RE: [Texascavers] Science, Evolution and Creationism
I like figs and mints. Where can I get some? F _ From: George Nincehelser [mailto:geo...@nincehelser.com] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 3:53 PM To: Diana Tomchick Cc: Stefan Creaser; Brian Riordan; bmorgan...@aol.com; texascavers@texascavers.com Subject: Re: [Texascavers] Science, Evolution and Creationism Y'all be a lot happier when y'all finally realize y'all are just figments of my imagination. George
RE: [Texascavers] Science, Evolution and Creationism
I liked the discussion on TV antennas, high definition digital television and frequencies...rabbit ear antennas, earth station parabolic microwave receiving antennas and the like. But I would rather read about cave related material. (suppose to be working) Bill - Visit our website: http://texascavers.com To unsubscribe, e-mail: texascavers-unsubscr...@texascavers.com For additional commands, e-mail: texascavers-h...@texascavers.com
RE: [Texascavers] Science, Evolution and Creationism
Most of us are supposed to be but this is entertainment/diversion and generally a waste of our and our employer's time. Fritz -Original Message- From: Bill Bentley-Webmail [mailto:ca...@caver.net] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 1:44 PM To: texascavers@texascavers.com Subject: RE: [Texascavers] Science, Evolution and Creationism I liked the discussion on TV antennas, high definition digital television and frequencies...rabbit ear antennas, earth station parabolic microwave receiving antennas and the like. But I would rather read about cave related material. (suppose to be working) Bill - Visit our website: http://texascavers.com To unsubscribe, e-mail: texascavers-unsubscr...@texascavers.com For additional commands, e-mail: texascavers-h...@texascavers.com - Visit our website: http://texascavers.com To unsubscribe, e-mail: texascavers-unsubscr...@texascavers.com For additional commands, e-mail: texascavers-h...@texascavers.com
Re: [Texascavers] Science, Evolution and Creationism--free download from the National Academies Press
http://www.expelledthemovie.com/ Ben has some interesting points. The Flash introduction is kind of funny, but the supertrailer of the movie gets more philosophical. George
Re: [Texascavers] Science, Evolution and Creationism--free download from the National Academies Press
I watched this trailer, and I have only one comment. Ben Stein (who is not a scientist) claims that In Science, there is no room for dissent, for dissent is dangerous. Science is all about dissent and challenging ideas, but what distinguishes science from other endeavors is that scientists formulate hypotheses and design experiments to test those hypotheses. The dissent typically occurs when interpreting the data from the experiments, and if a scientist presents an idea that challenges the accepted norms then the burden is on he/she to provide convincing data to support that idea. Often it takes many other experiments over the course of years, decades or centuries for the general populace to accept these radical new ideas (remember Galilleo?). Thus science itself constantly evolves, as we acquire more (and better quality) data all the time. Diana On Jan 10, 2008, at 10:01 AM, George Nincehelser wrote: http://www.expelledthemovie.com/ Ben has some interesting points. The Flash introduction is kind of funny, but the supertrailer of the movie gets more philosophical. George * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Diana R. Tomchick Associate Professor University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center Department of Biochemistry 5323 Harry Hines Blvd. Rm. ND10.214B Dallas, TX 75390-8816, U.S.A. Email: diana.tomch...@utsouthwestern.edu 214-645-6383 (phone) 214-645-6353 (fax) - Visit our website: http://texascavers.com To unsubscribe, e-mail: texascavers-unsubscr...@texascavers.com For additional commands, e-mail: texascavers-h...@texascavers.com
RE: [Texascavers] Science, Evolution and Creationism--free download from the National Academies Press
Diana, Well put. I think one of the best examples of dissent and challenging ideas in science occurred with the controversy over the supposed discovery of Cold Fusion. While I'm not sure that there has been a good explanation of what physically was going on with the reaction (I don't follow this area of physics and chemistry very closely), I think that all of the folks that attempted to reproduce the experiments agree that fusion wasn't it. Sorry, but the claims of electric power too cheap to meter never occurred. The Laws of Thermodynamics still stand. Geary - Visit our website: http://texascavers.com To unsubscribe, e-mail: texascavers-unsubscr...@texascavers.com For additional commands, e-mail: texascavers-h...@texascavers.com
Re: [Texascavers] Science, Evolution and Creationism
I signed up for this listserve to go caving, camping, playing guitar around bonfires and having a good time with people who enjoy the outdoors. What I have recieved from cavetex is something entirely different. Since your response was to the whole listserve- I can only assume to increase the effect of your ridicule, so will mine be. Enjoy the stream of conscience. I don't think citing 150 years of reasoned argument can really be placed on my shoulders. I've had at best 26 years, of which I think I have a strong case that every one of those years can't be counted as time well spent considering the origins of life. If you are indeed trying to penetrate [my] skull or anyones skull with this knowledge, find a better forum for it. If you're smart, you'll find a larger group of these believers to have greater impact instead of just egotistically ranting your scientifically self-righteous claims to the answers of our existence to people who for the most part agree with you. If you're not smart, well, maybe someone in your line will be generations from now- if you breed selectively enough, of course. The most common criticism of Christians I hear is that they are judging, and force their beliefs on other people. Please note I have commented that this is not the forum for much of the religious ridicule taking place, and that if there is scientific questions regarding Christianity or Creationism, I'd be happy to try to answer. This isn't talking about aliens, or even God, if you'd paid attention. I specifically mentioned that many Christians/Creationists DO NOT argue against evolution, or at least a gradual change over time, but that evolution can not create life. Futhermore, I said that if their is discussions about evolution vs. Creationism, it should be based the on the scientific evidence that evolution is a viable method of creating life, versus why it isn't. Of course, if evolution can't create life, then you're dealing God then, but that has never been a topic of discussion from me. To use this forum to ask questions about the varieties of religious experience would be like asking what color bodysuits the aliens wear during their probing sessions. ... Once again, I have stated that this forum is misused if that's the topic of discussion, so save your alien analogies- they're too entertaining to waste on inappropriate situations. This forum is especially misused when it degrades to this childish ridicule. I have left the exception, that if you're actually curious, and don't just like the sound of your own voice, I'd be happy to research/answer your questions to the best of my ability. For example: Jesus Christ! (who might have existed but was only a man who was relaxed and groovy with new ideas) Brian is a weak-minded, brain-washed fool! But instead of being a red-faced jackass about it, I'll politely pose a scientific question that addresses (one of the many appearing) weak-points of Christianity: Hey Brian, i was curious how Creationists who take the Bible literally account for ice core dating in their young-earth theory? Heck, while you're at it, do all Creationists believe in a young-earth theory or did I once again just grossly generalize all Christians which often encompasses anyone who believes in a single diety that isn't Muslim or Jewish? Please get back to me when you get a chance. Since reason isn't penetrating your skull. From this e-mail, it looks like the only reason you're pitching at me is threefold: 1. Those fossils weren't put there by a mischievous god, 2. the Great Flood did not create the Grand canyon, 3. and those funny looking salamanders didn't lose their eyesight due to a fall from grace. To respond: 1. I never claimed that God put fossils anywhere... I'm not sure where that is coming from. Maybe a separatist colony in the Bible Belt? Can't address that one for you. 2. I never said the Great Flood created Grand Canyon, I haven't looked into the Grand Canyon formation. If you're curious about the Creationist perspective on that, I could research it. 3. I never suspected salamanders fell from grace, nor can I imagine what those magnificent creatures could have done to do so. What you have cited (I presume as a testimony of evolution) is a great example of what could be considered de-evolution. Which is what we should expect (refer to the second law of thermodynamics) from entropy. Poor example if you're addressing the origins of life. That's about as much energy as I can muster when addressing a hostile e-mail. I attempted a mild response to not be too hypocritical, I hope I achieved it. Cheers, -Brian PS. Great vocabulary. If it wasn't meant to be ridicule, most especially me, I'd probably enjoy reading your e-mails. :) On 1/10/08, bmorgan...@aol.com bmorgan...@aol.com wrote: Evolution IS a fact. If, after 150 years of reasoned argument you still don't get it, then you are either simpleminded or pigheaded. Since most cavers are of
RE: [Texascavers] Science, Evolution and Creationism
Hmm, interesting. Whereas i am totally not into religion, creationist or otherwise, Brian does put forward a good argument. Not like i'm going to convert or anything like that though... I hadn't realised that creationists actually accepted evolution, though in my limited knowledge (I can't be bothered to check it out) of the subject i thought they thought the world was only, say, 5000yrs old and so evolution would have only taken a few small steps since then. So where did it all begin? Try this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_record Looks like the fossil record goes back further than i thought myself. Where did those first organisms come from? I guess we then go to statistics; it just had to happen sometime... Thanks for putting forward reasoned arguments Brian, and shame on some people for not doing the same. I think at the next TCR i'll sponsor a discussion on this subject - i'll provide some beer and snacks to keep the parties going :-) Right, back to microprocessors... at least we know when they started and where they came from. Stefan From: Brian Riordan [mailto:riordan.br...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 2:07 PM To: bmorgan...@aol.com Cc: texascavers@texascavers.com Subject: Re: [Texascavers] Science, Evolution and Creationism I signed up for this listserve to go caving, camping, playing guitar around bonfires and having a good time with people who enjoy the outdoors. What I have recieved from cavetex is something entirely different. Since your response was to the whole listserve- I can only assume to increase the effect of your ridicule, so will mine be. Enjoy the stream of conscience. I don't think citing 150 years of reasoned argument can really be placed on my shoulders. I've had at best 26 years, of which I think I have a strong case that every one of those years can't be counted as time well spent considering the origins of life. If you are indeed trying to penetrate [my] skull or anyones skull with this knowledge, find a better forum for it. If you're smart, you'll find a larger group of these believers to have greater impact instead of just egotistically ranting your scientifically self-righteous claims to the answers of our existence to people who for the most part agree with you. If you're not smart, well, maybe someone in your line will be generations from now- if you breed selectively enough, of course. The most common criticism of Christians I hear is that they are judging, and force their beliefs on other people. Please note I have commented that this is not the forum for much of the religious ridicule taking place, and that if there is scientific questions regarding Christianity or Creationism, I'd be happy to try to answer. This isn't talking about aliens, or even God, if you'd paid attention. I specifically mentioned that many Christians/Creationists DO NOT argue against evolution, or at least a gradual change over time, but that evolution can not create life. Futhermore, I said that if their is discussions about evolution vs. Creationism, it should be based the on the scientific evidence that evolution is a viable method of creating life, versus why it isn't. Of course, if evolution can't create life, then you're dealing God then, but that has never been a topic of discussion from me. To use this forum to ask questions about the varieties of religious experience would be like asking what color bodysuits the aliens wear during their probing sessions. ... Once again, I have stated that this forum is misused if that's the topic of discussion, so save your alien analogies- they're too entertaining to waste on inappropriate situations. This forum is especially misused when it degrades to this childish ridicule. I have left the exception, that if you're actually curious, and don't just like the sound of your own voice, I'd be happy to research/answer your questions to the best of my ability. For example: Jesus Christ! (who might have existed but was only a man who was relaxed and groovy with new ideas) Brian is a weak-minded, brain-washed fool! But instead of being a red-faced jackass about it, I'll politely pose a scientific question that addresses (one of the many appearing) weak-points of Christianity: Hey Brian, i was curious how Creationists who take the Bible literally account for ice core dating in their young-earth theory? Heck, while you're at it, do all Creationists believe in a young-earth theory or did I once again just grossly generalize all Christians which often encompasses anyone who believes in a single diety that isn't Muslim or Jewish? Please get back to me when you get a chance. Since reason isn't penetrating your skull. From this e-mail, it looks like the only reason you're pitching at me is threefold: 1. Those fossils weren't put there by a mischievous god, 2. the Great Flood did not create the Grand canyon, 3. and those funny looking salamanders
Re: [Texascavers] Science, Evolution and Creationism
On Jan 10, 2008, at 3:07 PM, Stefan Creaser wrote: I hadn't realised that creationists actually accepted evolution, though in my limited knowledge (I can't be bothered to check it out) of the subject i thought they thought the world was only, say, 5000yrs old and so evolution would have only taken a few small steps since then. Which is exactly why I posted the original link to the document that started this thread. It's only 88 pages long (with lots of pretty pictures!) so it's an easy read...I can even send it to you...it describes what is and isn't evolution, and the variety of creationist beliefs (see pp. 37-43 of the aforementioned document). Diana * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Diana R. Tomchick Associate Professor University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center Department of Biochemistry 5323 Harry Hines Blvd. Rm. ND10.214B Dallas, TX 75390-8816, U.S.A. Email: diana.tomch...@utsouthwestern.edu 214-645-6383 (phone) 214-645-6353 (fax) - Visit our website: http://texascavers.com To unsubscribe, e-mail: texascavers-unsubscr...@texascavers.com For additional commands, e-mail: texascavers-h...@texascavers.com
Re: [Texascavers] Science, Evolution and Creationism
Brian - good luck and thanks for taking the time to attempt to respond to the scientist fundamentalists. I doubt it will do much (any) good, but who knows and you are young and energetic. I'm fairly sure that polarity is not the answer and that evolution and god exist quite comfortably in a yin/yang symbiosis. As I recall the scientific method rests on the basis of 'question everything' - that is a difficult concept for young psyches. And metaphor is a difficult concept for middle aged psyches. Metaphor explains why every human culture that has ever existed has come up with a creationist story - and in their way they are all the same story: there is a great mystery concerning life and this is the story that is apt to our time and geography to describe that. Why we fight so bitterly over either/or as opposed to having a good laugh over both - gives me a good laugh. respectfully to all nancy - Visit our website: http://texascavers.com To unsubscribe, e-mail: texascavers-unsubscr...@texascavers.com For additional commands, e-mail: texascavers-h...@texascavers.com
Re: [Texascavers] Science, Evolution and Creationism
Y'all be a lot happier when y'all finally realize y'all are just figments of my imagination. George
Re: [Texascavers] Science, Evolution and Creationism
³Right, back to microprocessors... at least we know when they started and where they came from. Stefan² WELL DuhWe all know microprocessors came from partially destroyed, high evolved Terminators, sent from the future, to kill Sarah Connors first born male child.
Re: [Texascavers] Science, Evolution and Creationism
On Jan 10, 2008, at 6:53 PM, John P. Brooks wrote: WELL DuhWe all know microprocessors came from partially destroyed, high evolved Terminators, sent from the future, to kill Sarah Connors first born male child. RIGHT! Must be true, I read it in a book somewheres...
[Texascavers] Way OT Re: [Texascavers] Science, Evolution and Creationism--free download from the National Academies Press
I don't know if I totally understand where you're coming from here, but I simply posted some info about a publication that anyone can download for free and read. If you read the publication, you will see that it addresses the fact that many scientists are also religious; the publication does not mock religion and its practitioners, and I did not intend to mock them with my posting, either. I simply intended to encourage people to access the publication, read it and think about it/discuss it with other people. There is even a Frequently Asked Questions section of the publication, in case you have unanswered questions about the subject. I felt this was pertinent to this list serve as the topic of biology and evolution (with respect to troglobitic creatures) is a common one in caving. Diana On Jan 9, 2008, at 6:46 PM, Brian Riordan wrote: Addressed to the many evolution vs. creationism e-mails i've recieved the last few months: What alarms me the most, is not only how often this list serve is used to debate science, evolution and creationism, but how there are no questions about creationism, only derogatory comments towards creationists and the sad, misguided people who can't get through life without an imaginary friend holding their hand (on a side note, if you only make criticisms, YOU are the narrow-minded one, usually a faux paux among such a liberal crowd). If you get an ego boost by boasting how scientifically superior you are by mocking Christians in a crowd of people you know are almost sure to support everything you say on the matter (which is pretty cowardly) then fine. But this isn't the forum for it (at least I thought it wasn't). If you have QUESTIONS on the matter, state your thoughts/ arguments/ questions in a non-argumentative way, as if you're truly hungry for another perspective, and not simply hoping to hear your sentiments echoed back off a crowd of like-minded people, and I promise I'd do my best to answer from a different point of view. Besides, constructive criticism or questioning only encourages thought- which I welcome. I hope this is recieved the way I intended. -Brian PS. Most Creationists i've talked to don't argue against evolution as a process in life. It's the evolution as a cause of life that science and logic breaks down. On 1/9/08, Diana Tomchick diana.tomch...@utsouthwestern.edu wrote: While perusing the latest issue of Nature magazine, I happened upon this editorial. You can download the 88-page booklet from the National Academies Press web site for free (you must register with an email address and a zip code first). It looks like an interesting read. I reprint the editorial below for your interest: Nature volume 451 (10 January 2008) Spread the word: Evolution is a scientific fact, and every organization whose research depends on it should explain why. Three cheers for the US National Academy of Sciences for publishing an updated version of its booklet Science, Evolution, and Creationism (see http://www.nap.edu/sec). The document succinctly summarizes what is and isn't science, provides an overview of evidence for evolution by natural selection, and highlights how, time and again, leading religious figures have upheld evolution as consistent with their view of the world. For a more specific and also entertaining account of evolutionary knowledge, see palaeontologist Kevin Padian's evidence given at the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial (see http://tinyurl.com/2nlgar). Padian destroys the false assertions by creationists that there are critical gaps in the fossil record. He illustrates the fossil-rich paths from fish to land-based tetrapod, from crocodile to dinosaur to feathered dinosaur to bird, from terrestrial quadruped to the whale, and more besides. Creationism is strong in the United States and, according to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, worryingly on the rise in Europe (see http://tinyurl.com/2knrqy ). But die-hard creationists aren't a sensible target for raising awareness. What matters are those citizens who aren't sure about evolution — as much as 55% of the US population according to some surveys. As the National Academy of Sciences and Padian have shown, it is possible to summarize the reasons why evolution is in effect as much a scientific fact as the existence of atoms or the orbiting of Earth round the Sun, even though there are plenty of refinements to be explored. Yet some actual and potential heads of state refuse to recognize this fact as such. And creationists have a tendency to play on the uncertainties displayed by some citizens. Evolution is of profound importance to modern biology and medicine. Accordingly, anyone who has the ability to explain the evidence behind this fact to their students, their friends and relatives should be given the ammunition to do so. Between now and the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth on 12
[Texascavers] Re: Way OT Re: [Texascavers] Science, Evolution and Creationism--free download from the National Academies Press
I'd hoped that my intro Addressed to the many evolution vs. creationism e-mails i've recieved the last few months: would have covered that confusion. My response encompasses months of evolution vs. creationism e-mails. I had refrained from responding prior, but felt that the opportunity presented itself today in the e-mail topic and my current mood. I did not intend to sound confrontational or accusing towards any specific e-mail author especially Diana Tomchick. -B On 1/9/08, Diana Tomchick diana.tomch...@utsouthwestern.edu wrote: I don't know if I totally understand where you're coming from here, but I simply posted some info about a publication that anyone can download for free and read. If you read the publication, you will see that it addresses the fact that many scientists are also religious; the publication does not mock religion and its practitioners, and I did not intend to mock them with my posting, either. I simply intended to encourage people to access the publication, read it and think about it/discuss it with other people. There is even a Frequently Asked Questions section of the publication, in case you have unanswered questions about the subject. I felt this was pertinent to this list serve as the topic of biology and evolution (with respect to troglobitic creatures) is a common one in caving. Diana On Jan 9, 2008, at 6:46 PM, Brian Riordan wrote: Addressed to the many evolution vs. creationism e-mails i've recieved the last few months: What alarms me the most, is not only how often this list serve is used to debate science, evolution and creationism, but how there are no questions about creationism, only derogatory comments towards creationists and the sad, misguided people who can't get through life without an imaginary friend holding their hand (on a side note, if you only make criticisms, YOU are the narrow-minded one, usually a faux paux among such a liberal crowd). If you get an ego boost by boasting how scientifically superior you are by mocking Christians in a crowd of people you know are almost sure to support everything you say on the matter (which is pretty cowardly) then fine. But this isn't the forum for it (at least I thought it wasn't). If you have QUESTIONS on the matter, state your thoughts/ arguments/ questions in a non-argumentative way, as if you're truly hungry for another perspective, and not simply hoping to hear your sentiments echoed back off a crowd of like-minded people, and I promise I'd do my best to answer from a different point of view. Besides, constructive criticism or questioning only encourages thought- which I welcome. I hope this is recieved the way I intended. -Brian PS. Most Creationists i've talked to don't argue against evolution as a process in life. It's the evolution as a cause of life that science and logic breaks down. On 1/9/08, Diana Tomchick diana.tomch...@utsouthwestern.edu wrote: While perusing the latest issue of Nature magazine, I happened upon this editorial. You can download the 88-page booklet from the National Academies Press web site for free (you must register with an email address and a zip code first). It looks like an interesting read. I reprint the editorial below for your interest: Nature volume 451 (10 January 2008) Spread the word: Evolution is a scientific fact, and every organization whose research depends on it should explain why. Three cheers for the US National Academy of Sciences for publishing an updated version of its booklet Science, Evolution, and Creationism (see http://www.nap.edu/sec). The document succinctly summarizes what is and isn't science, provides an overview of evidence for evolution by natural selection, and highlights how, time and again, leading religious figures have upheld evolution as consistent with their view of the world. For a more specific and also entertaining account of evolutionary knowledge, see palaeontologist Kevin Padian's evidence given at the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial (see http://tinyurl.com/2nlgar). Padian destroys the false assertions by creationists that there are critical gaps in the fossil record. He illustrates the fossil-rich paths from fish to land-based tetrapod, from crocodile to dinosaur to feathered dinosaur to bird, from terrestrial quadruped to the whale, and more besides. Creationism is strong in the United States and, according to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, worryingly on the rise in Europe (see http://tinyurl.com/2knrqy ). But die-hard creationists aren't a sensible target for raising awareness. What matters are those citizens who aren't sure about evolution — as much as 55% of the US population according to some surveys. As the National Academy of Sciences and Padian have shown, it is possible to summarize the reasons why evolution is in effect as much a
Re: [Texascavers] Re: Way OT Re: [Texascavers] Science, Evolution and Creationism--free download from the National Academies Press
Which version of Creation do you claim? No offense intended Brian. I'm serious though. Which version? The Biblical version or the Incan version or the Comanche version or one of the myriad of other possible creation versions? And, if having chosen one of the multitude to be the true version (albiet completely void of any empircal evidence other than faith in the source) why that particular one? Scott - Original Message From: Brian Riordan riordan.br...@gmail.com To: Diana Tomchick diana.tomch...@utsouthwestern.edu Cc: CaveTex texascavers@texascavers.com Sent: Wednesday, January 9, 2008 7:19:38 PM Subject: [Texascavers] Re: Way OT Re: [Texascavers] Science, Evolution and Creationism--free download from the National Academies Press I'd hoped that my intro Addressed to the many evolution vs. creationism e-mails i've recieved the last few months: would have covered that confusion. My response encompasses months of evolution vs. creationism e-mails. I had refrained from responding prior, but felt that the opportunity presented itself today in the e-mail topic and my current mood. I did not intend to sound confrontational or accusing towards any specific e-mail author especially Diana Tomchick. -B On 1/9/08, Diana Tomchick diana.tomch...@utsouthwestern.edu wrote: I don't know if I totally understand where you're coming from here, but I simply posted some info about a publication that anyone can download for free and read. If you read the publication, you will see that it addresses the fact that many scientists are also religious; the publication does not mock religion and its practitioners, and I did not intend to mock them with my posting, either. I simply intended to encourage people to access the publication, read it and think about it/discuss it with other people. There is even a Frequently Asked Questions section of the publication, in case you have unanswered questions about the subject. I felt this was pertinent to this list serve as the topic of biology and evolution (with respect to troglobitic creatures) is a common one in caving. Diana On Jan 9, 2008, at 6:46 PM, Brian Riordan wrote: Addressed to the many evolution vs. creationism e-mails i've recieved the last few months: What alarms me the most, is not only how often this list serve is used to debate science, evolution and creationism, but how there are no questions about creationism, only derogatory comments towards creationists and the sad, misguided people who can't get through life without an imaginary friend holding their hand (on a side note, if you only make criticisms, YOU are the narrow-minded one, usually a faux paux among such a liberal crowd). If you get an ego boost by boasting how scientifically superior you are by mocking Christians in a crowd of people you know are almost sure to support everything you say on the matter (which is pretty cowardly) then fine. But this isn't the forum for it (at least I thought it wasn't). If you have QUESTIONS on the matter, state your thoughts/ arguments/ questions in a non-argumentative way, as if you're truly hungry for another perspective, and not simply hoping to hear your sentiments echoed back off a crowd of like-minded people, and I promise I'd do my best to answer from a different point of view. Besides, constructive criticism or questioning only encourages thought- which I welcome. I hope this is recieved the way I intended. -Brian PS. Most Creationists i've talked to don't argue against evolution as a process in life. It's the evolution as a cause of life that science and logic breaks down. On 1/9/08, Diana Tomchick diana.tomch...@utsouthwestern.edu wrote: While perusing the latest issue of Nature magazine, I happened upon this editorial. You can download the 88-page booklet from the National Academies Press web site for free (you must register with an email address and a zip code first). It looks like an interesting read. I reprint the editorial below for your interest: Nature volume 451 (10 January 2008) Spread the word: Evolution is a scientific fact, and every organization whose research depends on it should explain why. Three cheers for the US National Academy of Sciences for publishing an updated version of its booklet Science, Evolution, and Creationism (see http://www.nap.edu/sec). The document succinctly summarizes what is and isn't science, provides an overview of evidence for evolution by natural selection, and highlights how, time and again, leading religious figures have upheld evolution as consistent with their view of the world. For a more specific and also entertaining account of evolutionary knowledge, see palaeontologist Kevin Padian's evidence given at the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial (see http://tinyurl.com/2nlgar). Padian destroys the false assertions by creationists that there are critical gaps in the fossil record. He illustrates the fossil-rich
Re: [Texascavers] Re: Way OT Re: [Texascavers] Science, Evolution and Creationism--free download from the National Academies Press
So will you be reading the the publication? If not, why? I'm genuinely curious, mostly because it is intriguing just how two-way people's streets are, so to speak. -Kara (who is on the mend, by the way) - Original Message From: Brian Riordan riordan.br...@gmail.com To: Diana Tomchick diana.tomch...@utsouthwestern.edu Cc: CaveTex texascavers@texascavers.com Sent: Wednesday, January 9, 2008 7:19:38 PM Subject: [Texascavers] Re: Way OT Re: [Texascavers] Science, Evolution and Creationism--free download from the National Academies Press I'd hoped that my intro Addressed to the many evolution vs. creationism e-mails i've recieved the last few months: would have covered that confusion. My response encompasses months of evolution vs. creationism e-mails. I had refrained from responding prior, but felt that the opportunity presented itself today in the e-mail topic and my current mood. I did not intend to sound confrontational or accusing towards any specific e-mail author especially Diana Tomchick. -B On 1/9/08, Diana Tomchick diana.tomch...@utsouthwestern.edu wrote: I don't know if I totally understand where you're coming from here, but I simply posted some info about a publication that anyone can download for free and read. If you read the publication, you will see that it addresses the fact that many scientists are also religious; the publication does not mock religion and its practitioners, and I did not intend to mock them with my posting, either. I simply intended to encourage people to access the publication, read it and think about it/discuss it with other people. There is even a Frequently Asked Questions section of the publication, in case you have unanswered questions about the subject. I felt this was pertinent to this list serve as the topic of biology and evolution (with respect to troglobitic creatures) is a common one in caving. Diana On Jan 9, 2008, at 6:46 PM, Brian Riordan wrote: Addressed to the many evolution vs. creationism e-mails i've recieved the last few months: What alarms me the most, is not only how often this list serve is used to debate science, evolution and creationism, but how there are no questions about creationism, only derogatory comments towards creationists and the sad, misguided people who can't get through life without an imaginary friend holding their hand (on a side note, if you only make criticisms, YOU are the narrow-minded one, usually a faux paux among such a liberal crowd). If you get an ego boost by boasting how scientifically superior you are by mocking Christians in a crowd of people you know are almost sure to support everything you say on the matter (which is pretty cowardly) then fine. But this isn't the forum for it (at least I thought it wasn't). If you have QUESTIONS on the matter, state your thoughts/ arguments/ questions in a non-argumentative way, as if you're truly hungry for another perspective, and not simply hoping to hear your sentiments echoed back off a crowd of like-minded people, and I promise I'd do my best to answer from a different point of view. Besides, constructive criticism or questioning only encourages thought- which I welcome. I hope this is recieved the way I intended. -Brian PS. Most Creationists i've talked to don't argue against evolution as a process in life. It's the evolution as a cause of life that science and logic breaks down. On 1/9/08, Diana Tomchick diana.tomch...@utsouthwestern.edu wrote: While perusing the latest issue of Nature magazine, I happened upon this editorial. You can download the 88-page booklet from the National Academies Press web site for free (you must register with an email address and a zip code first). It looks like an interesting read. I reprint the editorial below for your interest: Nature volume 451 (10 January 2008) Spread the word: Evolution is a scientific fact, and every organization whose research depends on it should explain why. Three cheers for the US National Academy of Sciences for publishing an updated version of its booklet Science, Evolution, and Creationism (see http://www.nap.edu/sec). The document succinctly summarizes what is and isn't science, provides an overview of evidence for evolution by natural selection, and highlights how, time and again, leading religious figures have upheld evolution as consistent with their view of the world. For a more specific and also entertaining account of evolutionary knowledge, see palaeontologist Kevin Padian's evidence given at the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial (see http://tinyurl.com/2nlgar). Padian destroys the false assertions by creationists that there are critical gaps in the fossil record. He illustrates the fossil-rich paths from fish to land-based tetrapod, from crocodile to dinosaur to feathered dinosaur to bird, from terrestrial quadruped to the whale, and more besides. Creationism is strong in the United States
Re: [Texascavers] Science, Evolution and Creationism--free download from the National Academies Press
Addressed to the many evolution vs. creationism e-mails i've recieved the last few months: What alarms me the most, is not only how often this list serve is used to debate science, evolution and creationism, but how there are no questions about creationism, only derogatory comments towards creationists and the sad, misguided people who can't get through life without an imaginary friend holding their hand (on a side note, if you only make criticisms, YOU are the narrow-minded one, usually a faux paux among such a liberal crowd). If you get an ego boost by boasting how scientifically superior you are by mocking Christians in a crowd of people you know are almost sure to support everything you say on the matter (which is pretty cowardly) then fine. But this isn't the forum for it (at least I thought it wasn't). If you have QUESTIONS on the matter, state your thoughts/ arguments/ questions in a non-argumentative way, as if you're truly hungry for another perspective, and not simply hoping to hear your sentiments echoed back off a crowd of like-minded people, and I promise I'd do my best to answer from a different point of view. Besides, constructive criticism or questioning only encourages thought- which I welcome. I hope this is recieved the way I intended. -Brian PS. Most Creationists i've talked to don't argue against evolution as a process in life. It's the evolution as a cause of life that science and logic breaks down. On 1/9/08, Diana Tomchick diana.tomch...@utsouthwestern.edu wrote: While perusing the latest issue of Nature magazine, I happened upon this editorial. You can download the 88-page booklet from the National Academies Press web site for free (you must register with an email address and a zip code first). It looks like an interesting read. I reprint the editorial below for your interest: Nature volume 451 (10 January 2008) Spread the word: Evolution is a scientific fact, and every organization whose research depends on it should explain why. Three cheers for the US National Academy of Sciences for publishing an updated version of its booklet Science, Evolution, and Creationism (see http://www.nap.edu/sec). The document succinctly summarizes what is and isn't science, provides an overview of evidence for evolution by natural selection, and highlights how, time and again, leading religious figures have upheld evolution as consistent with their view of the world. For a more specific and also entertaining account of evolutionary knowledge, see palaeontologist Kevin Padian's evidence given at the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial (see http://tinyurl.com/2nlgar). Padian destroys the false assertions by creationists that there are critical gaps in the fossil record. He illustrates the fossil-rich paths from fish to land-based tetrapod, from crocodile to dinosaur to feathered dinosaur to bird, from terrestrial quadruped to the whale, and more besides. Creationism is strong in the United States and, according to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, worryingly on the rise in Europe (see http://tinyurl.com/2knrqy). But die-hard creationists aren't a sensible target for raising awareness. What matters are those citizens who aren't sure about evolution — as much as 55% of the US population according to some surveys. As the National Academy of Sciences and Padian have shown, it is possible to summarize the reasons why evolution is in effect as much a scientific fact as the existence of atoms or the orbiting of Earth round the Sun, even though there are plenty of refinements to be explored. Yet some actual and potential heads of state refuse to recognize this fact as such. And creationists have a tendency to play on the uncertainties displayed by some citizens. Evolution is of profound importance to modern biology and medicine. Accordingly, anyone who has the ability to explain the evidence behind this fact to their students, their friends and relatives should be given the ammunition to do so. Between now and the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth on 12 February 2009, every science academy and society with a stake in the credibility of evolution should summarize evidence for it on their website and take every opportunity to promote it. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Diana R. Tomchick Associate Professor University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center Department of Biochemistry 5323 Harry Hines Blvd. Rm. ND10.214B Dallas, TX 75390-8816, U.S.A. Email: diana.tomch...@utsouthwestern.edu 214-645-6383 (phone) 214-645-6353 (fax) - Visit our website: http://texascavers.com To unsubscribe, e-mail: texascavers-unsubscr...@texascavers.com For additional commands, e-mail: texascavers-h...@texascavers.com
