The Natural Pharmacist - http://www.tnp.com/home.asp
         Physicians and pharmacists offer objective information
         derived from scientific studies about alternative
         therapies. They discuss herbs and supplements and
         present both the positive and negative findings so that
         users can make informed decisions. Detailed scientific
         information, treatments for specific conditions, and facts
         about interactions with other drugs are available.

Just a quick note to those of you who were at the meeting this last
weekend.  In regards to the (partly unsolicited) discussion about my family,
I just thought I'd let you know that my grandmother died today, on her own,
without help.  Since it _was_ a topic of discussion, I just thought I'd pass
along the update.

-- Chris

>From: "Science-Week" <prismx@...>
>Organization: Science-Week
>To: prismx@...
>Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1999 03:38:46 -0600
>X-Distribution: Moderate
>Subject: ScienceWeek - Free Student Subscriptions
>Reply-To: prismx@...
>Priority: normal
>X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01d)
>
>PLEASE POST
>-----------
>
>FYI:
>
>ScienceWeek, the award-winning weekly online research news
>digest, is offering 1000 free subscriptions to science students
>worldwide. The term "student" includes both undergraduate and
>graduate students. The level of SW is probably too high for high
>school science students, but such students are welcome. This
>offer of a free 26-issue subscription is good only until January
>1, 2000. Subscriptions will extend through June 2000. To obtain
>your free subscription, send your request by Email to:
>
>request@...
>
>Please indicate your full name and your educational institution.
>
>Subscriptions will be entered on a first-come first-served basis
>until the indicated quota is filled. ScienceWeek is transmitted
>via Email each week, total content approximately 70K bytes ASCII.
>
>Claire Haller
>Managing Editor
>ScienceWeek
>haller@...
>http://www.scienceweek.com
>
>
>

See the clean copy at http://ScitechDaily.com/



           REASON * December, 1999

                    Petri Dish Politics
                    Biotechnology will make it possible for us to live
longer and better. So
                    why are some people dead set against it?

                    By Ronald Bailey

                    "Death to death," declares Gregory Stock, director of
UCLA's Program on
                    Medicine, Technology, and Society, at a conference on
life extension.
                    "Aging itself can be considered to be a disease," says
Cynthia Kenyon, the
                    biochemist who last year discovered genes that
quadrupled the life of the
                    nematode C. elegans.

                    "This is the first time that we can conceive of human
immortality," William
                    Haseltine, the hardheaded CEO of Human Genome Sciences
Inc., the
                    largest genomics company in the world, tells The
Washington Post. Francis
                    Fukuyama, the man who famously asserted that "The End of
History" had
                    arrived, declares that History is about to begin again,
and its motor is
                    biotechnology. "It is no longer clear that there is any
upper limit on human
                    life expectancy," writes Fukuyama. That, he argues,
changes human nature
                    and thus restarts History.

                    The biomedical revolution of the next century promises
to alter our
                    culture, our politics, and our lives. It promises to
extend our life span and
                    to enhance our mental and physical capacities. The
closer those promises
                    come to reality, however, the more they incite
opposition and, in some
                    cases, horror. And they are becoming more real by the day.

                    In September, Princeton University neurobiologist Joe
Tsien announced
                    that he had boosted the intelligence of mice by
inserting extra copies of a
                    gene that produces a type of receptor in brain cells;
the receptor enhances
                    long-term memory and learning. The "smart mice" did
considerably better
                    than normal mice on a battery of six rodent intelligence
tests. The mouse
                    gene Tsien manipulated is 98 percent identical to the
one found in
                    humans. In the short term, Tsien's work could lead to
drugs that will boost
                    the memory capacities of adult humans. Over the long
run, these genes
                    might be introduced into human embryos who, once born,
would have an
                    easier time learning and retaining new information. It
was the prospect of
                    making smarter people, not just curing Alzheimer's, that
made global
                    headlines.

                    On the horizon are artificial chromosomes containing
genes that protect
                    against HIV, diabetes, prostate and breast cancer, and
Parkinson's disease,
                    all of which could be introduced into a developing human
embryo. When
                    born, the child would have a souped-up immune system.
Even more
                    remarkably, artificial chromosomes could be designed
with "hooks" or
                    "docking stations," so that new genetic upgrades later
could be slotted into
                    the chromosomes and expressed in adults. Artificial
chromosomes could
                    also be arranged to replicate only in somatic cells,
which form regular
                    tissues, and not in the germ cells involved in
reproduction. As a result,
                    genetically enhanced parents would not pass those
enhancements on to
                    their children; they could choose new or different
enhancements for their
                    children, or have them born without any new genetic
technologies.

                    Already, a Vancouver company, Chromos Molecular Systems,
makes a
                    mammalian artificial chromosome that allows
biotechnologists to plug in
                    new genes just as new computer chips can be plugged into
a motherboard.
                    These artificial chromosomes, which have been developed
for both mice
                    and humans, offer exquisite control over which genes
will be introduced
                    into an organism and how they will operate.

                    Meanwhile, the prospect of substantially extending the
human lifespan is
                    growing, as biomedical researchers investigate promising
technologies to
                    diagnose and treat the various ways the body breaks down
with age.
                    EntreMed Inc. of Rockville, Maryland, and Cell Genesys
Inc. of Foster City,
                    California, are working to deliver a gene-based drug
that will cut off a
                    cancer's blood supply and kill it. Human Genome
Sciences, also of
                    Rockville, is developing a heart-bypass-in-a-shot using
the VEGF-2 gene,
                    which produces a protein that encourages the growth of
blood vessels
                    around blocked arteries. In Silicon Valley, Santa
Clara-based Affymetrix
                    Inc. has created a "biochip"--a silicon wafer that
analyzes thousands of
                    genes in a single test, diagnosing all sorts of
diseases. Combined with the
                    full sequence of all human genes, which will be
available in a couple of
                    years, the biochip will enable doctors to do a full
genetic physical with a
                    simple blood test.

                    Late last year, Geron Corp. of Menlo Park, California,
announced that
                    scientists whose work it had supported had isolated the
grail of human
                    cell biology: embryonic stem cells. These remarkable
cells are capable of
                    growing into any of the 210 types of cells found in the
human body. Suffer
                    a third-degree burn? Grow some skin cells in a petri
dish for a skin graft.
                    Heart attack? Replace the damaged tissue with
made-to-order heart cells.
                    Broken back? Fix that right up with a skein of new nerve
cells.

                    Repairing broken bodies, extending life, and improving
individuals'
                    capabilities may sound like good things. But the
promises of biomedicine
                    increasingly attract opposition. A chorus of influential
conservative
                    intellectuals is demanding that the new technologies be
crushed
                    immediately, and many in Congress are listening. These
"luddicons," as
                    one observer has dubbed them, see in biomedicine the
latest incarnation of
                    human evil. "In the 20th century, we failed to stifle at
birth the totalitarian
                    concepts which created Nazism and Communism though we
knew all
                    along that both were morally evil--because decent men
and women did not
                    speak out in time," writes the British historian Paul
Johnson in an article in
                    the March 6, 1999, issue of The Spectator. "Are we going
to make the same
                    mistake with this new infant monster [biotechnology] in
our midst, still
                    puny as yet but liable, all too soon, to grow gigantic
and overwhelm us?"

                    The most influential conservative bioethicist, Leon Kass
of the University
                    of Chicago and the American Enterprise Institute,
worries both that our
                    quest for ever-better mental and physical states is too
open-ended and,
                    contradictorily, that it is utopian. "`Enhancement' is,
of course, a soft
                    euphemism for improvement," he says, "and the idea of
improvement
                    necessarily implies a good, a better, and perhaps even
best. But if
                    previously unalterable human nature no longer can
function as a standard
                    or norm for what is regarded as good or better, how will
anyone truly
                    know what constitutes an improvement?"

                    Kass argues that even "modest enhancers" who say that
they "merely want
                    to improve our capacity to resist and prevent diseases,
diminish our
                    propensities for pain and suffering, decrease the
likelihood of death" are
                    deceiving themselves and us. Behind these modest goals,
he says, actually
                    lies a utopian project to achieve "nothing less than a
painless,
                    suffering-free, and, finally, immortal existence."

                    What particularly disturbs these conservatives is
biomedicine's potential
                    to overthrow their notion of human nature--a nature
defined by suffering
                    and death. "Contra naturam, the defiance of nature, used
to be a sufficient
                    argument for those who were not persuaded by contra
deum, provoking
                    the wrath of God," writes historian Gertrude Himmelfarb
in The Wall Street
                    Journal. "But what does it mean today, when we have
defied, even violated,
                    nature in so many ways, for good as well as bad?" She
goes on to suggest
                    that cloning, artificial insemination, in vitro
fertilization, and even the pill
                    might be "against nature." Himmelfarb continues, "But
the ultimate
                    question is how far we may go in defying nature without
undermining our
                    humanity....What does it mean for human beings, who are
defined by their
                    mortality, to entertain, even fleetingly, even as a
remote possibility, the
                    idea of immortality?"

                    Himmelfarb insists that she doesn't disdain all
improvement. "To raise
                    these questions is in no way to reject science and
technology or to belittle
                    their achievements," she writes. "It is not contra
naturam to invent
                    labor-saving devices and amenities that improve the
quality of life for
                    masses of people, or medicines that conquer disease, or
contrivances that
                    allow disabled people to live, work and function
normally. These enhance
                    humanity; they do not presume to transcend it."

                    It is hard to see how a genetically enhanced memory, a
faster mental
                    processing speed, or a stronger immune system
"undermines our
                    humanity." After all, many full-fledged human beings
already enjoy these
                    qualities. Nor is it clear why "contrivances" that let
disabled people cope
                    with their physical problems are acceptable, while
genetic cures to avoid
                    the problems in the first place are not.

                    Nearly all technologies--agriculture, literacy, electric
lighting, anesthesia,
                    the pill, psychoactive drugs, television--affect human
nature in the sense
                    that they change the rhythms of human life and widen the
range of
                    behavior in which people can engage. We are no longer
tribesmen living in
                    family bands of 20, hunting and gathering on the plains
of Africa. Surely
                    there have been significant changes in human psychology
as a result of the
                    development of civilization. In fact, changing human
psychology might be
                    said to be the whole point of civilization; some
anthropologists speculate
                    that civilization is a set of social institutions that
exist to tame human,
                    especially male, violence.

                    Himmelfarb and Kass accuse those who favor biomedical
progress of
                    seeking immortality, as though that were a self-evident
evil. But
                    "immortality" is, in a sense, just a longer lifespan.
Since 1900, lifespans
                    worldwide have doubled, and most people think that
achievement has
                    been a great moral good. Using genetic techniques to
increase human
                    lifespans is not any different ethically from using
vaccines, organ
                    transplants, or antibiotics to achieve the same goal.
Kass and Himmelfarb
                    assert that human beings have been "defined by their
mortality." But
                    human beings are perhaps even better defined by their
unending quest to
                    overcome disease, disability, and death.

                    Indeed, all of the things on Himmelfarb's list of
acceptable enhancements
                    are "contra naturam." Is it not more natural to tear our
meat with our hands
                    rather than with stainless steel forks? Is it not more
natural to die by the
                    hundreds of thousands of tuberculosis, smallpox, or
ebola? And is it not
                    more natural for the lame, the blind, and old to die
beneath the claws and
                    teeth of predators? Himmelfarb does not make it clear
how trying to
                    "transcend" the dirty, nasty, brutish, and short lives
of our ancestors
                    undermines our humanity. Oh sure, a lower infant
mortality rate--down
                    from 300 or 400 deaths per 1,000 live births in the 18th
century to only
                    seven per 1,000 today--has deprived us of the chance to
contemplate the
                    tragic fleetingness of life and the poignancy of
innocent death. But who
                    among us really minds?

                    In an ironic linguistic twist, the pro-death opponents
of substantially
                    extending human lifespans have found their greatest
allies among the
                    pro-life opponents of abortion. The reason lies in
genetic essentialism: the
                    reductionist view of human beings as nothing more than
meat puppets
                    dangling from the strands of our DNA. Nowhere is this
strange alliance
                    more important, or its philosophical underpinnings more
apparent, than in
                    the debate over stem cell research.

                    At the very earliest stages of development, an embryo is an
                    undifferentiated mass of cells, rather than blood cells,
neurons, skin cells,
                    muscle cells, etc. These undifferentiated stem cells can
develop into any
                    type of tissue. Isolated stem cells could one day be
used to grow new
                    heart, nerve, pancreatic, or liver cells that would
replace tissues damaged
                    by disease. Such replacement parts could extend human
lifespans by
                    decades, with significantly improved quality. They are
just the sort of
                    ambitious, "unnatural" technologies the luddicons fear.

                    Currently, biotechnologists investigating stem cells use
embryos donated
                    by couples who have had infertility treatments. The
embryos are grown in
                    laboratory cultures until they reach the blastocyst
stage at four to seven
                    days after fertilization. At that point the embryo
consists of about 100 or so
                    cells. A blastocyst is a hollow sphere of cells whose
outer layer would
                    develop into the placenta while the inner cell mass grew
into a fetus. Once
                    the inner cell mass is extracted from the blastocyst,
those stem cells can no
                    longer develop into a complete organism.

                    Stem cells removed from the blastocyst are grown in a
culture on a layer of
                    feeder cells that provide the necessary environment to
keep them alive and
                    in an undifferentiated state. Researchers are still
trying to learn exactly
                    what molecular signals will cause stem cells to develop
into specific
                    tissues. Those signals hold the key to using stem cells
to develop
                    replacement tissues which would be part of a universal
tissue repair kit.

                    Once those signals are understood, using stem cells will
depend, at least
                    in the near future, on technology originally developed
in cloning research.
                    As we know from Dolly the lamb, factors in egg cytoplasm
can reset an
                    adult cell nucleus, giving it the ability to grow into
an embryo as a source
                    for stem cells. Using cloning technology, doctors might
one day take the
                    nucleus of one of your skin cells, put it in a human egg
from which the
                    nucleus has been removed, and allow that cell to divide
to the blastocyst
                    stage. They would then take out the stem cells from its
inner cell mass and
                    dope them with the appropriate hormones and proteins to
turn the stem
                    cells into, say, heart tissue, which could then be used
to repair your ailing
                    heart. Using your own cells in this way would mean that
your immune
                    system wouldn't reject the newly engrafted tissues,
since the tissues would
                    be a perfect match.

                    This research obviously promises to significantly
advance human health
                    and longevity. And just as obviously, stem cell research
is completely
                    entangled with the politics of abortion. It involves the
use of embryonic
                    tissues and, eventually, the creation of fertilized eggs
that abortion
                    opponents consider full-fledged human beings. To
abortion opponents, a
                    blastocyst used to duplicate your heart tissue isn't an
extension of your
                    tissue. It's another human being--the equivalent of your
identical twin. As
                    Judie Brown, president of the American Life League, told
the Los Angeles
                    Times about research on embryonic cells, "It doesn't
matter if it's done in
                    the womb or a petri dish, it's still killing."

                    After Geron scientists announced in November 1998 that
they'd isolated
                    human embryonic stem cells from donated embryos and
aborted fetuses,
                    President Clinton asked the National Bioethics Advisory
Commission to
                    look into any ethical issues associated with stem cells.
In January, the U.S.
                    Department of Health and Human Services ruled that the
National
                    Institutes of Health could fund research using already
derived embryonic
                    stem cells. This ruling provoked 70 anti-abortion House
members,
                    including Majority Leader Richard Armey (R-Tex.),
Majority Whip Tom
                    DeLay (R-Tex.), and Republican Conference Chairman J.C.
Watts (R-Okla.)
                    to sign a letter of protest to the president, declaring
that the HHS ruling
                    violated the congressional ban on funding research on
human embryos.
                    The congressional ban, adopted in 1996, outlaws the use
of federal funds
                    for the creation of human embryos for research in which
they are
                    "destroyed, discarded or knowingly subjected to risk of
injury or death."

                    In January, however, HHS General Counsel Harriet Rabb
artfully
                    concluded that Geron's embryonic stem cells "are not a
human embryo
                    within the statutory definition." She based her decision
on the fact that the
                    cells "do not have the capacity to develop into a human
being, even if
                    transferred to the uterus." Consequently, destroying
them in the course of
                    research would not constitute the destruction of an
embryo.

                    NIH scientists, whose work depends on federal funding,
are eager for the
                    ban to be lifted. NIH Director Harold Varmus correctly
claims that federal
                    funding also brings federal oversight, which he argues
will protect the
                    public interest. Of course, Varmus and other researchers
curiously
                    overlook the point that it was precisely federal
oversight that led to the
                    ban on federal support of this important research in the
first place.

                    As it became clearer that the National Bioethics
Advisory Commission was
                    going to recommend that some stem cell research be
federally funded,
                    opponents turned up the heat. In July, Sen. Sam
Brownback (R-Kan.)
                    sponsored a Capitol Hill press conference featuring a
group of bioethicists,
                    religious activists, and physicians who oppose human
embryonic stem cell
                    research. "Human embryos are not mere biological tissues
or clusters of
                    cells; they are the tiniest of human beings," asserts
the group's July 1 press
                    release.

                    At the press conference, Edmund Pellegrino, a
bioethicist at Georgetown
                    University's Kennedy Bioethics Center, took aim at even
private research
                    efforts like those sponsored by Geron. He urged that a
congressional ban
                    "should be extended permanently to include privately
supported as well
                    as federally supported research involving the production
and destruction
                    of living human embryos." Although the current debate
centers on federal
                    funding, the real issue is whether the research should
be done at all.

                    According to an NIH spokesperson, the NIH's draft
guidelines for
                    embryonic stem cell research are likely to be issued
before the end of the
                    year, and Congress will take up the subject in February.
Sens. Arlen
                    Spector (R-Pa.) and Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) are the two
leading proponents
                    of human stem cell research. Opponents include DeLay,
Brownback, and
                    Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Ill.).

                    The opponents argue that biotechnologists should
concentrate on isolating
                    and using stem cells known to exist in adults instead.
Such adult stem cells
                    are the precursor cells that renew tissues like skin and
the linings of the
                    intestines, and they likely could be used to regenerate
these tissues. But
                    many researchers believe that adult stem cells won't be
as protean as
                    embryonic cells--that they won't be able to turn into as
many different
                    types of cells.

                    One day it may be possible to take any adult stem cell
back to the
                    embryonic, and hence protean, stage. But the research to
figure out how to
                    do that depends on work with embryonic cells and the
resulting cells, of
                    course, would themselves be embryonic. People who oppose
stem cell
                    research on the ground that any cell that can become a
human being already
                    is a human being are essentially arguing that every cell
in your body is
                    another person.

                    "What happens when a skin cell turns into a totipotent
stem cell [a cell
                    capable of developing into a complete organism] is that
a few of its genetic
                    switches are turned on and others turned off," writes
University of
                    Melbourne bioethicist Julian Savulescu in the April 1999
issue of the
                    Journal of Medical Ethics. "To say it doesn't have the
potential to be a human
                    being until its nucleus is placed in the egg cytoplasm
is like saying my car
                    does not have the potential to get me from Melbourne to
Sydney unless
                    the key is turned in the ignition." Since nearly every
cell in the human
                    body contains the complete genetic code of an
individual, it is logically
                    possible using biotech to turn every one of a person's
cells into a complete
                    new human being. If one doesn't turn on the ignition of
a car (or one
                    doesn't strip the suppressor proteins from a nucleus and
put the cell into a
                    womb), then the car won't go (or the skin cell won't
grow into a human
                    being). In other words, simply starting a human egg on a
particular path,
                    either through fertilization or cloning, is a necessary
condition for
                    developing a human being, but it isn't sufficient. A
range of other
                    conditions must also be present.

                    "I cannot see any intrinsic morally significant
difference between a mature
                    skin cell, the totipotent stem cell derived from it, and
a fertilised egg,"
                    writes Savulescu. "They are all cells which could give
rise to a person if
                    certain conditions obtained." Those conditions include
the availability of a
                    suitable environment like a woman's womb. A petri dish
is not enough.

                    "If all our cells could be persons, then we cannot
appeal to the fact that an
                    embryo could be a person to justify the special
treatment we give it,"
                    concludes Savulescu. "Cloning forces us to abandon the
old arguments
                    supporting special treatment for fertilised eggs."

                    The DNA content of a skin cell, a stem cell, and a
fertilized egg are exactly
                    the same. The difference between what they are and what
they could
                    become is the environment in which their DNA is found.
Thus, Savulescu
                    argues, the mere existence of human DNA in a cell cannot
be the source of
                    a relevant moral difference. The differences among these
cells are a result
                    of how the genes in each are expressed, and that
expression depends
                    largely on which proteins suppress which genes. Does
moral relevance
                    really depend on the presence of the appropriate
proteins in a cell? Trying
                    to base moral distinctions on this level of biochemistry
seems a bit
                    quixotic.

                    So, asks Savulescu, is it immoral for you to take one of
your skin cells, put
                    it into an enucleated egg, and begin to grow it in a
petri dish with the
                    intention of making new brain cells to cure your
Parkinson's disease? The
                    cell was your tissue, with your genes. The transformed
cell would not exist
                    except for your intention--it would simply have flaked
off and gone down
                    the drain. "It's important to remember that essentially
every cell in our
                    body has a full complement of genes and in that sense is
potentially
                    totipotent," Varmus, the NIH director, reminded the
National Bioethics
                    Advisory Commission. That a cell contains a complete set
of human
                    chromosomes, yours, surely does not make that cell the
moral equivalent
                    of a baby. But as Savulescu and Varmus point out, if one
is committed to
                    the sort of genetic essentialism relied on by many
opponents of cloning
                    and embryonic stem cell research, then one is also
logically committed to
                    maintaining that the only difference between your skin
cell and your twin
                    is which proteins decorate their DNA strands.

                    The next step in stem cell research will occur when
biotechnologists learn
                    how to strip off the suppressing proteins from a mature
cell's genes and
                    transform it directly into a stem cell without having to
use enucleated
                    human eggs. That advance will take human eggs out of the
discussion.
                    Once it is possible to make stem cells without eggs,
perhaps the moral
                    intuition of many people will shift.

                    "It may eventually become possible to take a cell from
any one of our
                    organs and to expose it to the right set of
environmental stimuli and to
                    encourage that cell to return to a more primitive stage
in the hierarchy of
                    stem cells," explains Varmus. "Under those conditions,
one might in fact
                    generate the cell with as great a potential as a
pluripotent cell [capable of
                    becoming many different, but not all, types of tissues]
from a very mature
                    cell. One might even in fact imagine generating a cell
that is totipotent in
                    that manner." (Again, a totipotent cell is one that
could develop into a
                    complete organism if put in the right circumstances.)

                    Stem cells produced this way would be identical to the
human embryonic
                    stem cells that currently must be harvested from
embryos. A cell whose
                    suppressor proteins have been stripped off could become
a nerve stem
                    cell, a liver stem cell, or a baby--depending on the
intentions of the
                    patients and doctors. Researchers are experimenting
right now to see if
                    new embryonic stem cells could be formed by introducing
the nucleus of
                    an adult cell into an already existing enucleated
embryonic stem cell, thus
                    bypassing the need to use human eggs.

                    One final consideration is that those committed to
claims that individual
                    human beings are defined by their DNA must take into
account the fact
                    that up until the eight-cell stage any one of an
embryo's cells could become
                    a separate embryo and, under the right circumstances,
develop into a
                    baby. So until that point are there several persons, or
one, in a fertilized
                    human egg? It is now possible after a fertilized egg has
first divided into
                    two cells to take one cell and use it to test for
genetic diseases. The tested
                    cell could have developed into a baby if placed in a
woman's womb. Has
                    the genetic test killed a twin?

                    Stem cell research opponents might respond that these
arguments are just
                    splitting hairs. But there are quite a lot of
biochemical hairs to split. And
                    just how you split them determines how you regard the
moral status of all
                    types of cells.

                    Does human uniqueness really reside in our genes? Try
this thought
                    experiment. Imagine that transplant surgery has so
improved that it is
                    possible to remove your brain and place it safely into
another body. So
                    after your brain transplant, is your original body
"you"? Or are "you"
                    residing now in a different body? A new body could
certainly change
                    "you" in certain ways, since your senses and
biochemistry would be
                    different. But humans already affect the operation of
their brains by giving
                    themselves different drugs. When people take therapeutic
drugs, say
                    Prozac, L-dopamine, or even steroids, we do not believe
they become
                    different people.

                    "The human mind, of course, is a dynamic entity, but
genes are static,"
                    explains Princeton biologist Lee Silver. A person's
genes provide the
                    instructions for building his or her brain, and the mind
which comes out of
                    that brain can respond to the environment. Unlike genes,
a mind can
                    change. "The human mind is much more than the genes that
brought it into
                    existence," concludes Silver.

                    What makes us distinct and unique is not our genes but
our brains and the
                    minds they contain. Persons generally have brains that
are capable of
                    supporting enough mental activity to give rise to a
mind. As one of my old
                    philosophy professors once put it, "I have never seen a
mind that was not
                    located in fairly close proximity to a brain."

                    The point that brains, not genes, are the source of our
uniqueness is further
                    underscored by the fact that no one argues that natural
clones, otherwise
                    called identical twins, are the same person, even though
they share an
                    identical set of genes. They have two different brains
and experience the
                    world from two different points of view. Human
brains--malleable, fluid,
                    flexible, changing--not static genes, are the real
essence of what defines us
                    as people. We are not mere meat puppets at the mercy of
our genes. In
                    fact, with biotech it might better be said that our
genes are now at the
                    mercy of our minds.

                    Leon Kass is disheartened by this prospect. "We triumph
over nature's
                    unpredictabilities only to subject ourselves,
tragically, to the still greater
                    unpredictability of our capricious wills and our fickle
opinions," writes
                    Kass in the September issue of Commentary. In other
words, he is against
                    human freedom because he doesn't think we can handle it.
Ultimately,
                    Kass wants to preserve the "freedom" of some portion of
humanity to be
                    miserable, sick, and unhappy. But if they were truly
free, would people
                    choose to suffer or to subject their children to such
suffering? Not likely.

                    Kass does have a point, however, when he writes in
Commentary, "Even
                    people who might otherwise welcome the growth of genetic
knowledge
                    and technology are worried about the coming power of
geneticists, genetic
                    engineers, and, in particular, governmental authorities
armed with genetic
                    technology."

                    There is a threat of government control. Some
intellectuals are already
                    succumbing to the temptation of government-supported and
mandated
                    eugenics, lest the benefits of genetic engineering be
spread unequally.
                    "Laissez-faire eugenics will emerge from the free
choices of millions of
                    parents," warns Time magazine columnist Robert Wright.
He then
                    concludes, "The only way to avoid Huxleyesque social
stratification may
                    be for government to get into the eugenics business."

                    Clearly we must be on guard against any attempts to
harness this new
                    technology to government-mandated ends. But a Brave New
World of
                    government eugenics is not an inevitable consequence of
biomedical
                    progress. It depends instead on whether we leave
individuals free to make
                    decisions about their biological futures or whether, in
the name of equality
                    or of control, we give that power to centralized
bureaucracies. Huxley's
                    world had no "laissez-faire eugenics" emerging from free
choice; Brave New
                    World is about a centrally planned society.

                    A biological future without a plan is exactly what
scares critics on both the
                    right and the left. "Though well-equipped [through
biotech], we know not
                    who we are or where we are going," Kass fearfully
writes. If we know not
                    who we are, surely advances in biotech are helping us to
understand more
                    completely who we are. As for where we are going, the
fact that we don't
                    know is why we go. Over the horizon of human discovery
Kass sees a
                    territory marked, like the maps of yore, "Here be
monsters." To avoid the
                    supposed monsters, Kass wants humanity to stay quietly
at home with its
                    old conceptions, technologies, traditions, and limited
hopes.

                    If we use biotech to help future generations to become
healthier, smarter,
                    and perhaps even happier, have we "imposed" our wills on
them? Will we
                    have deprived them of the ability to flourish as full
human beings? To
                    answer yes to these questions is to adopt Rousseau's
view of humanity as
                    a race of happy savages who have been degraded by
civilization. The fact
                    is that previous generations have "imposed" all sorts of
technologies and
                    institutions on us. Thank goodness, because by any
reasonable measure
                    we are far freer than our ancestors. Our range of
choices in work, spouses,
                    communities, medical treatments, transportation--the
list is endless--are
                    incomparably vaster than theirs. Like earlier
technologies, biotech will
                    liberate future generations from today's limitations and
offer them a much
                    wider scope of freedom. This is the gift we will give
them. Like all
                    technologies, biotech could be abused, but using it is
not, as Kass and Paul
                    Johnson would have us believe, the same as abusing it.

                    Scientific facts will not resolve these issues. On the
one hand, people who
                    see human genes as the defining essence of humanity will
object to stem
                    cell research and a good deal else in the coming biotech
revolution. One
                    the other hand, people who see human beings as defined
essentially by
                    their minds will have fewer moral objections.

                    At a hearing earlier this year, Edward Furton, who works
at the National
                    Catholic Bioethics Center, asked the National Bioethics
Advisory
                    Commission to "please remember in your deliberations
that millions of
                    your fellow citizens hold that the human embryo is a
human life worthy of
                    the protection of the law." He added, "As a result of
the tainted origin,
                    many Americans who have deeply held moral objections to
embryo
                    destruction may choose not to receive any benefits from
this new research."

                    No one is suggesting that people should be forced to use
medicines that
                    they find morally objectionable. Perhaps some day
different treatment
                    regimens will be available to accommodate the different
values and beliefs
                    held by patients. One can imagine one medicine for
Christian Scientists
                    (minimal recourse to antibiotics, etc.), another for
Jehovah's Witnesses (no
                    use of blood products or blood transfusions), yet
another for Roman
                    Catholics (no use of treatments derived from human
embryonic stem cells),
                    and one for those who wish to take the fullest advantage
of all biomedical
                    discoveries.

                    In a sense, the battle over the future of biotech --and,
if Fukuyama is
                    correct, the future of humanity--is between those who
fear what humans,
                    having eaten of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil,
might do with
                    biotech and those who think that it is high time that we
also eat of the Tree
                    of Life.

                    Science Correspondent Ronald Bailey is the editor of
Earth Report 2000: The
                    True State of the Planet Revisited just published by
McGraw-Hill.

Unfortunately this little blurb is all that was posted on Wed. ENN.  At
least the scientific folks are doing some investigating of alt med using
empirical methods:

  Blood flow in brain shows acupuncture relieves pain
Acupuncture relieves pain and a scan of brain activity proves it,
researchers said today. Doctors at the University of Medicine and Dentistry
of New Jersey induced pain in 12 subjects by using a filament to touch
their upper lips, then detected the associated increases in brain activity
with a magnetic resonance imaging device.

We would like to remind you of this upcoming event.

Regular Meeting

Date: Saturday, December 04, 1999
Time: 03:00PM - 05:00PM CST (GMT-06:00)

This is a reminder of the next REASON meeting coming up over the
weekend.  As usual, we'll be at the main library downtown at
14th and Douglas streets.  Hope to see everybody there!

Find the clean copy at http://ScitechDaily.com/

                              What Do You Say to a Naked
                              Alien?
                              For starters, ask it about its mother and father.

                              By Joel Achenbach
                              Posted Monday, Nov. 22, 1999, at 4:30 p.m.

                                     The spaceship comes down in your
backyard, crushing a
                              bed of petunias, and out steps the alien. This
is always an
                              awkward social moment. What, exactly, do you
say to someone
                              who may hold the secrets to the universe?
After, that is, you
                              finish quivering and quaking and wondering if
he (she? it?) is
                              going to suck you down like a raw oyster?
                                     Obviously you would want to get some
information out of
                              the alien--no easy trick, to judge from most
alien-encounter
                              narratives. The aliens who show up in the
middle of the night
                              and abduct people are notoriously stingy with
information. They
                              never solve any mathematical equations. They
don't offer up
                              the long-sought simple and "elegant" proof of
Fermat's Last
                              Theorem. They don't tell us where Jimmy Hoffa
is buried.

                    When aliens do communicate with humans, they're
                    always a bit like the Michael Rennie alien in the 1951
                    movie The Day the Earth Stood Still: They tell us to
               behave. They say we need to get our act together. They're
               self-help gurus. A fellow named Darryl Anka channeled an
               alien named Bashar for many years, and Bashar, though
               wise, didn't really have much data to offer, just advice on how
               to live a better life. (Anka, when I last spoke to him, said
he'd
               given up channeling Bashar and was working on designing a
               UFO theme park.)
                      There's a scene in Carl Sagan's excellent novel Contact
               when Ellie Arroway, his protagonist, whooshes down some
               kind of intragalactic "wormhole" and winds up on a sunny
               beach, face to face with an alien. The alien, annoyingly,
               doesn't seem to know who built that wormhole subway
               system. Eventually Arroway gets around to asking what is no
               doubt her most urgent question: "I want to know what you
               think of us, what you really think."

                                  Wow. That's really the wrong question
there. That's
                                  blowing it big time. This gal crosses half
the galaxy and
                                  is tossed and rattled around to within an
inch of her life,
                              and when it's over she starts fishing for a
compliment!
                                     No, a better question to an alien would
be: What are you
                              made of? Are you based on carbon and liquid
water? Do you
                              have DNA as your information-bearing molecule
or something
                              like it?
                                     Stephen Jay Gould put it this way, on
Timothy Ferris'
                              recent PBS program Life Beyond Earth: "What's
your
                              biochemistry?"
                                     Some people may argue that other
questions should
                              precede the biological ones. They might, for
example, choose a
                              political question, asking who, exactly, is in
charge of this
                              universe. Or they may skew theological, and
ask if there's a
                              God and what exactly he's got on his mind.
                                     A good argument could be made that a
physicist should
                              pose the first batch of questions to an alien,
asking whether it's
                              possible to go faster than the speed of light
and whether there
                              are other universes outside our own. The
physicist and the alien
                              would no doubt get embroiled in a discussion
of string theory,
                              and soon they'd be jotting down
incomprehensible equations
                              about 10-dimensional vibrating loops. Maybe at
the end of the
                              encounter we'd figure out how to yank free
energy out of the
                              quantum vacuum. We'd have a new trick for
cooking a hot dog.

                   My feeling is that the biology questions trump everything
else.
                   We know essentially nothing about life beyond Earth.
                   Because we are ignorant of other biological systems, we
               have no context for understanding Earth life, for knowing to
what
               extent the life we see around us is, on the cosmic scale,
relatively
               ordinary or totally freakish.
                      We don't know, for example, if Earthlike planets are
common.
               We look around our own solar system, and what appears to be
               common are planets that have no life whatsoever. We also see
               signs that Venus and Mars were once more hospitable to life and
               over many hundreds of millions of years became inhospitable. Bad
               stuff happens to good planets. It'd be nice to know more
about that
               trend.

                                  We also don't know how life originates and
to what extent it
                                  evolves in an orderly pattern. The debate
in Kansas over
                                  the teaching of evolution misses the real
debates within
                              the field. There are those who argue
passionately that life
                              originated with a single replicated molecule.
Another camp
                              favors the notion that it began with a kind of
garbage bag of
                              molecules that more or less eased its way from
nonlife to life.
                              And the biggest question may be to what extent
evolution is
                              divergent or convergent. Divergence gives us a
bewildering
                              variety of life; convergence gives rise,
repeatedly, to certain
                              anatomical features, like wings and eyeballs.
You can make an
                              argument that intelligence is an extremely
unlikely, random,
                              quirky event in terrestrial biology, or you
can make the
                              counter-argument that you can see intelligence
coming down
                              the pike from many millions of years in
advance. On that issue
                              hinges the abundance of intelligent life in
the universe.
                                     How likely is it that life elsewhere
will go through the same
                              evolutionary leaps as life on Earth? To take
one obscure but
                              critical example: Life on Earth remained
entirely one-celled for
                              3 billion years. For at least half of that
time, those cells didn't
                              have a nucleus. They couldn't use oxygen in
their metabolism.
                              They were pitiful even by microbial standards.
So, how lucky
                              was the evolutionary leap from prokaryotes
(non-nucleated
                              microbes) to eukaryotes (nucleated, and using
oxygen)? It
                              happened here about 2.1 billion years ago. Was
that our lucky
                              break? Or does life, in general, figure out
the trick of using
                              oxygen and growing big and brawny?
                                     And, of course, we don't really know
what we're talking
                              about when we talk about "intelligence." We
tend to think of
                              creatures that use technology and language.
But that could be
                              shortsighted. Maybe most intelligent creatures
are dolphinoids,
                              blissfully swimming in an alien ocean with
little interest in
                              building spaceships.

                Imagine for a moment that we could see the universe through the
                eyes of an alien creature. Would the universe look more or less
                the same? Or would we be confused, dazzled, and feel as though
               we were hallucinating?
                      Are the aliens interested in the same things that
interest us?
               Could we carry on a meaningful conversation?
                      We should prepare ourselves for finding something out
there
               that's totally unexpected. And we have to prepare for bad
news, or
               at least bad news in the context of our Star Trek fantasy. We
may
               have wildly overestimated the abundance of extraterrestrial
               civilizations. Carl Sagan thought there were millions such
               civilizations in existence right now in our own galaxy. The
actual
               number may be a handful. Or we could be, as Sagan's old
               collaborator I.S. Shklovskii argued, "functionally alone."
Not literally
               alone, just so isolated that there's no practical way to make
contact
               of any kind with another intelligent species.

                                  Whatever we do, we shouldn't take
ourselves for granted.
                                  There may be something extremely rare and
wonderful
                                  about a world in which water splashes on
the surface,
                              and where life survives for nearly 4 billion
years, where it has
                              the leisure to evolve and, through natural
selection, explore the
                              possibilities of complexity.
                                     The search for life beyond Earth always
doubles back to
                              our own existence. Why are we this way? How
did we come
                              about? How special is it to be a thinking
organism? This is the
                              kind of stuff you'd want to discuss with the
aliens. And
                              remember, they like it when you compliment
them on the really
                              cool spaceship

Next time you're in London, be sure to check this one out:


                      Darwin Centre — The Natural History Museum in London
has begun
                      construction of a new exhibition and science building
that is to be called the
                      Darwin Centre. The hall will house a major display
comprised of millions of
                      preserved scientific specimens that have never been
seen by the public
                      before, some of which were collected by naturalist
Charles Darwin and
                      explorer Captain Cook. The extraordinary specimens,
ranging from worms
                      to alligators, are all preserved in alcohol in
bottles, jars and tanks. They
                      have been collected from around the world — some from
as long ago as
                      the 1750s. Curators at the Darwin Centre plan to offer
an interactive
                      experience to visitors, where they will not only view
the display but also
                      meet the scientists who use the specimens in their
research and witness
                      what happens "behind the scenes." The complex is
expected to begin
                      accepting visitors in the summer of 2002.

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/

For the sake of public discussion:  A friend of mine in Lincoln (Chris
Moon, <camoon@...>) recently wrote and posted a review of Darwin's
"Origin of Species" on amazon.com.  I thought you all might be interested
.... The original copy (with other reviews) is at:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0517123207/103-3379027-7098264

********************************************************************

It feels odd reviewing such a historic work as The Origin of Species, yet
some warnings must be espoused regarding this volume as Darwin's work is
often cited as the central document (along with the bible) in an argument
over creation versus evolution. It is bad enough that people who so often
are the most vociferous in this debate (on both sides) are relatively
unread, but worse is that The Evolution of Species as a scientific manifesto
is really of very little value today. Although Darwin was a brilliant
naturalist, it would be as improper to call a scientist who studies
evolution a Darwinist as it would be to call all computers Apple II's.
Darwin has no working model of genetics, and while he proposed many
excellent hypothesis about various forms of selection--he even wrote a book
on behavior and facial expressions in animals!--we would be hard pressed to
find Darwin as a citation in any of the modern literature. My rating of four
stars is not entirely fair. I feel that people who wish to learn about
evolution should seek out modern authors (I strongly recommend John
Maynard-Smith's 'Theory of Evolution' as it is robust in its degree of
current biological theory and will leave the reader not only understanding
the biological theory of evolution, but also a lot of general biology.) On
the other hand, if you are a person who is interested in history and in
people, do read Origin or perhaps The Voyage of the Beagle (which I imagine
must be an interesting read). Darwin sets a fantastic example of the
dedicated naturalist, unbiased and thorough. His theories, which came later,
were elegant--to such an extent that many of the detractors (even modern
day) do not understand them. Darwin's biogeographical arguments for instance
(I am thinking here about 'Darwin's Finches) stand unmolested by the
diatribe of those who would make poor of a man just because they disagree
with him. Neither do his opposers note Darwin's unwillingness to bring forth
his theory. Truth be told, I care little whether or not people believe in
evolutionary theory, only so much as they might at least understand how his
ideas, humbly presented, changed the entire landscape of science. But most
importantly I think people miss that Darwin was a good scientist--and there
are a lot of bad ones. Science has recently taken the turn toward being all
experiment and theory driven, with many of the funds in biology going more
to 'gene splitters' or whatever you might want to call them than toward what
little remains of descriptive science. Indeed it seems there is little room
left for naturalists anymore--even to an extent that naturalists are
sometimes not considered scientists. There are no more scientific works that
are purely descriptive, or they are very rare, or worse done mostly for
placement on coffee tables and not for the furthering of our understanding
of the natural world. Darwin then is almost a sort of fatalist to his own
kind; ushering in the modern age of a unified biology, he inadvertantly
relegating the Conrad Lorenz's, the Jane Goodall's and (fill in the blank of
your favorite naturalist) to antiquity or at least near-poverty. It might
also be nice to remember that Darwin was above all interested in
understanding the natural world, something he shared with a long history of
zoologists before him who were of course creationists--and I see more in
common between these people then I do between Darwin and the modern day
evolutionist. Given all of this it seems very unfortunate the connotations
and burden that Darwin's name has take on. Instead, it would be very kind if
the name Darwin were flung about with the sort of respect I think it is due
instead of attached to ugly terms like 'social' or as though the man had
little red horns and a tail.

I don't have enough knowledge of the subject matter, but surely someone else
does?

http://24.124.29.16/interaction$/forum/turnleft/152358821

Clean copy with hot links:  http://ScitechDaily.com/

N O V E M B E R  1 9 9 9

The Social Construction of What?
by Ian Hacking.
Harvard Univ. Press.  261 pages. $29.95.

                                     Phony Science Wars
                                     by Richard Rorty

                     OCCASIONALLY we read
                     about a war that is supposed to be
                     going on among philosophers. The
                     war, we are told, is between those
                     who believe in truth and rationality
                     and those who do not. The latter --
                     the bad guys -- are sometimes
                     called postmodernists, sometimes
                     irrationalists and relativists, and
                     sometimes social constructionists.
                     The good guys believe that science
                     tells us the way things really are; they take the
paradigm of
                     rationality to be scientific inquiry, just as the
paradigm of truth is
                     the result of that inquiry.

                     Good guys such as E. O. Wilson and Paul Gross ask us to
see
                     natural science as a model for other human activities.
They are
                     deeply suspicious of philosophers of science (including
Bruno
                     Latour and the late Thomas Kuhn) who describe conflicts
                     between scientific theories in the same terms they use to
                     describe conflicts between moral or political opinions.
Wilson
                     and Gross see a big difference between finding and
making --
                     between efforts to learn how things really are and
efforts to
                     cobble together artificial entities such as commercial
credit and
                     constitutional democracy. Their insistence that natural
science
                     enjoys a special relationship to reality has been even
more
                     vociferous since the "Sokal hoax," a few years ago, when a
                     scientist named Alan Sokal made fools of some
postmodernist
                     nonscientists by getting them to take a rubbishy bit of
                     pseudo-science seriously.

                     Bad guys, like the people Sokal fooled, think that
"postmodern
                     philosophy" -- roughly, the anti-metaphysical doctrines
common
                     to Nietzsche, Foucault, Heidegger, and Derrida -- has
                     "unmasked" science. Starting with the claim that
homosexuality,
                     the Negro race, and womanliness are social
constructions, they
                     go on to suggest that quarks and genes probably are too.
                     "Ideology" and "power," they say, have infiltrated sterile
                     laboratories and lurk between the lines of arcane
journals of
                     mathematical physics. The very idea of scientific
objectivity,
                     they say, is self-deceptive and fraudulent.

                     Members of a third group find themselves caught in the
middle,
                     agreeing that we might be better off without the term
"objective
                     reality" but thinking, too, that we could do without
"social
                     construction." They believe neither that science has a
special
                     relationship to reality nor that its pretensions need
to be
                     unmasked. The community of natural scientists is, they
think, a
                     model of intellectual rectitude, and yet its virtues --
willingness to
                     hear the other side, to think through the issues, to
examine the
                     evidence -- have nothing to do with the fact that the
objects
                     natural scientists investigate are found rather than
made. The
                     same virtues, after all, are found among judges and
classical
                     philologists, who investigate objects that are made
rather than
                     found.

                     These philosophers can agree with the social
constructionists
                     that notions like "the homosexual" and "the Negro" and
"the
                     female" are best seen not as inevitable classifications
of human
                     beings but rather as inventions that have done more
harm than
                     good. But they are not sure that "X is a social
construction" adds
                     much to "talking about X is not inevitable, and there
are probably
                     better ways of talking." They see the point of
Foucault's famous
                     observation that in the nineteenth century
homosexuality was
                     "transposed from the practice of sodomy onto a kind of
interior
                     androgyny, a hermaphroditism of the soul." Foucault
went on to
                     say, "The sodomite had been a temporary aberration; the
                     homosexual was now a species." They agree that we would
                     have been better off with the commonsensical thought
that some
                     men prefer to have sex with other men than with the
                     sophisticated attempt to ground this preference in a
deep, dark
                     psychopathology. But they think that the energy Foucault's
                     disciples have put into arguing that something is a social
                     construction would be better put into proposing some
alternative
                     social construction: a more effective and less damaging
way of
                     talking about what is going on. All our controversial
ways of
                     talking are, to be sure, choices that society has made
about how
                     to classify things. In that sense these classifications
are of
                     course socially constructed. But the interesting
question is
                     whether anybody can suggest a better classification.

                     IAN Hacking -- the most intellectually curious and
imaginative
                     philosopher of science now writing -- is a member of
the third
                     group. In this spirited and eminently readable book he
suggests
                     that the combatants climb down from the level of
abstraction on
                     which they debate such topics as the nature of truth,
the nature
                     of science, and the nature of rationality, and focus
instead on
                     three questions: Are the best scientific theories of
our day the
                     inevitable results of serious inquiry, or might science
have taken
                     a different turn and still had equal success in
building bombs, say,
                     or curing diseases? Do these theories tell us about the
intrinsic
                     structure of reality, or are they simply the best tools
available for
                     predicting and controlling nature? Are the
longest-lasting and
                     most frequently relied upon theories stable because
they match a
                     stable reality, or because scientists get together to
keep them
                     stable, as politicians get together to keep existing
political
                     arrangements intact? Philosophers like Latour and Kuhn,
wary
                     of the idea that reality has an intrinsic nature that
scientific
                     inquiry is destined to reveal, are inclined to say that
science
                     might have done as good a job if it had never come up with
                     either quarks or genes. As they see it, scientific
progress is like
                     biological evolution: no particular life-form is
destined to emerge,
                     and lots of different ones might have turned out to be
equally
                     good at survival. In this view, scientific theories are
tools that do
                     a job. They do it well, but some other tools might
perhaps have
                     done the same job equally well.

                     As Hacking says, many scientists find this view absurd. He
                     himself is dubious about it, but he is inclined to be
even more
                     dubious about the idea that reality has an intrinsic
structure that
                     science accurately describes. These latter doubts are
aroused by
                     the notorious, persistent, seemingly insoluble
perplexities to
                     which the notion of "intrinsic" gives rise. The most
familiar of
                     these is the question How can we ever hope to compare
reality
                     as it is in itself, naked and undescribed, with our
descriptions of
                     it? Many philosophers have given up on the notions of
"intrinsic"
                     and "in itself," as a result of their failure to answer
that question.

                     The stalemate that Hacking brilliantly describes but
does not try
                     to break is between many scientists' intuition of the
inevitability
                     of quarks and many philosophers' suspicion that the
claim of
                     inevitability makes sense only if the idea of the
intrinsic structure
                     of reality makes sense. This teeter-totter between
conflicting
                     intuitions is, Hacking rightly says, a genuine
intellectual problem.
                     Which answer one gives to his third question -- about
the source
                     of the stability of the most reliable bits of science
-- is likely to be
                     a matter of which side of the seesaw has most recently
                     descended.

                     These alternating intuitions have been in play ever since
                     Protagoras said "Man is the measure of all things" and
Plato
                     rejoined that the measure must instead be something
nonhuman,
                     unchanging, and capitalized -- something like The Good,
or The
                     Will of God, or The Intrinsic Nature of Physical Reality.
                     Scientists who, like Steven Weinberg, have no doubt
that reality
                     has an eternal, unchanging, intrinsic structure which
natural
                     science will eventually discover are the heirs of Plato.
                     Philosophers like Kuhn, Latour, and Hacking think that
                     Protagoras had a point, and that the argument is not
yet over.

                     The most vocal and inflamed participants in the
so-called science
                     wars are treating the latest version of this fine old
philosophical
                     controversy as a big deal. In the very long run,
perhaps, it will
                     prove to be one. Maybe someday the idea of human beings
                     answering to an independent authority called How Things
Are in
                     Themselves will be obsolete. In a thoroughly
de-Platonized, fully
                     Protagorean culture the only answerability human beings
would
                     recognize would be to one another. It would never occur
to them
                     that "the objective" could mean more than "the agreed-upon
                     upshot of argument." In such a culture we would have as
little
                     use for the idea of the intrinsic structure of physical
reality as for
                     that of the will of God. We would view both as
unfortunate and
                     obsolete social constructions.

                     BUT there is no hurry, no urgent need to bring this
perpetual
                     seesaw to rest. Scientists who agree with Kuhn are not
about to
                     do anything very different from what their colleagues
who agree
                     with Weinberg do. Their disagreements come up only in
                     after-hours chat, not during the daily grind in the lab.
                     Analogously, politicians who think that human rights are
                     somehow built into the ahistorical structure of the
human soul
                     usually propose the same policies as those who think
that human
                     rights are an admirable recent invention. In the short
term,
                     philosophical differences just do not matter that much.
In neither
                     science nor politics is philosophical correctness, any
more than
                     theological correctness, a requirement for useful work.

                     Hacking's book will help its readers understand why
they need
                     not worry that civilization will collapse if Nietzsche
and Foucault
                     continue to be taken seriously, and also why those who
describe
                     themselves as postmodern (by now a somewhat musty
                     adjective) are not as radical, original, or relevant to
moral and
                     political deliberation as they sometimes think. The
science wars
                     are in part a product of deep and long-lasting clashes
of intuition,
                     but mostly they are just media hype -- journalists
inciting
                     intellectuals to diabolize one another. Diabolization
may be
                     helpful in keeping intellectuals aroused and active,
but it need not
                     be taken very seriously.

                     Hacking's book is an admirable example of both useful
                     debunking and thoughtful and original philosophizing -- an
                     unusual combination of good sense and technical
sophistication.
                     After he has said his say about the science wars, Hacking
                     concludes with fascinating essays on, among other things,
                     fashions in mental disease, the possible genesis of
dolomitic rock
                     from the activity of nanobacteria, government financing of
                     weapons research, and the much-discussed question of
whether
                     the Hawaiians thought Captain Cook was a god. In each he
                     makes clear the contingency of the questions scientists
find
                     themselves asking, and the endless complexity of the
                     considerations that lead them to ask one question
rather than
                     another. The result helps the reader see how little
light is shed on
                     actual scientific controversies by either
traditionalist triumphalists
                     or postmodernist unmaskers.


                     Richard Rorty is a professor of comparative literature at
                     Stanford University. His most recent book is Achieving Our
                     Country: Leftist Thought in Twentieth-Century America
                     (1998).

                     Copyright © 1999 by The Atlantic Monthly Company. All
rights reserved.
                     The Atlantic Monthly; November 1999; Phony Science Wars
- 99.11; Volume 284, No. 5;
                     page 120-122.

Chris, this is in response to your questions about the Student R.E.A.S.O.N.
constitution.  Basically, the school gives us this general form consisting
of all the points we must cover (statement of purpose, election of officers,
etc.) and where they must appear in the consitution.  If you or anyone else
would like to contribute your ideas, I'd love to hear it.

I think it would be a good idea to show off the features available to
members of the listserv at the next meeting.  The catalog computers upstairs
in the library have web access.  I am usually at UNO Saturday mornings, and
I wouldn't mind being shown around the listserv, so if you can make it, let
me know.

Due to e-mail overload, please take me off the REASON mailing list.
						 Steve Lakomy

On Mon, 22 Nov 1999 22:19:44 CST "Sean Griffith"
<reason_correspond@...> writes:
> From: "Sean Griffith" <reason_correspond@...>
>
>
> I thought you didn't like it cause it DIDN'T tell you who the emails
> were
> from... :)
>
> We can keep track of who's on the list by Chris sending us notice of
>
> membership changes...we already know who's on the list right now,
> thanks to
> Chris.
>
> >From: "Jim Bechtel" <jbechtel@...>
> >Reply-To: Reason-Omaha@onelist.com
> >To: "lotsa folks" <Reason-Omaha@onelist.com>
> >Subject: Fw: [Reason-Omaha] Re: Testing
> >Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 08:35:02 -0600
> >
> >PLUS look how it shows who this is from! I thought it was supposed
> to show
> >it as being from Reason-Omaha@onelist.com
> >
> >----------
> >From: Jim Bechtel <jbechtel@...>
> >To: lotsa folks <Reason-Omaha@onelist.com>
> >Subject: [Reason-Omaha] Re: Testing
> >Date: Monday, November 22, 1999 8:32 AM
> >
> >From: "Jim Bechtel" <jbechtel@...>
> >
> >I don't like it.
> >
> >It brings up a prompt asking whether I mean Old Skeptics, Mister
> "lotsa
> >folks," or Skeptics.
> >
> >Back to the drawing board.
> >
> >Jim B
> >
> >Community email addresses:
> >   Post message: Reason-Omaha@onelist.com
> >   Subscribe:    Reason-Omaha-subscribe@onelist.com
> >   Unsubscribe:  Reason-Omaha-unsubscribe@onelist.com
> >   List owner:   Reason-Omaha-owner@onelist.com
> >
> >Shortcut URL to this page:
> >   http://www.onelist.com/community/Reason-Omaha
> >
> >
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >Community email addresses:
> >   Post message: Reason-Omaha@onelist.com
> >   Subscribe:    Reason-Omaha-subscribe@onelist.com
> >   Unsubscribe:  Reason-Omaha-unsubscribe@onelist.com
> >   List owner:   Reason-Omaha-owner@onelist.com
> >
> >Shortcut URL to this page:
> >   http://www.onelist.com/community/Reason-Omaha
> ><< text3.html >>
>
> --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor
> ----------------------------
>
> Got a question about biology? Chemistry? Dinosaur fossils?
> Ask a real expert at www.ExpertCentral.com
> With over 4700 experts, the Web's largest question and answer
> resource
> <a href=" http://clickme.onelist.com/ad/expertcentral9 ">Click
> Here</a>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Community email addresses:
>   Post message: Reason-Omaha@onelist.com
>   Subscribe:    Reason-Omaha-subscribe@onelist.com
>   Unsubscribe:  Reason-Omaha-unsubscribe@onelist.com
>   List owner:   Reason-Omaha-owner@onelist.com
>
> Shortcut URL to this page:
>   http://www.onelist.com/community/Reason-Omaha

AAAS Evolution Resources
http://www.aaas.org/spp/dser/evolution/
Dialogue on Science, Ethics, and Religion (DoSER)
http://www.aaas.org/spp/dser/default.htm

The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
Dialogue on Science, Ethics, and Religion (DoSER) provides this
Website offering "resources on the scientific content of evolutionary
theory and its place in education; historical, philosophical, legal
and religious perspectives on evolution; and commentary on current
issues" (including the AAAS Board Statement on the Kansas State Board
of Education decision). The site is organized into seven main
sections: Current Issues, Educational Resources, Scientific
Resources, Perspectives, Court Cases (including the "Balanced
Treatment" Law), Historical Documents (by Darwin), and Epic of
Evolution (essays from a forthcoming volume). Documents at the site
reflect current thinking by the leading scholars in the field of
evolution and provide historical context for evaluating current
thinking. A careful collection of related links augments each
section. For further information, see the Dialogue on Science,
Ethics, and Religion (DoSER) homepage.

Chris, I thought you said Gary was off the list.  I sent something to
Reason yesterday, and his name's still on.  dave.

From http://www.the-scientist.library.upenn.edu/

Volume 13, #23
                                         The Scientist
                                         The Scientist

        November 22, 1999

           Missing Links and the Origin of Biochemical
                                       Complexity

Author: Barry A. Palevitz
Date: November 22, 1999

For years, evolution's critics picked on supposed gaps in the historical
record--missing links between different forms or species
in biologists' evolutionary lineages. Evolutionary leaps, say from
dinosaurs to birds, are inconceivable without intermediates, so
the reasoning went. Finding key fossils is no easy matter, but creationists
interpreted the absence of evidence as evidence of
absence--no links, no evolution, only supernatural design.

Paleontologists were patient, though. They predicted that the feathers so
important in bird flight were probably co-opted from
another function, most likely thermal insulation. If that's true,
scientists should eventually find fossils of feathered flightless
animals. Their patience paid off over the past few years as China's
Liaoning province yielded spectacular specimens of
feathered dinosaurs.1 And birds aren't alone. The same painstaking process
of scientific discovery is illuminating the evolutionary
history of flowering plants, whales, snakes, and--dare we say it--humans.

Enter Biochemistry

But never say die--if cats have nine lives, creationism has at least a
dozen. Having lost the fossil wars, creationists turned to
biochemical pathways and subcellular structures. How could a biochemical
pathway, which may involve 20 or more separate
steps catalyzed by a score of enzymes, evolve? They don't, according to a
new breed of "neocreationists" rallying under the
banner of Lehigh University's Michael Behe. Unfortunately, the argument is
familiar. Ergo, surely a metabolic pathway with a
specific function is "irreducibly complex,"2 making stepwise evolution
unlikely. Remove the feathers--er, an enzyme--and it
doesn't fly. Right?

Wrong, say biochemists and evolutionary biologists. Now philosopher of
science Niall Shanks has added his two cents. With
colleague Karl Joplin at the University of East Tennessee in Johnson City,
Shanks argued that biological systems exhibit
"redundant complexity," not irreducible complexity, which makes Behe's idea
a big oversimplification.3 Enzymes come in
multiple forms, or isozymes, that produce a variety of outcomes. Likewise,
genes duplicate and specialize, thereby creating new
pathways and functions.4 The evidence is obvious in a host of multigene
families governing all sorts of processes. Redundancy is
"like a scaffold" that supports pathways in the making, explains Shanks.

In essence, evolution co-opts parts from preexisting hardware--what Stephen
J. Gould called exaptation.5 Behe proposed a
"special kind of complexity that cannot be explained in naturalistic
terms," says Shanks, but "it can be explained naturally
without magic or hocus pocus."

Eyes on Bacteria

The lens crystallins of eyes are some of the best examples of exaptations.
Crystallins lend optical properties to lens cells
important in light transmission. Various proteins have specialized as
crystallins during eye evolution, some resulting from gene
duplication followed by specialization, others retaining their original
metabolic activities in a process Joram Piatigorsky of the
National Eye Institute called recruitment by gene sharing.6 Lactate
dehydrogenase, aldehyde dehydrogenase, and enolase have
all been put to work as lens crystallins, while still acting as enzymes.

If the really important question in eye evolution isn't gross anatomy but
molecular pathways, as Behe believes, the answer isn't in
intelligent design or other supernatural handwaving, but more biochemistry
and genetics. That also holds true for nitrogen-fixing
rhizobial bacteria that inhabit the root nodules of legumes. According to
J. Peter Young of York University, United Kingdom,
rhizobia may have borrowed genes from each other, fungi, and even host
plants to patch together new biosynthetic pathways for
nod factors, signaling molecules that let roots know the bacteria are
around.7

Biochemical Irreducibility--The Deep Freeze

A team led by Chi-Hing Cheng, senior research scientist in the Department
of Ecology, Ethology and Evolution at the
University of Illinois, Urbana, recently uncovered one of the nicest
examples of biochemical exaptation, in fish that thrive in
Antarctic waters where temperatures go below -2 degrees Celsius, lower than
the freezing point of their blood. Plants and
animals manufacture a variety of antifreeze proteins that block the growth
of destructive ice crystals. Notothenioids like the
Antarctic toothfish make antifreeze glycoproteins (AFGPs) that vary in
molecular weight from 2,600 to 34,000 daltons. The fish
maintain high levels of glycoprotein in the blood because they have
multiple genes, each encoding a "polyprotein" that's chopped
into numerous AFGPs.

AFGPs consist of a repeating three-amino acid sequence consisting of
threonine alanine-alanine. With two sugars attached to
each threonine, AFGPs are the fish's version of ethylene glycol. But how
did such unusual proteins arise? How did notothenioids
get their antifreeze genes as Antarctic waters froze 10­15 million years
ago? Cheng's group discovered that AFGP genes
evolved from an ancestral gene encoding trypsinogen, a pancreatic protein
that cleaves to produce the digestive enzyme
trypsin.8 The molecular footprints were obvious: AFGP and trypsinogen genes
share significant sequence identity at several
locations.

What clinched the story was Cheng's finding that trypsinogen contains a
three-amino acid sequence with no known function in
the enzyme. You guessed it: threonine alanine-alanine. In constructing
AFGP, the tripeptide reiterated again and again, probably
because the repetition had antifreeze properties strongly selected by ice
cold water. Most of the rest of the trypsinogen gene
was discarded. By deleting parts of the trypsinogen gene and recruiting and
amplifying others, evolution did its borrowing act.

Now for the icing on the cake: The toothfish contains not only genes for
AFGP and trypsinogen, but a hybrid gene--a missing
link?--encoding both AFGP and trypsinogen.9 The AFGP part occurs exactly
where expected, near the beginning of the
trypsinogen portion of the gene that previously encoded the ancestral
tripeptide. Says Cheng, "We were able to catch
notothenioid AFGP evolution 'in action,' so to speak, because we believe
the protease-AFGP split is a rather recent event in the
evolutionary time scale." Cheng is now trying to find out if the hybrid
protein has trypsin activity.

Barry A. Palevitz (palevitz@...) is a contributing
editor for The Scientist.

References

    1.X. Xu et al., "A dromaeosaurid dinosaur with a filamentous integument
from the Yixian formation of China," Nature,
      401:262­6, Sept. 16, 1999.

    2.M.J. Behe, Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution,
New York, The Free Press, 1996.

    3.N. Shanks, K.H. Joplin, "Redundant complexity: a critical analysis of
intelligent design in biochemistry," Philosophy of
      Science, 66:268­82, June 1999.

    4.S. Ohno, Evolution by Gene Duplication, Berlin, Springer-Verlag, 1970.

    5.S.J. Gould, E.S. Vrba, "Exaptation--a missing term in the science of
form," Paleobiology, 8:4­15, 1982.

    6.J. Piatigorsky, G. Wistow, "The recruitment of crystallins: new
functions precede gene duplications," Science,
      252:1078­9, 1991.

    7.J.P. Young, "The evolution of rhizobia and their nodulation genes,"
XVI International Botanical Congress, 1999.

    8.L.B. Chen et al., "Evolution of antifreeze glycoprotein gene from a
trypsinogen gene in Antarctic notothenioid fish,"
      Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 94:3811­6, April 15,
1997.

    9.C.-H. Cheng, L. Chen, "Evolution of an antifreeze glycoprotein,"
Nature, 401:443­4, Sept. 30, 1999.

Thanks, I hadn't seen this.  dave.

At 10:26 PM 11/23/99 CST, you wrote:
>From: "REASON - Omaha" <reason01@...>
>
>     This just came in on the Reason line (our old "reason01@..."
>address).  I thought y'all might be interested in seeing it, especially our
>one Wisconsin-based list member.
>Regards,  Chris
>
>
>
>
>>From: "Erika Hedberg" <erikahedberg@...>
>>To: ashslistserve@...
>>Subject: Defending Science Education
>>Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 10:22:10 EST
>>
>>From: Dennis Coyier
>>
>>You may know that I just this month ushered through the Democratic Party of
>>Dane County (Wis.) a resolution defending science education.
>>
>>When I got the idea I cast a net.
>>
>>Many different voices chimed in.
>>
>>The whole thing took about 3 months from announcement to passing.
>>
>>Not only did it educate new people on this and other important issues, it
>>now moves on to the 2nd Congressional District and Wisconsin Democratic
>>Party where I hope it will do likewise.
>>
>>I don't know what good will come of it, but we've got to start someplace.
>>
>>It seems like the appropriate forum for bringing out the issues;  Where
>>better than a major party?
>>
>>We also passed the same night a resolution to oppose charter schools that
>>are not of and by the public.  This is important in trying to stop our
>>gotta-have-vouchers governor from privatizing education.  Tommy Thompson is
>>the poster boy of the Radical Right, you know.
>>
>>There seems so few people in high places talking about these things.
>>I think it's more important to talk to the leaders than talk to the herd.
>>
>>Two months before we passed one defending a Naturist beach from closure by
>>Wisconsin Christians United.  That got my photo in the extremist group's
>>newsletter this month.
>>
>>My resolution to remove Under God from the Pledge failed by a wide margin.
>>There just weren't enough people with the gutz.
>>
>>I produce a web page at http://www.execpc.com/~dcoy/PEDS and
>>http://www.ececpc.com/~dcoy/rightwatch
>>
>>DPDC is at http://www.danedems.org
>>
>>The Wisconsin Democratic Party states in its Platform, "We support strict
>>enforcement of the Constitutional principal of separation of church and
>>state."  I'd like to hold their feet to the fire and could sure use help.
>>
>>The State Party page is http://www.execpc.com/democrat/index.html
>>
>>The following is my last post to my "Evo Reso" team:
>>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>>-------------------------
>>
>>At 8:45 PM, November 11, 1999, the Democratic Party of Dane County (Wis.)
>>passed a resolution to address the introduction of religion-based ideas
>>into the public school science curriculum.
>>
>>The approved resolution, titled ON AVOIDING CONFUSION IN SCIENCE EDUCATION,
>>was escorted through local Democratic Party channels by Resolutions
>>Committee Chair William Scanlon and Executive Board member Dennis Coyier.
>>
>>That a resolution be drafted was proposed by Mr. Coyier before the August
>>11 DPDC membership, which meets 2nd Wednesdays in Madison.  The notion was
>>sparked by the Kansas anti-evolution School Board decision coupled with the
>>rumblings of creationists in progressive Wisconsin.
>>
>>By the September 8 DPDC meeting, it was announced that a draft was in the
>>final stages and that it would be presented to the membership the following
>>month, which complied with local Party bylaws.  This gave interested
>>parties ample opportunity to weigh in.
>>
>>On October 13, Draft 10-13-99 was brought to the floor for discussion and
>>potential vote.  Although a dozen or so members voiced approval, one or two
>>had reservations about the wording.  One thought referring to creationism
>>sounded potentially and unnecessarily confrontational to Christians and
>>another suggested barring creationism from classrooms might be considered a
>>form of censorship.
>>
>>Vital technical advice was generously provided throughout the process (and
>>is still coming in) by the following: Molleen Matsumura, Network Project
>>Director, National Center for Science Education; Andrew Petto, Editor, NCSE
>>Reports; Massimo Pigliucci, University of Tennessee, Patrice Legro
>>(National Academy of Science's;  Wayne Carley, National Association of
>>Biology Teachers'); Brian Charlesworth, Institute of Cell, Animal and
>>Population Biology, University of Edinburgh, Scotland, UK; Susan Mazer;
>>Mark Peterson;
>>Robert Siegfried, Americans United for Separation of Church and State,
>>Wisconsin Chapter; Carol Smith, Humanist Quest, Milwaukee; Jack Mayr,
>>Atheists and Agnostics of Wisconsin.
>>
>>By the time the final draft was ready for presentation to the forty DPDC
>>members at the October meeting, the "Evo Reso" had gone through dozens of
>>revisions, all in pursuit of the perfect product, one which would make the
>>important points and put to rest the reservations.
>>
>>The final moment brought resounding praise from earlier dissenters for a
>>much better worded product, with only one or two exceptions regarding
>>whether creationism in science classes violated Constitutional separation
>>of church and state, which took only a stroke of the pen to remedy.
>>
>>Following is the no-word-limit County Party version followed by the
>>100-word-maximum version, necessary when advancing the resolution to the
>>2nd Congressional District and the Democratic Party of Wisconsin.
>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------
>>
>>ON AVOIDING CONFUSION IN SCIENCE EDUCATION
>>
>>WHEREAS, evolution by natural process since reproducing biological entities
>>first occurred on Earth about 4 billion years ago is the scientifically
>>established basis for variability among organisms and speciation in the
>>biological world; and
>>
>>WHEREAS, there are a number of science-based theories concerning events at
>>the beginning of the universe, all of which agree that the universe began
>>more than about 10 billion years ago; and
>>
>>WHEREAS, there are religious points of view about the origins of species,
>>including humans, and the time of and events at the beginning of the
>>universe which are not scientifically based; and
>>
>>WHEREAS, there is a political movement in the country and Wisconsin with
>>the goal of mandating public schools to give equivalent treatment in
>>science textbooks and curricula to science-based theories of evolution and
>>the beginning of the universe, on one hand, and religion-based views about
>>these things on the other; and
>>
>>WHEREAS, the fundamental procedures of science exclude appeal to
>>religion-based views to explain phenomena of the natural world because such
>>appeals cannot be validated or invalidated objectively; and
>>
>>WHEREAS, presentation in public school science classes or textbooks of
>>religion-based views to explain phenomena of the natural world would
>>undermine students' learning about science;
>>
>>NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF DANE COUNTY
>>THAT, science-based theories of evolution and beginnings of the universe be
>>taught in science classes and presented in science textbooks in Wisconsin
>>without reference to religion-based ideas; and
>>
>>THAT, the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction and the public school
>>boards in the State authorize no textbook for use in science
>>classes in which religion-based ideas are presented; and
>>
>>THAT the Chair of the Party, or his or her designee, communicate the
>>position of the Party as expressed in this Resolution to the media in
>>Dane County, the superintendents and members of the school boards of school
>>districts that are entirely or partly within Dane County, the
>>Wisconsin Superintendent of Public Instruction, and the Democratic Members
>>of the Wisconsin Legislature; and
>>
>>THAT this Resolution, in the following form, be forwarded as a resolution
>>from the Democratic Party of Dane County for inclusion in the resolutions
>>packet at the 2nd Congressional District Convention and Democratic Party
>>Convention in 2000.
>>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>>--------------------------------
>>
>>ON AVOIDING CONFUSION IN SCIENCE EDUCATION (100-word limit)
>>
>>WHEREAS, evolution by natural processes is the scientifically established
>>asis for present species and several science-based theories explain the
>>universe's origin with natural phenomena; and
>>
>>Whereas, many religions have ideas about species and universe origins but
>>religion-based ideas and science-based theories are fundamentally
>>different; and
>>
>>Whereas, presentation in science classes and textbooks of religion-based
>>ideas on natural phenomena undermines science education;
>>
>>NOW, THEREFORE, WISCONSIN DEMOCRATS RESOLVE:
>>
>>Science-based theories of evolution and universe beginnings be presented in
>>science classes and text books in Wisconsin's public schools without
>>reference to religion-based ideas.
>>(Note: Because a whereas was deleted, there may be room here for
>>last-second adjusting before we proceed.)
>>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>--------------------------------
>>
>
>>Community email addresses:
>  Post message: Reason-Omaha@onelist.com
>  Subscribe:    Reason-Omaha-subscribe@onelist.com
>  Unsubscribe:  Reason-Omaha-unsubscribe@onelist.com
>  List owner:   Reason-Omaha-owner@onelist.com
>
>Shortcut URL to this page:
>  http://www.onelist.com/community/Reason-Omaha
>
>

Chris,  I believe Jeff was the guy who showed up after the Public Pulse
letter that announced our existence.  He worked for the Douglas County
Health Dept.  and had a friend named Jim with him.  Neither has come again that
I'm aware of.  jg

Chris Peters wrote:

> From: "Chris Peters" <alpha_leonis@...>
>
>     To all,
>
>     Thanks for y'all's patience in dealing with our new mail system.  Once
> the bugs get worked out, I think it'll become really useful.  If anybody has
> any comments or suggestions for improvement (or even if you think the
> listserv should be deleted completely!) let me know and I'll see what I can
> do.
>
>      As for normal update-sorta stuff, I should let everybody know we've
> lost two members from the original Reason-Omaha address list I passed around
> a while ago:  you can take away "jeffrad@..." (Who's that?  One of the
> Creighton visitors from Rex's visit?), and "gtoth@..." (Gary
> Toth, who's just got too much e-mail at the moment.  Maybe he'll come back
> later).  To avoid my sending out these announcements so often, I _think_
> there's a way for y'all to request the official list from the server, but I
> don't know what it is yet.  I'll let y'all know when I do find it.
>
>      -- Chris
>
> > Community email addresses:
>   Post message: Reason-Omaha@onelist.com
>   Subscribe:    Reason-Omaha-subscribe@onelist.com
>   Unsubscribe:  Reason-Omaha-unsubscribe@onelist.com
>   List owner:   Reason-Omaha-owner@onelist.com
>
> Shortcut URL to this page:
>   http://www.onelist.com/community/Reason-Omaha

I'm still getting used to this listserve thing, thus I'm mailing this to
both "reason" and "skeptics" in my bookmarks.  If I receive 2 copies of
this myself (since I'm on both lists), I'll finally be convinced that the
listserve does work, and from now on I'll only send out this stuff to
"reason".  If you get 2 copies of this too, and you should, just delete one
and read the other one if you're interested.
(Steve, Harry, Bob, & John: "reason", aka "skeptics", is an Omaha-based
group of skeptical rationalists).
ds.

Clean copy with its hot links is at
http://www.biomednet.com/hmsbeagle/44/booksoft/essay.htm
e.g. all the books & articles listed at the end of this review are hotlinks
on the original web page.

                     VIDEO REVIEW

                     Waking Up in the
                     Universe

                     The Royal Institution Faraday Lectures

                     A series of five educational videos
                     by Richard Dawkins

                     INCA Ltd., 1991

                     Reviewed by Matthew Cockerill

                     (Posted December 11, 1998 · Issue 44)


                     The Royal Institution Faraday Lectures, delivered each
Christmas
                     by a distinguished scientist and in recent years
broadcast by the
                     BBC, have been enjoyed by both children and adults for
                     generations.

                     Richard Dawkins' 1991 lectures received particular
acclaim. Dawkins is
                     in top form, articulating with evangelical fervor the
case for science and
                     rationality as a means of understanding the universe
and our place within
                     it.

                     Dawkins' books, from The Selfish
                     Gene onwards, have successively
                     articulated this theme, with Dawkins
                     making full use of his unparalleled talent
                     for explaining complex ideas in simple
                     language. As a lecturer, Dawkins is no
                     less eloquent. In his series of lectures,
                     he draws on a variety of analogies,
                     thought experiments, practical
                     demonstrations, and astonishing
                     footage of the natural world, to show
                     how powerful the ideas of Darwinian evolution are as a
means of
                     understanding the world we live in.

                     The lectures, which later formed the basis for the book
Climbing Mount
                     Improbable, argue that for a rational human being,
believing in evolution
                     is not just one possible choice: it is the only choice
that makes any sense.
                     In his characteristically uncompromising style, Dawkins
attacks the
                     woolly thinking that would accept religion as an
alternative explanation of
                     the world we live in, or, perhaps worse from Dawkins'
point of view,
                     accept that religion has a different but parallel role
to play. Religion, to
                     Dawkins, is by its very nature the antithesis of
rationality.

                     These convictions, expressed with Dawkins' usual verve
and clarity,
                     make this series of lectures an extremely provocative
starting point for
                     debate.

                     Dawkins and like-minded neo-Darwinians, as they are
known, believe
                     that our current knowledge of molecular biology, taken
together with
                     Darwin's idea of natural selection, is sufficient to
remove the mystery
                     from the origin and evolution of life on earth, without
any need to evoke a
                     higher power. Even within the scientific community,
however, the
                     confidence of neo-Darwinians in the power of natural
selection to deliver
                     the goods has not gone unchallenged. The astronomer
Fred Hoyle was
                     famously troubled by the apparent unlikelihood that
blind chance could
                     have led to the evolution of complex living organisms.
Even the most
                     primitive organisms display such staggering and
intricate complexity that
                     for an organism, or even a single organ like the eye,
to evolve by chance,
                     would, suggested Hoyle, be like a whirlwind blowing
through a junkyard
                     and assembling a 747.

                     In his lectures, Dawkins addresses the 747 argument
head-on.
                     Organisms are able to achieve the apparently
impossible, through
                     evolution, thanks to a process of "smearing out the
luck." Rather than
                     suddenly coming up with a fully formed wing, organisms
gradually acquire
                     better and better approximations. "Oh yes?" sneer the
antievolutionists,
                     "so show us an animal with half a wing. What use could
half a wing
                     possibly be?" Dawkins rises to the challenge,
describing three animals
                     that have evolved what could be seen as "partial wings"
and which clearly
                     do find them useful. A similar argument holds with the
eye, that other
                     canard of antievolutionists: although widely used by
creationists as an
                     example of an organ so complex that natural selection
cannot explain its
                     evolution, the evidence from the natural world suggests
that eyes evolve
                     almost embarrassingly easily, and have done so dozens
of times
                     independently in the history of life on earth. As
Dawkins graphically
                     demonstrates, even an extremely primitive "eye"
consisting of a single
                     light-sensitive cell can be enormously more useful than
no eye at all.

                     "Climbing Mount Improbable" is the metaphor Dawkins
chooses to
                     describe the way in which evolution advances by small
increments.
                     Rather than making a few highly improbable jumps,
evolution is able to
                     take gradual steps, none of which is particularly
unlikely, and so ascend
                     the heights of Mount Improbable.

                     Dawkins argues, in fact, that it is the
                     creationists who are really vulnerable to
                     the 747 argument. Postulating that the
                     entirety of life on earth, in all its
                     intricacy, simply came out of nothing is
                     indeed like imagining a 747 being
                     assembled by chance from a whirlwind
                     of rivets and metal sheeting. So, the
                     argument from design is hoist by its
                     own petard.

                                               After making short work of the
                                               argument that "blind chance
isn't
                                               enough," Dawkins moves on to his
                                               other main target - the
belief that
                                               science and rationality do not
                                               themselves provide an
adequate basis
                                               for human knowledge and
                                               understanding, and that some
form of
                                               spirituality must play a
part. This is an
                                               issue that is clearly very
close to
                                               Dawkins' heart, and it forms
the core of
                     his most recent book, Unweaving the Rainbow. It is also
a subject that
                     continues to get him into hot water, since "peaceful
coexistence" isn't on
                     his agenda.

                     For Dawkins, a scientific worldview is
                     fundamentally irreconcilable with the
                     inherently antirationalistic aspects of
                     religion - dogma, belief from authority,
                     blind faith - all inimical to any efforts
                     toward achieving a rational
                     understanding of the world.

                     In his early work, Dawkins developed
                     the concept of "memes," which are
                     cultural analogs of genes - ideas that
                     are passed on from person to person, and evolve over
time. Particularly
                     successful genes, and memes, spread themselves far and
wide and persist
                     over centuries. Religions are memes that Dawkins sees
as being
                     analogous to viruses. They exploit the vulnerabilities
of their hosts, and
                     parasitically carve out an existence without
necessarily contributing
                     anything positive in return.

                     The human brain, Dawkins points
                     out, is a highly evolved organ that has
                     developed all kinds of tricks to make
                     sense of the world based on
                     incomplete information. But powerful
                     as the brain's faculties are, they are
                     also vulnerable to deception, as
                     Dawkins demonstrates in the lectures
                     with an extremely convincing optical
                     illusion (right). We can be deceived in
                     other ways too, says Dawkins, and it
                     is only scientific, rational thinking that can get us
back on track.

                     In overcoming our superstitions, fantasies, and
delusions and discovering
                     the rationality of science, says Dawkins, we are
finally emerging from an
                     eons-long slumber and "waking up in the universe." As
we enter the 21st
                     century, it is this we should be celebrating.

                          Matthew Cockerill is Product Manager of BioMedNet.

                   Endlinks

                     Books by Richard Dawkins:

                          The Selfish Gene
                          The Extended Phenotype
                          The Blind Watchmaker (accompanying evolution
software also
                          available)
                          Climbing Mount Improbable
                          River out of Eden
                          Unweaving the Rainbow

                     The World of Richard Dawkins - a wonderful collection
of links relating
                     to Richard Dawkins and evolution, maintained by John
Catalano

                     Behe's Empty Box - an interesting discussion (at the
World of Richard
                     Dawkins site) of Darwin's Black Box, an attempted
rebuttal of Dawkins
                     by Michael Behe

                     Richard Dawkins: Software and Biomorphs - A list of
evolution
                     simulation software, including a good deal that was
inspired by Dawkins'
                     efforts. Much of it is ideal for classroom use, and the
majority is available
                     for free downloading. Although Dawkins' original
software was written
                     for the Macintosh, much of the rest consists of Java
applets that can run
                     on almost any Web browser.

This just came in on the Reason line (our old "reason01@..."
address).  I thought y'all might be interested in seeing it, especially our
one Wisconsin-based list member.
Regards,  Chris




>From: "Erika Hedberg" <erikahedberg@...>
>To: ashslistserve@...
>Subject: Defending Science Education
>Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 10:22:10 EST
>
>From: Dennis Coyier
>
>You may know that I just this month ushered through the Democratic Party of
>Dane County (Wis.) a resolution defending science education.
>
>When I got the idea I cast a net.
>
>Many different voices chimed in.
>
>The whole thing took about 3 months from announcement to passing.
>
>Not only did it educate new people on this and other important issues, it
>now moves on to the 2nd Congressional District and Wisconsin Democratic
>Party where I hope it will do likewise.
>
>I don't know what good will come of it, but we've got to start someplace.
>
>It seems like the appropriate forum for bringing out the issues;  Where
>better than a major party?
>
>We also passed the same night a resolution to oppose charter schools that
>are not of and by the public.  This is important in trying to stop our
>gotta-have-vouchers governor from privatizing education.  Tommy Thompson is
>the poster boy of the Radical Right, you know.
>
>There seems so few people in high places talking about these things.
>I think it's more important to talk to the leaders than talk to the herd.
>
>Two months before we passed one defending a Naturist beach from closure by
>Wisconsin Christians United.  That got my photo in the extremist group's
>newsletter this month.
>
>My resolution to remove Under God from the Pledge failed by a wide margin.
>There just weren't enough people with the gutz.
>
>I produce a web page at http://www.execpc.com/~dcoy/PEDS and
>http://www.ececpc.com/~dcoy/rightwatch
>
>DPDC is at http://www.danedems.org
>
>The Wisconsin Democratic Party states in its Platform, "We support strict
>enforcement of the Constitutional principal of separation of church and
>state."  I'd like to hold their feet to the fire and could sure use help.
>
>The State Party page is http://www.execpc.com/democrat/index.html
>
>The following is my last post to my "Evo Reso" team:
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>-------------------------
>
>At 8:45 PM, November 11, 1999, the Democratic Party of Dane County (Wis.)
>passed a resolution to address the introduction of religion-based ideas
>into the public school science curriculum.
>
>The approved resolution, titled ON AVOIDING CONFUSION IN SCIENCE EDUCATION,
>was escorted through local Democratic Party channels by Resolutions
>Committee Chair William Scanlon and Executive Board member Dennis Coyier.
>
>That a resolution be drafted was proposed by Mr. Coyier before the August
>11 DPDC membership, which meets 2nd Wednesdays in Madison.  The notion was
>sparked by the Kansas anti-evolution School Board decision coupled with the
>rumblings of creationists in progressive Wisconsin.
>
>By the September 8 DPDC meeting, it was announced that a draft was in the
>final stages and that it would be presented to the membership the following
>month, which complied with local Party bylaws.  This gave interested
>parties ample opportunity to weigh in.
>
>On October 13, Draft 10-13-99 was brought to the floor for discussion and
>potential vote.  Although a dozen or so members voiced approval, one or two
>had reservations about the wording.  One thought referring to creationism
>sounded potentially and unnecessarily confrontational to Christians and
>another suggested barring creationism from classrooms might be considered a
>form of censorship.
>
>Vital technical advice was generously provided throughout the process (and
>is still coming in) by the following: Molleen Matsumura, Network Project
>Director, National Center for Science Education; Andrew Petto, Editor, NCSE
>Reports; Massimo Pigliucci, University of Tennessee, Patrice Legro
>(National Academy of Science's;  Wayne Carley, National Association of
>Biology Teachers'); Brian Charlesworth, Institute of Cell, Animal and
>Population Biology, University of Edinburgh, Scotland, UK; Susan Mazer;
>Mark Peterson;
>Robert Siegfried, Americans United for Separation of Church and State,
>Wisconsin Chapter; Carol Smith, Humanist Quest, Milwaukee; Jack Mayr,
>Atheists and Agnostics of Wisconsin.
>
>By the time the final draft was ready for presentation to the forty DPDC
>members at the October meeting, the "Evo Reso" had gone through dozens of
>revisions, all in pursuit of the perfect product, one which would make the
>important points and put to rest the reservations.
>
>The final moment brought resounding praise from earlier dissenters for a
>much better worded product, with only one or two exceptions regarding
>whether creationism in science classes violated Constitutional separation
>of church and state, which took only a stroke of the pen to remedy.
>
>Following is the no-word-limit County Party version followed by the
>100-word-maximum version, necessary when advancing the resolution to the
>2nd Congressional District and the Democratic Party of Wisconsin.
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------\
-----------------
>
>ON AVOIDING CONFUSION IN SCIENCE EDUCATION
>
>WHEREAS, evolution by natural process since reproducing biological entities
>first occurred on Earth about 4 billion years ago is the scientifically
>established basis for variability among organisms and speciation in the
>biological world; and
>
>WHEREAS, there are a number of science-based theories concerning events at
>the beginning of the universe, all of which agree that the universe began
>more than about 10 billion years ago; and
>
>WHEREAS, there are religious points of view about the origins of species,
>including humans, and the time of and events at the beginning of the
>universe which are not scientifically based; and
>
>WHEREAS, there is a political movement in the country and Wisconsin with
>the goal of mandating public schools to give equivalent treatment in
>science textbooks and curricula to science-based theories of evolution and
>the beginning of the universe, on one hand, and religion-based views about
>these things on the other; and
>
>WHEREAS, the fundamental procedures of science exclude appeal to
>religion-based views to explain phenomena of the natural world because such
>appeals cannot be validated or invalidated objectively; and
>
>WHEREAS, presentation in public school science classes or textbooks of
>religion-based views to explain phenomena of the natural world would
>undermine students' learning about science;
>
>NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF DANE COUNTY
>THAT, science-based theories of evolution and beginnings of the universe be
>taught in science classes and presented in science textbooks in Wisconsin
>without reference to religion-based ideas; and
>
>THAT, the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction and the public school
>boards in the State authorize no textbook for use in science
>classes in which religion-based ideas are presented; and
>
>THAT the Chair of the Party, or his or her designee, communicate the
>position of the Party as expressed in this Resolution to the media in
>Dane County, the superintendents and members of the school boards of school
>districts that are entirely or partly within Dane County, the
>Wisconsin Superintendent of Public Instruction, and the Democratic Members
>of the Wisconsin Legislature; and
>
>THAT this Resolution, in the following form, be forwarded as a resolution
>from the Democratic Party of Dane County for inclusion in the resolutions
>packet at the 2nd Congressional District Convention and Democratic Party
>Convention in 2000.
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>--------------------------------
>
>ON AVOIDING CONFUSION IN SCIENCE EDUCATION (100-word limit)
>
>WHEREAS, evolution by natural processes is the scientifically established
>asis for present species and several science-based theories explain the
>universe's origin with natural phenomena; and
>
>Whereas, many religions have ideas about species and universe origins but
>religion-based ideas and science-based theories are fundamentally
>different; and
>
>Whereas, presentation in science classes and textbooks of religion-based
>ideas on natural phenomena undermines science education;
>
>NOW, THEREFORE, WISCONSIN DEMOCRATS RESOLVE:
>
>Science-based theories of evolution and universe beginnings be presented in
>science classes and text books in Wisconsin's public schools without
>reference to religion-based ideas.
>(Note: Because a whereas was deleted, there may be room here for
>last-second adjusting before we proceed.)
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>--------------------------------
>

To all,

     Thanks for y'all's patience in dealing with our new mail system.  Once
the bugs get worked out, I think it'll become really useful.  If anybody has
any comments or suggestions for improvement (or even if you think the
listserv should be deleted completely!) let me know and I'll see what I can
do.

      As for normal update-sorta stuff, I should let everybody know we've
lost two members from the original Reason-Omaha address list I passed around
a while ago:  you can take away "jeffrad@..." (Who's that?  One of the
Creighton visitors from Rex's visit?), and "gtoth@..." (Gary
Toth, who's just got too much e-mail at the moment.  Maybe he'll come back
later).  To avoid my sending out these announcements so often, I _think_
there's a way for y'all to request the official list from the server, but I
don't know what it is yet.  I'll let y'all know when I do find it.

      -- Chris

Not only has our group been announced in their publications but there is
a
link on their web page as well.  jg


http://www.SecularHumanism.org/groups/usa/ne/

I thought you didn't like it cause it DIDN'T tell you who the emails were
from... :)

We can keep track of who's on the list by Chris sending us notice of
membership changes...we already know who's on the list right now, thanks to
Chris.

>From: "Jim Bechtel" <jbechtel@...>
>Reply-To: Reason-Omaha@onelist.com
>To: "lotsa folks" <Reason-Omaha@onelist.com>
>Subject: Fw: [Reason-Omaha] Re: Testing
>Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 08:35:02 -0600
>
>PLUS look how it shows who this is from! I thought it was supposed to show
>it as being from Reason-Omaha@onelist.com
>
>----------
>From: Jim Bechtel <jbechtel@...>
>To: lotsa folks <Reason-Omaha@onelist.com>
>Subject: [Reason-Omaha] Re: Testing
>Date: Monday, November 22, 1999 8:32 AM
>
>From: "Jim Bechtel" <jbechtel@...>
>
>I don't like it.
>
>It brings up a prompt asking whether I mean Old Skeptics, Mister "lotsa
>folks," or Skeptics.
>
>Back to the drawing board.
>
>Jim B
>
>Community email addresses:
>   Post message: Reason-Omaha@onelist.com
>   Subscribe:    Reason-Omaha-subscribe@onelist.com
>   Unsubscribe:  Reason-Omaha-unsubscribe@onelist.com
>   List owner:   Reason-Omaha-owner@onelist.com
>
>Shortcut URL to this page:
>   http://www.onelist.com/community/Reason-Omaha
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Community email addresses:
>   Post message: Reason-Omaha@onelist.com
>   Subscribe:    Reason-Omaha-subscribe@onelist.com
>   Unsubscribe:  Reason-Omaha-unsubscribe@onelist.com
>   List owner:   Reason-Omaha-owner@onelist.com
>
>Shortcut URL to this page:
>   http://www.onelist.com/community/Reason-Omaha
><< text3.html >>

OK, now I'm going to forward this one to "Reason".  This is a test to see
how it works.  The copy I sent a minute ago was sent to "Skeptics" on my
computer.  It goes to the email addresses in my "Skeptics" email address
book.  This should be your second copy.  Just delete one and read the other
one if you have the time.  dave skryja.


>Clean copy with all the hot links, etc., at http://ScitechDaily.com/
>
>
>
>                         Wendy Kaminer, the author of Sleeping With
>                    Extra-Terrestrials, sees a disturbing decline of
reason in
>                                     our public life
>
>                    November 3, 1999
>
>                    Americans today are transfixed by
>                    the supernatural. Television shows
>                    like Touched by an Angel and The
>                    X-Files soar in the ratings, books
>                    about guardian angels and
>                    near-death experiences find
>                    tremendous readerships, and savvy
>                    politicians flaunt their religious faith,
>                    each proclaiming a special
>                    relationship with God.
>
>                    In her new book, Sleeping with
>                    Extra-Terrestrials: The Rise of
>                    Irrationalism and Perils of Piety, Wendy Kaminer argues
>                    that although this preoccupation with the unearthly is
relatively
>                    harmless -- for many people belief in God, angels, or the
>                    teachings of Deepak Chopra offers comfort and meaning --
>                    there is cause for concern when our private irrational
>                    convictions begin to spill over into the realm of
public life and
>                    public policy. "Other people's personal religious
beliefs and
>                    reading habits," she explains, "are none of my
business (and
>                    surely don't require my approval). But the possible
public
>                    consequence of their inclination to believe is everyone's
>                    business and merits everyone's concern."
>
>                    Kaminer looks at how irrationalism in the forms of
mainstream
>                    religion, the New Age movement, pseudoscience, and the
>                    therapeutic culture (as shaped by the recovery movement),
>                    permeates contemporary American culture and is
increasingly
>                    shaping public policy with respect to criminal
justice, education,
>                    and civil liberties. As our commitment to rational
public debate
>                    is subsumed by irrational convictions, our ability to
think
>                    critically is eroding. Or so Kaminer fears. "The
values we
>                    fashion and ultimately codify," she writes, "are
likely to be
>                    influenced by religious teachings, of course, but they
should be
>                    shaped democratically, by the human intellect
reflecting on
>                    experience, not handed down from on high."
>
>                    Wendy Kaminer is a contributing editor of The Atlantic
>                    Monthly, a regular columnist for The American
Prospect, and
>                    a public policy fellow at Radcliffe College. She writes
>                    frequently about feminism and about civil liberties.
Her previous
>                    books include True Love Waits(1996), It's All the
>                    Rage(1995), I'm Dysfunctional, You're
>                    Dysfunctional(1992), A Fearful Freedom(1990), and
>                    Women Volunteering(1984).
>
>                    She spoke recently with Atlantic Unbound's Sage Stossel.
>
>                                        As you explored Americans'
>                                        various beliefs and spiritual
>                                        practices in the course of
>                                        researching this book, was there
>                                        anything that especially
>                                        surprised you?
>
>                                        Well, the short answer is no. When
>                                        you consider the convergence of
>                                        celebrity culture, pop therapies,
>                                        new technologies, and all the
>                                        anxious supernaturalism that's been
>                    aroused by the approach of the year 2000, public life in
>                    America has become so much weirder than I ever
imagined it
>                    could possibly be that what once might have seemed
surreal,
>                    now is merely mundane. Given that, I can't say that
anything
>                    surprised me.
>
>                    I am dismayed, though, by the eagerness of so many
people to
>                    relax restrictions on government sponsorship of sectarian
>                    institutions and sectarian practices like official
school prayers.
>                    And I do fear that we might be heading into a period
of really
>                    ugly sectarian rivalries and even the religious
repression of
>                    minorities. There was a recent ACLU case in Alabama, for
>                    example, where public school teachers harassed Jewish
>                    students by forcing them to pray to Jesus and forbade
them to
>                    wear the star of David to school, claiming it was a gang
>                    symbol. In another ACLU case an eleven-year-old Lutheran
>                    child in a Baptist school was branded a
Devil-worshipper by
>                    his classmates after his teacher announced that he wasn't
>                    participating in Bible classes because he didn't
believe in God.
>                    Cases like this are shocking but -- especially in the
South --
>                    not anomalous. The more we erode the wall between Church
>                    and State, the more of these cases we're bound to see.
>
>                    Your book refers to the strong piety of Americans in the
>                    late nineteenth century and their fascination with the
>                    supernatural. You also talk about a "tradition of caustic
>                    secularism" earlier this century, expressed by
>                    commentators like H.L. Mencken and Mary McCarthy,
>                    "that once provided a refuge for the faithless." Does
this
>                    country go through successive phases or cycles of
>                    rationalism and irrationalism?
>
>                    I suspect that we do go through phases. Sometimes reason
>                    seems ascendant, and sometimes we put our faith in
guardian
>                    angels or alien visitations. Earlier in this century
faith in social
>                    science was very strong. It's worth noting, though,
that this faith
>                    was not always benign or even well-reasoned. Nick
Lemann's
>                    new book about the SAT gives very good examples of some
>                    of the ravages of too much faith in social science.
>
>                    I think there is something that distinguishes the
current climate
>                    in America and that is the degree to which religion and
>                    spirituality have become popular, or at least
respectable,
>                    among intellectual elites. That was not true, say, in
the 1920s
>                    and 1930s when people like H. L. Mencken and John Dewey
>                    were around. There's also a great deal of respect for
religiosity
>                    in the popular media. You won't, for example, find anyone
>                    mocking religion in Time or Newsweek.
>
>                    At the risk of seeming optimistic, I might predict
that our
>                    current romance with the irrational will subside once
the year
>                    2000 has come and gone. But that might be wishful
thinking.
>
>                    Do you think that the increasing numbers of religious
>                    programs and supernatural docudramas on television
>                    today actively contribute to piety and irrationalism in
>                    American culture?
>
>                    In general, what we see in the popular media will tend
to reflect
>                    and reinforce social trends. So, yes, I do think that
>                    docudramas about extraterrestrial landings, or angels,
or ESP
>                    contribute to the rise of irrationalism. Many people
tend to
>                    believe what they see on TV, just as they tend to
believe what
>                    they read in the newspaper -- especially if the belief
comforts
>                    them. The media lends authority; it lends credibility to
>                    sensational stories about supernatural occurrences or
less
>                    sensational claims about, say, the healing power of
crystals.
>                    We like to think of ourselves as a skeptical, cynical
society,
>                    and there is a certain amount of cynicism, but it
coexists with
>                    enormous gullibility.
>
>                    In your essay "Morality -- The Newest Deal," in True
>                    Love Waits, you described Franklin Delano Roosevelt as
>                    a leader who was able to appeal to common moral values
>                    and inspire confidence without invoking religion. Are
>                    there any current politicians or public figures whom you
>                    think might be capable of that role?
>
>                    Nobody comes to mind. If I think about the major
presidential
>                    candidates, Bill Bradley is about the only one who has
even
>                    tried to appeal to what you might call our better
natures without
>                    invoking religion and without assuring us of his own
close
>                    relationship with God. In fact, he has refrained from
parading
>                    his faith (I think to his great credit), observing
that it is
>                    essentially a private matter. His refusal to join Al
Gore and
>                    George Bush in what I think is religious pandering is
quite
>                    refreshing. But there really isn't much evidence that
Bradley is
>                    as astute a politician or as inspirational a leader as
FDR was.
>
>                    You argue that New Age movements and mainstream
>                    religions are similar in many ways -- a primary
difference
>                    between them being that the mainstream faiths have
>                    become institutionalized organizations. Were the divine
>                    figures of today's established religions the pop gurus of
>                    their day?
>
>                    New Age movements may someday become established faiths
>                    of the future (though it's worth noting that New Age
generally
>                    functions as an alternative to established faiths).
But I don't
>                    think that the fact that established religions are
established
>                    makes them any more credible than New Age movements that
>                    are not institutionalized. And I certainly didn't mean
to argue
>                    that New Age and organized religions are similar; they
differ
>                    greatly in their theologies. I just wanted to point
out something
>                    that we often overlook: New Age and established
religions are
>                    both forms of supernaturalism. A New Age belief in
miracles is
>                    no more or less silly, and no more or less worthy of
respect
>                    than, say, a Christian belief in miracles. Yet mockery
of New
>                    Age is much more common and much more socially acceptable
>                    than mockery of established faiths. There's a double
standard
>                    in the way we think about New Age movements and the way
>                    we think about established religions that I find
intellectually
>                    indefensible.
>
>                    In your introduction you write: "I don't deny that
>                    organized religions offer people psychic comfort and
>                    community, as well as important social services, but I
>                    fiercely oppose their periodic assaults on secular
>                    government." Why is a secular government based on
>                    rational principles a more desirable ideal than a
>                    harmonious society organized around a belief system that
>                    promotes comfort, community, and a sense of purpose in
>                    life?
>
>                    There is a deep flaw in the assumption that societies
organized
>                    around religious beliefs are in fact harmonious and do
in fact
>                    provide everyone with comfort, community, and a sense of
>                    purpose in life. Unless societies that are ruled by
religious
>                    beliefs are entirely homogeneous, and also entirely
voluntary,
>                    they're apt to be bitterly contentious or quite
repressive of
>                    religious minorities. Consider the Middle East. It's
not exactly a
>                    picture of harmony. Or think even of the Massachusetts
Bay
>                    Colony. Here in Massachusetts in the 1600s you had a
society
>                    organized around religious beliefs, and it was extremely
>                    repressive and not at all tolerant of religious freedom.
>
>                    Organized religions in this country do offer community
and
>                    comfort to a great many people, but I think that's
precisely
>                    because they operate freely in the unofficial spaces
that are
>                    allowed or created by secular government. The point of a
>                    secular government is that it enables people to find
their own
>                    communities and to find expression for their own faiths.
>
>                    What do you make of studies showing that people who
>                    consider themselves religious and who regularly
>                    participate in religious services live longer, healthier
>                    lives?
>
>                    I don't doubt that our state of mind affects our
health. And
>                    since so many people do find solace and some peace of
mind
>                    in religion it wouldn't shock me if there were some
correlation
>                    between religious belief and health. I would expect,
though,
>                    that whatever it is in a religious community that can
give people
>                    the kind of peace of mind that helps keep them healthy
can also
>                    be found in ethical secular communities that provide
people
>                    with a sense of purpose. I tend to doubt that religion
is any
>                    more essential to health than it is essential to virtue.
>
>                    Should church-sponsored programs with proven track
>                    records of successfully aiding the homeless or enriching
>                    the lives of inner-city youth be denied government
>                    funding on principle (for the sake of maintaining a
>                    separation between Church and State)?
>
>                    I do think sectarian institutions should be denied
direct public
>                    funding. Not for the sake of some principle, but to
avoid the
>                    practical problems that come with government
sponsorship of
>                    religion. One problem is that many taxpayers are going to
>                    deeply resent directly supporting religions that are
anathema to
>                    them. That resentment will only encourage religious
>                    discrimination. Rudy Giuliani, for example, contends
that the
>                    public shouldn't even support the Brooklyn Museum because
>                    one of its shows offends his religious sensibilities.
Imagine the
>                    reaction if public funds were used to support
after-school
>                    programs offered by the Reverend Moon -- or the Nation of
>                    Islam. When you put money on the table and say that
sectarian
>                    institutions are eligible for a piece of it, you can't
discriminate
>                    on the basis of theology.
>
>                    Another problem is that if sectarian institutions
receive public
>                    funds to deliver social services, the recipients of
these services
>                    are very likely to be subject to religious
proselytizing, whether
>                    they like it or not, in violation of their religious
freedom. We
>                    can have rules that prohibit the conditioning of
social services
>                    on mandatory participation in prayer or other
religious rituals,
>                    but those rules are going to be practically impossible to
>                    enforce.
>
>                    Still another problem is that publicly funded
social-service
>                    workers will be hired and fired on the basis of their
religious
>                    beliefs. (In fact, in the charitable-choice provision
that was
>                    passed as part of the 1996 Welfare Bill the religious
institutions
>                    that take public money to administer welfare programs are
>                    expressly exempt from the antidiscrimination
provisions of
>                    federal law.)
>
>                    Finally, government officials will eventually have to
start
>                    monitoring the activities of these religious
institutions they're
>                    funding. And that threatens the institutions'
autonomy: when you
>                    receive government funds, eventually you're going to
become
>                    accountable to government bureaucrats. I think that's
going to
>                    be a problem down the road for private religious
schools if we
>                    end up with a very widespread voucher system.
>
>                    It's important to remember that the principles laid
down by the
>                    First Amendment are not academic. In a very real way they
>                    protect both the religious freedom of individuals and the
>                    autonomy of religious institutions. So I'd want very
much to
>                    uphold constitutional principles regarding religion
because of
>                    the practical harm attendant on violating them.
>
>                    Some might say that the recent controversy over the
>                    dung-decorated Virgin Mary at the Brooklyn Museum
>                    supports the contention that people who take religion
>                    seriously are discriminated against as uneducated
>                    philistines by secular intellectual elites. What's
your take
>                    on the dispute?
>
>                    My own take on this controversy is that it was
essentially
>                    manufactured by Rudy Giuliani to bolster his senate
campaign.
>                    There really is no evidence of a populist uprising
against the
>                    Brooklyn Museum. In fact, the evidence suggests that
popular
>                    sentiment is aligned with the museum if you consider the
>                    number of people attending the show and if you look at
polling
>                    data. And the charge that this show represents the
hostility of
>                    secular elites toward religion is just absurd. The
artist who's
>                    responsible for the controversial portrait of the
Virgin Mary is
>                    reported to be a practicing Catholic who conceives of
his work
>                    as reverential.
>
>                    It is worth noting, though, that there has been some
hostility
>                    expressed toward one particular religion that's been
expressed
>                    in the angry reaction to this show. Camille Paglia in
Salon
>                    nastily stressed that this supposedly anti-Catholic
art exhibit
>                    was mounted by a Jewish collector and a Jewish museum
>                    director. It was an incredibly irresponsible comment --
>                    especially when you consider that the artist of the
controversial
>                    work is a practicing Catholic. The real question is,
Why does a
>                    reverential, practicing Catholic produce a work of art
that so
>                    many other Catholics find offensive? Maybe the answer
is that
>                    different people look at their religion differently.
And different
>                    people see art differently.
>
>                    In a 1993 Atlantic article, "Feminism's Identity Crisis,"
>                    you described a backlash against traditional feminism in
>                    the form of a new preoccupation with women as victims
>                    rather than as equals. Has feminism's identity changed
>                    since then?
>
>                    It actually wasn't a new preoccupation with women as
victims.
>                    The feminist identity crisis I described in 1993 dates
back 150
>                    years to the beginning of the women's rights movement.
>                    Feminists have always been divided over two
conflicting views
>                    of femininity and two approaches to sexual justice.
From the
>                    beginning, in the mid nineteenth century, some
feminists focused
>                    on what men and women shared -- the capacity to
reason, for
>                    instance, and the right to a self-determined destiny.
They
>                    sought legal equality: laws that would extend the same
rights
>                    and the same responsibilities to both sexes. Other
feminists,
>                    whom I think of as "protectionists," focused on
biological
>                    differences between men and women and embraced
traditional
>                    notions of women as a gentler, more moral sex. These
women
>                    tended to seek sexual justice through protectionism. They
>                    advocated protective labor laws for women and the
censorship
>                    of sexually explicit material.
>
>                    Today, some forms of protectionism have been relegated to
>                    history: protective labor laws, for example, were
generally
>                    invalidated by the civil-rights legislation of the
1960s and
>                    1970s. And these days when we pass labor laws having
to do
>                    with what might be thought of as "women's issues" --
like the
>                    Family and Medical Leave Act -- they tend to be
>                    gender-neutral laws that apply equally to both sexes.
But other
>                    forms of protectionism -- like demands for censoring
>                    pornography or hate-speech -- continue to be advanced by
>                    some feminists. What's more important is that the
traditional
>                    notions of femininity and masculinity that underlie
protectionist
>                    campaigns still prevail among many women. You have
only to
>                    consider the campaigns of female candidates who describe
>                    themselves as more cooperative or better listeners or
better
>                    consensus-builders than men -- a lot of those clichés
about
>                    female character and female sensibility are very much
alive.
>                    And those ideas do conflict with a feminist drive for
equal
>                    rights. But they are held by many women who would
identify
>                    themselves as feminists. So feminists have never really
>                    coalesced around one answer to the perennial question of
>                    whether biology is destiny. I don't know that we ever
will:
>                    feminism remains a very, very diverse movement. And
that's
>                    what makes it interesting.
>
>                    Do you think that Hillary Clinton is doing a
disservice to
>                    feminism by running for office on the strength of her
>                    popularity as a victimized wife?
>
>                    I don't accept the premise that Hillary Clinton is
running on the
>                    strength of her popularity as a victimized wife. I'm
not a
>                    supporter of Mrs. Clinton, because she has been a
cheerleader
>                    for an administration whose policies I deplore (the
Clinton
>                    administration has a particularly dreadful record on
civil
>                    liberties). But it's important to note that many
female voters,
>                    including some self-identified feminists, support
Hillary Clinton
>                    because they see her as a strong, smart female -- not
a weak
>                    and victimized one. So I think in many ways Hillary
Clinton is
>                    playing to what people see as her strengths.
>
>                    In Sleeping with Extra-Terrestrials you described an
>                    ABC television special that "Purport[ed] to reveal
>                    scientific evidence of biologically determined cognitive
>                    and emotional differences between men and women," but
>                    which drew upon "prejudice, preconceptions, and an
>                    occasional questionable study that produces junk
>                    science" in order to make that case. Supposing that solid
>                    scientific evidence did, in fact, prove significant
cognitive
>                    and emotional differences between men and women,
>                    should that have any bearing on men's and women's roles
>                    or how they are treated?
>
>                    I think that's a good question, though it's important
to note that
>                    it's a very academic one. As a general rule, I don't
think sex
>                    should be used as a predictor of behavior, even if
some future
>                    scientist were to discover differences between the sexes,
>                    because average differences tell us very little about
individual
>                    variations. Consider physical differences. Men on the
average
>                    may be taller than women, but some women are still
taller than
>                    some men. So it would be hardly just for laws to deny
women
>                    the right to apply for jobs that had minimum-height
>                    requirements on the assumption that all women are short.
>                    Biology, after all, is only one factor that shapes us.
We're also
>                    the products of our upbringing and our culture. If you
can
>                    imagine a scientist demonstrating that, say, women
really are,
>                    on average, less adept at math than men, you might
still predict
>                    that some females would display math skills that were far
>                    above average, and that if they were properly taught and
>                    encouraged, many other females might excel at math and
>                    surpass some males. So, as a general rule, whatever
scientists
>                    may in the future find out about average sexual
difference, I
>                    think laws should not treat men and women as sexual
>                    prototypes. Justice generally comes from treating
people as
>                    individuals.
>

PLUS look how it shows who this is from! I thought it was supposed to show
it as being from Reason-Omaha@onelist.com

----------
From: Jim Bechtel <jbechtel@...>
To: lotsa folks <Reason-Omaha@onelist.com>
Subject: [Reason-Omaha] Re: Testing
Date: Monday, November 22, 1999 8:32 AM

From: "Jim Bechtel" <jbechtel@...>

I don't like it.

It brings up a prompt asking whether I mean Old Skeptics, Mister "lotsa
folks," or Skeptics.

Back to the drawing board.

Jim B

Community email addresses:
   Post message: Reason-Omaha@onelist.com
   Subscribe:    Reason-Omaha-subscribe@onelist.com
   Unsubscribe:  Reason-Omaha-unsubscribe@onelist.com
   List owner:   Reason-Omaha-owner@onelist.com

Shortcut URL to this page:
   http://www.onelist.com/community/Reason-Omaha

I don't like it.

It brings up a prompt asking whether I mean Old Skeptics, Mister "lotsa
folks," or Skeptics.

Back to the drawing board.

Jim B

Chris;

What a nuisance.
OK, I went in and changed the name of my existing "Skeptics" group address
to "Old Skeptics," for archival purposes, then I set up a New Contact with
the name of Mister "lotsa folks," entered his address as
Reason-Omaha@onelist.com and set up a new Group Address with just one
member, Mister "lotsa folks," and I called it "Skeptics," so I wouldn't
have to learn a new name for the group. Now when I type in "Skeptics,"
instead of going to the 21 individuals, it'll go to
Reason-Omaha@onelist.com which is the same 21 people.

I thought of another advantage to using the onelist; privacy. Nobody can
tell by looking at Reason-Omaha@onelist.com who you're mailing to. Or who's
mailing to you. The other side of that coin is you'd have to keep a list
somewhere if you want to keep in mind who's on it, plus as time goes on and
members add or drop, you won't be able to tell by looking at
Reason-Omaha@onelist.com who's in there. The other thing is now we'll have
to remember to put our name at the end of emails because you won't know
from looking at the originator who sent it, right?

Maybe we shoulda discussed the pros and cons some more. Well, I'm committed
now. Let's see if this works.

Oh, by the way, this is from Jim B.

"The world's most dangerous book"  how the Judeo Christian Bible is misused
to buttress bias and foster prejudice. This is topic of sermon at First
Unitarian Church Omaha December 12 1999 11AM
Glenn Pollock

Sorry for the second letter.  At Jim Bechtel's request, I'm also
forwarding along a complete (e-mail-address-) list of the current listserv
members.  There are 23 of us so far, that you can reach with the new
address.  Let me know soon if you know of any additions or subtractions that
should be made.

-- chris


                   alpha_leonis@...
                   bchaney@...
                   dskryja@...
                   dwelch5217@...
                   ersteve@...
                   fmendenh@...
                   gtoth@...
                   jambec@...
                   jbechtel@...
                   jeffrad@...
                   jgoeken@...
                   lforst@...
                   lrhammel@...
                   mcarrick@...
                   mwooge@...
                   pcarpenter@...
                   pollockg@...
                   prescher@...
                   reason01@...
                   reason_correspond@...
                   sherlock_baretta@...
                   Theresa_Bechtel@...
                   whhay@...

A quick note to those of you who have already joined the listserv (just
myself, Jim Goeken, and Sean Griffith, for now).  Just wanted to welcome you
to the "new" mailing list.  We'll be discussing ways to make it grow a
little at the meeting.  For now, we three can still send messages between
each other through the listserv address:  Reason-Omaha@onelist.com.

      See you at the meeting!

--chris