptiles, mammals and birds. "In spite of their small diameters,
canaliculi are often preserved in fossil bones ... They studied a group of
dinosaurs known as coelurosaurs, a group of the theropods -- the two-
legged, meat-eating dinosaurs such as Tyrannosaurus most commonly
linked to birds. In the coelurosaurs, the canaliculi take random, circuitous
routes, a pattern found today only in birds. One good example was a
Gallimumus, a 17-foot (5-m) dinosaur whose name means "rooster mimic"
and which had a beak. ... And in a group of dinosaurs called ornithischians,
which include the child's perennial favorite Triceratops, the canaliculi look
like those of modern mammals, with a direct and parallel pattern. ...
Rensberger and Watabe also found evidence that bundles of collagen fibers
holding the bone together are irregular both in birds and dinosaur fossils. ...
"Right now, the thing that is closest to what we see in the bones of birds is
in the bones of coelurosaurs" .... Other researchers have found evidence
that both supports and contradicts this idea. In June, a group said they
were certain that fossils of a small ancestor of dinosaurs called
Longisquama insignis showed feathers. They said this suggested that birds
evolved separately from dinosaurs. In April, a team ... found evidence that
dinosaurs had the hearts of warm-blooded animals, which would again
suggest they were more like birds or mammals than like reptiles. And in
1999 researchers found a dinosaur fossil that looked like it had a
diaphragm, which birds and mammals have but which reptiles do not. ...
[More evidence that birds and coelurosaurs dinosaurs shared a common
ancestor?]
http://www.washtimes.com/national/default-200083211833.htm ... August
3, 2000 Creationists on Kansas school panel defeated ... THE
WASHINGTON TIMES The defeat of three social conservatives in the
Kansas primary for state school board has all but guaranteed repeal of
science standards adopted last year to downplay Darwinian evolution. With
the fall general elections, so-called "moderates" will make up the new
school board's majority, and reversing the anti-evolution policy is likely to
be its first order of business in January. "I think you'll see a vote to repeal
that," said Val DeFever, a Republican school board member whose seat is
not up for election this year. "We're going to go back to the pure form,
which included evolution and reflected the national science standards." ...
Meanwhile, he said, polls show that 47 percent of Kansans hold a
creationist belief, and national polls still show large majorities say the ideas
of evolution and creation both should be taught in public schools. "When
it's talked about as choice or local control of schools, a lot of people agree
with it," he said. "But when it's cast as embarrassment to Kansas, as it was
in the media, people vote the other way." ... [It sounds like the Kansas
public voted on fear of embarrassment, rather than what they actually
believed. It will be an interesting debate when the new Board (and the
public) finds what exactly is in those science standards! It might be Pyrrhic
victory for evolutionists because it will give more opportunities for
macroevolution's problems to be aired, and for the ID Movement to
become more widely known to the public. ]
http://www.usatoday.com/news/comment/nceditf2.htm USA Today ...
08/03/00 ... Debate over evolution has not evolved ... It has been 75 years
since the Scopes Monkey Trial lifted the debate over teaching evolution
out of the primordial educational soup and into the American courtroom.
All of the intervening years, however, have not yet produced a consensus
on how to teach science in public schools. ... Now, Kansans can start
contemplating solutions that accommodate faith without compromising
science. ... Most Americans believe evolution should be taught. But they
also think that, one way or the other, creationism should not be excluded
.... That's reasonable. It's impossible to imagine a social studies course on
ancient Greece that did not contain information about the prevailing beliefs
about creation. If students can handle the idea that Athena jumped fully
grown from the head of Zeus, they surely can handle a discussion about
Judeo-Christian theories of the creation of life. Questions about
creationism deserve to be answered respectfully wherever they are asked.
And in a perfect world, every school would offer a comparative religion
course in which creationism could be studied cleanly. Absent that, the
solution is to find a balance that teaches science first. The education of
faith, after all, is best delivered in the home or the church. ... [If "Judeo-
Christian theories of the creation of life" were taught, it would have to
include *all* major creation theories, including old-Earth/Progressive
Creationist. But from the ID movement's perspective, the issue is not so
much about teaching "Judeo-Christian theories of the creation of life" but
about teaching evolution *honestly*, with all its philosophical assumptions
and its many problems laid bare.]
http://www.usatoday.com/news/comment/ncoppf2.htm USA TODAY...
08/03/00 ... Evolution is religion By Tom Willis The decision by the Kansas
State Board of Education (KSBE) not to require students to believe
"macro" evolution generated enormous media coverage. Most of what I
have read has been uninformed and untrue. The typical claim is that the
debate is one of "science vs. religion," evolution being 'science." If
evolution were defined as mutations and adaptation, it would be science. ...
Karl Popper, the world's most revered philosopher of science stated
emphatically: "It is important to note that evolution is not science. It is a
metaphysical research program." Michael Ruse ... recently stated that
evolution is a religion and always has been. .... The standards the board
rejected were largely from the National Academy of Sciences, which
consists of only 517 scientists in relevant fields, 72% of them atheist. Those
standards treated all theories as tentative except evolution. They would
have required students to believe they descended from pond scum, that
evolution created everything in the cosmos, and that science can be done
only if you "understand" evolution. .... KSBE never promoted creation or
religion. It succinctly stated four obvious truths: Science is tentative; it
should not be taught dogmatically; students should not be required to
believe theories; evidence and logic unfavorable to popular theories should
not be censored from students. Tom Willis is president of the Creation
Science Association for Mid-America. ... [Willis is paraphrasing Popper,
who actually said, "it is therefore important to show that Darwinism is not
a scientific theory, but metaphysical." (Popper K., "Unended Quest, 1982,
p.172). For what Ruse actually said, see tagline.]
http://www.kcstar.com/item/pages/opinion.pat,opinion/3774a282.726,.html
The Kansas City Star ... 07/26/00 ... Did the state writing committee really
believe, when it equated religious values with "superstition," "mystical
inspiration" and "myths" in its draft, that the faithful wouldn't rise up out of
their chairs? .... Where did we get the idea that those of faith teach bad
science? The debate is really about Darwinism and natural selection being
the last word on origins. As biochemist Michael Behe contends, recent
developments under the electron microscope reveal this possibility to be
passe. While some aspects of evolutionary theory -- such as microevolution
-- should, and will, endure, Darwin belongs at the end of the shelf along
with the other 19th-century thinkers, Marx and Freud. Intelligent design
theory, the alternative to natural selection, is actually a cousin to Thomas
Aquinas' teleological argument. However, while inferring intelligence, it
attaches no name, personality or creed to that intelligence. It may well be
the portal to the next great age of discovery, and students need to be
conversant in its particulars. At the symposium sponsored by the Intelligent
Design Network, a classroom exercise was described where Texas students
were assigned to research both evolution and intelligent design for a week
in preparation for a debate. On the day of the debate, they were divided
into two groups, only learning then which point of view they'd have to
defend. After the debate, they wrote critiques of their and the opposing
group's performance. This resulted in their scoring near the top on
assessment tests in the biological science area. It worked there. Kansas
students deserve no less. ... See also:
http://www.wichitaeagle.com/news/elections/docs/boe0802web_txt.htm ...
The Wichita Eagle ... August 2, 2000 ... All three moderates had vowed to
change the standards if elected. "There's no doubt in my mind... one of the
first actions we'll take in January when the new board takes over would be
to reverse the science standards," said Janet Waugh... The move was
widely reported in the national media and frequently ridiculed by late night
television comics, who often incorrectly characterized it as a ban on the
teaching of evolution in Kansas. ... National media returned to report on
the state's Board of Education races, which struck candidate Rupe as ironic
in light of the low voter turn-out. ... [It will be interesting when the new
Board discovers that the proposed standards included a claim that
"religious values" are in the same category as "myths" and "superstition" -
see http://www.cjnetworks.com/~barfield/science.htm. Combine this with
Ruse' admission that "Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular
religion -- a full-fledged alternative to Christianity..." and it should be clear
to everyone, that they are just another expression of "The Established
Religious Philosophy of America" (Johnson P.E., "Reason in the Balance,"
1995, p.39)].
http://www.kcstar.com/item/pages/home.pat,local/3774a6cc.802,.html ...
Pro-evolution candidate wins education board primary ... The Kansas City
Star ... 08/02/00 ... Holloway, 50, a former teacher who also lives in
Shawnee, said she had been portrayed as an extremist since the board's
vote on evolution. "Unfortunately, propaganda still works," she said. ...
The board's vote on evolution -- the theory that living things share common
ancestors but have changed over time -- gained international attention, with
journalists from Japan and several European countries journeying to
Kansas to cover the commotion. The vote also reopened a national debate
over science and religion. A set of standards the board rejected, written by
a 27-member committee of Kansas science teachers, would have included
evolution as a cornerstone of science. The six board members who voted to
downplay evolution in the standards cited, in part, their hesitancy to include
information that would go against some students' religious beliefs. The
current board is split ideologically. Generally, the two camps are divided
between moderates, who support present public educational policies
stressing accountability, and conservatives, who think that those methods
have failed and that Kansas needs a change of course toward more choice
and competition in education. ... But the fight isn't over by a long shot,
promised conservatives. This is an ongoing battle, and the conservatives
made inroads by even suggesting that evolution be optional in school, said
John Morris, president of the Institute for Creation Research in San Diego.
"There's a resentment of the education elite. I think that's an undercurrent
that's undersold," Morris said. "The creation message is getting out better
than ever. It will never go back to the way it was, when people go back to
doing what the education elite say. Never again." ... [Morris is right. The
evolutionists are winning the battles but they might be losing the war.]
http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/08/02/kansas.evolution.01/index.html ...
CNN ... Kansas voters suggest change in evolution teaching ... The theory
of evolution -- developed by Charles Darwin, among others, and supported
by most scientists -- holds that the Earth is billions of years old and that life
forms developed over hundreds of millions of years. Creationism maintains
that evolution cannot be proven and that the Earth and most life forms
came into existence suddenly about 6,000 years ago, largely as described in
the Bible. Kansas just the latest skirmish The evolution supporters may
have won this latest high-profile battle, but in Kansas -- a highly
conservative, highly religious state -- no one thinks the war is over. "It
certainly won't resolve the issue," said David Penny, one of a small, but
vocal group of anti-evolution scientists. "And if it's not here, it'll be
someplace else." ... See also
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/evolution000802.html ...
ABCNEWS ... Rejected Kansas Voters Turn Back Candidates Who Back
De-Emphasizing Evolution .... The theory of evolution, developed by
Charles Darwin and other thinkers, holds that the Earth is billions of years
old and that life forms developed over hundreds of millions of years.
Creationism maintains that evolution cannot be proven and that the Earth
and most life forms came into existence suddenly about 6,000 years ago,
largely as described in the Bible. ... [Note the stereotypical defining of
"evolution" so it can hardly be false and "creationism" so it can hardly be
true! If evolution is true, why does it need such propaganda to support it?
As Johnson said: "It is the way the Darwinists argue their case that makes
it apparent that they are afraid to encounter the best arguments against
their theory. A real science does not employ propaganda and legal barriers
to prevent relevant questions from being asked, nor does it rely upon
enforcing rules of reasoning that allow no alternative to the official story."
(Johnson P.E., "The Wedge of Truth," 2000, p.141)]
http://helix.nature.com/nsu/000727/000727-1.html Nature Science Update
... 21 July 2000 chemistry : Life's cycle? PHILIP BALL Does life have to
be this way? Perhaps - a new study claims that reactions at the heart of
human metabolism might be the only way for an organism to derive
chemical energy from its surroundings. Deep down, little green men might
be the same as us. The inevitability, or otherwise, of life's form and
functions is one of the big issues debated by evolutionary biologists. ...
Simon Conway Morris of Cambridge University, UK, say that life can exist
only in a limited number of forms. Those who cleave to the latter point of
view will take some comfort from the new report in the Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences USA ... Metabolism converts food and
nutrients into energy and essential molecules. ...the modern-day metabolism
of autotrophs and heterotrophs now uses a sequence of chemical reactions
called the citric acid cycle. People and animals burn sugars in the citric acid
cycle to produce energy ... the citric acid cycle is a very ancient and
fundamental component of metabolism. Harold Morowitz ... and his
colleagues now ask whether the sequence of steps in the cycle is inevitable
.... To answer the question, the researchers sifted through a database of
three and a half million organic molecules. Using a computer, they looked
for ways to convert carbon dioxide and water to citrate, via molecules that
incorporate only carbon, hydrogen and oxygen atoms. Using simple rules
to identify suitable intermediate molecules, they narrowed the huge
database down to a shortlist of just 153 molecules, which included all 11
compounds involved in the actual citric acid cycle. Although this does not
quite show that the citric acid cycle is the only conceivable way for
autotrophs to metabolize, it is clear that the 11 chosen molecules are far
from a random selection. And the shortlist of molecules crucial for
metabolism could get smaller still. The researchers chose only some of the
most obvious `selection rules'; others might winnow the options down.
Morowitz' team say that this is an indication that the chemistry of life is
"necessary and deterministic and would characterize any aqueous carbon-
based life anywhere it is found". [The citric acid cycle is fundamental to life
as we know it. If it turns out that: 1) *only* these 11 complex molecules
can carry out the functions found in the CAC and 2) all 11 compounds are
necessary of the CAC to function at all; then this more strong evidence for
intelligent cause in the origin of the CAC. It would also be strong evidence
that life on Earth is unique in the whole universe.]
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20000806/sc/planets_discovery_dc_1.ht
ml Yahoo! ... August 6 ... Astronomers Say Eight New Planets Detected
LONDON (Reuters) - International teams of astronomers said ... they had
discovered eight new planets outside our solar system. Five of the new
planets were detected in the Southern Hemisphere ... None of the planets
have ever been seen by humans, but scientists believe they are there
because of the gravitational pull they exert on the stars they orbit and the
subsequent detectable effect they have on the light the stars emit. One of
the five planets ... made up part of only the second multi-planetary system
ever found. The new multi-planet system consists of two Saturn-sized
gaseous giant planets, HD 83443 b, which the scientists said they detected
in May, and HD 83443 c, which they have just discovered. HD 83443 c is
the lightest planet yet discovered weighing roughly half what Saturn weighs
... The planets circle the HD 83443 star, 141 light years away from our
solar system in the Vela constellation. Only one other extra-solar multi-
planetary system -- three planets around the Upsilon Andromedae star --
had previously been detected ... The Geneva team also announced the
discovery of a new planet in the Northern Hemisphere. The planet, which
orbits the HD 190228 star 203 light years away ... A team of scientists
based at the University of California, Berkeley, said they had found three
new planets -- one orbiting the HD 92788, which was also identified by the
Geneva team. All three planets were gas giants similar to Jupiter. In
another discovery, the Berkeley scientists found that multi-planetary
systems might be more common than was previously thought. ... The new
planetary discoveries bring the number of potential extra-solar planets to
about 50. See also:
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20000804/sc/space_planet_dc_1.html
Yahoo! ... August 4 ... International Team of Astronomers Finds New
Planet LONDON (Reuters) - A team of international astronomers said on
Friday they had discovered a new planet in a nearby solar system. The as
yet unnamed planet orbits the star Epsilon Eridani, the closest star to Earth
which has a circling planet and is bright enough to be seen with the naked
eye. ... "Not only is this planet nearby, it lies 478 million km (297 million
miles) from its central star -- roughly the distance from the sun to the
asteroid belt in our own solar system," ... The distance between the planet
and its star opens up the possibility that there could be Earth-like planets
closer to Epsilon Eridani -- in a zone that Cochran said might be habitable.
... They estimate that the new planet, one of several expected to be
announced during the assembly, is bigger than Jupiter, the largest planet in
our Solar System. It is made up mostly of gas and its eccentric orbit lasts
just under seven years, about 60 percent as long as Jupiter's. Astronomers
consider stable orbits, like those of the Earth and other nearby planets, an
important factor in the development of life. ... The new planet is the 41st to
be discovered outside our solar system recently. ... [All of these extra-solar
planets are too large and AFAIK none of their orbits are circular, both of
which is necessary for life as we know it. More evidence that life is unique
to Earth?]
http://www.cnn.com/2000/TECH/space/07/31/pulsar.age/ CNN ... Pulsars
'lying about their age,' ... July 31, 2000 ...Pulsars, superdense neutron stars
that emit rotating jets of intense radiation, could be much older than
originally thought. The scientific discovery could force astronomers to
reexamine basic assumptions about the universe, according to a team of
scientists. For decades scientists have used pulsars as a benchmark to make
a variety of scientific conclusions in astronomy and particle physics. The
only problem is that pulsars have been "lying about their age," said
astronomers ... One pulsar thought to be 16,000 years old more likely is
between 40,000 and 170,000 years old, ... "This means that much of what
we thought we understood about the physics of pulsars and neutron stars
may be wrong," .... Neutron stars, considered the densest objects in the
universe, provide important physical tests for a basic understanding of
matter. Yet "much of this theory is based on a believe that we could
accurately estimate their ages. Our research indicates that these objects
may be 10 times older than we thought. This could force much
reevaluation," .... Scientists for years determined the approximate age of a
pulsar by measuring the rate by which a pulsar's rotation period slowed.
But Gaensler and others, determining the age of a pulsar 15,000 light-
years away through another technique, found the traditional method well
off the mark. Plotting the path and speed of the pulsar from the center of
the remnant of the supernova that created the pulsar, the scientists figured
that it must be at least 3.5 times older than previously estimated. ... [It will
be interesting if this holds up and forces a re-think of the age of the
universe. If pulsars are further away, this may mean the universe is
expanding faster, which might mean it is younger than previously thought?]
=========================================================================
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science.
Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion -- a full-fledged
alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent
evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint
-- and Mr. Gish is but one of many to make it -- the literalists are absolutely
right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning,
and it is true of evolution still today." (Ruse M., "How evolution became a
religion," National Post, May 13, 2000.
http://www.nationalpost.com/artslife.asp?f=000513/288424).
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 14 2000 - 17:49:38 EDT