A New Jerusalem in Space: Religion and the Space Program
JJ
> Here is a new take on "economic viability" of the space program....
>
>
> http://www.newoxfordreview.org/jan02/lewismandrews.html
>
> CREATING A "NEW JERUSALEM" IN OUTER SPACE?
> Nor does it matter that
> organized religion has played little role in the advancement of
> astronomy since the 17th century.
Christian religion NEVER played ANY role in the advancement of astronomy.
In fact, it played a HUGE role in proselytizing cosmology based on
supersitions -- in the retardation of astronomy.
Rune Børsjø
wrote:
>
>Here is a new take on "economic viability" of the space
>program....
If it were economically viable, we would have shot them into space
years ago.
<- EAC space program director
Andrew Case
Please don't crosspost so much. I've trimmed to the two most relevant
groups.
>To me, the scientific evidence that we observe in the
>universe, the intricacies of life with all of its
>implications of intelligent design, the orderliness of the
>physical universe…all of these point to a designer, not to
>an accidental happening.
This is the first and most serious problem with this piece.
The whole ID movement is based on the premise that the universe
and life itself are somehow so complex and unlikely that they
must have been designed. This requires us to believe that it
is more likely that a sentient being of unimaginable power
somehow just appeared out of nowhere than that a bunch of
inanimate elementary particles appeared out of nowhere and, over
the course of vast spans of time a vanishingly small fraction
of these particles arranged themselves into some terribly flawed
but nonetheless slightly intelligent hominids.
Now the second is pretty improbable, but there are well known
mechanisms capable of bringing it about, given the initial
event. The first possibility (God springing into existence)
is incalculable given no knowledge of the proposed mechanism.
Nonetheless, we can confidently conclude that the probability
of nothingness giving rise to flawed hominids of limited lifespan
and ability is greater than the probability of nothingness giving
rise to a perfect, immortal, omniscient, omnipotent being - and
we don't need to know anything about the mechanisms in order to
conclude this.
>The key to this affordable vision of space colonization lies
>in the recent and revolutionary assumption that newly
>arriving humans will be able to take advantage of abundant
>indigenous resources. Discoveries from unmanned probes, not
>just of Mars but of the moons of Jupiter and Saturn, the
>asteroid belt, and even our own moon, have led space
>scientists to the conclusion that the chemical composition
>of our solar system can supply much of what thriving human
>settlements on other worlds would require.
If this were not so, it would be compelling evidence for
a designer who wanted humans to stay on earth. We as made
of star stuff, as is everything else in the universe, so
it's not surprising at all that we find the same elements
and compounds off earth as on earth. Mindless forces acting
on inanimate matter are a perfectly adequate reason to expect
there to be water on mars, along with nearly everything else
humans might need.
>But even more profound than the impact on space science is
>the inevitable philosophical impact that the notion of an
>inviting universe will have on mass culture. Throughout
>Western history, the extent to which the laws of the natural
>world appear designed with humanity's well being in mind has
>influenced the popular acceptance of religious beliefs.
A creature whose wellbeing was at odds with the laws of nature
simply could not evolve. We are adapted to nature, not nature to
us.
>Of course, many of the greatest modern astronomers and
>physicists have continued to find evidence of an
>intelligent, overall design at the deepest levels of their
>scientific understanding.
Don't misunderstand the rhetorical deism of many scientists
for creationism. There are plenty of religious scientists,
and plenty of non-religious ones too. Even the non-religious
will occasionally use design as a metaphor for the elegance
of physical laws.
>For many scientists,
>including Princeton physicist John Wheeler, this was the
>dawning of a new teleology that has come to be known as the
>"anthropic principle": the belief that everything about the
>universe tends toward man, toward making human life possible
>and sustaining it. In Wheeler's own words, "A life-giving
>factor lies at the center of the whole machinery and design
>of the world."
Even those few scientists who do believe tha anthropic principle
(*believe* as opposed to toss it around as an interesting idea,
on a par with time-travel or warp drives) do not usually take
it to imply anything like the God of scripture.
>Now, with the development of terra-forming, we have an
>emerging view of our solar system as conveniently
>constructed, not merely for humanity's existence, but for
>its growth and expansion.
Yes: Convenient. Not planned or ordained or designed, just a
convenient accident. Could be a heck of a lot more convenient,
mind you.
>In the words of physicist Freeman Dyson:
>"The more I examine the universe and study the details of
>its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe
>in some sense must have known that we were coming."
More populist rhetorical deism. The universe fits us because
we fit the universe, and we fit the universe because we are
*of* the universe. We fit because it can be no other way -
if we did not it would be a compelling argument for a creator,
one capable of creating a being that could not have evolved.
>This new argument from design has only just begun to make
>its way into popular thinking through the writings of a few
>astronomers, physicists, and theologians with a scientific
>background.
Actually the argument from design has been around for a very
long time. The latest crop of popularizers are simply taking
advantage of widely held religious belief. Books arguing for
a cold impersonal universe don't sell very well, not because
they are false, but because they don't make the reader feel
good.
......Andrew
--
--
Andrew Case |
ac...@plasma.umd.edu |
B-Chan
> Actually the argument from design has been around for a very
> long time. The latest crop of popularizers are simply taking
> advantage of widely held religious belief. Books arguing for
> a cold impersonal universe don't sell very well, not because
> they are false, but because they don't make the reader feel
> good.
Or because the idea that All This is nothing but a series of repeated
lucky accidents defies plain common sense.
--
Bruce Lewis
**********
"The message is — what did we have in the 1950s
that we don't have now?
We had the freedom to think big." -- George Dyson
**********
Buy our book!
JUKU: A COMICS ALBUM (ISBN: 0970383703)
Get it at http://www.amazon.com
Rand Simberg
<bc...@airmail.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way
as to indicate that:
>> Actually the argument from design has been around for a very
>> long time. The latest crop of popularizers are simply taking
>> advantage of widely held religious belief. Books arguing for
>> a cold impersonal universe don't sell very well, not because
>> they are false, but because they don't make the reader feel
>> good.
>
>Or because the idea that All This is nothing but a series of repeated
>lucky accidents defies plain common sense.
Luck isn't required when you have billions of years to work with. And
of course, much of science defies plain common sense (e.g., quantum
mechanics and relativity).
--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org
"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Replace first . with @ and throw out the "@trash." to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers: postm...@fbi.gov
Scott Lowther
>
> Andrew Case wrote:
>
> > Actually the argument from design has been around for a very
> > long time. The latest crop of popularizers are simply taking
> > advantage of widely held religious belief. Books arguing for
> > a cold impersonal universe don't sell very well, not because
> > they are false, but because they don't make the reader feel
> > good.
>
> Or because the idea that All This is nothing but a series of repeated
> lucky accidents defies plain common sense.
Actaully, it doesn't What defies common sense is that there persist
people who live in a society that understands and experiences random
mutation, has partially broken the genetic code, has analyzed the fossil
record and has done experiments showing how materialistic abiogenesis of
organisms can easily happen... and who STILL think that The Invisible
Buddy In The Sky - for whom there is ZERO direct evidence - is behind it
all. Gah.
--
Scott Lowther, Engineer
Scott Lowther
>
> On Fri, 28 Jun 2002 17:58:14 -0500, in a place far, far away, B-Chan
> <bc...@airmail.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way
> as to indicate that:
>
> >> Actually the argument from design has been around for a very
> >> long time. The latest crop of popularizers are simply taking
> >> advantage of widely held religious belief. Books arguing for
> >> a cold impersonal universe don't sell very well, not because
> >> they are false, but because they don't make the reader feel
> >> good.
> >
> >Or because the idea that All This is nothing but a series of repeated
> >lucky accidents defies plain common sense.
>
> Luck isn't required when you have billions of years to work with. And
> of course, much of science defies plain common sense (e.g., quantum
> mechanics and relativity).
Ah, but when it comes to evolution, it does pretty much make sense.
Where some people get confused is that they are told that "The chances
of human DNA randomly falling together out of primordial soup is a
quilliard to one against." That is true enough... but that's nto what
evolution suggests. it's a standard Creationist strawman arguement, and
one that is, sadly, easily bought by a great many people.
What's especially disturbing is that the hucksters who are promoting the
anti-science blood libel that is ID know perfectly well that their
arguement is bunk... but they know that it works on those who don't know
any better.
--
Scott Lowther, Engineer
pete
In sci.space.policy JJ <jak...@parkin.ca> wrote:
` On Fri, 28 Jun 2002 00:41:17 -0400, Martin Ripa wrote:
`
`
`> Here is a new take on "economic viability" of the space program....
`>
`>
`> http://www.newoxfordreview.org/jan02/lewismandrews.html
`>
`> CREATING A "NEW JERUSALEM" IN OUTER SPACE?
`
`[...]
`
`> Nor does it matter that
`> organized religion has played little role in the advancement of
`> astronomy since the 17th century.
`
` Christian religion NEVER played ANY role in the advancement of astronomy.
` In fact, it played a HUGE role in proselytizing cosmology based on
` supersitions -- in the retardation of astronomy.
The whole idea of setting out into the universe with your five ton pig
iron albatross hanging from a noose around your neck seems quintessentially
futile. It's a sort of a deal with the devil dilemma: if it gets more
support for space exploration and colonization, great. We just have
to make sure they all end up on the "B" ark...
--
==========================================================================
vincent@triumf[munge].ca Pete Vincent
Disclaimer: all I know I learned from reading Usenet.
richard schumacher
> > Actually the argument from design has been around for a very
> > long time. The latest crop of popularizers are simply taking
> > advantage of widely held religious belief. Books arguing for
> > a cold impersonal universe don't sell very well, not because
> > they are false, but because they don't make the reader feel
> > good.
>
> Or because the idea that All This is nothing but a series of repeated
> lucky accidents defies plain common sense.
That too. And it takes some education to realize how badly wrong
"common sense" is in most situations; it's just an ape-brain substitute
for rational thought.
richard schumacher
> What's especially disturbing is that the hucksters who are promoting the
> anti-science blood libel that is ID know perfectly well that their
> arguement is bunk... but they know that it works on those who don't know
> any better.
Lying For Jesus. It's an old game.
jjustwwondering
> Christian religion NEVER played ANY role in the advancement of astronomy.
This is stated so categorically that it seems to
express a religious conviction... but it is not
factually true.
E.g., one of the oldest observatories in the world is
Specola Vaticana, with headquarters at a Papal palace
in Rome.
Some important astronomers - including Copernicus himself! -
received a living from the Catholic church,
which allowed them to conduct their studies.
Others (including Protestants such as Kepler
and Newton) were inspired in their search
for an orderly architecture of the cosmos by
their varieties of Christian faith.
Therion Ware
-0700, jwasi...@hotmail.com (jjustwwondering) brought the total
lines of text written about "Re: A New Jerusalem in Space: Religion
and the Space Program" to 19. I decided to observe the following about
them:
>JJ <jak...@parkin.ca> wrote in message news:<pan.2002.06.28.05...@parkin.ca>...
>> Christian religion NEVER played ANY role in the advancement of astronomy.
>
>This is stated so categorically that it seems to
>express a religious conviction... but it is not
>factually true.
>
>E.g., one of the oldest observatories in the world is
>Specola Vaticana, with headquarters at a Papal palace
>in Rome.
The Jesuits have certainly put a lot into learning over the years. On
the other hand it's difficult to escape the feeling that Christianity
generally speaking regards the persuit and attainment of secular
knowledge as, if not evil, then as at least a distraction from the
proper work of humanity which is entering into a relationship with God
through the person of Jesus Christ. My feeling is that social
anthropology might have more to say about this than history per-se.
Interesting topic...
>Some important astronomers - including Copernicus himself! -
>received a living from the Catholic church,
>which allowed them to conduct their studies.
>
>Others (including Protestants such as Kepler
>and Newton) were inspired in their search
>for an orderly architecture of the cosmos by
>their varieties of Christian faith.
Newton is an interesting case. In all honesty (honestly!) I think it's
tricky to class him as a Christian as the term is generally used and
understood today. He was a believer in the "divine Mechanick" or
"intelligent Agent," but on the other hand denied the trinity, didn't
believe in miracles, denied the incarnation and so on. If one were
feeling mischievous[1], I think it would be possible to make a case
for Newton being a spiritual Muslim as opposed to a Christian!
[1]. And let's face it, who doesn't?
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion?
See: <http://www.Video2CD.com>. 35.00 gets your video on DVD.
There is no EAC, so delete it from the email, if you want to communicate.
jsa...@ecn.ab.ca
: Now the second is pretty improbable, but there are well known
: mechanisms capable of bringing it about, given the initial
: event. The first possibility (God springing into existence)
: is incalculable given no knowledge of the proposed mechanism.
: Nonetheless, we can confidently conclude that the probability
: of nothingness giving rise to flawed hominids of limited lifespan
: and ability is greater than the probability of nothingness giving
: rise to a perfect, immortal, omniscient, omnipotent being - and
: we don't need to know anything about the mechanisms in order to
: conclude this.
That would be true enough, but religious people do *not* believe anything
like it.
They do not believe that first there was the Big Bang, then a bunch of
hydrogen atoms formed God by accident, and then He took over from there.
That would be *far* worse than natural selection giving rise to imperfect
creatures first.
Instead, the alternative theory is fundamentally different.
Your personal experience of your own consciousness doesn't involve a
perception of the neurons and atoms which compose you.
The theistic concept of existence holds that mind, not matter, is the
ultimate reality. God is an awareness without physical substrate; the
physical universe is like a daydream of His, and matter is but an
illusion, something unknown in ultimate Reality, but presumably required
or beneficial in order to allow imperfect creatures to have an existence
that is, or appears to be, independent in some respects.
The idea, therefore, is that the answer to "which came first, the Universe
or the Observer" is answered in favor of the Observer.
John Savard
lmg
news:1klqhu082ua7k4296...@4ax.com...
> In alt.atheism (and doubtless elsewhere), on 28 Jun 2002 23:32:52
> -0700, jwasi...@hotmail.com (jjustwwondering) brought the total
> lines of text written about "Re: A New Jerusalem in Space: Religion
> and the Space Program" to 19. I decided to observe the following about
> them:
>
> >JJ <jak...@parkin.ca> wrote in message
news:<pan.2002.06.28.05...@parkin.ca>...
> >> Christian religion NEVER played ANY role in the advancement of
astronomy.
> >
> >This is stated so categorically that it seems to
> >express a religious conviction... but it is not
> >factually true.
> >
> >E.g., one of the oldest observatories in the world is
> >Specola Vaticana, with headquarters at a Papal palace
> >in Rome.
>
> The Jesuits have certainly put a lot into learning over the years. On
> the other hand it's difficult to escape the feeling that Christianity
> generally speaking regards the persuit and attainment of secular
> knowledge as, if not evil, then as at least a distraction from the
> proper work of humanity which is entering into a relationship with God
> through the person of Jesus Christ. My feeling is that social
> anthropology might have more to say about this than history per-se.
Check out the Vatican Observatory's web site, especially their FAQ:
http://clavius.as.arizona.edu/vo/index.html
As far as I know there is no other astronomical facility owned or operated
by a religious sect. On the other hand, Catholicism is the only one with a
centralized organization capable of accumulating the funds and organizing
such an effort, and with enough of a membership to be able to afford it.
As one data point, I was raised Catholic and attended Catholic elementary
and high schools. At *no* time was there *any* interference of religion into
our science curriculum, or any other subjects for that matter. Religion was
separate, even though we were taught by nuns as well as lay teachers. We
learned about evolution and about the formation of the solar system,
probably in more detail than public school students today. We had advanced
classes in biology, physics and chemistry. We even had a handful of
non-Catholics who attended my high school (they were exempted from having to
take the religion classes).
Your statement may be correct in general, but I suspect that some religious
people who work in the hard sciences think of it as an alternate path to
"God" through understanding "His Creation". Others probably just
compartmentalize religion from daily life.
lmg
jjustwwondering
...sci.space.policy was my entry point into this hornet nest...
I don't. Newton was, in some ways, not a nice person, but
one cannot but feel immensely grateful for his immense
contributions to humanity. At all events, I
see no justification, and experience no urge,
for a mischievous misinterpretation of his
(or anyone's) sincere convictions.
He was an anti-trinitarian - so what?
Some Christians are. To excommunicate him from Christianity
for such a reason would be absurd sectarian fanaticism
- especially absurd if coming from a non-Chrisian outsider.
*He* considered himself a Christian, and that is what counts.
In any case, this is very much a side issue. My simple
point does not depend on it: Christianity had *some*
positive input into astronomy. There is no
need to evaluate any particular case,
as long as that general thesis is accepted.
But even that was a diversion from the *underlying* theme:
may not religion be among the engines of
human space expansion, as it has been
among the engines of human geographical dispersion?
Cannot a group of believers (whether Christian or not)
embark on a trek to an extraterrestrial Promised Land,
as others journeyed to Canaan or Canada or Siberia
or Utah?
It *could* make the whole difference, because of
the bootsrap economics of the issue. Space traffic
is expensive because of insufficient demand, and demand
is low because the price is high. A powerful non-economic
motivation could jump-start progress and offer humanity
a gift of heavens (physical heavens) and eternal life
(of the species and its post-human descendants).
Andrew Case
>Andrew Case (ac...@Glue.umd.edu) wrote:
>
>: Now the second is pretty improbable, but there are well known
>: mechanisms capable of bringing it about, given the initial
>: event. The first possibility (God springing into existence)
>: is incalculable given no knowledge of the proposed mechanism.
>: Nonetheless, we can confidently conclude that the probability
>: of nothingness giving rise to flawed hominids of limited lifespan
>: and ability is greater than the probability of nothingness giving
>: rise to a perfect, immortal, omniscient, omnipotent being - and
>: we don't need to know anything about the mechanisms in order to
>: conclude this.
>
>That would be true enough, but religious people do *not* believe anything
>like it.
>
>They do not believe that first there was the Big Bang, then a bunch of
>hydrogen atoms formed God by accident, and then He took over from there.
>That would be *far* worse than natural selection giving rise to imperfect
>creatures first.
I'm not suggesting that any religion believes god is a product of the
big bang. I'm comparing the chain
nothing -> big bang -> humans
to
nothing -> god -> big bang -> humans
or
god-> big bang -> humans
>Your personal experience of your own consciousness doesn't involve a
>perception of the neurons and atoms which compose you.
While there is good reason to believe that consciousness could exist in
multiple differennt substrates, there is no evidence it can exist with
no substrate whatsoever. IOW, you can implement the same algorithm on
different machines (mechanical, electrical, fluidic, etc) but you can't
implement it on no machine at all.
>The theistic concept of existence holds that mind, not matter, is the
>ultimate reality. God is an awareness without physical substrate; the
>physical universe is like a daydream of His, and matter is but an
>illusion, something unknown in ultimate Reality, but presumably required
>or beneficial in order to allow imperfect creatures to have an existence
>that is, or appears to be, independent in some respects.
This is an altogether subtler and more interesting view than that held
by the majority of the people pushing ID. We're getting far OT, and into
an area that too easily leads to pointless flamewars, so I'll just say
I'm aware of this point of view and have considered it in some detail.
The upshot is that the implications are impossible (IMO) to reconcile
simultaneously with science and a fundamentalist reading of scripture (you
can have one or the other but not both).
Anthony Roberts
> lucky accidents defies plain common sense.
Of course, common sense is a rigorous standard by which one may judge the
validity of any theory.
It doesn't defy my common sense when I think about a series of repeated
acidents creating the world that I experiance. Common sense isn't completely
common. I've done a bit of work on genetic algorithms, and I've had some
impresive results.
The entire universe can perform more operations per second than my computer,
and it seems to go for a bit longer than Windows XP before it has to
restart. Therefore, I conclude that the entire universe can evolve more
impressive results than my computer.
Of course, if there are any deities kicking around that think they've got a
credible claim to the creation of the universe, I'm always happy to consider
their claim. I would ask, however, that they not send any human minions. I'm
getting tired of those.
Michael Martin-Smith
religious impulse ( like it or not - it is both widely distributed and
deeply implanted in most human cultures) to the colonization of Space
An example might be to mutate the Judaic ideas of Diaspora and messianic
Destiny as the Chosen People, into a Cosmic Destiny for a Chosen Species-
whether by Evolution, or Providence matters not a whit as long as it gets
the job done!
Mother Nature is waiting in the wings to punish the myopic.
Zionism was founded in order to create a safe Homeland for Jewry; it is at
least arguable that things have not turned out accordning to plan. Israel is
many things - but safe?
The time could well come when it will be cheaper for Humankind and less
painful for Jewry to look at an Extraterrestrial Zion. Jewry, we are told,
is not without wealth and influence worldwide. They could one day see some
merit in kickstarting a new migration by latter day Israelite Pilgrim
Fathers? The alternatives down here are not attractive
Yes, it will take generations - but it took 19 centuries to recapture
Jerusalem.
"Astrozionism" might be a fitting successor to the current terrestrial
variety?
"Andrew Case" <ac...@Glue.umd.edu> wrote in message
news:afncc4$7...@z.glue.umd.edu...
Christopher P. Winter
...seven hundred and sixty-one lines of content. [snipped]
I would rather have had just the URL.
Chris
Jeff Walther
jwasi...@hotmail.com (jjustwwondering) wrote:
>
> It *could* make the whole difference, because of
> the bootsrap economics of the issue. Space traffic
> is expensive because of insufficient demand,
No, it's expensive because all of the vehicles built to date suck big
rocks, economy-wise and require outrageously large (or at least, are
operated with outrageously large) ground crews.
--
A friend will help you move. A real friend will help you move a body.
Rand Simberg
tr...@io.com (Jeff Walther) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:
>> It *could* make the whole difference, because of
>> the bootsrap economics of the issue. Space traffic
>> is expensive because of insufficient demand,
>
>No, it's expensive because all of the vehicles built to date suck big
>rocks, economy-wise and require outrageously large (or at least, are
>operated with outrageously large) ground crews.
No, it's a market problem. Boeing has just as big a logistics tail
for their airplanes--they just fly a lot more of them.
jsa...@ecn.ab.ca
: The real challenge is to find a way of constructively harnessing the
: religious impulse ( like it or not - it is both widely distributed and
: deeply implanted in most human cultures) to the colonization of Space
Religious impulses are notoriously difficult to harness. People will
believe what seems to be true to them, not what others tell them to.
Of course, once a new religious idea becomes popular, because of some
inspiring and charismatic individual, one can have an existing religious
organization taken over by people of a totalitarian bent. Thus, one finds
the Inquisition of yesterday, and the Wahhabis of today. These people have
a genuine faith to exploit, since what is likely to seem true to people is
what they have grown up with.
There will be a minority of forwards-thinking individuals who will see in
the exploration of Space and the progress of scientific understanding one
of humanity's best chances to "glorify God", but this sort of thinking has
to gain ground slowly on its merits. Dressing it up in outworn trappings
is at best ridiculous, and at worst embarassing.
And there is much else in the religious impulse that this doesn't address.
The question of consciousness; some try to claim that consciousness is a
mere illusion. In that case, who is it that is experiencing the illusion?
The question of ethics; some try to claim that right and wrong are only
rules made up by cultures. In that case, who are we to question the
Holocaust or Negro slavery?
Right now, therefore, even when people do not take the supernatural claims
of existing religions seriously, they do not see a secular system of
thought that offers an alternative. This may not be a bad thing, since the
religious impulse, when offered an outlet, has often fuelled unwise
enthusiasms.
John Savard
Jeff Walther
simberg.i...@trash.org (Rand Simberg) wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Jul 2002 05:27:35 GMT, in a place far, far away,
> tr...@io.com (Jeff Walther) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
> such a way as to indicate that:
>
> >> It *could* make the whole difference, because of
> >> the bootsrap economics of the issue. Space traffic
> >> is expensive because of insufficient demand,
> >
> >No, it's expensive because all of the vehicles built to date suck big
> >rocks, economy-wise and require outrageously large (or at least, are
> >operated with outrageously large) ground crews.
>
> No, it's a market problem. Boeing has just as big a logistics tail
> for their airplanes--they just fly a lot more of them.
I don't see a center in Houston with 10,000 employees devoted to the
monitoring of each aircraft in flight. And individual aircraft put on a
lot more hours between maintenance and overhauls.
Rand Simberg
>> >No, it's expensive because all of the vehicles built to date suck big
>> >rocks, economy-wise and require outrageously large (or at least, are
>> >operated with outrageously large) ground crews.
>>
>> No, it's a market problem. Boeing has just as big a logistics tail
>> for their airplanes--they just fly a lot more of them.
>
>I don't see a center in Houston with 10,000 employees devoted to the
>monitoring of each aircraft in flight.
You would if there were only four Boeing aircraft, and each of them
only flew a couple times a year (except that they would be in Seattle,
or Chicago--not Houston).
>And individual aircraft put on a
>lot more hours between maintenance and overhauls.
Yes, that is a design flaw. But even if that weren't a problem, at
the current fleet size and flight rate, the cost per flight would
still be astronomical.
Grungo
they will soon have to build new one in space - and the American
people will have to pay for it, as they paid billions and billions to
bild the Israeli killing machine !
simberg.i...@trash.org (Rand Simberg) wrote in message news:<3db23e69....@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
Scott Lowther
>
> The old Jerusalem is getting these days pretty hot for the Zionists -
> they will soon have to build new one in space - and the American
> people will have to pay for it, as they paid billions and billions to
> bild the Israeli killing machine !
While on the other hand, the Islamic fanatic killing machine came at cut
rate, low-low prices.
--
Scott Lowther, Engineer
G EddieA95
>> bild the Israeli killing machine !
>
>While on the other hand, the Islamic fanatic killing machine came at cut
>rate, low-low prices.
A killing machine can be set up remarkably cheaply when it has millions of
self-sacrificing bodies behind it. If your side doesn't have the numbers or
the self-sacrifice imperative, then spending money is the only alternative.
jjustwwondering
We've paid for it, all right - before as well as after.
El Qaeda terrorists have been nurtured by Saudi and Arab Emirates
oil money for which we pay with inflated OPEC oil prices.
The Palestinian martyr-murderers are born and bred in "refugee"
camps (some refugees! - fourth generation there - poor parasites)
for which we pay with our UN dues.
They are trained and armed with the help of our money
contributed directly to the "Palestinian Authority".
As for Israel, we've somehow undertaken to pay them $3 billion
a year for handing *Sinai* over to *Egypt* - and we've
also undertaken to pay *Egypt* $2 billion a year for
*taking* Sinai from Israel! It looks as if our main
priority in the world is to keep Sinai Egyptian...
Go figure. It was Jimmy Carter's bright idea.
Incidentally, some of the 9/11 killers came from Egypt.
Joann Evans
>
> Andrew Case wrote:
>
> > Actually the argument from design has been around for a very
> > long time. The latest crop of popularizers are simply taking
> > advantage of widely held religious belief. Books arguing for
> > a cold impersonal universe don't sell very well, not because
> > they are false, but because they don't make the reader feel
> > good.
>
> Or because the idea that All This is nothing but a series of repeated
> lucky accidents defies plain common sense.
As does relativity or quantum physics....
They don't realize that continuous 'rolls of the dice' will always
get you *some* result. If we were a different sentient species resulting
from a different set of outcomes, some of our members might still be
asserting that our existence defies common sense.
And, going back to quantum physics, if one accepts the many-worlds
interpretation, *all* of those natural-selection outcomes and variations
exist and are playing themselves out somewhere....
Joann Evans
Understandable, but...761? Wasn't actually counting the lines of text
as much a questionable use of time, as quoting the entire text was a
questionable use of bandwith...?
jsa...@ecn.ab.ca
: >billions to
I suppose the debate had something to do with the fact that the "Israeli
killing machine" cost the U.S. taxpayer money... the Islamic fanatic
killing machine only cost the U.S. automobile owner money, and that is
much less important somehow.
John Savard
Jorge R. Frank
Most newsreaders do that for you, and list the linecount with the message
headers.
--
JRF
Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.
B-chan
Joann Evans <gree...@juno.com> wrote:
> B-Chan wrote:
> As does relativity or quantum physics....
>
> They don't realize that continuous 'rolls of the dice' will always
> get you *some* result. If we were a different sentient species resulting
> from a different set of outcomes, some of our members might still be
> asserting that our existence defies common sense.
Assume a space expedition were to find a fully-functional IC chip on
some distant planet. Would the space explorers assume that billions of
rolls of the environmental dice had produced the chip, or that the chip
was the product of an intelligeht designer?
A human cell is much more complex than an IC chip...
--
Bruce Lewis
Cheap Disposable Entertainment, Inc.
All opinions expressed herein are mine alone.
Buy our book! JUKU: A COMICS ALBUM (ISBN: 0970383703)
Get it at http://www.amazon.com
------------------------------------
"...[W]hat did we have in the 1950s that we don't have now?
We had the freedom to think big." -- George Dyson, _PROJECT ORION_
Andrew Case
>Assume a space expedition were to find a fully-functional IC chip on
>some distant planet. Would the space explorers assume that billions of
>rolls of the environmental dice had produced the chip, or that the chip
>was the product of an intelligeht designer?
ICs do not self reproduce, so they are not subject to evolution. Given
that the simplest method of generating extremely complex things has been
ruled out in this case, the logical conclusion is that it is the product
of design.
If they found a bacterium, they would assume it evolved.
>A human cell is much more complex than an IC chip...
But a human cell does reproduce, so it is subject to evolution. The
simplest explanation for the origin of that cell is that it came about
by the same mechanisms that have been seen in the lab and in the wild,
mechanisms that have been shown to create things of greater complexity
by starting with things of lesser complexity. People promoting ID are
uniformly unaware of the extent to which evolution has been observed
in the lab and in the wild. New species have been observed coming into
existence, new organs developing, new behaviors, new biochemistry - the
whole shebang. There is no missing mechanism required to go from a
single self-replicating molecule in the primordial sea all the way to
humans and beyond. It's not random - there is an element of randomness
(mutation) and an element of selection (differential survival rates).
You need both. But if you have both, you don't need anything else.
B-chan
ac...@Glue.umd.edu (Andrew Case) wrote:
> ICs do not self reproduce, so they are not subject to evolution. Given
> that the simplest method of generating extremely complex things has been
> ruled out in this case...
Biological evolution as a method of generating extremely complex things
has yet to be observed. We can observe that extremely complex organisms
have existed throughout geological time, but we have never observed an
extremely complex organism being generated from a simpler organism, nor
have we observed any process by which this action might occur. We have
observedthe process of natural selection, by which already-complex
organisms are affected by their environment, but we have never observed
an organism being "generated" by natural processes.
> If they found a bacterium, they would assume it evolved.
A baseless assumption.
> But a human cell does reproduce, so it is subject to evolution.
If by evolution you mean "change over time", then yes. If by evolution
you mean "abiogenesis leading to the chance development of
highly-complex self-programming nanostructures", this process has never
been observed.
> The
> simplest explanation for the origin of that cell is that it came about
> by the same mechanisms that have been seen in the lab and in the wild,
> mechanisms that have been shown to create things of greater complexity
> by starting with things of lesser complexity.
These "mechanisms" are hypothetical.
> People promoting ID are
> uniformly unaware of the extent to which evolution has been observed
> in the lab and in the wild.
Fortunately, I'm not one of those "people".
> New species have been observed coming into
> existence, new organs developing, new behaviors, new biochemistry - the
> whole shebang.
Extant organisms have been observed exhibiting vatious changes in
response to environmental stimuli. Neither the _ex nihilo_ appearance
of new organisms nor the process of one species changing into another
has been observed, since (according to the standard model of Darwinian
theory) such changes take place over geological epochs of time.
> There is no missing mechanism required to go from a
> single self-replicating molecule in the primordial sea all the way to
> humans and beyond.
No evidence of this mysterious, magical "single self-replicating
molecule" exists; its existence in merely assumed _a priori_.
Abiogenesis went out with Pasteur. Instead, when confronted with objects
of daunting complexity and function -- an IC chip, a painting, a cell, a
mind -- the simplest explantion is to assume that they are artifacts,
not natural constructs. The human mind is especially adept at this task.
As Richard Neer of the Department of Art History, University of Chicago
writes:
"...[A]rchaeologists and connoisseurs perform similar actions. More
importantly, however, they do so for a similar reason: they are each
committed to a realist view of style. They are committed to the idea
that style is not just a construct, but a real property of real objects
in the real world. Connoisseurs are committed to this idea because they
believe that personal style is a real property of individuals.
Archaeologists are committed because they believe that period and
regional styles are (or were) real properties of periods and regions. To
see that such is the case, one need only imagine a world in which we
could not or would not say that a potsherd is Archaic, not modern; that
it is Greek, not Chinese; that it is even a potsherd in the first
place, and not an oddly-colored pebble. In such a world, it would be
impossible to recognize an artifact as such. And without artifacts,
without a "material record," archaeologists and art historians would
have nothing to talk about.
The realist view of style, and the practice of stylistic etiology it
entails, precedes any and all archaeologic al work. It does so because
it is what allows us to recognize artifacts as such. The entire ancient
world is built up out of innumerable attributions, many of them so basic
as to remain tacit. For example, the distinction between man-made
artifacts and natural forms involves a tacit attribution. When an
excavator throws away what she perceives to be pebbles and saves what
she perceives to be artifacts, she is making attributions: in the
broadest possible sense, the artifacts are those things she perceives to
be 'in the style of humans.' Such attributions may appear so obvious as
to be irrelevant. Yet controversies over borderline cases like the
so-called Berekhat Ram figurine -- which is either the earliest known
example of human representational activity, or a funny-looking rock --
reveal that the identification of an artifact as such is an important
act of critical judgment. More specific analyses identify period,
regional, and even personal styles: Ancient Mediterranean, Archaic
Greek, Attic red-figure, the Berlin Painter. Philology, the
connoisseurship of texts, has its own degrees of specificity and its own
techniques; its importance for historians is obvious. Nobody has to
believe in all or any of these attributions, but one cannot disbelieve
any one of them simply because it is made on the basis of style if one
also wants to keep any of the others. Positivist archaeologists and
historians presuppose the validity of stylistic analysis because
stylistic analysis provides them with all their evidence for past
actions and events; it reassures them that they are, in fact,
archaeologists and not just misguided geologists." [Source:
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/2000/2000-01-02.html ].
In other words, the only method by which a pottery shard may be
distinguished from a mere colored rock is by _human judgement_; the
shard "looks artificial" -- complex and ordered -- while the rock does
not. Similarly, when presented with the enormous complexity and order of
the natural Universe (and the human Mind which perceives it), the
judgement of human throughout history has been that both are
_artifacts_. Just as the canny archaeologist recognizes artifacts as
"those things she perceives to be 'in the style of humans.'", the
greatest thinkers of every age have recognized in Creation those things
they perceives to be 'in the style of the Creator.'
Now, I am obviously not a scientist. By profession I am an artist --
and, over some twenty years of professional practice, I flatter myself
to think I have become skilled enough in my craft to speak with some
authority regarding art. To my eye the Universe looks less like a happy
accident and more like a deliberate creation; in fact, it begins to look
more like a work of Art than anything else -- and we may universally
observe that wherever Art is, there also is an Artist. In the case of
the Universe, the medium used by the Artist is Reality itself ("In Him
we live and move and have our being -- St. Paul); and, although the
Method which this Artist used to create His ultimate masterpiece is open
to legitimate question (Apple & Snake? Big Bang? Brane Wreck?), the
existence of the _objet d'art_ itself (and thus of the Artist) is not.
Thank you for your thoughtful post.
Scott Lowther
>
> In article <agcqo4$a...@z.glue.umd.edu>,
> ac...@Glue.umd.edu (Andrew Case) wrote:
>
> > ICs do not self reproduce, so they are not subject to evolution. Given
> > that the simplest method of generating extremely complex things has been
> > ruled out in this case...
>
> Biological evolution as a method of generating extremely complex things
> has yet to be observed.
Many thigns have never been observed that we know exist. Evolution is
well established... so well established and obvious that to deny it
ranks one with a Flat Earther.
> We can observe that extremely complex organisms
> have existed throughout geological time, but we have never observed an
> extremely complex organism being generated from a simpler organism, nor
> have we observed any process by which this action might occur.
Hogwash. Genetic mutation ahs been repeatedly observed. The addition of
new genes has also been observed. Virii can implant new genes in a host
cell. Replication errors can add new, often redundant, genes.
> > If they found a bacterium, they would assume it evolved.
>
> A baseless assumption.
Incorrect. Most scientists hearing of a new bacterium found on another
planent would assume that it evolved.
> Extant organisms have been observed exhibiting vatious changes in
> response to environmental stimuli. Neither the _ex nihilo_ appearance
> of new organisms nor the process of one species changing into another
> has been observed, since (according to the standard model of Darwinian
> theory) such changes take place over geological epochs of time.
Incorrect. Species have been seen to drift over timespans of note to
humans. Dogs used to be wolves, frex. Cows used to be aurox. Moths
change colors to suit new envirnments.
And obviously new organisms won't be observed arising from a modern
primordial soup... because if, somehow, a pond of primordial soup were
to pop into existence, the modern critters, such as bacteria, would eat
it all up.
> > There is no missing mechanism required to go from a
> > single self-replicating molecule in the primordial sea all the way to
> > humans and beyond.
>
> No evidence of this mysterious, magical "single self-replicating
> molecule" exists; its existence in merely assumed _a priori_.
No evidence of the IDer's highly hypothetical "God" creature has ever
been found either. The difference being, chemical reactions are not
magical.
> In other words, the only method by which a pottery shard may be
> distinguished from a mere colored rock is by _human judgement_; the
> shard "looks artificial" -- complex and ordered -- while the rock does
> not. Similarly, when presented with the enormous complexity and order of
> the natural Universe (and the human Mind which perceives it), the
> judgement of human throughout history has been that both are
> _artifacts_.
And the human mind, when looking at the natural world, is almost always
wrong when leapign to that conclusion. Some people look at a blurry
photo of a mesa on Mars and see a giant scultpure of a face. Some people
look at the arrangement of the stars in the night sky and see bears.
Some people see a cell and see an intelligently, intentionally designed
mechanism. They're all wrong.
> Now, I am obviously not a scientist.
Clearly.
By profession I am an artist --
> and, over some twenty years of professional practice, I flatter myself
> to think I have become skilled enough in my craft to speak with some
> authority regarding art. To my eye the Universe looks less like a happy
> accident and more like a deliberate creation; in fact, it begins to look
> more like a work of Art than anything else -- and we may universally
> observe that wherever Art is, there also is an Artist.
"The Unpleasant Profession of Johnathan Hoag."
It's amazing what some people will pass off as art. My parents have
hanging on their wall a bit of abstract art that was created by sticking
a canvas behind a sooty Volkswagon exhaust. They like it, and it is a
little nifty looking... but it's hardly "art" beyond the fact that it's
interesting to look at. The patterns on the canvas, as with the patterns
seen in the natural world, are complex and in the end devoid of any
intelligent basis.
--
Scott Lowther, Engineer
Dave O'Neill
"B-chan" <bc...@airmail.net> wrote in message
news:6D47CBA3A6E5D06E.F446A2E9...@lp.airnews.net...
> In article <agcqo4$a...@z.glue.umd.edu>,
> ac...@Glue.umd.edu (Andrew Case) wrote:
>
> > ICs do not self reproduce, so they are not subject to evolution. Given
> > that the simplest method of generating extremely complex things has been
> > ruled out in this case...
>
> Biological evolution as a method of generating extremely complex things
> has yet to be observed.
There is an extremely good FAQ on this at www.talkorigins.org, worth looking
over before getting into this debate.
We can observe that extremely complex organisms
> have existed throughout geological time, but we have never observed an
> extremely complex organism being generated from a simpler organism, nor
> have we observed any process by which this action might occur. We have
> observedthe process of natural selection, by which already-complex
> organisms are affected by their environment, but we have never observed
> an organism being "generated" by natural processes.
>
> > If they found a bacterium, they would assume it evolved.
>
> A baseless assumption.
Not at all. Quite a reasonable one.
> > But a human cell does reproduce, so it is subject to evolution.
>
> If by evolution you mean "change over time", then yes. If by evolution
> you mean "abiogenesis leading to the chance development of
> highly-complex self-programming nanostructures", this process has never
> been observed.
You are mising your terms here, no we have not observed abiogenesis, on the
other hand the random combinations required for a small RNA based replicator
which could certainly lead to a cell are actually surprising small. In
particular as long as you realise that such reactions could happen lots and
lots of time all at once all over a suitable environment.
> > The
> > simplest explanation for the origin of that cell is that it came about
> > by the same mechanisms that have been seen in the lab and in the wild,
> > mechanisms that have been shown to create things of greater complexity
> > by starting with things of lesser complexity.
>
> These "mechanisms" are hypothetical.
Many are theorectical, an important distinction - in particular that we can
observe how to sort and assemble basic self replicators.
> > People promoting ID are
> > uniformly unaware of the extent to which evolution has been observed
> > in the lab and in the wild.
>
> Fortunately, I'm not one of those "people".
>
> > New species have been observed coming into
> > existence, new organs developing, new behaviors, new biochemistry - the
> > whole shebang.
>
> Extant organisms have been observed exhibiting vatious changes in
> response to environmental stimuli. Neither the _ex nihilo_ appearance
> of new organisms nor the process of one species changing into another
> has been observed, since (according to the standard model of Darwinian
> theory) such changes take place over geological epochs of time.
You should up date your reading on the topic. I recommend talk origins.
Specification has been observed.
> > There is no missing mechanism required to go from a
> > single self-replicating molecule in the primordial sea all the way to
> > humans and beyond.
>
> No evidence of this mysterious, magical "single self-replicating
> molecule" exists;
The same can be said for the Intelligent Designer.
Andrew Case
> ac...@Glue.umd.edu (Andrew Case) wrote:
>
>> ICs do not self reproduce, so they are not subject to evolution. Given
>> that the simplest method of generating extremely complex things has been
>> ruled out in this case...
>
>Biological evolution as a method of generating extremely complex things
>has yet to be observed.
This is true in the same sense that the development of canyons by the
action of rivers has yet to be observed, or the creation of islands by
underwater volcanos has yet to be observed. There are no missing
mechanisms, just the absence of scientists with million year lifespans
and generous grants :)
>These "mechanisms" are hypothetical.
All the needed mechanisms have been observed in the lab, and nearly
all have been observed in nature. There is no missing mechanism needed
to generate complex organisms from simple ones.
>Extant organisms have been observed exhibiting vatious changes in
>response to environmental stimuli. Neither the _ex nihilo_ appearance
>of new organisms nor the process of one species changing into another
>has been observed, since (according to the standard model of Darwinian
>theory) such changes take place over geological epochs of time.
A species becoming genetically isolated from the parent species has
been observed in the lab and in the wild. This is the first step in the
chain leading to development of a completely different species. The
ex nihilo appearance of organisms has never been observed, which isn't
a problem since evolution doesn't suggest it's even possible. Everything
comes from something simpler, all the way back to hydrogen (or Quarks,
if you want to go back that far).
>> There is no missing mechanism required to go from a
>> single self-replicating molecule in the primordial sea all the way to
>> humans and beyond.
>
>No evidence of this mysterious, magical "single self-replicating
>molecule" exists; its existence in merely assumed _a priori_.
Self replicating molecules are known to exist. New ones are being
discovered all the time. The simplest known so far, IIRC, consists
of ~220 amino acids. The problem has gone from a million monkeys
typing the complete works of shakespeare to a million monkeys
typing a single word by Bozo the Clown. The probability of there
having been self replicating molecules in the primordial soup is
very large.
>Now, I am obviously not a scientist.
I am a scientist. In particular, I work in a subfield where the emergence
of extraordinarily complex and intricate patterns by the action of
simple, mechanistic laws is an ongoing area of research. Some of the
pictures my colleagues create are so intricate and detailed that you
would swear they were the work of an artist. Yet they are nothing more
than simple models of physical systems. They look like the products of
design, but are not.
>By profession I am an artist --
>and, over some twenty years of professional practice, I flatter myself
>to think I have become skilled enough in my craft to speak with some
>authority regarding art. To my eye the Universe looks less like a happy
>accident and more like a deliberate creation; in fact, it begins to look
>more like a work of Art than anything else -- and we may universally
>observe that wherever Art is, there also is an Artist.
My observation is that these days it's not needed to have an artist
in order for somebody to pass off something as art, and have the art
establishment accept is as such, but that's an argument for another
day :)
Suffice to say that if there is an artist, he/she/it has gone to
extraordinary lengths to make it look like a happy accident. I second
the recommendation of the talk.origins archive, btw: www.talkorigins.org
Most of this has been hashed out in detail on that newsgroup, and some
very dedicated people have put a lot of time into assembling the FAQs.
B-chan
> > Biological evolution as a method of generating extremely complex things
> > has yet to be observed.
In article <3D2A36...@ix.netcom.com>,
Scott Lowther <lex...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Many thigns have never been observed that we know exist. Evolution is
> well established... so well established and obvious...
A statement of faith.
> Hogwash. Genetic mutation ahs been repeatedly observed. The addition of
> new genes has also been observed. Virii can implant new genes in a host
> cell. Replication errors can add new, often redundant, genes.
Genetic mutation has been repeatedly observed, but mutation is not
evolution. Most mutations have a negative impact on the organism's
function, anyway. And in no case have we observed one species becoming
another via beneficial mutation.
> Most scientists hearing of a new bacterium found on another
> planent would assume that it evolved.
A baseless assumption remains baseless no matter how many people hold it.
> Incorrect. Species have been seen to drift over timespans of note to
> humans. Dogs used to be wolves, frex.
Wolves _are_ dogs, and vice-versa. The dog as we know him today is
merely a breed of wolf.
> Cows used to be aurox.
Do you mean "auroch"? Auroch were nothing more than cows -- the large,
wild cows of ancient Europe, sort of an Eurro-buffalo. Modern
domesticated cattle have complex and still not well understood genetic
histotry, but it is certain that they did not somehow magically evolve
from aurochs; their predecessors include auroch, the wild cows of India,
and domesticated bovines from other places. [See
http://www.colin.org/otherstuff/SmallStuff/DomesticationDNA.html .]
In both cases, we observe differentiation within a genus -- wolf to
Weimariner, auroch to Angus -- but we do not see an animal of one genus
somehow magically turning into an animal of a different genus -- a
Komodo monitor lizardevolving into a cow, for example.
(It is also important to note than in both cases you mention the
"evolution" in question resulted from the _intelligent intervention_ of
human beings, not through some natural process, so that even if wolves
did "evolve" into Weimariners, they did so by "directed evolution", not
by blind chance.)
> Moths
> change colors to suit new envirnments.
Ah, the infamous "peppered moth" of Ye Olde Industyale Englande. This
was a pious fraud, perpetrated by a True Believer, a naturalist named
Bernard Kettlewell, to demonstrate the veracity of the Darwinist faith.
"The common form of this moth species is pale gray. About 150 years
ago, a black specimen was discovered near an industrial city in England.
Over the years, the black (melanic) form became ever more common as
the pale form became rare. By 1900 the black form exceeded 90 percent
in peppered moth populations throughout the industrialized regions of
England. The phenomenon was dubbed industrial melanism.
Because people knew that birds eat insects, scientists as early as 1896
suspected that birds were eating the different color forms of peppered
moths selectively based on their degree of conspicuousness in habitats
variously blackened by industrial soot. Extensive experimental work
supports this view, although questions remain. Other scientists proposed
that moths responded to the presence of pollutants by developing darker
body colors. We now know from genetic analysis that the colors of adult
peppered moths are determined by genes; thus, the changes in the
percentages of pale to black moths over generations reflect changes in
the genetic makeup of moth populations.
As industrial practices have changed in many regions, we have observed
black moths plummet from 90 percent to 10 percent in the just the past
few decades. Once again, we have observed significant genetic changes
occur in moth populations. Evolution is defined at the operational level
as genetic change over time, so this is evolution." [Source:
http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/icon.cr.html ].
Uh, yeah, sort of -- but again, the moths in question _remained_
peppered moths, regardless of whether they were light or dark; no
trans-species evolution occurred. The moths did not "evolve" into
non-moths, nor did they even "evolve" into a new _species_ of moth; they
remained, as they remain today, the ever-lovin' blue-eyed peppered moth.
Besides, the moth data was fake anyway. "In the 1970s, the American
lepidopterist Ted Sargent highlighted serious problems with
Kettlewell's experiment. But no one wanted to know: his research was
ignored by the scientific community and his career stymied. The peppered
moth experiment was 'sacred'; critics were 'demonised', their views
dismissed as 'heresy'. But the evidence grew and in 1998 a prominent
biologist, reviewing [Kettlewell's "evidence"] in _Nature_ , said his
shock at the extent of the doubts was like discovering as a child "that
it was my father and not Santa who brought the presents on Christmas
eve".
In fact, according to Sargent, the data was faked. "The unspoken
possibility of fraud hangs in the air," says Judith Hooper, author of
the new book _Of Moths and Men: Intrigue, Tragedy & the Peppered Moth_
[London: Fourth Estate, 2002], noting that Kettlewell's field notes
have conveniently disappeared. According to Sargent, one thing is
certain: the famous photos of moths on tree trunks were faked, using
dead moths and a log. In the wild, peppered moths don't hang around on
exposed tree trunks long enough to be eaten, preferring the shady
undersides of branches. And then there's the nagging question of whether
birds actually eat moths on tree trunks. Several experts claim that it
does not happen in the wild. By placing moths on the tree trunks,
Kettlewell was effectively laying out a smorgasbord for the watching
birds, who soon learned when it was feeding time. This was not natural
but unnatural selection. " [Source:
http://books.guardian.co.uk/reviews/scienceandnature/0,6121,713294,00.htm
l ].
To sum up: there is no evidence that one species of moth has ever
evolved into a differently-colored species of moth to suit new
envirnments. The "evidence" that they did so was faked. And there is
certainly none to support the idea that some non-moth species has ever
evolved into any species of moth. Unless you count Mothra.
> And obviously new organisms won't be observed arising from a modern
> primordial soup... because if, somehow, a pond of primordial soup were
> to pop into existence, the modern critters, such as bacteria, would eat
> it all up.
That's not my argument. My argument is that _the process_ of abiogenesis
has never been observed, not the specific _instance_ of dirt and water
magically coming to life.
> No evidence of the IDer's highly hypothetical "God" creature has ever
> been found either.
Untrue.
> The difference being, chemical reactions are not
> magical.
Neither is God. Magic is the practice of using supernatural forces to
obtain power in the physical world by the medium of spells, charms,
amulets, etc. Magic has nothing to do with the Judeo-Christian God, Who
is sovereign and cannot be manipulated by human will.
> And the human mind, when looking at the natural world, is almost always
> wrong when leapign to that conclusion.
Sez you.
> Some people look at a blurry
> photo of a mesa on Mars and see a giant scultpure of a face. Some people
> look at the arrangement of the stars in the night sky and see bears.
> Some people see a cell and see an intelligently, intentionally designed
> mechanism. They're all wrong.
And some people look t fossils and see dirt magically coming to life and
writing _Eine Kleine Nachtmusik._ They're all wrong.
> > Now, I am obviously not a scientist.
>
> Clearly.
And I never claimed to be one.
> "The Unpleasant Profession of Johnathan Hoag."
Heinlein. Great story. Fiction -- gotta love it.
> It's amazing what some people will pass off as art.
You and I are on the same page here. Norman Rockwell is my idea of a
great artist. Many of my fellow artists consider me a flat-earther
because i have the gall to proclaim that the emperor of modern "art"
often has no clothes. Preach on, brother.
> My parents have
> hanging on their wall a bit of abstract art that was created by sticking
> a canvas behind a sooty Volkswagon exhaust. They like it, and it is a
> little nifty looking... but it's hardly "art" beyond the fact that it's
> interesting to look at.
Obviously, I'd agree. _De gustibus non est disputandum._
> The patterns on the canvas, as with the patterns
> seen in the natural world, are complex and in the end devoid of any
> intelligent basis.
Well, you're welcome to that opinion, of course -- but it's _only_ an
opinion, not some kind of demonstrable scientific fact.
Love your website, by the way. Thanks for the help with the flying
Soviet submarine.
Best,
jsa...@ecn.ab.ca
: Biological evolution as a method of generating extremely complex things
: has yet to be observed. We can observe that extremely complex organisms
: have existed throughout geological time, but we have never observed an
: extremely complex organism being generated from a simpler organism,
True.
: nor
: have we observed any process by which this action might occur.
False; the process of natural selection, which you admit we have observed
acting on 'already complex organisms', _is_ just such a process. In
addition to selecting for long hair or short, for different colors of
pelt, it can build complexity.
John Savard
B-chan
>
> > Biological evolution as a method of generating extremely complex things
> > has yet to be observed. We can observe that extremely complex organisms
> > have existed throughout geological time, but we have never observed an
> > extremely complex organism being generated from a simpler organism,
In article <XTIW8.20$0f2.3108@localhost>, jsa...@ecn.ab.ca () wrote:
> True.
> >nor
> >have we observed any process by which this action might occur.
> False; the process of natural selection, which you admit we have observed
> acting on 'already complex organisms', _is_ just such a process. In
> addition to selecting for long hair or short, for different colors of
> pelt, it can build complexity.
If you'll allow me to be flip for a moment: natural section cannot
"build" anything, since building is an intelligently directed action.
Even _language_ betrays our natural human inclination towards the
reality of the Creator!
Now, seriously: I'm not denying that natural selection occurs. I do deny
that any evidence exists to support the claim that complex organisms can
arise from organisms of lesser complexity (or from the magic
"primordial ooze") _via_ the process of random natural selection.
Genetic variation via natural mutation tends to make a given organism
_less_ fit to survive rather than _more_ fit; therefore, logic dictates
that later organisms should exhibit _fewer_ genetic somatic variation
than earlier forms of the same organism.
In any case, while natural selection does occur _within_ biological
genera, there is to my knowledge no evidence of a genus or species
transforming into a different (i.e. non-reproductively compatible)
species via the process of random natural selection.
I reiterate: my claim is that the life, consciousness, and the Universe
bear the hallmarks of artificiality, and are in fact works of Art
produced by a Creator (God) existing outside of and superior to
spacetime. I believe this as a matter of religious faith, but I also
believe (and the Church teaches) that science and the Christian Faith
are completely compatible:
"Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy
between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and
infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God
cannot deny Himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth. Consequently,
methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried
out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can
never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the
things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering
investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the
hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all
things, who made them what they are."
[Source: _The Catechism of the Catholic Church_, Art. 159:
http://www.ziplink.net/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/kerygma/a.pl]
_That_ life, mind, and the Universe were created by the Divine Artist, I
have no doubt; precisely _how_ the Creator produced His wonderful
_objets d'art_ over time is a question to which I have no hard-and-fast
answer.
Thank you for your thoughtful and polite message.
Best,
Scott Lowther
> > Many thigns have never been observed that we know exist. Evolution is
> > well established... so well established and obvious...
>
> A statement of faith.
Since we are persisting in the discussion of the intellectual obscenity
that is Creationism, I will bump up the terminology: Bullshit. There is
nothing about evolution that is not established.
> Genetic mutation has been repeatedly observed, but mutation is not
> evolution.
Yes, it is.
> Most mutations have a negative impact on the organism's
> function, anyway.
So? This does not negate the fact that beneficial mutations do occur.
Malignant mutations tend to kill the unfortuante victim young, thus
damaging it's ability to reproduce and perpetuate the bad mutation.
> And in no case have we observed one species becoming
> another via beneficial mutation.
Again, bullshit. Wyeomyia smithii, for one. Ensatina eschscholtzi.
Drosophila paulistorum. Epilobium angustifolium.
> > Most scientists hearing of a new bacterium found on another
> > planent would assume that it evolved.
>
> A baseless assumption remains baseless no matter how many people hold it.
Uh... maybe you ought to think a little harder about that:
Person One: "Nobody would assume X."
Person Two: "Uh... *I* assume X..."
Person One: "Nobody would assume X."
> > Incorrect. Species have been seen to drift over timespans of note to
> > humans. Dogs used to be wolves, frex.
>
> Wolves _are_ dogs, and vice-versa.
No, this continues to be wrong. They are no longer considered the same
species. The fac tthat they can interbreed is not extraordinary... lions
and tigers can as well, and nobody considers THEM to be the same
species.
> In both cases, we observe differentiation within a genus -- wolf to
> Weimariner, auroch to Angus -- but we do not see an animal of one genus
> somehow magically turning into an animal of a different genus -- a
> Komodo monitor lizardevolving into a cow, for example.
Ah. The "I can't see something that takes millions of years to happen,
therefore it doesn't." Let us all know how your fight against the evils
of contionental drift goes...
> (It is also important to note than in both cases you mention the
> "evolution" in question resulted from the _intelligent intervention_ of
> human beings, not through some natural process,
Ha. Misdirection. Do you sugge4st that humans used genetic evolution to
evolve wolves into dogs? No, we did not. We simply added more stringent
environmental factors that led to "survival of the fittest."
> Because people knew that birds eat insects, scientists as early as 1896
> suspected that birds were eating the different color forms of peppered
> moths selectively based on their degree of conspicuousness in habitats
> variously blackened by industrial soot.
Thus supporting the evolutionary theory for that moth. Those who were
capable of better blending with their environment survived better, and
were more capable of reproducing.
> That's not my argument. My argument is that _the process_ of abiogenesis
> has never been observed,
Continents smashing into each other forming new mountain ranges has
never been observed.
> > No evidence of the IDer's highly hypothetical "God" creature has ever
> > been found either.
>
> Untrue.
Produce.
> > The difference being, chemical reactions are not
> > magical.
>
> Neither is God.
Correct. God is mythical, not magical. "God" is no more magical than
Seven League Boots, elves or Santa Claus... ebcause they are pure
invention.
> > And the human mind, when looking at the natural world, is almost always
> > wrong when leapign to that conclusion.
>
> Sez you.
And history. Look at the recent discoveries of "ancient cities"
underwater off the coasts of Japan and Cuba. Natural rock formations.
The Bimini Road, "proof of Atlantis?" Nope... natural "beach rock." And
so on.
> > Some people look at a blurry
> > photo of a mesa on Mars and see a giant scultpure of a face. Some people
> > look at the arrangement of the stars in the night sky and see bears.
> > Some people see a cell and see an intelligently, intentionally designed
> > mechanism. They're all wrong.
>
> And some people look t fossils and see dirt magically coming to life and
> writing _Eine Kleine Nachtmusik._
Such people are Creationists.
> > The patterns on the canvas, as with the patterns
> > seen in the natural world, are complex and in the end devoid of any
> > intelligent basis.
>
> Well, you're welcome to that opinion, of course -- but it's _only_ an
> opinion, not some kind of demonstrable scientific fact.
While it is of course impossible to prove that there weren't magical
invisible fairies or whatever the hell it is you believe in directing
the course of each speck of smoke that came out of the Volkswagon
tailpipe, neither has there been the slightest bit of evidence produced
to suggest a supernatural origin of the patterns in the smoke or the
evolution of the human. A lack of evidence after this length of time
means: TIME TO MOVE ON.
> "...[W]hat did we have in the 1950s that we don't have now?
> We had the freedom to think big." -- George Dyson, _PROJECT ORION_
And we'll certainly never build Orion-capable starships if we put our
faith in anything but science.
--
Scott Lowther, Engineer
Scott Lowther
> If you'll allow me to be flip for a moment: natural section cannot
> "build" anything, since building is an intelligently directed action.
Your two points: irrelevant, and semantics.
Natural selection does not build thigns (such as increasing the data in
a gene code); that is left to random mutation and replication errors,
wherein the gene code of a critter can be substantially increased.
Natural selection then takes over, and if the mutation is of advantage,
then the critter ahs an improved chance for life.
> Even _language_ betrays our natural human inclination towards the
> reality of the Creator!
Or, more accurately, our *desire* for a Creator. Soem people want there
to be elves, too, you know.
> Now, seriously: I'm not denying that natural selection occurs. I do deny
> that any evidence exists to support the claim that complex organisms can
> arise from organisms of lesser complexity (or from the magic
> "primordial ooze") _via_ the process of random natural selection.
Then you deny reality. There are words for people who deny the reality
of what's right before them: nuts. Whack-jobs. Loons.
> Genetic variation via natural mutation tends to make a given organism
> _less_ fit to survive rather than _more_ fit;
Note: "TENDS." Thus implying, correctly, that a smaller percentage of
mutations are advantageous, thus makign them more fit. This is
stunningly clear every time we hear of a new strain of
antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
> In any case, while natural selection does occur _within_ biological
> genera, there is to my knowledge no evidence of a genus or species
> transforming into a different (i.e. non-reproductively compatible)
> species via the process of random natural selection.
And of course nobody makes such a suggestion... except for Creationists
so desperate to score points - any points - that they will pull strawman
arguements out of their asses in the hopes that they will fool more
people into their immoral and intellectually backward viewpoint.
--
Scott Lowther, Engineer
Dave O'Neill
> > B-chan (bc...@airmail.net) wrote:
> >
> > > Biological evolution as a method of generating extremely complex
things
> > > has yet to be observed. We can observe that extremely complex
organisms
> > > have existed throughout geological time, but we have never observed an
> > > extremely complex organism being generated from a simpler organism,
>
> In article <XTIW8.20$0f2.3108@localhost>, jsa...@ecn.ab.ca () wrote:
>
> > True.
>
> > >nor
> > >have we observed any process by which this action might occur.
>
> > False; the process of natural selection, which you admit we have
observed
> > acting on 'already complex organisms', _is_ just such a process. In
> > addition to selecting for long hair or short, for different colors of
> > pelt, it can build complexity.
>
> If you'll allow me to be flip for a moment: natural section cannot
> "build" anything, since building is an intelligently directed action.
> Even _language_ betrays our natural human inclination towards the
> reality of the Creator!
Which is why we have to be careful in our use of language. Science uses
language in very precise ways which aren't necessarily intuitve. Its the
same, in that respect, as any profession.
Andrew Case
>Now, seriously: I'm not denying that natural selection occurs. I do deny
>that any evidence exists to support the claim that complex organisms can
>arise from organisms of lesser complexity (or from the magic
>"primordial ooze") _via_ the process of random natural selection.
This is the crux of the issue. Mutation is random. Natural selection
is very highly directed, since beneficial mutations or are passed on
to the next generation, but deleterious ones are not. All this is in
an average sense, of course. It's quite possible for a creature with
a beneficial mutation to be hit by lightning :)
>Genetic variation via natural mutation tends to make a given organism
>_less_ fit to survive rather than _more_ fit;
Most mutations decrease fitness. A very tiny number increase it, or have
no impact on it. The net effect averaged over the whole population and
over many generations looks the same as if there was a much smaller number
of mutations, all beneficial or neutral with respect to survival.
This doesn't mean always increasing in complexity or intelligence btw.
Sometimes there is a net survival advantage in being simple and stupid :)
B-chan
ac...@Glue.umd.edu (Andrew Case) wrote:
> This is the crux of the issue. Mutation is random. Natural selection
> is very highly directed, since beneficial mutations or are passed on
> to the next generation, but deleterious ones are not. All this is in
> an average sense, of course. It's quite possible for a creature with
> a beneficial mutation to be hit by lightning :)
Good point.
> Most mutations decrease fitness. A very tiny number increase it, or have
> no impact on it. The net effect averaged over the whole population and
> over many generations looks the same as if there was a much smaller number
> of mutations, all beneficial or neutral with respect to survival.
As I said -- I have no problem with accepting that natural selection
occurs within genera. It's the religious belief in abiogenesis and the
lack of teleology that I have a problem with when in comes to Darwinism.
> This doesn't mean always increasing in complexity or intelligence btw.
> Sometimes there is a net survival advantage in being simple and stupid :)
And I'm living proof! Thanks for your thoughtful reply, Mr. Case.
B-chan
Scott Lowther <lex...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Then you deny reality. There are words for people who deny the reality
> of what's right before them: nuts. Whack-jobs. Loons.
And may God richly bless you, too, Mr, Lowther.
Like I said: great website. Keep up the good work.
Scott Lowther
>
> In article <3D2B93...@ix.netcom.com>,
> Scott Lowther <lex...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > Then you deny reality. There are words for people who deny the reality
> > of what's right before them: nuts. Whack-jobs. Loons.
>
> And may God richly bless you, too, Mr, Lowther.
I rather hope not. Blessings from God seem to come with hefty price
tags. The "Chosen People" are forever getting run off their land, run
onto new land, slaughtered, stolen from, pushed around. And in turn they
tend to become religiously dogmatic about dumbass things that make them
even bigger outsiders in the world at large.
The blessings of science are to be much preferred.
--
Scott Lowther, Engineer
jjustwwondering
> jwasi...@hotmail.com (jjustwwondering) wrote in message news:<f4bdd24.02070...@posting.google.com>...
> state!
Well, that's nonsense. Being gullible and too generous does
not make us a "rogue terror supporting state", much less
the "most dangerous" one. Terrorists are good at milking
unsuspecting money cows, and we are one of those cows.
> Here is another example of your tax money in action!
>
> http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/world/story/0,1870,130961,00.html
>
> JULY 10, 2002
> WEDDING PARTY BOMBING
> [...]Anti-US anger is still seething in this central Afghan town after the
> June 30 bombing of a pre-wedding party killed scores of people.
> [...]
> The US military said it had been hunting Al-Qaeda and Taleban forces
> in the area, when anti-aircraft guns fired on coalition planes.
Shit happens in war. If we stopped hunting Al-Qaeda
for fear of occasional mistakes, things would
quickly get worse not better. That's not an option.
Compared to past wars, there has been
less collateral damage in our Afghan
operations - in spite of difficult terrain
and lack of preparation. This is due to precision technology.
On the other hand, there is a source of error peculiar
to Afghanistan: local human intelligence.
Clever clansmen deliberately supply our troops with data
calculated to draw our fire towards rival clans.
That's perhaps what happened to that wedding party.
Again, we are too gullible, and wily orientals quickly
learn how to manipulate us. We just have to learn -
there is no other option.
Joseph Hertzlinger
On 11 Jul 2002 15:07:44 -0700, Nobody <nobo...@wowmail.com> wrote:
>Yup - America is the world's most dangerous terror suporting rogue
>state!
ObSF: America is obviously the Borg.
Your life, as it has been, is now over. We shall take your biological,
technological, and cultural distinctiveness and make it part of our
own. Resistance is futile. Prepare to be assimilated.
>Here is another example of your tax money in action!
>
>http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/world/story/0,1870,130961,00.html
>
>JULY 10, 2002
>
>WEDDING PARTY BOMBING
>Americans no different from Russians, say bereaved Afghans
>
>
>DEHRAWAD (Afghanistan) - People in this bomb-hit town say the American
>forces are about the same as the Russians.
>
>Anti-US anger is still seething in this central Afghan town after the
>June 30 bombing of a pre-wedding party killed scores of people.
Firing guns up at the sky in a war zone...
Can we get them a Darwin award?