Death in Las Vegas, and Life


Update, January 19, 2018:

The investigation is still in progress.

So far it looks like the person who decided to kill others acted on his own, paid for everything used, and left no obvious clue for his reasons.

I could speculate, claiming that he was driven to murder by watching too many game shows. Or being an accountant. Or having been born in Iowa. I won’t.

Instead, I’ll assume that we really don’t know why he started killing others. And that law enforcement folks are still working on the case:


My plans for today did not include writing about mass murder on the Las Vegas Strip and rush hour panic in Wimbledon.

Instead of trying to ignore what is now international headline news, I decided to look for whatever useful facts might be filtering through.

I’ll share what I found, along with what I think about the events.

How I feel about them is — sad, for what happened in Nevada. No words can console folks who lost family and friends there. I won’t try.

The Wimbledon panic? I’m not entirely sure what I feel about that.

Route 91 Harvest: Death at a Music Festival


(From BBC News, used w/o permission.)
(Area around Route 91 Harvest’s Sunday evening performance.)

Jason Aldean and his group were performing at the Route 91 Harvest country music festival last night.

He was singing “When She Says Baby” at about 10:08 p.m. local time. That’s when folks at the outdoor concert started dying.

A few minutes later, dozens were dead or dying. Hundreds were injured. The person who killed them was dead, too.

He had been in a room on the 32nd floor of a luxury resort and casino on the Las Vegas Strip in Paradise, Nevada.

What I’ve read in the news strongly suggests that the person whose actions resulted in those deaths intended to do so. Assuming that he had a motive seems reasonable. Thinking that his motive, whatever it was, made sense — is not reasonable. Not at all.

Less than a day later, we’re seeing the predictable aftereffects of mass murder.

Running Toward Danger

Details vary each time, but it’s pretty much the same mix: emotional meltdown, crass opportunism, public duty, and folks helping others. (June 4, 2017)

I prefer remembering that some folks at the concert ran toward the dead and injured, helping as best they could. It’s noteworthy; but not, I think, all that unusual.

My hope is that many folks will continue to respond as others have: with compassion and good sense. Given what’s happened in places like Manchester and London, I think it is a reasonable hope.

There’s also the usual hysteria and opportunism. This isn’t a perfect world.

A few politicos and journalists are at least implying that mass murders happen because we don’t all do what they want.

A media executive wrote that at least some of the dead at the music festival deserved no sympathy because they had the ‘wrong’ political views.

Making the statement in a way that could be traced to its source seems profoundly unwise. The executive is apparently looking for another position now.

I don’t doubt that the ‘no sympathy’ person was sincere. I have seen similar remarks about ‘those people’ expressed on social media.

Who ‘those people’ are depends on who’s writing. My interests being what they are, I see the occasional rabid conservative and wacky liberal. Or wacky conservative and rapid liberal. I’m quite sure they don’t represent everyone with such views.

News services are reporting the usual mix of reactions and opinions, with a sprinkling of facts. A few, happily, are sharing details of what folks who are not mass murderers or their victims do in situations like this.

“…People started to scream as bullets sprayed into a crowd of thousands of attendees at the three-day Route 91 Harvest festival in Las Vegas.

“Some people started to scatter and search for cover.

“But some people stayed behind — or even made their way to the chaotic and deadly scene — to help the victims of the deadliest mass shooting in modern American history….”
(Lindsey Bever, Wesley Lowery; Inspired Life; Washington Post (October 2, 2017))

“…Let’s focus instead on the many lives that ended on the Strip, and on the hundreds of people who tried their best to help one another as bullets and blood flew….

“…The strangers shielding one another from shrapnel, the locals guiding refugees in shorts and blue jeans to escape routes, the man gamely transporting a wounded victim by wheelbarrow….”
(Editorial Board, Chicago Tribune (October 2, 2017))

“…Concert-goer Mike McGarry told Reuters he lay on top of his children when the shots rang out.

“‘They’re 20, I’m 53. I lived a good life,’ he said….”
(James Cook, BBC News (October 2, 2017))

What happened in Wimbledon was: different.

Wimbledon: Timing is Important


(From @cyclingbetting, via BBC News, used w/o permission.)
(“Some passengers forced open the doors of train”
(BBC News))

“Wimbledon station commuters flee train in ‘Bible’ panic”
(October 2, 2017)

“…It happened outside Wimbledon station in south-west London at 08:30 BST as a man apparently began reading lines aloud from the Bible.

“Commuters became scared when the man also began saying ‘death is not the end’, a passenger said.

Rail power lines were cut as passengers ‘self-evacuated’, police said….”

The good news here is that nobody died. Apparently nobody was hurt. Under the circumstances, that’s quite good news. The commuter train’s unscheduled stop, during rush hour, could have ended badly.

As it is, the worst damage seems to be a 12 hour disruption of rail service. I’m not surprised it took so long.

A train stopping where it normally wouldn’t might be an issue by itself. I figure folks in charge also wanted to make sure the incident really was a simple misunderstanding, before going back to normal operations.

Nobody had been arrested the last time I checked BBC News. My guess is that the perpetrator didn’t expect the reaction he got. Why he was reading aloud is a good question.

That line, “death is not the end,” might be from someone’s Bible. It’s not in mine. Not those exact words.

It reminds me a bit of Wisdom 3:1–3 and 1 Corinthians 15:36–49. Also what Carly Simon, Fr. Bede Jarrett, William Penn, and Rossiter W. Raymond said about death and horizons. (October 9, 2016)

The fellow’s choice of venue for a Scripture reading seems — odd. It’s not something I’d have done. Not that I’ve always been particularly unobtrusive while in public.

I’ve done a few daft things in my day. Quite a few, actually. ‘Quiet and reserved’ probably aren’t how many remember me.

But I think I might have had the good sense not to spout scripture about death and ending in a crowded commuter train. During rush hour. In a city that’s endured terrorist attacks recently. Attacks, plural.

The most recent was happily non-lethal, but was less than three weeks ago. On public transportation. (BBC News (September 15, 2017)

Monday rush hour was not a good time for uplifting quotes about death.

Human Life and Death

Philippe de Champaigne's 'Still-Life with a Skull', a vanitas painting. (c. 1671) left to right: life, death, and time.

Deliberately ending innocent human lives is a bad idea. Deliberately ending not-so-innocent human lives isn’t a particularly good idea, either.

I see human life as sacred: all human life. That’s one reason why suicide is a really bad idea. My life — and everyone else’s — is a gift from God. I have no authority to end my own life. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2258–2317)

I’ve discussed murder, suicide and capital punishment before. (January 11, 2017; October 14, 2016)

Briefly, human life is sacred: so killing an innocent person is wrong. The divine image is in each of us. It’s there no matter who we are, who our ancestors are, or what we’ve done. (Genesis 1:27; Catechism, 357, 361, 369–370, 1700, 1730, 2268–2269, 1929, 2273–2274, 2276–2279)

I decide what I do with my life and the lives of those around me. So does everyone. What we do is up to each of us: for good or ill. (Catechism, 1701–1709, 2258)

My life is precious. So is yours. That’s why either of us defending our lives, using the least force necessary, is okay: even if that action results in the attacker’s death. (Catechism, 2263–2267)

That’s not even close to killing someone because I think maybe he’ll hurt someone else, eventually.

Using Good Judgment — Not Being Judgmental

I see suicide as a really bad idea.

If I acted on the occasional suicidal impulse I experience — that’s another topic — my options after that would be very limited.

I’d be, in effect, going directly to my particular judgment — after murdering myself. No time to reconsider and repent, no time for anything. Knowing what I do, that kind of trouble I don’t need. (Catechism, 1021–1022, 2280–2283)

However, I won’t heap abuse on the retired accountant who killed those folks and then himself.

I sure won’t say that he is roasting in everlasting hellfire. I won’t say that about anyone who committed suicide. It’s one rule I have little to no trouble following.

“We should not despair of the eternal salvation of persons who have taken their own lives. By ways known to him alone, God can provide the opportunity for salutary repentance. The Church prays for persons who have taken their own lives.”
(Catechism, 2283)

What he did was a very bad idea. What happens to him now isn’t up to me. Considering my imperfect record, telling God how someone else should be judged would not be prudent. (Matthew 6:14–15, 7:1–5)

And that’s yet another topic.

News, views, and background:

How I see:

Posted in Being Catholic | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Predestination

I think that God knows everything, including what I’ll do for the rest of my life.

I also think I have free will, deciding what I do for the rest of my life.

I’m not, however, emulating the White Queen.

“Alice laughed. ‘There’s no use trying,’ she said: ‘one CAN’T believe impossible things.’

“I daresay you haven’t had much practice,’ said the Queen. ‘When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast. There goes the shawl again!'”
(“Through the Looking-Glass,” Charles Dodgson/Lewis Carroll, via Project Gutenberg)

I can’t say exactly how God sees reality, any more than I could explain the Trinity’s operational details.

God isn’t merely big, old, and strong. God is infinite, eternal and the Almighty. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 202, 230)

I’m not. Not even close.

I can’t fully explain God. No human can.

But I can know a little about God, and this is a good thing. (Catechism, 31–38)

Ezekiel 1:26 describes God as “a figure that looked like a human being.” A couple thousand years later, Michelangelo gave us another anthropomorphic image of the Almighty.

I don’t have a problem with Sacred Scripture’s imagery, since I don’t expect the Bible to reflect my culture’s viewpoint. It’d be downright odd if it did, and that’s another topic.

Like I said, how I end up fitting into God’s reality is up to me. I’m not there yet, so I don’t have that information. God does, but it’s not because the Creator either predicts the future or decides what I think. Here’s where it gets interesting.

Viewpoint

One of the more lucid discussions of God and human understanding is in, of all things, a comedy starring George Burns. (November 13, 2016)

“I don’t like to brag, but if I appeared to you just as God—how I really am, what I really am—, your mind couldn’t grasp it.”
(God, in “Oh, God!” (1977) via Wikiquote)

But like I said, understanding what I can is a good idea.

I think God knows exactly what I’ll be doing and that I have free will.

The “up” side is that I can decide whether or not I want to spend eternity with God. If I have any sense, I’ll opt for “with.” But it’s my choice. (Catechism, 1021–1037)

There’s more to it, and that’s yet another topic.

I’ll sometimes imagine God in anthropomorphic terms. But I accept that God not merely a big, strong, smart human.

God is beyond this universe. God is also “here,” no matter where or when “here” is. God is present at all times, past, present and future; and in every place that was, is, or will be. (Catechism, 300)

That’s good news or bad news, depending on whether I’m seeking God, or trying to hide.

“Where can I hide from your spirit? From your presence, where can I flee?”
(Psalms 139:7)

I don’t know what my ‘in or out’ decision will be, because I’m not dead yet. God knows. God isn’t predicting the future or controlling my decisions. God knows because God is there “now.” From God’s viewpoint. (Catechism, 599–600, 1021–1050)

Holy Willie and the Tax Collector

One dictionary defines predestination as the belief “that God has foreordained all things, especially that God has elected certain souls to eternal salvation.”

I don’t know how many folks really believe it: that God picks winners and losers.

I suppose it could help folks like Holy Willie feel good about themselves.

On the other hand, the good role model in Luke 18:9–14 is the tax collector. The Pharisee, not so much.

Feeling hopeless isn’t a good idea, either. It’s a very bad idea, actually. Part of my job is avoiding both despair and presumption: despondency or confidence beyond the call of reason. (Catechism, 2091)

I’m supposed to know and love God, just like everyone else. (Catechism, Prologue)

I hope that I’ll be in that “great multitude, which no one could count, from every nation, race, people, and tongue” — but I’m getting ahead of myself. (Revelation 7:9; Catechism, 27, 788; “Lumen Gentium,” Paul VI (November 21, 1964))

Acting Like Faith Matters

God knows every decision I make, throughout my life, no matter where I am.

God knows what I will do because God is already there: and not limited by time and space, as I am. For God, “all moments of time are present in their immediacy.” (Catechism, 600)

In that sense, I am “predestined” to be in either Heaven or Hell: but the choice is mine.

What I do about my faith is important, too. Believing that Jesus is the Son of God isn’t enough: not by itself.

“So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
“Indeed someone might say, ‘You have faith and I have works.’ Demonstrate your faith to me without works, and I will demonstrate my faith to you from my works.
“You believe that God is one. You do well. Even the demons believe that and tremble.”
(James 2:17–19)

Faith, believing in God, is fine: but it’s useless if I don’t act as if God matters. (Catechism, 1814–1816)

And that’s yet again another topic.

More of my take on faith that makes sense:

Posted in Being Catholic | Tagged , , , , , | 2 Comments

Planet 9, Maybe; Nibiru, No

The world didn’t end last Saturday. That’s nothing new, and neither is another fizzled End Times prediction.

I’ll be talking about how a current End Times prediction affected someone whose name is the same as the wannabe prophet’s; but is an entertainer, not a doomsayer.

I’ll also take a look at the continuing, and serious, search for Planet 9; predictions involving close encounters of the cometary kind; and what we’re learning about the outer Solar System.


Opinions Matter, Sometimes

Whether public opinion affects scientific research depends on how you look at it.

Opinion polls, referendums, acts of Congress, and Supreme Court decisions won’t change how the universe works.

A real-world equivalent of Danae’s “petition to end science tyranny” wouldn’t change Newton’s law of gravity. But it might affect someone’s research budget.

I’d like to think that most American adults are better-informed than the 9th graders who signed a ‘ban dihydrogen monoxide‘ petition.

On the other hand, a National Science Foundation survey’s results showed that just over half of Americans think astrology is “not at all scientific.”

The good news, as I see it, is that over half of us may be paying attention.

It may also mean that more Americans are taking astrology seriously these days. Or maybe the poll wasn’t accurate, or something else.

Some academics figured it was something else: that many Americans didn’t realize that astrology isn’t astronomy. (Jim Lindgren, Washington Post (February 18, 2014))

They could be right. I’ll get back to that.

I suppose getting upset that a government agency spent money on an opinion poll is an option. That makes about as much sense to me as ranting about ignorance, low educational standards, or something else I don’t like.

As it is, I don’t see a problem with government agencies doing opinion polls.

Not in a country where folks at my end of the citizenry have at least an indirect influence on national decisions.

Even if we don’t decide how taxes get collected and spent, how we vote indirectly affects the decision-makers. Officials trying to learn something about folks ‘out there’ makes sense. (December 23, 2016; December 16, 2016)

Astronomy isn’t Astrology


(From NASA, used w/o permission.)
(Northern lights over Canada, seen from the ISS September 15, 2017.)

My guess is that some Catholics believe science is bad because they understand our faith, but aren’t familiar with science or history.

Astrology, along palm reading and other divination efforts, is a bad idea. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2116)

Curiosity isn’t bad. Wondering how things work, learning about the universe, is part of being human. If we’re paying attention, we’ll see order and beauty; which points toward God. (Catechism, 31–32, 35–36, 301, 303–306, 311, 319, 1704, 2293–2296)

Trying to get occult ‘secrets’ or power from unauthorized spiritual sources? That’s a bad idea partly because it’s stepping on God’s authority. (Catechism, 2115–2117)

Besides, astrology as a predictive method is pretty much useless. That’s something we started learning around the 1700s. (August 11, 2017; June 23, 2017)

What happens in the sky does affect what happens on Earth, but not the way we thought. Not even close to what astrology said, and that’s another topic. (February 17, 2017; January 8, 2017)

Magic and Mentalists

My version of English uses the same word for sleight of hand and the breathtakingly imprudent deal dramatized in Marlowe’s “Doctor Faustus.”

I can imagine someone shunning stage magic because they think it’s Satanic.

No matter how silly I thought their fear is, I wouldn’t try dragging them to a David Copperfield show.

Maybe they’ve got personal reasons for that fear: reasonable or not.

Taking Matthew 5:29’s advice is a good idea, at least metaphorically.

“If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one of your members than to have your whole body thrown into Gehenna.”
(Matthew 5:29)

Giving up something that’s normally okay can make sense.

I cut my drinking down to virtually zero because that’s ‘moderate’ for me. But I don’t feel that the only ‘real’ Christians are teetotalers. (July 10, 2016)

Getting back to “magic,” I enjoy watching card tricks and other stage magic.

It doesn’t bother me, since I understand that it’s essentially an application of physical skills and applied psychology.

Houdini’s famous escapes are a related form of entertainment. His efforts to debunk spiritualists may be less famous, and that’s yet another topic. Or nearly so.1

I’ll be talking about a British mentalist and an American — something else — in a bit.

Entertainers who are mentalists give the impression that they’re reading minds and otherwise employing supernatural powers.

As long as folks realize that it’s entertainment, I don’t see a problem with it.

When someone uses the same skills to convince others that they’re mediums or psychics? That’s a problem.

It’s not that I think such things don’t work.

I figure it’s usually someone with flexible ethics, or overly active imaginations and little sense. It’d be pretty far from “living in truth” either way. (Catechism, 2465–2470)

Then there’s Saul’s world-class lapse in judgment, breaking his own law against necromancy and divination.

That interview is in 1 Samuel 28:4–19.

Even assuming that the woman in Endor used only ordinary methods, Saul was breaking his own rules. He really should have known better.


1. Nibiru? Don’t Blame the Brit


(From Planet X News, via BBC News, used w/o permission.)
(David Meade, American conspiracy theorist and “Christian numerologist.”)

“David Meade death threats in end-of-world trolling”
Ciaran Dunbar, BBC News (September 25, 2017)

“Having the same name as a man who predicted the world would end on Saturday – last Saturday – has caused County Down mentalist David Meade no end of grief – even five death threats.

“American conspiracy theorist David Meade claimed that Planet Nibiru would collide with Earth on 23 September.

“David Meade, from Rathfriland, County Down, has been forced to dissociate himself from the claims.

“Newspapers have incorrectly linked the claim to him on social media….”

David Meade, the British entertainer, wants to clear up this misunderstanding. He also offered a refund on tickets for his tour: “in the event of an apocalypse…for refund after the world’s end.”

This “HEARD THE WORLD IS ENDING?” poster was on the British Mr. Meade’s Twitter account, starting Sunday. His refund offer is repeated on his website.2

“… ‘…when people were arriving on my site they were seeing things like “mentalist”, “mind reader”.

“‘That probably sounds like the sort of person that would predict the end of the world,’ he confessed.

“‘The last two weeks have been extraordinary and actually it’s verging on worrying this morning.’…

“…’Sixty percent of my work is in the United States, it is deeply worrying to think that this nonsense could be there online and could affect my business,’ he said.

“He has now received five death threats but said that he is not taking the threats seriously….”
(Ciaran Dunbar, BBC News)

I think “nonsense” is a good description of the American Mr. Meade’s contribution to my country’s chatter.

Nonsense can be entertaining, like Lewis Carroll’s “Jabberwocky” poem.

Even that sort of nonsense stops being fun, I suspect, when it becomes completely random. Noam Chomsky’s Colorless green ideas sleep furiously, is a famous example.

Maybe “famous” isn’t the best word. Statisticians and literature buffs who study grammatically correct semantic nonsense know about it, though.

David Meade — the American doomsayer — may be keeping his options open. Reading between the lines of a Toronto Sun piece, I suspect he’ll say that he expected whatever has happened when he wants more publicity. Or maybe he really believes his story.

Odd Notions

One reason I read BBC News is that they’re generally pretty good at separating fact from opinion. (September 1, 2017)

“…He describes himself as a ‘Christian numerologist’, whose apocalyptic theory is based on a ‘numeric code’ he said he found in the Bible….

“…Mainstream Christian groups have dismissed his theories and have denied that Christians believed them….

“…He said Nasa discovered Planet X in the 1980s and that preparations for it striking – or closely passing – Earth were well under way in both the US and in Russia.”
(Ciaran Dunbar, BBC News)

I’m not sure which “mainstream Christian groups” Ciaran Dunbar asked about this week’s featured conspiracy theorist.

I probably wouldn’t say that Christians don’t believe such nonsense. But as a Catholic living in America, I’m not sure how “mainstream” I am.

I’ve also known Christians with very odd notions. ‘Doomsayer’ Meade’s weird mix of numerology and Bible trivia reminds me of wannabe prophets of my youth.

I assume they were as Christian as they claimed. I’m certain that they were as wildly wrong as today’s End Times prognosticators.

About ‘Doomsayer’ Meade and numerology, maybe he honestly thinks he found his code in the Bible. But sincerity doesn’t guarantee accuracy.

Folks have associated numbers with non-numeric symbolism for a very long time. I think it’s interesting, and pretty much in the same category as astrology.3

Numbers meaning something is “Biblical” — in the sense that books like Revelation use numbers a lot. That doesn’t make numerology “Biblical.” I’ll get back to that.

Akkadian Crossings

The American Meade added extra touches to America’s End Times Bible prophecy routine, like Nibiru.

He didn’t make up Nibiru, though.

My culture is developing a rich folklore about that imaginary planet.

The name comes from an Akkadian word meaning “crossing” or “point of transition,” like river crossings or ferry boats.

Babylonian astronomers used the same word for “equinox” and equinox-related astronomical objects.

Fast-forward a few millennia.

A Russian author started saying that space aliens from the planet Nibiru founded Sumerian civilization.

A Wisconsin woman says she’d been in touch with them, or maybe other aliens. Her story is that they’re warning us that Nibiru will get too close to Earth pretty soon.

Details, including when the cataclysm is predicted, have varied. The Russian author says the doomsday stuff wasn’t his idea, which is likely enough. He was more into the ‘ancient astronaut’ thing.4

None of which has much to do with being Christian. But like I said, I’ve known Christians with odd notions.


2. Charting the Outer Worlds

(From Caltech/Robert Hurt, via Sky and Telescope, used w/o permission.)
(The Solar System’s six most distant known objects, and where “Planet 9” may be.)

“New Wrinkles in the Search for ‘Planet X’”
Kelly Beatty, Sky and Telescope (June 21, 2017)

“Are astronomers being misled by the quirky alignment of orbits that they’re finding in the distant Kuiper Belt?

“Even as the count of known planets around other stars continues to climb, a small group of observational astronomers and dynamicists are fixated on something much closer to home: tantalizing clues that a super-Earth-size planet lurks undiscovered somewhere beyond the Kuiper Belt in our own solar system.

“Some have dubbed it ‘Planet X,’ others ‘Planet 9,’ and right now observing teams are using some of the world’s largest telescopes in a race to track it down. One big problem is that they’re not sure where to look — or if it even exists….”

This “Planet X” or “Planet 9” isn’t Nibiru.

This is a hypothetical large planet in the outer Solar System. Scientists aren’t certain that it’s there, but they have math that says it could be.

Again, Nibiru is an Akkadian word for “crossing.” It’s been applied to something in 20th-century folklore and mythology.

If we find “Planet 9,” maybe we’ll give it the Nibiru moniker. There’d be a certain entertainment value in that. But since “Nibiru” isn’t the name of an ancient mythology’s deity, it wouldn’t fit our cultural precedents.

I’ll get back to our search for “Planet 9,” after a little background on planets we’ve known about for millennia and names.

We can see five Solar planets from the one we live on. That was enough to get us started with serious study of the universe.

The objects we call planets, plus Earth’s sun and moon, were the Seven Luminaries.

What set those seven objects apart is that they move around in our sky. Fast enough for us to notice, anyway.

The “fixed” stars shift position, too, which we’d probably have noticed if an average human lifespan was several powers of ten longer than it is.

Folks have been tracking relationships between lunar months and Earth’s solar year off and on for at least 10,000 years. We stopped using the Warren Field calendar about four millennia back.

Mesopotamian specialists were tracking objects in the sky by that time.

Their work eventually led to current Western astronomy.

Ancient Romans named planets after their deities, or maybe vice versa.

They probably picked up the habit from the Greeks and Babylonians. Europeans adopted the Roman custom, and we’re still likely to give new planets names from someone’s mythology.

We assigned symbolic values to planets, too. European alchemists associated the sun with gold, the moon with silver, and so on through Jupiter and Saturn: tin and lead for those two. Astrologers did pretty much the same thing.5

Statistics

Then we started developing better observing tech and analytic tools.

Hans Lippershey developed the first telescope we know of in 1608.

Galileo repurposed the Dutch perspective glass for astronomical observation, along with quite a few other folks. (June 2, 2017)

Who ‘invented’ statistics and when it happened depends partly on how you use the term. We’ve been recording and organizing data for millennia, mostly for inventories and censuses. Or should that be censi?

The word goes back to 1749, when Gottfried Achenwall took Latin and Italian words, getting Statistik:”science of the state.”

Other sorts of numeric analysis came at other times. Probability theory goes back at least to Al-Kindi’s cryptography work and frequency analysis in the 800s.

Gerolamo Cardano, Pierre de Fermat and Blaise Pascal’s letters to each other discussed how to divvy up winnings after an interrupted gambling session. Christiaan Huygens tied that work together in his 1657 “On Reasoning in Games of Chance” treatise.

Jacob Bernoulli and Abraham de Moivre expanded probability theory’s math in the early 1700s. A great many other folks did more work, giving us the current statistical toolkit.

That sort of thing helped us realize that astrology didn’t work the way we felt it did, and I said that earlier.6

Discoveries

I suppose Saturn could have been the outermost object in the Solar System.

But it’s not.

We can see Uranus in Earth’s sky.

Folks who first noticed Uranus didn’t think of it as a planet, most likely because it’s so dim and slow-moving.

Hipparchos recorded seeing Uranus in 128 BC. Probably. Something with about the right brightness and position is in his star catalog.

Ptolemy used the Hipparchos catalog in his “Almagest.” The Almagest described a universe of nested spheres with Earth in the center. That model was a close-enough match to observations for quite a while. (December 2, 2016)

John Flamsteed spotted Uranus six times or more in 1690. He cataloged it as 34 Tauri. Pierre Charles Le Monnier observed and recorded it too, at least a dozen times, between 1750 and 1769.

Sir William Herschel used his town house garden in Bath, Somerset, for sky-watching. We didn’t have street lighting then, so astronomers could work in their back yards.

He recorded a “Nebulous star or perhaps a comet” near ζ Tauri in 1781. It had moved slightly when he looked again, a few days later, so he reported it as a comet. His report left the possibility that it was a planet open.

Uranus had completed almost a full orbit by 1847. Astronomers had been tracking its position. They noticed that it wasn’t moving according to Newton’s law of gravitation.

There were various possible explanations. Maybe Newton’s law of gravitation didn’t work the way they expected. That didn’t seem likely, since it had been standing up to other observations for about a century.

Another, more likely, explanation was that gravity from something big and previously-unknown was farther out.

Who worked out the math first, showing where that ‘planet X’ should be, depends on who’s talking. The Royal Society gave Urbain Le Verrier credit.

More Observations, and Still Looking

Johann Gottfried Galle observed and identified Neptune in 1846.

This was a big deal, since it was the first time astronomers had used math to figure out where something was — and found it.

Galle arguably discovered Neptune, since he correctly identified it. But he wasn’t the first to see the planet.

The U.S. Naval Observatory’s Sears C. Walker, looking through historical records, found more recorded observations.

Jérôme Lalande saw it in 1795.

John Herschel spotted the planet in 1830. He thought it was a star. Galileo had done the same thing in 1612 and 1613.

The records Walker found, particularly those made by Lalande’s staff, helped pin down Neptune’s orbit. Like Uranus, the orbit followed Newton’s law of gravitation: but not quite.

There was probably something else out there.

Something big enough to affect Neptune’s orbit.

We knew roughly where to look; which quite a few astronomers did, staring in 1909.

Percival Lowell’s survey caught two faint images of Pluto in 1915, but he didn’t recognize what they were.

The Lowell Observatory eventually resumed his work. The director gave a new guy, Clyde Tombaugh, the job of finding “Planet X.”

Tombaugh’s job was looking at pairs of photos, one after the other, in a blink comparator. In 1930, after a great many blinks, he found what might be a moving object on photographic plates made January 23 and 29 of that year.

More observations gave enough data for Lowell Observatory to announce their discovery of another planet. That was in March of 1930.7

An eleven-year-old schoolgirl’s name for the object, Pluto, became official a few months later. The Disney character got the same name in 1931.

The New Horizons probe left Earth in 2006, passed Pluto in 2015. It is currently heading for Kuiper belt object 2014 MU69.

Scientists are still analyzing data sent back from New Horizons’s Pluto flyby. We’re calling Pluto a dwarf planet, and are finding more like it in the Kuiper belt.

Analysis of the known outer Solar System bodies shows that some of the orbits aren’t nearly as random as they might be.

There might be another big planet out there. Or maybe not. But we’ve learned a bit about probability in the last few centuries, and the math checks out pretty well.

If Planet 9/Planet X is out there, it’ll be a planet. A big one.

Planet 9, 2016 Analysis


(From Scott Sheppard/Carnegie Institution of Washington, via Sky and Telescope, used w/o permission.)
(Orbits of some outer Solar System objects, and proposed orbit of Planet 9. It’s called Planet X in this 2016 chart.)

“Orbital Path Podcast: In Search of Planet 9”
Michelle Thaller, podcast, Sky and Telescope (November 28, 2016)

“Astronomers are debating the existence of ‘Planet 9,’ a big planet beyond the orbits of Pluto and Neptune. Dr. Michelle Thaller talks with planetary scientists Scott Shepard and Mike Brown about if and when we’ll discover it.

“One of my favorite topics of the last decade has been the amazing richness and diversity of planets in our galaxy; planets around other stars, that is. The first planet outside our solar system was found a little over 20 years ago, and today we have over 3,400 confirmed exoplanets.

“Closer to home, we have bragged that we have now visited all the planets of our solar system. But have we? It often surprises people that we may have a long way to go before our own solar system is fully explored, or even discovered….”

My guess is that we’ll still be charting objects in the outer Solar System long after interstellar probes begin visiting nearby stars.8

By then we’ll probably have about as good an idea of what we’ll find as oceanographers do today, while mapping and exploring Earth’s ocean floor.

We’ve got a pretty good start already. Ernst Öpik said that long-period comets could come from a cloud orbiting in the Solar System’s borderlands. That was in 1932.

Jan Oort raised the same idea in 1950, and the “Oort cloud” name caught on.

We still haven’t found the Oort cloud’s outer fringe. It may merge into similar ‘clouds’ around our stellar neighbors. Or maybe not.

We’re getting a much better picture of the cloud’s inner regions. The last I heard, definitions for the Kuiper belt and scattered disc overlap. They’re both an assortment of very cold minor planets.

The Kuiper belt is roughly doughnut-shaped. So is the scattered disk, except those orbits go even farther away from the ecliptic.

They’re like the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter. Except stuff there is mostly rock and metal. What we’re finding in the Oort cloud is almost certainly stuff that’d melt or boil this far in; like methane, ammonia and water.


Who’s in Charge?

I like living in an era when quite a bit of the science I learned in high school is outdated.

But let’s say I didn’t, and would feel better if we’d known everything there is to know when Sumu-abum was running Babylon.

My preferences wouldn’t change reality.

Since I’m a Christian and a Catholic, I think God’s God and I’m not.

I’m quite happy with the arrangement. (November 18, 2016)

“Our God is in heaven; whatever God wills is done.”
(Psalms 115:3)

How I see the Bible, science, and what we’ve learned in the last two dozen or so centuries, may not be “Biblical” by creation science standards.

That’s hardly surprising. Fundamentalists cooked up their alternative to the real thing in the 1960s. Their notion of “Biblical” isn’t mine. (March 31, 2017)

Some Catholics seem as fervently dedicated to Ussher’s assumptions as their Calvinist counterparts. I’m not sure why.

I figure what the Church said in 1277 still makes sense. If someone disagrees with God about how the universe works, God wins the argument. (December 16, 2016)

“Imminent” for Two Millennia

I don’t know who made the first fizzled prediction of when Jesus would come back. We’ve been having false alarms for about two millennia now.

My favorite, in terms of being imaginative, is Swedenborg’s. (August 13, 2017)

I see a funny side to America’s perennial End Times prognostication.

But I also realize that some folks actually believe them. Maybe it’s the same set who jump on allegedly-scientific portents of doom, maybe not. (April 9, 2017)

I’m a Christian, so I believe what Jesus said. He’ll be back. I’m a Catholic, so I realize that Jesus didn’t know the timetable and that we should be ready whenever it is. (Matthew 24:36–44, Matthew 25:13, Mark 13:32–37)

Christ’s second coming has been “imminent” for two millennia now. It will come when it does, then we see what’s next. (Catechism, 673, 1038–1041)

That’s good enough for me.

Assumptions

I could take cherry-picked verses from the Bible, add a heaping helping of pop science, stir thoroughly and present the result as “Biblical.”

I won’t. Partly because I think it’d be profoundly pointless at best. Mostly because I take Sacred Scripture, the Bible, very seriously. (Catechism, 101–133)

I also think using our brains, learning about this wonder-filled universe, is a good idea. (Catechism, 35, 50, 159, 2292–2296)

Folks can and have taken bits from the Bible and warped them around assorted assumptions. Revelation gives them a rich “Biblical” starting point.

“…it abounds in unfamiliar and extravagant symbolism, which at best appears unusual to the modern reader….”
(Revelation, Introduction, NAB)

Again, I take the Bible very seriously. Folks who apply their own assumptions to what they find, not so much. The effect they occasionally have on others can be a serious matter, and that’s yet again another topic.

Comets, Space Vampires, and the News

Prophets of doom with scientific-sounding signs and portents aren’t as old as their faith-based brethren. I figure that’s partly because science as we know it is fairly new.

Science news reported cyanogen in Halley’s comet before its 1910 appearance.

Camille Flammarion may or may not have actually said the cyanogen “would impregnate the atmosphere and possibly snuff out all life on the planet.”

That claim appeared in another sort of news.

Whether he said it or not, folks selling gas masks did a booming business until we didn’t all die. (January 27, 2017)

We went through pretty much the same thing in the mid-1800s. The Great Comet of 1556 was supposed to come back and wreak chaos and destruction upon a helpless Earth. It didn’t show up. (December 11, 2016)

Halley’s comet did come back, in the mid-1980s, accompanied by a movie about space vampires.

It’s been a while since “Nemesis,” the “death star,” made the rounds through journalism’s imaginative regions. The highly-hypothetical star arguably launched Sailor Moon’s second story arc, and that’s still another topic.9

More about faith and using our brains:


1 Fun and nonsense:

2 David Meade, speaker and entertainer:

3 Sincerely-held beliefs:

4 Recent weirdness and a video game:

5 Astronomy’s first few millennia, briefly:

6 Science, math, and silliness:

7 (Re-)discoveries:

8 Solar borderlands:

9 Comets, a movie, and cartoons:

Posted in Science News | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Prayer Routine: Month Eight

Jesus said we should always pray. Our Lord gave us pointers about prayer, too: the parable of the persistent widow and another about the pharisee and the tax collector. That’s in Luke 18:1–14.

Maybe someone’s taken those verses and decided it means that Christians should be saying prayers 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Or at least until our voices give out or we drop from exhaustion.

I’m pretty sure that’s not what our Lord had in mind. Prayer is important, though.

“Rejoice always.
Pray without ceasing.”
(Thessalonians 5:16–17)

One of the ways we “pray always” is by doing vespers.

These evening prayers have been around longer than my civilization’s current iteration, in one form or another. They’re currently part of the Liturgy of the Hours.

Doing that is part of being a priest or deacon. Some monastic orders follow it, too. It’s not just for those folks, though.

Prayer didn’t start with Liturgy of the Hours. Not by a long shot.

In a sense, we’re surrounded by ongoing prayers that started long before we did. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2569)

“World Without End” and Me

“The heavens declare the glory of God;
the firmament proclaims the works of his hands.”
(Psalms 19:2)

Anything I do very likely won’t add much to songs and praise mentioned in Job 38:7 and Psalms 19:2.

Fretting about that doesn’t make sense to me. Neither does brooding on where I fit between the wealthy man and the widow in Luke 21:1–4. I figure praying is a better use of my time than worrying about it.

The start of Luke 21 is more about charity than prayer, now that I think about it.

I started a new prayer routine February 13. A little over seven months later, I’m still doing it. Pretty much.

The routine is two sets of prayers, one in the morning and the other at night. They’re based on Lauds and Vespers.

I start with the Lord’s prayer and wrap things up with a doxology I know —

“Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.”

Maybe you’ve met someone who insists that prayers aren’t really prayers unless you use a particular language, or pray in a room without windows — or adhere to some other custom.

My native language is English, so that’s what I use. I nearly always do the morning set at my desk, since that’s where I keep a printed copy of the prayers. But I don’t think that makes my prayers better or worse.

I think picking a location and time is a good idea. It helps me remember what I’m supposed to be doing.

‘At my desk’ won’t work for everyone. I don’t see a problem with that. Many folks don’t have desks, and wouldn’t need or use one. No problem there, either. Not that I can see.

Not Perfect, Praying Anyway

The morning set isn’t an issue. I’m awake by the time I sit down, and have a printout to help me remember what I do.

The evening set is another matter.

The good news is that I don’t need a cheat sheet for the Lord’s prayer and doxology.

That’s bad news, too; or could be, if I rattled the words off without paying attention.

Particularly if I got the notion that external form was the important part. (Catechism, 2111)

I don’t always remember the evening prayers while I’m at my desk. I’m not particularly alert that time of day, so more often than not I’ve gone through the rest of my evening routine before noticing that it’s time to pray.

Writhing in guilt and anguish over my failure is an option. But not a sensible one, I think. Instead, I’ve made a point of remembering what my prayers say.

Not the exact words, but the sequence of ideas. That’s a bit easier for me to remember, and lets me do the routine no matter where I am. Staying awake through the whole thing took effort a few times, and that’s another topic.

Surrounded by Beauty and Wonders

Basically, prayer is a relationship with God, a gift of grace. It’s something I decide to do, or not. (Catechism, 2258–2565)

Prayers can be spontaneous and should be routine. It shouldn’t be all one or the other. (Catechism, 2629, 2650, 2700–2719)

It depends partly on what sort of prayers they are. (June 11, 2017; February 19, 2017)

Another way to sort and label prayers is by what they’re about. We’ve got prayers of blessing and adoration, petition, intercession, thanksgiving, and praise. (Catechism, 2623–2642)

Petitions, asking God for something, are requests, not demands. I can’t make God do anything. Maybe that’s obvious. (Psalms 115:3; Catechism, 268)

My morning and evening prayers have some routine petitions.

I could add personal requests, too, but generally do that outside of the routine. ‘Extras’ for the morning prayers come from a local prayer group. I’m on their calling list, giving me opportunities to pray for others.

If I had to pick a favorite sort of prayer, it’d probably be praise and thanksgiving.

No matter where we look, we’re surrounded by beauty and wonders. I like telling God how much I admire this universe, and my gratitude for God’s work — and mercy.

“Indeed, before you the whole universe is as a grain from a balance, or a drop of morning dew come down upon the earth.
“But you have mercy on all, because you can do all things; and you overlook sins for the sake of repentance.
“For you love all things that are and loathe nothing that you have made; for you would not fashion what you hate.”
(Wisdom 11:22–24)

More, mostly about prayer and thanksgiving:

Posted in Being Catholic | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Values and Ichthyosaurs

A nation’s schools are returning to traditional values. Whether that’s good or bad news depends partly on how you see what we’ve learned since about 1859.

I think we’ve learned more about how the universe works, and that this is good news. We haven’t consistently made good use of the knowledge, but that’s our problem.

We’ve made good and bad use of everything we’ve learned, from using fire to writing blogs. Whether it’s good or bad depends on us, not fire or the Internet. And that’s another topic.

Two scientists studied an ichthyosaur that had been used as a wall decoration. What they learned adds to what we’re learning about those critters. I think that’s worthwhile.


NLMH 106234 — or — Giving This Ichthyosaur a Name

What scientists said about the fossilized ichthyosaur probably won’t please folks who like absolute certainty.

“Estimate,” “estimated,” “estimation,” and “estimates” show up a lot in their Acta Palaeontologica Polonica paper.

It doesn’t have a name, as far as I know. Its official label is NLMH 106234, which isn’t particularly catchy.

My guess is that it’s the specimen’s accession number. That’s a code libraries, art galleries, museums and archives use to keep track of individual items. It’s often assigned when the thing first gets into the collection’s cataloging system.

The fossil was found near Williton, Somerset. Doniford village and St Decumans hamlet are near there.

Williton sounds a little like Willie, so I’ll call NLMH 106234 “Willie.”

Willie’s not all there, which is why the scientists estimated some details.

Informed Faith

If I was a dedicated creationist, I might ignore some of what we’ve learned over the last few centuries; and denounce the parts I like the least.

Throw in famous hoaxes like Piltdown Man and the Cardiff Giant, quote bits from the King James Bible, and I’d have the start of a colorful rant against Godless scientists and their Satanic cult, evolution.

That style of avoiding post-Georgian knowledge may be showing signs of wear.

I’m not sure how many ‘Bible-believing’ Christians adopted ‘creation science’ as their method of choice. (July 23, 2017)

I think they make about as much sense as their counterparts in the ‘science or faith’ wrangle. I don’t see a point in claiming that critters mustn’t change because God exists: or that God can’t exist because critters have been changing.

Pretending that neither viewpoint matters might be tempting, but a remarkable number of folks lean one way or another.

I think God exists, and matters. I also think informed faith and truth get along fine. The ‘science threatens Christianity’ notion didn’t quite start in the Victorian era, and I’ve talked about that before. (April 28, 2017; March 10, 2017; November 6, 2016; October 28, 2016)


1. Turkey Returning to Traditional Values


(From AFP, Getty Images, via BBC News, used w/o permission.)
(Folks in Turkey protesting the new ‘traditional’ curriculum, and a banner with President Erdogan’s portrait.)

“Turkey’s new school year: Jihad in, evolution out”
Öykü Altuntaş, BBC News (September 18, 2017)

“Turkey’s schools have begun the new academic year with a controversial curriculum that leaves out the theory of evolution and brings in the concept of jihad.

“For Turkey’s Islamist-rooted government, the idea is for a new ‘education of values’.

“Critics have denounced new textbooks as ‘sexist’ and ‘anti-scientific’, and complain of a major blow to secular education….

“…Opponents have accused President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) of replacing the secular foundations of the Turkish republic with Islamic and conservative values….”


“Passions flare as Turkey excludes evolution from textbooks”
Selin Girit, BBC News (June 24, 2017)

“‘This is bigotry, this is all about being a fanatic. How are they going to teach biology now? How are they going to talk about science?’

“On an online forum about the government’s decision to exclude the theory of evolution from the national curriculum, a passionate discussion is under way….

“…’Turkey will be the second country after Saudi Arabia that excludes theory of evolution from its curriculum,’ says Feray Aytekin Aydogan, the head of Egitim-Sen – a teachers’ union representing over 100,000 members across the country.

“‘Even in Iran, there are 60 hours of lessons on evolution and 11 hours on Darwin himself,’ she adds….”

I don’t know enough about what’s happening in Turkey, or the new curriculum, to have an informed opinion about their situation.

The current dispute reminds me of America’s creation-evolution hubbub. Today’s details are different, but I see the same conflict between new and old assumptions.

This week’s BBC News article’s attention-grabbing headline and scary words like “jihad” are to be expected. It’s news, and the BBC follows some journalistic conventions.

Öykü Altuntaş also gave a little information about what was in the new curriculum. Sharing information is a journalistic convention I’d like to see more of.

“…Jihad is defined as ‘religious war’ by the dictionary of the Institute of Turkish Language. But education ministry officials say the concept of jihad has been exploited by jihadist groups such as so-called Islamic State (IS).

“The education minister says the concept should be introduced as part of Islam in the context of ‘loving a nation’….
(Öykü Altuntaş, BBC News (September 18, 2017))

What I have read doesn’t fill me with dread and foreboding.

But I am concerned about exactly what terms like “loving a nation” mean in Turkey’s cultural and intellectual context.

That’s concerned, not in a blind panic.

Knowing that some folks in Turkey are upset by the new curriculum is interesting, but hardly surprising. I wouldn’t expect everyone in Turkey, or anywhere else, to be comfortable with changes in their status quo.

Turkey’s government deciding to teach kids conservative values reminded me of late 20th century America’s “family values” slogan.

I think quite a few Americans still feel that we should start living as if the 1960s never happened. I’m not one of them.

America’s customs and institutions were overdue for an overhaul in my ‘good old days.’ What we have today isn’t ideal, either.

But if we’re going to move, the direction is forward: not back.

“Loving a Nation”

About “loving a nation,” I think that can be a good idea. (July 4, 2017; July 24, 2016)

I even think “conservative values” may be okay. “Liberal values” may be okay.

What matters is how closely they match natural law: ethical standards written into reality. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1952-1960)

Then there’s The Good Citizen magazine, The Pillar of Fire church monthly. That’s their July 1926 cover.

Under Bishop Alma White’s leadership, it declared the importance of being white, praised the Ku Klux Klan, and warned against what she saw as the looming menace of Catholicism.

I gather that the Pillar of Fire Church was a bit wacky even by 1920s conservative standards.

Many Americans kept moving toward greater tolerance. I see that as a good thing.

That’s just as well, since recognizing humanity’s transcendent dignity, and our solidarity, is an obligation. (Catechism, 1928-1942)

Traditions, Tradition, and Truth

I don’t know how many Catholics believe that our faith depends on denouncing evolution.1

That attitude makes sense, sort of, for some American churches.

For Catholics, not so much.

If you haven’t read my stuff before, my views of culture, tradition, and science may seem strange. Particularly if Catholics you know apparently feel that being Catholic requires upholding conservative values: or dedication to liberal causes.

Feel free to skip down to Sea Dragons if you know what I’ll be saying.

I keep running into American Catholics who act as if they’ve embraced America’s Calvinist traditions, and added Catholic trimmings. That’s not what our Tradition is about.

I must respect and follow Tradition, with a capital T. It’s the living transmission of faith, carried out by the Holy Spirit. (Catechism, 77-78)

Following my culture’s traditions is not “Tradition.” Cultural traditions change. Sometimes being Catholic means not following a culture’s tradition.

America’s spiritual traditions include a respect for the Bible.

This is, basically, a good idea. But it’s not just ‘the Bible and God and me.’ (Catechism, 83-87, 101-133)

And I’m sure not supposed to follow the lead of folks like Alma White. Those are “traditional values,” but they were bad ideas at the time. That’s still true.

Unthinking devotion to old habits may be easier than learning new ideas. That doesn’t make it a good idea. “New” isn’t always bad, “old” isn’t always good.

New knowledge isn’t a problem.

Making daft assumptions about knowledge, old or new? That’s a problem.

I’m not obliged to find science interesting.

But valuing truth is required. That includes truth we find in the natural world. (Catechism, 32, 41, 74, 2500)

Faith is willingly embracing all truth. (Catechism, 142-150)

Insisting that scientists have been lying since the mid-19th century and that America’s far-from-Catholic conservative churches have been upholding the banner of truth doesn’t make sense. Not to me. (March 31, 2017; March 26, 2017; December 9, 2016)

Who’s In Charge?

I’m pretty sure that most Christians, Catholic and otherwise, do not think Earth is flat.

Discrepancies between what we’ve learned about our world’s size and shape over the last two dozen centuries don’t seem to be a major part of the ‘faith versus science’ issue.

On the other hand, I won’t insist that God had to create a universe where planets are round. Or that we live in the only creation God’s running.

For all I know, folks in another cosmos may live a flat plate supported by pillars.

If we somehow learn that the Almighty maintains other universes with different physical laws than ours, I won’t say ‘you can’t do that.’

Aside from being pointless, that attitude strikes me as a bit less than respectful. God’s God, I’m not.

God is large and in charge. I figure part of my job is admiring God’s work. (Catechism, 268, 283, 341)

Other universes might be perfect from the start, and changeless.

The reality we’re in isn’t like that. This universe is “in a state of journeying,” “in statu viae,” toward an ultimate perfection. But it’s not there yet. (Catechism, 302-305)

I think God is creating a universe which follows knowable physical laws. (Catechism, 279, 299, 301)

Again, I’m okay with that.

Scopes and Anti-Evolution Leagues

I certainly don’t see a problem with learning more about this universe.

Since I think God creates this universe, anything we learn will be true.

That may not be immediately obvious, particularly if someone assumes that what we thought was true a few thousand years back must be spot-on accurate.

But I’m pretty sure that ancient Mesopotamian astrologers didn’t know all the answers. Neither do we.

Some of us have been paying attention, and wondering how this universe works.

That’s given a few folks conniptions. But not me. I don’t see a problem with knowledge: including what we’re currently learning.

If we keep learning, we’ll discover that scientific truths we’re uncovering and truths of faith harmonize. We’ll learn more about God in the process. Faith and science get along. (Catechism, 31-32, 35-36, 159, 319, 1704)

I strongly suspect that learning takes more work than steadfastly ignoring knowledge.

I think it makes more sense.

Not everyone sees faith, science, and reality the same way — obviously.

I think a few folks can be relied on to be jittery about anything they didn’t learn as children.

Creationists and atheists often seem to agree that we have a choice of either learning more about God’s creation or following God. The assumption is “traditional” in the sense that it’s a few centuries old.

There’s a sad history behind that.

Quite a few educated Europeans got fed up with religious propaganda during and after the Thirty Years’ War. I don’t blame them.

Their decision to re-evaluate assumptions about authority and business-as-usual made sense. Seeing faith as a destructive influence, not so much. (November 6, 2016)

Uneasiness about studying nature is much older. (July 15, 2016)

Centuries before the Thirty Years’ War, some grass roots folks thought Albert of Lauingen was too curious about nature.

The Church didn’t think so. Albertus Magnus is now patron Saint of scientists. (June 23, 2017)

Today’s craziness got help from Victorian politics.

England’s religious establishment had a tight grip on the nation’s schools. Thomas Huxley didn’t like that. He might have defended Darwin’s theory anyway. But his politics probably encouraged greater enthusiasm. (October 28, 2016)

That wouldn’t have endeared science to Englishmen who liked their nation’s official church and school just the way they were.

Preferring the status quo isn’t limited to Brits. To this day, some Americans have trouble dealing with an increasingly non-English America. Back in the 19th century, the ‘Americans are English’ attitude probably had wider appeal.

Time passed. Scientists kept studying reality, some folks kept trying to ignore newfangled ideas.

Someone founded the Anti-Evolution League of Minnesota. That grew into the Anti-Evolution League of America, with headquarters in Kentucky. Tennessee’s legislature defended traditional values — their version — with the 1925 Butler Act.

That promptly led to the Scopes Monkey Trial.

The trial, particularly William Jennings Bryan’s testimony, encouraged folks at both ends.

Some saw it as proof that Christianity demands ignorance. Some continued their impassioned defense of a long-dead Calvinist’s timetable.

Those are extremes. Some folks aren’t born-again atheists or Bible thumpers, but maintain allegiance to similar beliefs.

I don’t see that ending soon. But I don’t have to take either side. I’d much rather praise God and admire this wonder-filled universe.


2. Sea Dragons


(From Joschua Knüppe, Dean Lomax; via BBC News, used w/o permission.)
(Joschua Knüppe’s illustration of NLMH 106234 and the ichthyosaur’s skeleton.)

“‘Sea dragon’ fossil is ‘largest on record’”
Helen Briggs, BBC News (Augsut 28, 2017)

“The fossil of a marine reptile ‘re-discovered’ in a museum is the largest of its kind on record, say scientists.

“The ‘sea dragon’ belongs to a group that swam the world’s oceans 200 million years ago, while dinosaurs walked the land.

“The specimen is the largest Ichthyosaurus to be described, at more than three metres long….”

This is the ichthyosaur I talked about earlier. Like I said, I’ll call it “Willie.”

Willie isn’t an it, it’s a she. This is the third ichthyosaur we’ve found so far that was fossilized along with its unborn offspring. All three had only one little ichthyosaur inside. Probably.

Scientists found traces of one little ichthyosaur in each, but might have missed something. The ‘single embryo’ specimens might have had other, currently-unknown, embryos.

Whether that means that ichthyosaur births were always single is a good question. With only three examples, it’s possible, even likely: but not certain.

Willie spent the last 195,000,000 to 200,000,000 years in England’s Blue Lias formation. England wasn’t there most of the time, of course.

Land that would become Somerset’s Blue Lias formation was a mix of shallow sea and islands in Willie’s day.

Joschua Knüppe’s illustration shows Willie swimming with ammonites. That’s accurate, or not, depending on what you call the ammonites living then.

Some scientists call ammonite species living after the Triassic neoammonites. It’s a significant distinction, but I’ll keep calling them all ammonites for now.

Change and Willie’s Travels


(From Ron Blakey, NAU Geology, used w/o permission)

Earth wasn’t like it is today when Willie was alive. The air had about seven times as much carbon dioxide as it did before the Industrial Age, and 130% the oxygen. It was warmer, too, by about three degrees centigrade.

Like I said earlier, Willie isn’t all there. The fossil isn’t quite complete. A forefin is mostly a plaster reconstruction. There’s a break in the specimen’s middle. The original display’s tail wasn’t Willie’s.

This isn’t a hoax, though. Scientists and technicians kept records of what they were doing. We know which bits are original and which are there to make it a good museum display.

That’s pretty much standard practice for museums. Part of their job is education. That’s easier if you show folks what would have been there, if we had complete specimens.

We’ve been getting a lot better at clearly labeling displays, so that visitors can tell which bits are reconstructions.

Peter Langham found Willie at Doniford Bay, Watchet, Somerset, in the mid-1990s. He prepped the fossil for display. Like I said, part of a museum’s job is education. He added the tail of a smaller ichthyosaur and some ammonites to make a good display.

He’s also professional fossil collector, so he kept records of what he did.

Willie didn’t stay put. Siber + Siber bought the fossil. The Swiss company deals in minerals, rocks and fossils. They sold it to Ernst Schwitters, a Hanover-based art collector. He used it as a wall decoration in his living room.

Ernst Schwitters died a bit later. Making up a ‘curse of the ichthyosaur’ tale might be fun, but someone might believe it. Besides, it isn’t Halloween yet: and that’s yet another topic.

The Kurt & Ernst Schwitters Foundation was the next owner. Willie went on loan to the Lower Saxony State Museum in 2005. They put the fossil on display in December of 2007, after removing a wood frame and preparing it for public viewing.

That’s where Willie was when two scientists noticed the fossil and decided to take a closer look.2

Mary Anning


(From Dean Lomax, via BBC News, used w/o permission.)
(Willie and ammonites.)

Aside from size, Willie stands out as being the only ichthyosaur whose embryo has been identified to the ‘species’ level. The third row of Willie’s hindfin is unusual, too; which probably interests scientists more than most folks.

This year’s research was, I think, useful. We know a bit more about ichthyosaurs than we did before. But it’s newsworthy mainly because Willie is so big, and so complete.

Who gets credit for finding the first ichthyosaur fossil has changed since the early 19th century. I figure somebody found an ichthyosaur fossil first.

Who that was and when it happened is a good question. Right now, we don’t know who; and can’t.

Folks have been living where Somerset is now for a half-million years or so. My guess is that quite a few folks have noticed fossils in the area, including ichthyosaur remains.

But the ‘first’ credit has gone to various British subjects. I’m pretty sure it was someone in the Anning family.

A few folks say Mary Anning’s brother Joseph spotted the first complete ichthyosaur skull in 1811. They’re probably right. But he doesn’t get credit as the ichthyosaur discoverer these days.

Mary Anning found the 1811 specimen’s torso in 1812. That makes her the discoverer by current standards.

Mary Anning’s father was a cabinetmaker who collected and sold fossils on the side. I gather that the Annings were not of the aristocracy. That, and her culture’s values, often gave “gentlemen geologists” credit for her work.

The good news is that some men realized that she was smart and capable. My experience has been that a fair number of men and women have their wits about them. They’re not always the ones in charge, and that’s yet again another topic.

That was then, this is now. Joseph Anning may have done more than be Mary Anning’s brother who just happened to find a skull. Maybe he’ll be more famous when the year 2223 rolls around. Then again, maybe not.

Good Sense and Talent


(From Henry Thomas de la Beche, via Wellcome Library/Wikimedia Commons, used w/o permission.)
(Geologist and paleontologist Henry De la Beche’s 1830 cartoon.)

Sir Henry De la Beche was one of the men who recognized Mary Anning’s abilities. He drew that cartoon and sold lithographs of it in 1830, helping her make ends meet.

I see it as an example of a scientist having good sense: and a fair degree of artistic talent. Also a sense of humor.

We’ve learned quite a bit about ichthyosaurs since 1811.

Scientists thought they laid eggs and did so on land, like today’s sea turtles. That made sense, since they’re a lot like reptiles.

Joseph Chaning Pearce found the first pregnant ichthyosaur in 1845. Scientists realized that the critters probably couldn’t go ashore even if they tried.

Data, research, and discussion led to the conclusion that ichthyosaurs lived, died, and gave birth in the water. That was around 1880.

The Ichthyosaur Story

There’s quite a bit we still don’t know about ichthyosaurs. A big question is how they became ichthyosaurs.3

They’re shaped a bit like today’s whales and dolphins. It’s very likely that ichthyosaurs descended from land-living animals with four legs.

That illustration doesn’t show a ‘proto-ichtyosaur.’ The critter is Ambulocetus, “walking whale.” We figure it’s an early version of today’s whales. (June 23, 2017)

Despite the name, scientists have decided that “walking whale” didn’t actually walk. The critter was probably completely aquatic.

We don’t have that sort of transitional form for ichthyosaurs. That doesn’t necessarily mean it didn’t exist.

Scientists have been filling in the ichthyosaur story’s early chapters, though.

Cartorhynchus may have played a part. It lived before ichthyosaurs looked the way they did in Willie’s day. It was a bit like ichthyosaurs in some ways, not much like them in others. It was aquatic, but its paddles would have let it move on land.

Hupehsuchia was probably related to Cartorhynchus. Or ichthyosaurs. Or both, or neither. That critter was fully aquatic, and we have a great deal left to learn about it.


Faith and Science

My salvation does not depend on knowing how ichthyosaurs developed.

It isn’t threatened by thinking they exist, or wondering about how they fit into Earth’s long story.

I’m a Christian. My salvation depends on our Lord, Jesus.

Some Christians seem convinced that evolution threatens faith, although details have shifted a little. ‘Bible science’ started inspiring folks in the 1960s, and gives cartoonists opportunities for humor. (March 31, 2017)

I take my faith, the Bible, and God seriously.

But I don’t think that requires assuming that a Calvinist’s study of the Bible, published in 1650, proves that God created the universe in 4004 BC.

Or that Ussher’s chronology is more scientifically accurate than what scientists have been publishing since then.

Christians with similar views have made their own assumptions over the centuries, apparently with a conviction that their version of the Bible upholds their preferences.

I’m a Catholic. I’m encouraged to see scientific discoveries as opportunities for greater admiration for God’s creation. Curiosity and science are part of being human. (Catechism, 159, 214-217, 283, 294, 341, 2293)

I certainly don’t see a problem with learning about science by reading what scientists say about their research.

When a scientist says something about my faith that makes sense, I figure the scientist is sincere. When a scientist says something about my faith that’s nonsense, I also think the scientist is sincere. But I won’t agree.

I certainly wouldn’t assume that what a scientist says about theology should be taken any more seriously than the opinion of a plumber or electrician.

Being smart doesn’t guarantee accuracy. Particularly when someone who is smart deals with a subject outside that person’s field.

I’m even less likely to take what a movie star says about theology, or science, seriously. And that’s still another topic.

Wonderful Things

Scientific knowledge won’t force someone to become a Catholic.

Not being up to speed with what we knew in the 1st, 11th, or 21st centuries didn’t and doesn’t interfere with our faith.

As I said before, knowledge and faith work together; or should.

I don’t expect everyone to share my enthusiasm for humanity’s increasing knowledge. But I’ll keep learning and sharing what I find, as long as I can.

We live in a universe filled with “wonderful things.” I see this as a reason for appreciation and admiration.

From Dr. Robert J. Kurland’s Reflections of a Catholic Scientist:

My views of our growing knowledge:


1 Dealing with new knowledge:

2 Ammonites, ichthyosaurs, and England:

3 Yet more ichtyhyosaurs:

Posted in Science News | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments