Audacious Visions For Future Spaceflight 176
New submitter nagalman writes "There is a very powerful video out that takes the audio of words from Neil deGrasse Tyson, receiver of the NASA Distinguished Public Service Medal, and meshes it with powerful images of the history and successful outcomes of NASA. Through Penny4NASA, Dr. Tyson is pressing for the budget of NASA to be doubled from 0.5% to 1% of the federal budget in order to spur vision, interest, dreams, public excitement, and innovation into science and engineering. With Kansas stating that 'evolution could not rule out a supernatural or theistic source, that evolution itself was not fact but only a theory and one in crisis, and that Intelligent Design must be considered a viable alternative to evolution,' and North Carolina's legislature circulating a bill telling people to ignore climate science, maybe it's time we start listening to experts who have a proven record of success, rather than ideology that has only been 'proven' in the mind of elected politicians."
Yes (Score:2, Insightful)
Why link together disbelief in evolution with disbelief in climate alarmism?
They are polar opposites, evolution is clearly a reaonable theory only opposed by those who would rather believe in some superstition.
Climate alarmism is a theory from the 1990s and very early 2000s that fewer and fewer people believe in and generally is only supposed by people after tax or research grants these days,
Re: (Score:2)
But if you REALLY want to lay the blame for Global Warming Theory. . . .blame Margaret Thatcher [john-daly.com]
Now, could we get back to talking about popularizing real science and maybe getting the species a foothold off-planet ???
If you want to hear an entire speech... (Score:5, Informative)
...on this topic, it is WELL worth your time. I was fortunate to see Neil deGrasse Tyson speak in person recently at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. It's well worth a little over an hour of your time:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqJzHHkmJ-8 [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3)
I think he messed up by comparing NASA's budget to social safety net and education budgets in the video though, the implication that one should grow at a cost to the others is not going to sit well with many. He carefully stepped around mentioning the bloated military budget for some reason.
That's because he's not anti-military (Score:3)
I think he messed up by comparing NASA's budget to social safety net and education budgets in the video though, the implication that one should grow at a cost to the others is not going to sit well with many. He carefully stepped around mentioning the bloated military budget for some reason.
In fact, I thought about including a comment about this in my post —
He realizes that our military infrastructure is one of the things that also drives and protects our society, and while war isn't preferable to other motivations for technical progress and scientific research, it is one of the chief motivations throughout our history. He also realizes that exploration can reinvigorate the human spirit, even stoking industry and the economy, which actually would help the people served by the "government
Re: (Score:2)
I quite agree China will eventually be a credible threat to us, but then we're currently a major threat to them, so unless you're of the opinion that the world should be forever be completely dominated by a single military superpower it's really hard to use that as an argument.
To put things in perspective, US military spending currently exceeds the rest of the world combined (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures). And the bogeyman of "12% growth will exceed US spending b
Re: (Score:2)
while "Social programs" and "Social Security, Medicare, and other retirement" are what accounts for "over half" (55%) of our spending.
The fact that you lumped all those together is quite telling I think. In the UK we gave universal healthcare and almost everyone uses it, so it isn't considered a "social program" or some kind of drain on society. Look at it another way, when most of us want better healthcare we don't complain about "forced" to buy into the national scheme instead of being free to have private insurance, we just want the national scheme to be better. It's cheaper and better for all of us.
Similarly government pensions are so
Re: (Score:2)
Do you truly speak for all of the UK? Are you their spokesperson?
That's not fair! (Score:2)
I don't believe climate change skeptics and those who support intelligent design should be wrapped together. While I don't fit into either group, I find that those who believe in "ID" are very often... well... retarded, but I've met individuals who are skeptical of climate change and do not appear to be retarded.
Given the input that I've received, I find this to be somewhat unfair to the global warming skeptics.
not a panacea (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:not a panacea (Score:5, Insightful)
I am neither a scientist, nor american. I had a similar thought. IMO a Mars mission is pushing the limits on the logistics, while the majority of problems have already been figured. It would serve as PR stunt and create jobs in the field, while the benefit to science might be limited.
Instead of a Mars mission, I would like to see more Amercian effort in the ITER project and in the friendly competition with CERN. Those are the projects that are currently pushing the frontiers of science and engineering, that have the potential to create a lot of jobs while solving so many problems our world economy is about to face.
Re: (Score:2)
A long term Mars mission would allow for continued progress and long term jobs. Plus the mission could easily expand as it went, including mining the moon for H3 or visiting asteroids. Rather than aiming for one specific goal with like Apollo you should be thinking in more general terms about creating a new market, a new frontier to work on.
Look at it another way. It seems that the US was happy to invade Iraq and then hand out all the lucrative reconstruction contracts to US companies. Well, space could be
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Honestly, I think the idea Dr. Tyson has is that a mission to Mars would get the American public interested in science again.
I don't know if you are aware that in America superstition and anti-intellectualism is winning more and more each day, among other issues highlighted by this 'evolution v. intelligent design debate'. Currently we spend more on war/defense (over 1 trillion dollars) in a single year than we have given NASA in it's entire history (somewhere around 5-600bn dollars over the course of it's
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly, I think the idea Dr. Tyson has is that a mission to Mars would get the American public interested in science again.
Did the last mission to mars do that? Did the one before? Or did public interest in Mars spike and then wane over time - much like public interest in the Moon spiked, and then waned post Apollo?
It's easy to forget apparently, that Apollo was cancelled because people lost interest and the benefits of sending more astronauts to the Moon could not be quantified against the quantified cost.
I don't know if you are aware that in America superstition and anti-intellectualism is winning more and more each day, among other issues highlighted by this 'evolution v. intelligent design debate'. Currently we spend more on war/defense (over 1 trillion dollars) in a single year than we have given NASA in it's entire history (somewhere around 5-600bn dollars over the course of it's 50+ year history).
I doubt very much that anti-intellectualism can be stymied by more iconoclastic anti-intellectualism, such as insisting
Re: (Score:2)
The US was mainly known as a country of merchants, of traders. Never a country of intellectuals and scientists. The space program had more to do with the cold war, with military applications, than with science or even exploration for its own sake.
Arguing for a space program because it will lead to more scientists is just a pathetic argument even if it were true, which it probably isn't. A space program should stand or fall on its own merits. If the majority of Americans don't care about space or lacks curio
Re: (Score:2)
The US was mainly known as a country of merchants, of traders. Never a country of intellectuals and scientists. The space program had more to do with the cold war, with military applications, than with science or even exploration for its own sake.
Arguing for a space program because it will lead to more scientists is just a pathetic argument even if it were true, which it probably isn't. A space program should stand or fall on its own merits.
Agreed. But I would say that space exploration does have merit, and I find it dead interesting. I don't see the benefit of sending a humans, i'm no more represented by another human than a probe or robot.
If the majority of Americans don't care about space or lacks curiosity about what might be 'out there' then perhaps what's left of the US space program should be ended. Who cares about "boldly going" anywhere when American Idol or a football or baseball game is on?
I suppose they could put the money saved from NASA toward furthering the police state and security theatre. Americans may not like spending money on space exploration, but I suppose they are quite content with spending billions to be able to pretend that they are safe from bogeyman terrorists. We'll lose some astronauts, but gain more TSA agents or, if we're lucky even more invasive xray machines that will 'protect us' from body bombs. That way the majority can have the society that they so richly deserve.
Kinda pessimistic view there. But I'm not American, so I can't tell you what to do or where your country is at. I would say that there are many interesting things still to do, and these should have our focus - fusion and advance forms of fission energy, hydrogen based fuels.
Re:not a panacea (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree with that view. While we're proposing fantasy budgets, instead of doubling NASA's budget from its current $18 billion to $36 billion, I think the promotion of science would be much better served (at a lower cost, even!) by doubling the National Science Foundation's budget from its current $7 billion to $14 billion.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Why does everything have to be measured by how well it serves "science"? What makes science so special? Fuck science. Seriously. If you want to perform some boring experiment that no one would care about besides someone in your field then pay for it yourself. Or get your university to pay for it. Those $50,000/year tuitions should pay for something. Of course if you happen to work for a private company then you can probably guess who I think should pay for it. Especially when any engineering that results fr
Re:not a panacea (Score:4, Informative)
Furthermore, I'm a bit skeptical about projects like flying to Mars, which are good PR, probably very good for engineering and technology, but not that exciting from scientific prospective.
I guess that depends on whether you think vastly more science done on the surface of Mars in real time (rather than a small amount staggered out over decades) is exciting or not.
People seem to forget the many lessons of Apollo. One of those lessons is that a knowledge person on site with relatively simple tools does a lot more and covers a lot more ground than even our best landers/rovers over the foreseeable future will do. Despite being mostly a national prestige project, Apollo got a remarkable amount of science done and radically changed our understanding of the early Solar System.
Re: (Score:2)
Furthermore, I'm a bit skeptical about projects like flying to Mars, which are good PR, probably very good for engineering and technology, but not that exciting from scientific prospective.
I guess that depends on whether you think vastly more science done on the surface of Mars in real time (rather than a small amount staggered out over decades) is exciting or not.
Proportionately humans have done less than 1% of the total science done in space. To use the common anecdote - machines are currently leaving the solar system - humans are fixing the toilet on the space station. If speed is a concern then
(a) send a robot to do a robots job, they are demonstrably better at it then humans, by sheer volume of discovery.
(b) If speed at particular tasks is a concern (e.g. moving around on the surface of mars), then design a robot that does that faster. Humans can travel at
Re: (Score:2)
Proportionately humans have done less than 1% of the total science done in space.
Nonsense measure which ignores considerable human contributions from Earth. For example, I imagine you include Earth studies (such as TOPEX/Poseiden) in your guess, which has a lot of human involvement in it (the satellite measures are routinely used in conjunction with Earth-side measurements by humans).
You also ignore relative value. For example, the considerable sample return from the Moon is probably the single most valuable contribution from Apollo and one of the most valuable contributions to space
Elevator to the Moon (Score:2)
I don't know about dubious - China has spoken of capturing an asteroid in lunar orbit to be mined - not the sort of project that could realistically be done autonomously. Or a least the sort of thing that would be much easily/cheaply by sending up people that can interact and adapt in real time. Especially if you're okay with a certain number of human losses and can spin them as the "valiant explorers who gave their life for the glory of their nation", and frankly I think most people would accept that nar
Re: (Score:2)
I know they're probably pretty near and dear to your heart, and you wouldn't want me to get a jump on your own development, but could you share some paltry details of your system to "fine tun[e] the asteroid orbit and rotation speed" in a time frame suitable to more than one launch per generation? I don't want too many secrets, just tell me the material you'll use for the major components, or list those components' rough dimensions, or even what order of magnitude your energy budg
the first related video is good, too (Score:2)
We just don't care about Space, nor should we (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Aside from during the 60's and early 70's NASA's budget has generally been under 1% of the federal budget, falling to under 0.5% in the last decade. If they can stimulate even a fraction of a percent of economic growth then they pay for themselves (since that growth will continue compounding going forward, even if NASA were scrapped). The argument is that with a real vision, proper funding, and good PR (such as during the moon race) NASA could stimulate far more growth than that, as well as inspiring youn
Re: (Score:3)
and given free reign
That's "rein". Don't use phrases or words you don't understand.
Who knows? Maybe he meant to turn private industries into monarchies? We're practically there as it is (thank you, Citizens United).
PS it could have been worse: at least the OP didn't try to "beg the question"
Re: (Score:2)
you don't know what you're talking about. when you give something free reign, you are giving that thing rule over some other thing.
When you give a horse free rein, you give it its head (no, not give it head, let's not go there today) to go where it will. If it gets out of hand then you rein it in. Hope this little English lesson helps you out in the future.
Re: (Score:2)
You know, you could correct him without being so condescending.
Congratulations, you have begged the question. I guess it depends on your definition of correct.
What will doubling the NASA budget do? (Score:5, Insightful)
NASA is not at the moment a space organisation.
They are a welfare organisation for aerospace.
For example - taking the budget for the Space Launch System up till the first couple of flights, and purchasing commercial launch from SpaceX gets you 85000 tons or so launched. (Assuming that reusability does not kick in)
Everything done in space by NASA is driven by launch costs.
The size of spacecraft has to be reduced, and they have to be more carefully engineered and built, which dramatically raises costs.
NASAs previous attempt to lower launch costs (X33) picked a major aerospace companies bid.
This company proposed, with NASAs encouragement to use three seperate fundamentally untried technologies on the one vehicle.
(Linear aerospike, conformal tanks, and metallic TPS).
SpaceX (for example) is building on their successful rocket launches so far, with the aim of reusing their rockets several-many times.
At the moment, space launch costs several thousand dollars a kilo.
The soon-to-be-launched http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grasshopper_(rocket)#Grasshopper [wikipedia.org] is a test stage, to test propulsive landing for the first stage - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSF81yjVbJE [youtube.com] is a video outlining this.
The absolute starting point for any space program has to be getting things into space. ...) means you have a welfare reason, not a space reason.
Doing this expensively, for political reasons (SLS,
A sane space agency should have very limited mission definitions.
'Fly safely to ISS, dock using this adaptor'.
Previously they've made a practice of making proposals that effectively pick from one of several large aerospace corporations.
By requiring technologies they've developed, for no good reason, rather than simple functional requirements.
A fundamental change in space could occur if SpaceX (or one of the other new entrants) gets reusability up and running.
The fuel cost for a launch is well under $10/kg.
Even if you 'only' get to $100/kg, from the current $5000/kg or so, that enables a dramatically different space program.
It becomes feasible to put a lot more people up, and have them debug stuff on orbit.
It becomes comparatively cheap to have massive redundancy in systems, based on comparatively inexpensive and massive designs.
You don't end up spending 220 million to design an air-conditioner.
You launch 5 candidate systems built by bidders for $10M, and see which one works.
NSF, DOE, NIH more important (Score:2)
We'd see much better results if we increased the budget of National Science Foundation from 0.2% to 0.5% instead. I'll take solid results in basic research over vision, interest, and dreams any day.
Re: (Score:2)
>I'll take solid results in basic research over vision, interest, and dreams any day.
Vision, interest, and dreams are prerequisites for solid results.
HTH.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:2)
It's the latter that enables the former.
You're like the person who decides to stop sleeping, because they'd rather be getting productive work done.
Explains a lot (Score:2)
"maybe it's time we start listening to experts who have a proven record of success, rather than ideology that has only been 'proven' in the mind of elected politicians."
And this is exactly why NASA and other scientific endeavors will never get the funding they need.
FYI (Score:2)
That powerful video uses music from Mass Effect 3. It works a lot better in this video than it did in the game, although considering that the plot of the game is that all space faring races are being systematically wiped out, I'm not sure it sends the right message.
Neil for President (Score:4, Insightful)
If only we could get quality people of this caliber to choose from. It would put an air of confidence around the future of the US instead of the corporate-sponsored Reality TV show it's turned into.
Go Neil!
The problem with 1% for NASA (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Some error in the summary (Score:5, Informative)
With Kansas stating that 'evolution could not rule out a supernatural or theistic source, that evolution itself was not fact but only a theory and one in crisis, and that Intelligent Design must be considered a viable alternative to evolution,' and North Carolina's legislature circulating a bill telling people to ignore climate science, maybe it's time we start listening to experts who have a proven record of success, rather than ideology that has only been 'proven' in the mind of elected politicians."
First, Kansas no longer says that. From Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]:
The Kansas Board of Education voted 6â"4 August 9, 2005 to include greater criticism of evolution in its school science standards, but it decided to send the standards to an outside academic for review before taking a final vote. The standards received final approval on November 8, 2005. The new standards were approved by 6 to 4, reflecting the makeup of religious conservatives on the board.[75] In July 2006 the Board of Standards issued a "rationale statement" which claimed that the current science curriculum standards do not include intelligent design.[76] Members of the scientific community critical of the standards contended that the board's statement was misleading in that they contained a "significant editorializing that supports the Discovery Institute and the Intelligent Design networkâ(TM)s campaign position that Intelligent Design is not included in the standards", the standards did "say that students should learn about ID, and that ID content ought to be in the standards", and that the standards presented the controversy over intelligent design as a scientific one, denying the mainstream scientific view.
[...]
On August 1, 2006, 4 of the 6 conservative Republicans who approved the Critical Analysis of Evolution classroom standards lost their seats in a primary election. The moderate Republican and liberal Democrats gaining seats, largely supported by Governor Kathleen Sebelius, vowed to overturn the 2005 school science standards and adopt those recommended by a State Board Science Hearing Committee that were rejected by the previous board.
[...]
On February 13, 2007, the Board voted 6 to 4 to reject the amended science standards enacted in 2005. The definition of science was once again returned to "the search for natural explanations for what is observed in the universe."
It must have been an unpleasant year and a half, but Kansas voters did fix the problem as quickly as they could.
It's also worth noting that the North Carolina bill forces only a particular planning agency (for NC ocean shores) to ignore certain climate predictions (and may have been in response to possible abuse of such climate predictions by the planning agency in question).
It's far more limited in scope than claimed in the summary above and while short-sighted may have been proposed in response to valid concerns about what the planning agency was going to do.
Start Listening to the Enemy You Mean? (Score:5, Interesting)
NASA started being friendly toward private launch services only when it was apparent it could no longer play the same good-ole-boy game that had for so long presented an anti-competitive barrier to the entry of true freedom to pursue industrially reasonable launch services.
To now listen to "experts" that are designated as such by NASA telling us to pump huge amounts of money into NASA so it can turn SpaceX and others into yet another good-ole-boy network is the moral equivalent of pumping huge amounts of money into creation science.
First Part Okay, But then... (Score:3)
Problem solved: (Score:4, Funny)
budget isn't the biggest issue right now (Score:5, Interesting)
NASA needs to make the transition from an executing agency to a support agency, more like NSF and less like the post office.
It's still appropriate to have NASA labs and NASA projects, but the next big advances are going to come through private partnerships and creative investments. NASA's budget is more than 5 times DARPAs budget, for example, but DARPA grabs much more of the public eye these days. The key difference is that program managers (people who control the money) serve 3 year terms in DARPA. There's no time for empire building or lawyering up, which are BIG problems at NASA.
Spend on fusion, not space (Score:3)
We'd be much better off spending research money on fusion power than on space. If we get fusion, we'll get space. Sending people to Mars is a dead end. We know what Mars looks like. We have a space station, and no use for it.
It looks like Space-X has the low-cost booster thing figured out. That took long enough, especially considering that the US mass-produced ICBMs in the 1960s.
Closing about half the NASA centers would be a good start. NASA Slidell (the "Stennis Space Center") was scheduled to downsize, but instead they got funding for a big museum. NASA Ames is dead except for the wind tunnel. NASA still has 23,000 employees, and that doesn't include the contractors.
Grab some popcorn (Score:3)
NASA doesn't need more money. (Score:2)
Congress just needs to stop using NASA as a pork receptacle.
Re: (Score:3)
>Since when has any reasonable individual listened to a politician over a scientist, to ideology over reason? This person you imagine does not exist.
They think they are reasonable, and they vote.
>writing them off instead of fighting them tooth and nail.
Yup, a sure strategy for getting ideologues, religionists, etc, off of school committees and out of state legislatures.
Yup.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:2)
And what would you rather have, nobody making science look good?
Without the popularizers of science, science loses funding. It's really that simple.
>He's an entertainer.
Where is /your/ PhD in Astrophysics?
--
BMO
Re:Conflict of interest (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, how do people come up with this garbage?
Have you ever heard the man speak passionately about science and astronomy? Who the hell is he 'entertaining', besides perhaps people who are interested in science and astronomy? The man is smart enough to get a doctorate in astrophysics from Columbia and be the head of the damn Hayden Planetarium. He does more to educate the public about matters of science than most actual science teachers. Yet for some reason you feel the need to put him down.
And with 'He's an entertainer.' no less. That's rich. Honestly, if that's what it takes to be heard in this country I say let him entertain. That does nothing to diminish his qualifications, intelligence, or ability to convey knowledge. Except perhaps to someone who can't see past the size of his or her own fragile ego.
My guess is you're either trolling or a complete moron.
Probably both.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
uh, the first two people you list are string theorists (lol.) so is the third, but he's also a complete charlatan [scienceblogs.com] and quack [lovearth.org].
give me a fucking break.
Re: (Score:2)
"and was a jock in college"
Are you saying Kaku's knowledge of Judo disqualifies him?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvxQz8PPSbg [youtube.com]
Re:Conflict of interest (Score:5, Insightful)
Tyson... He's an entertainer. It's like getting John Travolta's opinion.
One's a scientist, the other is a scientologist. People who can't see the difference is what the summary is warning about.
The most effective critics. (Score:5, Interesting)
The most effective critics are the ex-fundamental Christians. Michael Shermer for one. They got there because of exposure to folks, the data (or lack there of) and their ideas and thoughts.
And every so often, a light bulb goes off in one of them. Sure there are plenty who doggedly stick to their beliefs regardless of the data, but there are plenty who don't.
Part of the reason there are so many folks who still believe in these things were there is no evidence or let alone the existence conclusive evidence (like evolution) is because it is culturally acceptable for one to say that their beliefs trump data ("I just KNOW in my heart that God placed us here!"). I'm not saying at all that we should point fingers and call them "idiots", "morons" or some other derogatory name, but maybe make it as acceptable as an adult who still believe in Santa Claus or worships Zeus. And the way to do that, is to continually make science, thinking, reason, logic and so on a mainstream value - and that takes exposure, promotion and folks like Tyson to make it "cool".
When I start seeing kids wanting to be astronauts again - instead of ball players and hip-hop stars - then I'll be happy
Re: (Score:2)
The most effective critics are the ex-fundamental Christians. Michael Shermer for one.
Michael Shermer is effective? He spends 99% of his effort preaching to the choir. He writes an anti-creationism rant is his Scientific American column almost every month. How many creationists read Scientific American?
If he was actually interested in being effective, he would engage his opponents instead of ridiculing them, debate with respect and talk to people in terms they understand.
Re:The most effective critics. (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh what the hell, it's like pissing on a house fire of bias and closed minded rhetoric.
Truer words were never spoken
Tearing ourselves from disciplines of Astronomy and Physics for a second and focusing on the bit of Anthropology atheists prefer to ignore; man has ALWAYS believed in a higher power. We have scientific evidence of this.
I can't even imagine what scientific evidence you have to prove that belief in a higher power has ALWAYS existed. Hopefully, it's not the No True Scotsman argument.
Man has used "higher power" to explain things which are currently inexplicable and allow order in a confusing world. It makes the kids stop asking where the sun goes at night. It expresses our resignation to continue living when the hunt goes poorly, when storms flatten the wheat field, or when you get passed over for promotion. Personifying the "higher power" into a Thor, Nature, or Jesus figure adds the value of fun stories to tell the kids and satisfies mankind's inclination to anthropomorphize even inanimate objects. However, a "higher power" can also be "physical laws and properties." One of those higher powers allows cultural and technological advance; one of those higher powers encourages complacency and repression.
We know that abilities and quirks that we EVOLVE with are there for a reason. We can only theorize and therefore fork, but not discount at this point, Creationism as a possibility.
"For a reason" is that some mutation provided, at worst, no disadvantage to survival. Most of them don't. Each year, according to the CDC, "Major structural or genetic birth defects affect approximately 3% of births in the United States, are a major contributor to infant mortality." When you see abilities and quirks that we EVOLVE, you are looking at only the small fraction of changes that are not immediately fatal, and ignoring billions of people who died in utero or in infancy because of errors in gene replication. If you wish to argue that some creator goes about his work by slaughtering such a large fraction of his people, then I think your notion of "design" or "directed change" is indistinguishable from random. To make a distinction between "random changes" and "random changes because god said so" is a) unnecessary and b) a little silly. To infer a "reason" for every trait and quirk you display presupposes the existence of a plan and is circular logic (ie: we have trait X that allows behavior Y; Y facilitates survival; therefore Y is part of the plan, and X was planned to allow Y)
More importantly, the only evidence for creationism is a bunch of stories handed down by several generations of oral tradition before being collected into a convenient anthology. Oh, and I suppose, if you want to include your bit of Anthropology that atheists like to ignore, the observation that humans enjoy stories. The single greatest point of divergence between atheists and Christians is that Christians will appeal to any story in their favored anthology as literal fact worthy of as much weight as the observation that the sun rose this morning in the east. What if they're just stories? I mean, did Lazarus leave any evidence or documentation from his life after being raised from the dead: I'd think that's the kind of thing a whole community might have written about. Maybe earn him a trip to Rome to meet with historians and scientists. The literal veracity of the bible is a tenuous thread upon which to hang a whole theory of the cosmos.
Evolutionists and creationists are not even having the same discussion, but the creationists are very insistent on getting their irrelevant bit into the evolutionary conversation. It's like we're all talking about what to have for dinner, and some guy demands that we first agree that Viking ranges are much better than Wolf.
Re: (Score:2)
Some people call it more than evidence, it's a branch of science called Archaeology.
*
Yes and that's why poor mutations fall out of strain while robust ones proliferate.Not exactly the point you wanted to make.
*
We weren't talking about evidence of creation so much as the impossiblility of credibly refuting it.
Re: (Score:2)
Leakey, with his recent statements on religion and his findings is to be chastised as being biased and net very scientific. But then, if you sell Chevys, you are going to bag on Fords, probably without applying any unbiased rational, reason to it. I won't detract from what he has done scientifically, but I will point out his lack of scientific detachment and therefore call into doubt his ad hoc finding of Gods existence. Not to mention being a closed minded old codger without a helpful imagination.
Fail.
Re: (Score:2)
I am neither a fan of religion, of which even atheism falls into, nor the scientific method, a chain weak in several links as well. Organized religion has the debilitation of being directed by ambition and replaced personal investigation and rigor of a search with pre chewed philosophy. In a perfect world Christianity would've continued as fellowship groups rather than the Catholicism and growth of the organized popular viewpoints (sects) that followed. Then at least claims made by "Christians" would come w
Re: (Score:2)
My final point is neither are reliable enough to put any part of a fullfilling life in jeopardy for.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, looking at the introduction to the article, would you say as an expert that this is about raising funds for NASA or proving Creationism happened on the moon? Atheists changing the climate or intelligent design of space capsules? Circulating bills to ignore politicians?
Folks, punctuation won't save this. If we all send in a penny, we can eventually educate writers to make coherent, cohesive statements with clarity.
Till then we will just be translating mumbled doubletalk in
Re:Natural Selection is compatible with ID (Score:5, Insightful)
> The two theories diverge when it comes to the ultimate source of life which Natural Selection says evolved spontaneously as a single cell life form from which all other life evolved
Actually evolution and natural selection do not attempt to explain the origin of life. If that's something you're interested in, try looking up abiogenesis.
> and ID suggesting that our DNA may have come from elsewhere.
So it doesn't make any attempt to explain the origin of life and just moves the problem to some undefined 'elsewhere'?
> It seems to me that expanding the exploration of space is key to discoving where we come from and the answer may be something which would be considered very unscientific at this point in time.
Please give us your motivations for this belief.
> or prove there is none
Impossible to prove. Even if we could visit every location in the universe to see if aliens live there, they may have gone extinct without leaving any trace.
> and that under the right conditions life can evolve spontaneously in a previously sterile environment it would be short sighted to deny that life may have originated elsewhere.
1) We know the universe has a finite age of give or take 14 billion years.
2) We also know that no DNA from 'before' the big bang could have made it into this universe for the simple reason that early conditions were incompatible with the existence of molecules.
3) We know life exists now.
It seems to me that based on 1, 2, and 3 we have to conclude that life *must* have formed in a previously sterile environment *somewhere* at *some* point during the last 14 billion years. Attempting to explain the origin of life by introducing an (intelligent) agent only moves the problem to the origin of that agent.
Re: (Score:3)
2) We also know that no DNA from 'before' the big bang could have made it into this universe for the simple reason that early conditions were incompatible with the existence of molecules.
Initial conditions were also incompatible with the existence of atoms, or even atomic nuclei. Yes, the Big Bang was very harsh indeed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Even if we assume the origin of life is extraterrestrial, there is no reason to believe any intelligence or intent was involved. And extraterrestrial life must still have spontaneously formed somewhere. Knowing that life can spontaneously form, doesn't the explanation that does not involve interstellar travel seem more likely?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We don't know what amount of time is required for life to spontaneously form in a given set of condition
Re: (Score:2)
> any logical theory is as valid as another in the absence of evidence.
Not a fan of Occam's razor, are we?
> There are many questions, and that's why Neil deGrasse Tyson is arguing for a bigger space program. We'd like answers.
If you want to know more about the origin of life, try investing in biology, not NASA. Besides, it looks like Neil is arguing for a bigger space program not to answer questions, but to inspire 'dreams' and innovation and promises of a more successful economy.
Re: (Score:2)
> Are you saying we shouldn't investigate because the simplest answer is good enough?
Depending on how you define 'good enough': yes.
> Yes, astrobiology ;-)
Not exclusively I hope? Considering it's rather expensive to go into space, perhaps we should primarily focus on the (comparatively cheaper to research) option of life originating on earth?
> Wouldn't you consider the possibility of answers to some of life’s most fundamental questions inspirational?
People have been inspired without the answe
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for one of the better comments on this stuff, by far, than most all I've seen in the past six months.
"...only moves the problem to the origin of that agent."
Yeah. In '52 I asked my mother, "Where did I come from?" She said God made me, and made everything. My next question obviously was "Who made God?" To this day I won't use Ivory soap - it tastes terribly.
Re: (Score:2)
That's what I like about Taoism - given a watchmaker view of the universe "How was I made?" is a natural question, which naturally progresses to unsatisfactory conclusions. Given an organic view of the universe the natural question is "How did I grow?", which naturally progresses to a succession of ever-subtler and more complicated questions. Not much good for silencing an inquisitive child, but far more satisfying to the philosopher or scientist.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. I've long had a liking for Tao and Zen, albeit not claiming to be any good at it. I suffice with a pastiche of thoughts gathered from the smorgasbord of philosophy - not necessarily a bunch of comfort, but a convenient set of sticks and bricks to be going on with.
Yet one might ask why the need to silence an inquisitive child (Yes, I'm aware of the daily exigencies of parenthood.) Strikes me one valid use for stifling would be to aid in producing compliant organic labor units from which to extract
Re: (Score:2)
For what it's worth, once you get a good grasp on "the central unspoken" of Taoism/Buddhism/etc (pretty much the same core concept with different interpretations) it offers considerable... not comfort exactly, but reduction in the need for it.
I think it's rather telling that monotheism only seems to originate in desert cultures, where resources are scarce and centralized political power provides significant survival advantages for the tribe. Hard times tend to come in the form of famine, and those who cle
Re: (Score:3)
Not necessarily - the big bang could have been a phenomenally unlikely event that occurred within a vast, cold, virtually empty preexisting (even eternal) universe, much like where the current one will end up. We really don't know - our understanding of physics starts to break down when studying the early moments of the universe, requiring things like super-luminal expansion rates to explain the matter distribution we see today.
The odds of natural quantum fluctuations giving rise to a point of perfectly sm
Re: (Score:2)
While ruling out the possibility that some alien species created us may be a bit hasty... the lack of evidence of these aliens, and the evidence suggesting spontaneous creation of organic enzymes being much stronger, I find it difficult to put any faith into the alien "theory."
...unless you meant that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created life. That's just, well, even less probable than aliens.
I guess I'm trying to say that for something to be seriously considered scientifically, there must be at least one
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That is not accurate.
Re: (Score:2)
Last I read (somewhere), statistics indicated life probably did NOT get created on earth, but more and likely arrived on an asteroid or something similar, possibly a space craft, but that was just one of the possibilities.
Last you read? If you cannot remember the source, you should at least present the evidence. If you can't at least remember the evidence then you could be accused of not having any idea what you are talking about.
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.science20.com/news_releases/the_mathematical_probability_of_life_on_other_earth_like_planets
What I do remember reading was that the probability that life could evolve to the point it has on earth is about the same as finding a fully assembled jet engine after a hurricane in a junk yard. yes it could happen, but it probably will not. Why is that so hard to believe?
Re: (Score:2)
seems to be an odd mix of greek mythology and an ancient counterpart of a frat party
What's the difference? Are you throwing in the frat party as a moderating influence?
Umm... No. (Score:2)
The two theories diverge when it comes to the ultimate source of life which Natural Selection says evolved spontaneously as a single cell life form from which all other life evolved, and ID suggesting that our DNA may have come from elsewhere.
Sorry, but you are reading-in things that you like into an ideology which doesn't support it. BTW, how did you like Prometheus?
First off, let me correct your Natural Selection definition. Not "a single cell life form" but life formS.
Also, underneath that is a layer (or more accurately LAYERS) of inorganic matter reacting for thousands of millennia until some of it started clicking together, creating amino acids.
It strikes me that Intelligent Design is compatible with Natural Selection.
What you seem (to me) to be thinking is that when you get right down to it, life and intelligent
Re: (Score:2)
"God made us in HIS image, not in the image of monkeys!"
I always liked that one. So, if God the infinite, immaterial, all-knowing and incorporeal created us in his image, how come we look so much like bald apes? Shouldn't we floating clouds of energy or something?
Intelligent Design is not a theory. (Score:2)
Intelligent Design, at best, is a hypothesis.
BIG difference.
Re: (Score:3)
>Intelligent Design, at best, is a hypothesis.
It's not even that. It has been found *in court* by a Reagan appointed judge, to be Religion, capital R and thus not science and thus cannot be endorsed by the government and thus not allowed in the science classroom with equal weight to actual science.
There are facts and then there are lies. ID is a lie. It is a mealy-mouthed reaction to real science, by those who are frightened that their faith could be shaken by truth.
ID is a lie from both the religion
Re: (Score:2)
Are you an attorney? I don't believe in intelligent design, but I don't particularly care what some judge thinks. Why even mention it? It isn't evidence for anything. Judges are not arbiters of truth.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem butthurt. I suggest you get a doctor to look at it.
ID is bunk. And I will tell people whether you like it or not.
Deal with it.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:2)
I am an atheist. I do not believe in a god or magic fairies or ghosts or goblins. I believe what there is evidence for. I am not aware of any evidence that the earth was 'seeded' by anyone. If someone were to present such evidence I would be open to it however. It is not impossible. I assume by calling it 'bunk' you are attempting to claim that it is impossible. An absurd position to maintain and one for which you have presented no evidence.
Nevertheless it seems quite clear to me that the idea that life on
Re: (Score:2)
"You seem religious in your certainty"
I am certain the IDers are wrong and that there is no question about it, because ID is based upon Genesis when you get down to it, a Bronze Age creation tale, like the Mahabharata. Genesis is allegory, like the Mahabharata. It is not science and sane people do not pretend it is. If you had paid attention to the Dover PA school district trial, it is clearly religiosity pretending to be science.
That's the facts, guy. Anything else is bogus.
>claiming to be atheist
T
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to believe that I am pro-ID. As I have stated in each and every post, I am not . My point was only that your argument against ID was silly. Who cares what a judge says? Argument from Authority is always silly, but using a judge as an authority is totally ridiculous. You may respect their authority, but that doesn't mean that everyone does, and even if we all did it isn't any kind of a rational argument.
Intelligent design is by far the less probable hypothesis. If you are going to make an argument m
Re: (Score:2)
>My point was only that your argument against ID was silly.
No, no it isn't. ID is Religion. Capital R. As Espoused by the Discovery Institute and Churches Across The Country (TM).
There is *nobody* promoting ID that is not a religious nutbag.
but neither is there any specific evidence that our planet was not the pet project of some alien life form a million years or so more advanced than us. It is unlikely, but certainly not impossible.
You seem to think that this is related to ID. You have not even lo
Re: (Score:2)
>unflattering slashdot meme about me
Right. And what would that be? This should be good.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:2)
Not even that - a hypothesis must be falsifiable.
Your title is a lie, abelb (Score:2)
ID is religion.
The investigation of Natural Selection is science.
They are *not* compatible, by definition.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:2)
It strikes me that Intelligent Design is compatible with Natural Selection.
Not really. Yes, the idea that there could be "somebody out there" who had started it all off is not in itself in contradiction with the theory of evolution; however, ID springs from a certain class of religious belief, which is in opposition to the whole premise for scientific thought. In science one seeks to abstain from making any pronouncements that are not based on measurable, reproducible evidence, whereas in the religioun underlying ID, you make a flying leap into the unknown and decide that "this is
Re: (Score:3)
Why not drop 0.5% of the federal budget on government backed renewable energy research.
It would not help. We proved in the 1980s at Sandia NREL that biodiesel from algae would be economically feasible by the time Diesel #2 hit $3/gallon. Where is it? I'll tell you where it is, it's nowhere because you can get a permit to mine coal or drill oil in BLM land, but not for a solar station or to grow algae.
Oh man, you kill me. I'm gonna save this one for later so I can laugh again and again.
Re: (Score:2)
That's because science is under attack from powerful religious people and this is a bad thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And your meteorological qualifications are?
Re: (Score:2)
We could have cleaner air next year, if we had the motivation. We do not. Nobody in government seems to think that it is worth the cost to do the things that would be required to end or reduce CO2 emissions by more than 50%. Heck, nobody seems to think it is worth it to reduce them by as little as 20%.
Personally, I suspect that may be the correct viewpoint from both a political and economic standpoint.
What is needed are environmentally oriented people beginning mass destruction of the carbon-burning infr
Re: (Score:2)
So you think a civil war is the answer to global warming then? What makes you think they will not just rebuild the old plants, but hire a well trained army to defend them? I think what will happen is the brainwashed Facebook generation will finally vote in some kook who starts the process of shutting down fossil fuel plants and replacing them with nuclear ones (the only 'solution' that would actually work at least for a while), but the rest of the world who didn't have the benefit of the brainwashing will j