A Catholic Citizen in America: secondary causes

Showing posts with label secondary causes. Show all posts

Friday, August 7, 2015

Organics on a Comet, and Earth's Early Magnetism

Scientists found evidence that Earth's magnetic field is more than a half-billion years older than we'd thought. As usual, that raises more questions.

The European Space Agency's Philae lander detected a "rich array" of organic compounds on Comet Churyumov-Gerasimenko 67P, including hydrogen cyanide (HCN). This is a big deal, since much of Earth's water came from comets: and HCN may have helped life begin on our world.

Churyumov-Gerasimenko 67P's closest approach to the sun comes later this week:

(© ESA, from ESA, used w/o permission.)
("The orbit of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko and its approximate location around perihelion, the closest the comet gets to the Sun. The positions of the planets are correct for 13 August 2015."
(rosetta, esa (July 13, 2015; updated August 7, 2015)))

My look at a comet, Earth's youth, and all that, comes after yet another 'why I prefer reality' review. It's pretty much what I've said before, so go ahead: skip down to Earth's Magnetic Field: 4,000,000,000 Years Old? or Comet Churyumov-Gerasimenko 67P: A "Rich Array" of Organics, sort your socks, do whatever you like.

Beyond Anaximander's Cosmology

Someone asked me why I talk about "gods" and science in A Catholic Citizen in America. The person may have been puzzled at my interest in both spiritual and visible facets of reality.

That's understandable. Ever since the mid-19th century, a remarkable number folks seem convinced that a person can either be a Christian or be interested in science.

"Bible science," warping science trivia around Bible verses and vice versa, is as odd as the either/or position. My opinion. (July 5, 2011)

Some of my country's louder Christians seem determined to maintain the perception that faith and reason, religion and science, get along about as well as mongoose and cobra.

I think, and for their sakes hope, they're sincere: but I'm quite sure they're wrong.

I could follow Our Lord and believe that we live on a flat plate that's only a few millennia old, or in the middle of nested celestial spheres.

But my faith doesn't depend on ignorance of what we've learned since Plato fine-tuned Anaximander's cosmology. (July 31, 2015; September 26, 2014)

Last week's "Pluto, Earth 2.0, and Life in the Universe" prompted that question.My reply was brief: necessarily, since it appeared on my Twitter account. (@Aluwir)

The '25 words or less' version is that I like living in the real world. I kept thinking about the question, though, and how I could explain my interest in creation and in the Creator.

God, Faith, and Accepting Reality

My parents were nice, normal, mainstream Protestant folks; but I grew up in a town where a particularly virulent strain of anti-Catholicism was endemic.

I don't see the point in believing something's true and not acting as if it matters. I also don't see a point in believing something that makes sense Sunday morning, but not the rest of the week.

Radio rants against the 'whore of Babylon,' commies, and rock music, were punctuated by the latest End Times Bible Prophecy and vehement attacks on Satanic evils like evolution and long hair.

Venom-spitting radio preachers unintentionally helped me learn to love rock-n-roll, and left me with unanswered questions about religion, Christianity, and the Catholic Church.

Eventually I decided that religion wasn't necessarily a personality disorder, and that Christianity made sense.

Much later I became a Catholic.

As a Catholic, I must believe that faith isn't reason, and that faith is not against reason. I can know a few things about God by using human reason: but there's more to reality than that. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 35, 50)

Faced with reality, I must decide whether or not I accept it. Acknowledging a newly-discovered facet of reality isn't always easy: but I think it's worth the effort.

"...Truth Cannot Contradict Truth..." — or — God's not a Schlemiel

(From John Martin, via Wikimedia Commons, used w/o permission.)
(Detail from John Martin's "Pandemonium," 1841.)

Seeking truth and seeking God are compatible — and turning my brain off isn't part of the process. (Catechism, 154, 274, 1706)

Well-intentioned folks occasionally warn me that I'll burn in everlasting hellfire because I don't agree with them about something. Generally the topic is the Catholic Church, or evolution. (July 25, 2014; March 15, 2015)

I'll be talking about a comet, organic molecules, and life's beginning; and don't want to clutter that up with an explanation of why reality doesn't offend me. I went over most of this last week. (July 31, 2015)

Truth is very important. (Catechism, Prologue, 27, 74, more under Truth in the index)

I believe that God creates everything: the physical realities that science studies; and the spiritual realities that faith pursues. Believing this, believing that God is is Truth, and fearing knowledge of God's world would be — illogical.

Pope Leo XIII discussed truth, faith, and getting a grip, more than a century ago. "Providentissimus Deus" means "Provident God," more or less, a hot topic in the late 19th century. Then as now, it looks like some folks were profoundly upset that the Bible isn't a science textbook, or that God's creation doesn't conform to their preferences.

Pope Leo carefully pointed out that since we believe that God creates everything, and isn't a schlemiel, if a newly-found facet of reality doesn't match our preconceived notions of what's true: that's our problem, not God's.

If we keep looking at the facts, use our brains, and don't assume that our preconceived notions are the only possible explanation, sooner or later we'll understand:

"...God, the Creator and Ruler of all things, is also the Author of the Scriptures - and that therefore nothing can be proved either by physical science or archaeology which can really contradict the Scriptures. ... Even if the difficulty is after all not cleared up and the discrepancy seems to remain, the contest must not be abandoned; truth cannot contradict truth...."
("Providentissimus Deus,"¹ Pope Leo XIII (November 18, 1893) [emphasis mine])

That didn't stop some folks from insisting that God is offended when we use our brains, and others from asserting that God can't exist because we are learning about God's creation.

We have brains and free will. Each of us decides how we act and what we believe: or do not believe. Responsibilities come with that freedom, and that's another topic. (Catechism, 1731-1742)

Living in a Big World

Studying this astounding universe, and using that knowledge, is part of being human. Scientific discoveries are invitations "...to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator...." (Catechism, 159, 283, 341, 2293-2295)

What we learn occasionally demands that we re-think old assumptions.

That's been happening quite a bit over the last few centuries.

Ussher's tidy little cosmology has been replaced by a view of reality that's literally cosmic in scale. I don't mind: and although I enjoy flights of fancy, I prefer living in the real world.

As for my interest in science and my faith — We've known that the universe is vast and ancient for thousands of years.

"⁴ 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 the sins of men that they may repent.

"For you love all things that are and loathe nothing that you have made; for what you hated, you would not have fashioned.

"And how could a thing remain, unless you willed it; or be preserved, had it not been called forth by you? "
(Wisdom 11:22-25)

Learning that it's a whole lot bigger and older that we thought a few generations back doesn't bother me. At all. (July 15, 2014)

Adam and Eve Aren't German

The small Minnesota town I live in isn't as exclusively German and Irish as it was a century ago, but a good many folks around here look like the couple in Albrecht Dürer's 1504 engraving. We wear more clothes, of course.

Scientists have learned a great deal about humanity's long story since Dürer's day: much of it in the last century.

Along the way many folks and most scientists dropped the assumption that looking European and being intelligent are pretty much the same thing.

I don't miss the 'good old days,' particularly since I'm nearly half-Irish, and that's another topic. (December 12, 2014; September 5, 2014)

As a Catholic, I must take Sacred Scripture seriously. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 101-133)

But that emphatically does not mean I must believe a long-dead Calvinist was right about the moment of creation being nightfall before October 23, 4004 BC. (July 24, 2015)

As I keep saying, I think the universe is billions, not thousands, of years old; Earth isn't flat; Adam and Eve weren't German; poetry isn't science; and thinking is not a sin.

Believing that we are created in the image of God, male and female, means that each of us is a person: not something, but someone. We are made from the stuff of this world, and filled with God's 'breath:' matter and spirit, body and soul. (Genesis 2:7; Catechism, 355, 357, 362-368)

I read Genesis 1:1-2:4 and 2:4-25 as an explanation of God's role in our existence: among other things.

As far as I'm concerned, all that's changed in the last few centuries is how much we know about the "clay" God used. (July 24, 2015; December 5, 2014)

Now, finally, what we're learning about this planet we call home, and the universe.

1. Earth's Magnetic Field: 4,000,000,000 Years Old?

(From Michael Osadciw/University of Rochester, via BBC News, used w/o permission.)
("The Earth's magnetic field deflects high energy protons from the Sun, as depicted in this artist's impression. Note that the relative sizes of the Earth and Sun, as well as the distances between the two bodies, are not to scale"
(BBC News))

"Earth magnetic shield is older than previously thought"
Yasmin Ali, BBC News (July 31, 2015)

"The Earth's magnetic field, which shields the atmosphere from harmful radiation, is at least four billion years old, according to scientists.

"This is 550 million years older than it was previously believed to be.

"Scientists at Rochester University in New York analysed crystals found in Western Australia.

"Data on our planet's magnetic field was found to be preserved in ancient crystals embedded in rock formations in the region...."

That's according to some scientists, with reservations. The Rochester University team studied one set of very old crystals. I'm pretty sure they're right, that Earth had a measurable magnetic field 4,000,000,000 years back.

But we'll need more data before being certain that the field endured for the following 550,000,000 years. My guess is that it did: but that's just a guess.

Yasmin Ali's article discusses how the scientists analyzed the crystals, and what sort of follow-up research the new findings encourage.

Instead of repeating that, I'll take a quick look at what we've learned about Earth's magnetic field since Shakespeare's day.

A few centuries after natural philosophers like Roger Bacon and Albertus Magnus studied natural phenomena, William Gilbert made a terrella: a spherical magnet, simulating Earth's magnetic properties. (Merriam-Webster)

Gilbert's terrella showed that his idea, that Earth acts like a giant magnet, was probably right. A magnetic compass, placed over Gilbert's terrella, pointed more-or-less north: just like a magnetic compass would at corresponding places on Earth.

Gilbert apparently was the first to say that Earth's core is iron. This may be why Georges-Louis Leclerc used iron as his test substance in the 1700s, but I haven't confirmed that. I talked about Leclerc, Earth's age, and getting a grip about beliefs, last week. (July 31, 2015)

His "De Magnete, Magneticisque Corporibus, et de Magno Magnete Tellur," published in 1600, wasn't spot-on accurate about everything.

We've learned since then that the angle of the ecliptic and precession of the equinoxes aren't caused by magnetism, for example; and that electricity and magnetism aren't separate phenomena.

Hans Christian Ørsted noticed that electric currents create magnetic fields in 1820, which brings me back to Earth's magnetosphere.

Magnetospheres: There's a Lot Left to Learn

Earth's magnetic field keeps the solar wind, mostly electrons, protons and alpha particles streaming from our star, away from our atmosphere.

For the most part, at least. Auroroa in polar regions happen when particles from the sun turn parts of our atmosphere into a sort of glow stick — which are more like lightning bugs/fireflies, actually, and that's another topic.

Having a magnetic field may be why Earth supports life and Venus doesn't. At least, if something's living on Venus: it's not "life as we know it." Surface conditions there make the hot spots in Dante's Inferno seem like air conditioned comfort.

Then again, although Venus is losing its atmosphere to the solar wind, its mostly-carbon-dioxide blanket is a good deal thicker than our nitrogen-oxygen mix.

Air pressure at the Venusian surface is about 92 times Earth's sea level pressure, and doesn't drop to Earth-normal pressure and temperature until you get about 50 kilometers up.

I'm quite sure that Earth won't turn into another Venus when Earth's magnetic poles switch places. That happens every 100,000 to 1,000,000 years, more or less: and the last big shift happened long after our ancestors showed up.

We didn't have communications satellites then, but we've probably got a few millennia to get ready for the next big switch. Then again, maybe not. As I keep saying, we still have a lot left to learn. (October 24, 2014)

(From UC Berkeley, used w/o permission.)
("...This map shows how, starting about 789,000 years ago, the north pole wandered around Antarctica for several thousand years before flipping 786,000 years ago to the orientation we know today, with the pole somewhere in the Arctic."
(UC Berkeley))

2. Comet Churyumov-Gerasimenko 67P: A "Rich Array" of Organics

(From ESA/Rosetta/NavCam, via BBC News, used w/o permission.)
(Churyumov-Gerasimenko 67P on July 14, 2015, an image from the Rosetta spacecraft's NavCam.)

"Comet yields 'rich array' of organics"
David Shukman, BBC News (July 30, 2015)

"The spacecraft which made a spectacular landing on a comet last year has discovered a rich array of carbon compounds.

"One leading scientist has even described the chemicals as 'a frozen primordial soup'.

"This supports the theory that comets may have seeded the early Earth with the ingredients for life.

"The findings came after the lander, known as Philae, touched down on comet Churyumov-Gerasimenko 67P in November....

"...Prof Ian Wright of the Open University, who leads another instrument, Ptolemy, said the results were 'really interesting'.

" 'I see this cometary material that we're analysing as frozen primordial soup. It's the kind of stuff that if you had it, and warmed it up somehow, and put it in the right environment, with the right conditions, you may eventually get life forming out of it.

" 'What we may be looking at here is our abiological ancestral material - this is stuff that went into the mix to produce life.

" 'In many ways it's quite a humbling thing to be working on, because this is life before life happened.'..."

The Ptolemy experiment found polyoxymethylene — don't bother trying to remember these names, there will not be a pop quiz — a polymer of formaldehyde. It's organic, in the sense that the compound contains carbon.

Finding polyoxymethylene on a comet is a big deal, since carbohydrates like glucose, sucrose, and fructose are biologically important, and made from the same atoms.

Folks put sucrose on the kitchen table and formaldehyde in factories because the atoms are arranged differently, and don't affect living critters the same way.

COSAC (Cometary Sampling and Composition experiment), another instrument on the Philae lander, detected 16 compounds: including what BBC News calls methanenitrile.

In my dialect of English, that's hydrogen cyanide. Other names for HCN are formic anammonide, hydrocyanic acid, and prussic acid. It's derived from Prussian blue, which probably dates back to Berlin in the early 1700s, and that's another topic.

"...More Like a Hardware Shop..."

(From ESA.Risetta.NPS for Osiris Team/MPS/UPD/LAM/IAA/SSO/INTA/UPM/DASP/IDA, via BBC News, used w/o permission.)
("The mission has revealed an intriguing landscape on Comet 67P"
(BBC News))

"...Prof Mark McCaughrean, the European Space Agency's senior science advisor, told BBC News: 'Imagine you want to build a house and you go to a forest, where there are trees, mud and rocks. You could make a house out of that, but it would be hard work.

" 'Well, we've now discovered the comet is more like a hardware shop - lots of pre-made building blocks, like door frames, bricks etc. It gives you a head start.

" 'One of the big questions, though, is this material made on the comet? Or is it made first in space and then incorporated into the comet? We don't know the answer to that yet.'..."
(David Shukman, BBC News)

We also don't know life began on Earth. Not yet.

Earth's changed quite a lot over the last 4,540,000,000 or so years, and critters have been recycling just about anything organic on our planet for at least 3,600,000,000 years. We've learned a great deal about Earth's story in the last few centuries: and have a great deal left to learn, including how life started.

Finding hydrogen cyanide on a comet is a very big deal, since the compound might be a precursor to amino acids and nucleic acids. Then again, it might not.

We've learned that up to half of Earth's water comes from interstellar space, where we've found surprisingly complex organic compounds. (December 5, 2014; October 3, 2014; July 11, 2014; October 18, 2013)

"Organic" doesn't mean "alive." I've talked about life, chemistry, and space vampires, before. (January 2, 2015; September 5, 2014)

More than you need to know:

From Wikipedia - - -
- - - and other sources
- ESA (European Space Agency)
  - rosetta / rendezvous with a comet
  - "Science on the surface of a comet"
    (July 30, 2015)
  - "Rosetta preparing for perihelion"
    (July 13, 2015)
- "Cosac, The Cometary Sampling and Composition Experiment on Philae"
  Fred Goesmann, Helmut Rosenbauer, Reinhard Roll, Cyril Szopa, et al.; Abstract; ResearchGate (August 5, 2015)

Clay and Secondary Causes

Folks didn't know about magnetospheres and Ediacara biota when Genesis was first written, more than two dozen centuries ago. Two-dozen-plus centuries from now, I'd be astounded if we haven't discovered a few new facts about this universe.

Believing that God creates, and knowing that a fire's light and heat involve electron transitions, doesn't plunge me into a crisis of faith, plagued by doubts over Deuteronomy 5:4 and Acts 2:3.

I haven't heard of anyone insisting that salvation depends on belief in Johann Joachim Becher's teachings regarding Phlogiston, and that's another topic. (April 10, 2015)

Scientists are pretty sure that life on Earth started very roughly 1,000,000,000 years after this planet formed. What we don't know is how that happened, the physical processes involved. (Abiogenesis, Wikipedia)

From my viewpoint, the panspermia hypothesis, that life originated elsewhere and fell to Earth, isn't much of an explanation. If we got solid proof today that life on Earth started on Mars — that still wouldn't tell us how life itself started. (December 5, 2014)

Scientists have learned quite a bit, but the 'origin' question is still pretty much where it was in the 1920s, when Alexander Oparin and J. B. S. Haldane pointed out that chemical reactions probably led to the first critters. There's been a bit of progress, of course: including discussions of protocells.

Finally; about faith, science, and all that —

I don't have to believe that physical realities exist or that God exists.

Everything we observe reflects some facet of the Creator's truth, according to its nature. (Catechism, 300-310)

Fire, gravity, all natural processes, involve secondary causes: creatures changing in knowable ways, following laws woven into this creation. (Catechism, 301-308, 339)

Since I believe that God creates everything, and that God is not a liar: nothing we learn about this universe can threaten an informed faith.

More, mostly about:

"Pluto's 'Whale,' Comet 67P's Sinkholes"
(July 10, 2015)
Particularly
"DNA Test Hype; and Studying Life's Origins"
(December 5, 2014)
Particularly
" 'Organic,' 'Wow!' — and Double Planets"
(November 28, 2014)
Particularly
- Philae: Rich Data from a Bouncing Lander
  - "A Lot of Peaks"
  - "Organic," "Alive," and "Wow!
"Earth's Wandering Poles, A Comet, a Wobbling Moon"
(October 24, 2014)
Particularly
"Sagittarius B2, Water, and Asteroid Mining"
(October 3, 2014)
Particularly

¹ A longer excerpt, and a link to Leo XIII's encyclical:

"...God, the Creator and Ruler of all things, is also the Author of the Scriptures - and that therefore nothing can be proved either by physical science or archaeology which can really contradict the Scriptures. If, then, apparent contradiction be met with, every effort should be made to remove it. Judicious theologians and commentators should be consulted as to what is the true or most probable meaning of the passage in discussion, and the hostile arguments should be carefully weighed. Even if the difficulty is after all not cleared up and the discrepancy seems to remain, the contest must not be abandoned; truth cannot contradict truth...."
("Providentissimus Deus," Pope Leo XIII)

Full text, English translation:

"Providentissimus Deus"
On the Study of Holy Scripture
Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII (November 18, 1893)
(From www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus_en.html (December 18, 2014))

Friday, January 30, 2015

Precision-Grip Thumbs and a 'New' Archosaur

Humans have hands. So do apes, monkeys, lemurs, and koalas. For that matter, a chameleon's feet look and act a lot like hands. But they don't have precision-grip thumbs that can line up with any finger.

We do: and apparently have had a firm grip on tools for over two million years.

Scientists had a pretty good idea about how the common ancestor of dinosaurs, crocodiles and alligators, and birds, developed. A quarter-billion-year-old fossil shows that the situation is more complicated than scientists thought.

There's More to Learn

I've said this before: We've known that God's creation is vast and ancient for a very long time. (Psalms102:26-28; Wisdom 11:22-25)

More recently, we've started learning how big and old it really is: which fascinates me, and upsets some folks no end.

I still run into assertions that science is Satanic: or horribly bad, at any rate.

Folks taking this view sometimes say scientists are wrong because they claim to know everything — or because they don't know everything. I have yet to meet someone who makes both claims.

These tightly-wound individuals, in my experience, often have deeply-held religious beliefs. So do I: but I'm a Catholic, and willing to think that we didn't know everything there is to know about God's creation in Shulgi's day.

It's my considered opinion that the universe is billions, not thousands, of years old; Earth isn't flat; Adam and Eve weren't German; poetry isn't science; and thinking is not a sin. (November 21, 2014; July 15, 2014)

Our emerging knowledge of the size and age of this universe, and how it is changing, does not threaten an informed faith.

Scientific discoveries are invitations "...to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator..." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 283)

Hands, Koalas, and Genesis

The human hand is unique — so is the koala hand, for that matter. Koalas have two thumbs and three fingers on each hand: which, together with their claws and remarkably human-like fingerprints, give them a firm grip on branches.

Humans only have one thumb on each hand: but we can grip branches, too. That's hardly surprising, since we're primates: one of the few that don't live in trees.

It would be odd if koala and human hands weren't a bit alike, and I've talked about convergent evolution before. (June 6, 2014)

Evolution, particularly human evolution, is a particularly disquieting topic in some circles.

That's understandable, since if evolution happened: we're made from the stuff of this world. That — by some standards — is distastefully 'unspiritual.'

I've read Genesis 2:7, don't think God makes junk — or mistakes — and that's another topic. (November 27, 2011; November 27, 2011)

God is Not a Magician

A child might ask "who made God?"

Being Catholic, I believe that God is infinite, perfect; present in all times and places, and where space and time don't apply. Nobody created God, because the Almighty is. We 'create' by working with matter and energy: God starts with nothing, and creates something. (Catechism, 1, 296, 300)

As God said when Moses asked for a name, ... 'I am who am.' ... 'This is what you shall tell the Israelites: I AM sent me to you.' "(Exodus 3:14)

God made a good and orderly universe: so we can learn something of God by studying this creation. Using the brains God gave us, we can learn how the universe is changing — and how we appeared. This is okay. (Catechism, 282-289, 299)

All natural processes involve secondary causes: creatures changing in knowable ways, following laws woven into this creation. I believe that God creates everything, and that God is not a liar: so nothing we learn about this universe can threaten my faith. (July 15, 2014)

I have, however, had to re-learn some of what I'd read about the universe. We've been learning a lot lately.

Pope Francis talked about secondary causes last October:

"...When we read the account of Creation in Genesis we risk imagining that God was a magician, complete with an all powerful magic wand. But that was not so. He created beings and he let them develop according to the internal laws with which He endowed each one, that they might develop, and reach their fullness. He gave autonomy to the beings of the universe at the same time in which He assured them of his continual presence, giving life to every reality...."
("Plenary Session of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, inauguration of the bust in honour of Pope Benedict XVI," Pope Francis (October 27, 2014))

We're secondary causes, too: in a way. It's our nature to study and maintain this world. We've also got free will, so we can decide to work with God: or not. Our track record in that regard is far from perfect. (Catechism, 306-308, 388, 397-401)

Informed Faith and Norse Mythology

If I thought my faith relied on thinking God is a magician, or a primeval cow like Auðumbla, forming Buri from a block of ice — I wouldn't understand my faith.

As a Catholic, I see the Bible as the Word of God. (Catechism, 101-133)

But I realize that Sacred Scriptures weren't written by Americans: and don't try to understand them from a hardwired-literal Western viewpoint.

Happily, we also have Tradition and the Magisterium, and that's yet again another set of topics. (Catechism, 74-95)

Now, a mini-rant about what "random" does and does not mean.

Despite what I read occasionally in mainstream news, evolution is not random: not literally. I think what happens is that quite a few folks say or write "random" when they mean "complex," or "not fully understood."

Something that's "random" has no specific pattern, purpose, or objective. In math, "random" is something described by a probability distribution.

Randomness happens: unless we load the dice, and that's yet another topic. Topics.

If evolution was random in the dictionary sense, it wouldn't be a science. Folks studying evolution would be scorekeepers: recording trivia about "random" events. (October 31, 2014)

Priorities

Since God made the universe: faith and reason, science and religion should get along. (Catechism, 154-159)

Calling evolution the "religion of the antichrist" is, in my opinion, silly at best. So is the notion that God either doesn't exist — or follows Ussher's timetable: and that's still another topic. (July 25, 2014; July 15, 2014; January 2, 2014)

Using our brains is part of being human. We're supposed to study the universe and develop new tools. Despite the impression some give, knowledge is a gift of the Holy Spirit. (Catechism, 1730, 1831, 2292-2295)

However; giving science, wealth, pinochle — anything other than God — top priority is idolatry: and strictly against the rules. (Catechism, 1831, 2112-2114)

Expecting science to explain everything is, I think, a sort of idolatry. The problem isn't science. It's how we use it.

"...Indeed, we could say that the work of predicting, controlling and governing nature, which science today renders more practicable than in the past, is itself a part of the Creator's plan.

"Science, however, while giving generously, gives only what it is meant to give. Man cannot place in science and technology so radical and unconditional a trust as to believe that scientific and technological progress can explain everything and completely fulfil all his existential and spiritual needs."
("Address to the members of Pontifical Academy of Sciences," Benedict XVI (November 6, 2006))

1. Using Our Hands

(© Eric Isselée/Fotolia, via ScienceDaily, used w/o permission.)
("Human and ape joining hands (stock image). Researchers examined the trabeculae of hand bones of humans and chimpanzees. They found clear differences between humans, who have a unique ability for forceful precision gripping between thumb and fingers, and chimpanzees, who cannot adopt human-like postures."
(ScienceDaily))

"Early human ancestors used their hands like modern humans"
University of Kent, ScienceDaily (January 22, 2015)

"New research suggests pre-Homo human ancestral species, such as Australopithecus africanus, used human-like hand postures much earlier than was previously thought.

"Anthropologists from the University of Kent, working with researchers from University College London, the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig (Germany) and the Vienna University of Technology (Austria), have produced the first research findings to support archaeological evidence for stone tool use among fossil australopiths 3-2 million years ago.

"The distinctly human ability for forceful precision (e.g. when turning a key) and power 'squeeze' gripping (e.g. when using a hammer) is linked to two key evolutionary transitions in hand use: a reduction in arboreal climbing and the manufacture and use of stone tools. However, it is unclear when these locomotory and manipulative transitions occurred...."

This research ran existing data through a new sort of analysis: looking at trabecular bone in a new way. That's spongy bone that changes quickly: sometimes responding to what the individual does.

If Australopithecus had keys, or locks to use keys with, we haven't found any.

They did, however, have choppers and other stone tools: the sort of choppers that actually chop, not helicopters or customized motorcycles. That'd be the Flintstones version of stone technology, and an entirely different topic.

These choppers are cleavers or hatchets, but without a handle. They'd be good for — well, for chopping — food, wood, or other softish materials. An equivalent kitchen item is today's mezzaluna. Obviously, the design has changed a bit over the last few million years.

The University of Kent's Dr. Matthew Skinner and other scientists discovered that Australopithecus used their hands — particularly their thumbs — the way we do.

Hands, Brains, and Tech

The oldest evidence of stone tools we know about is 3,400,000 years old. Folks who looked a bit like that chap were making Oldowan tools 2,600,000 years back. They weren't as sophisticated and effective as today's Narex bench chisels, or even Acheulean tools: but they were a start.

Even with a haircut and new clothes, an Australopithecus couldn't blend into a crowd today. It wasn't just their height: they were mostly around four feet tall. Their brains were a little over a third the size of ours: so their heads had a lot more face and a lot less forehead than we're used to seeing.

But these folks had pretty much the same trabecular bone pattern in the bones of their thumbs and palms that we do: showing that they were using their hands like we do.

This is a big deal, since Australopithecus lived 2,000,000 to 3,00,000 years back. Apparently using our hands the way we do now started a whole lot earlier than scientists had previously thought.

We'd known that Australopithecus' hands were shaped like ours. This research shows that they used their hands the way we do, too.

Although we're getting past thinking that someone must look "Anglo-Teutonic" to be smart, applying Occam's razor to the size of their brains suggests that they weren't, on average, as smart as folks are today.

They made and used stone tools, though, so I'm willing to think of them as people.

I don't buy the currently-fashionable notion that we're "too" intelligent. We're on a steep learning curve just now: learning how to use steam power, electricity, and new genetics tech. But we've been through this sort of thing before. (December 5, 2014)

One of my kids suggested that we get smarter because the sharpest of us invent new tech: which puts pressure on the rest of us. She may have a point.

More:

Non-dominant hand vital to the evolution of the thumb"
University of Kent, ScienceDaily (September 10, 2014)

2. Nundasuchus Songeaensis: An Unexpected Archosaur

(From Sterling Nesbitt, via Sci-News.com, used w/o permission.)
("Skeleton of Nundasuchus songeaensis, illustrating the elements found. Scale bar – 50 cm."
(Sci-News.com))

"Nundasuchus songeaensis: New Triassic Reptile Discovered in Tanzania"
Sci-News.com (January 21, 2015)

"A team of paleontologists headed by Dr Sterling Nesbitt of Virginia Tech has described a new genus and species of archosaur that lived in what is today southern Tanzania during the early Middle Triassic, approximately 247 million years ago.

"The new archosaur, named Nundasuchus songeaensis, is a 2.7-m-long predatory reptile with steak knife-like teeth and bony plates on the back.

"The name Nundasuchus songeaensis is Swahili mixed with Greek. 'The basic meaning of Nundasuchus is predator crocodile (Nunda meaning predator in Swahili and suchus a reference to a crocodile in Greek),' explained Dr Nesbitt, who is the first author of a paper published in the Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology.

" 'The songeaensis comes from the town, Songea, near where we found the bones,' he said.

"Nundasuchus songeaensis is not a dinosaur, but one of the large reptiles that lived before dinosaurs took over the world...."

I keep thinking "nonesuch" when I see "Nundasuchus," which doesn't have much to do with this long-extinct critter.

Nundasuchus songeaensis's legs were under its body, like a dinosaur's: but the bony plates on its back were like a crocodile's. Scientists don't have many archosaur fossils from Nundasuchus's time — or should that be Nundasuchus' ? Never mind — and none with this critter's combination of traits.

Archosaurs are still with us, in a way. Animals like Nundasuchus are the ancestors of birds, crocodilia, pterosaurs, and dinosaurs.

Birds, crocodiles, and alligators survived whatever happened about 66,000,000 years ago: and so did mammals. Mammals and the ancestors of archosaurs parted ways maybe 300,000,000 years ago, and I'm drifting off-topic. (September 12, 2014; December 13, 2013)

Or maybe not so much. Scientists don't have a clear picture of archosaur origins: and Nundasuchus songeaensis doesn't fit into what they'd expected.

As I've said before, when new data backs up an existing theory or hypothesis: that's nice. When it doesn't, it's exciting: because it shows that there's more to learn. And that's — another topic.

More, mostly about humanity's backstory:

"Homo Erectus Engraving, Long-Lost Relatives"
(December 12, 2014)
Particularly
"Neanderthal Art, DNA MREs, and Sliding Rocks"
(September 5, 2014)
Particularly
- "His gaze spans all the ages...."
- Neanderthals, Art, and Assumptions
"Coping With Change for Millions of Years; Chatty Chimps"
(July 11, 2014)
Particularly
- People Acting Like Humans
- Human Ancestry: It's Complicated
"Will the Real Neanderthals Please Stand Up?"
(December 20, 2013)
Particularly
- Handy With Tools
  - Driven by Inadequate Impulse Control???
"Lowbrow to Highbrow in Four Centuries, Paleolithic Pitchers, and a Fantastic Elastic Echinoderm"
(July 5, 2013)
Particularly

Friday, August 1, 2014

Starships, Dinosaurs, and Long-Distance Service for Mars

Some scientists think dinosaurs could have survived that asteroid impact. Others are taking another look at how big a starship needs to be, and NASA is taking bids on long-distance service to Mars.

But first, a bit about the Beatitudes, Ulysses, and Dante's "Inferno."

What is — and is not — in the Beatitudes

The Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 5, 6, and 7, is a sort of 'Christianity 101:' a look at what being a Christian means. There's with a shorter version in Luke 6:20-49. It boils down to 'love God, love your neighbor, everyone's your neighbor. (June 3, 2012)

My Lord started with the Beatitudes. (Matthew 5:3–12)

Depending on how you break them out, there are eight or nine Beatitudes — blessed are:

The poor in spirit
Those who mourn
The meek
Those who hunger and thirst for righteousness
The merciful
The pure in heart
The peacemakers
Those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake
- You when men revile you and persecute you ... on God's account
(From Matthew 5:3–12)

This is "...the heart of Jesus' preaching...." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1716-1724)

"Poor in spirit" doesn't mean "despondent," by the way, and I've been over that before. (September 1, 2013)

The Beatitudes do not include something like "blessed are the ignorant, for they shall judge others." That is wrong on several levels.

Sometimes we must decide whether another person's actions are good or bad. But we must trust God to judge the person. (Matthew 7:1-5; Catechism, 1861)

Ignorance is not a virtue. As a Catholic, I'm forcefully encouraged to understand Christ. Thanks to Herr Gutenberg's invention, I can learn from reading the Bible: which is also forcefully encouraged. (Catechism, 133)

Ulysses, Fraud, and Sin

I've run into the notion that Dante put Ulysses in the eighth circle of Hell because the hero in Homer's Iliad and Odyssey wanted to know too much. There's a bit of truth in the claim.

In an English translation of Dante's "Inferno," Canto 26 has Ulysses saying that he passed "the bound'ries not to be o'erstepp'd by man."

However, Malebolge, Dante's eighth circle of Hell, is not where curiosity is punished. It's where the narrator runs into panderers and seducers, then folks guilty of excessive flattery. Next come simonists, followed by those guilty of divination, grafters, hypocrites, and thieves.

Ulysses and Diomedes are in the category after that: deceivers, those who gave false or corrupted advice for personal gain. The last two parts of Dante's Malebolge is for scandalmongers and forgers.

Ulysses and Diomedes apparently wound up in the eighth circle's subdivision for fraudulent counselors because of their Trojan horse strategy.

Granted, Dante describes Ulysses' fatal shipwreck: long after the hero sailed past "the bound'ries not to be o'erstepp'd by man." But being curious is not punished in Dante's imagined Hell.

Given my culture's assumptions about science and religion, I'd better explain why seeking knowledge isn't a sin.

Seeking Knowledge

Expecting knowledge, or anything else, to take God's place would be daft: and against the rules. (Catechism, 2113)

But that doesn't make seeking knowledge bad. Studying this universe and developing new tools are part of being human. That's what we're supposed to do. (Catechism, 2292-2295)

We're made in the image of God, rational creatures whose job description includes stewardship of the physical world. (Genesis 1:27-28, Psalms 19:2; Wisdom 7:17; Catechism, 282-289, 341, 373, 1730, 2375)

We can't take care of natural resources without understanding how this world works, and we need tools for most tasks. God could have designed us with a complete working knowledge of the universe already loaded into our brains: but that's not the way we are.

Getting back to Ulysses, his priorities were badly disordered: like putting his personal goal of seeking knowledge ahead of family responsibilities. Even so, I use part of Tennyson's "Ulysses" as my tagline on Google Plus:

"...this gray spirit yearning in desire
To follow knowledge like a sinking star,
Beyond the utmost bound of human thought....

"...for my purpose holds
To sail beyond the sunset, and the baths
Of all the western stars, until I die...."
("Ulysses," Tennyson (1833, published 1842))

(From NASA, ESA, and the Hubble Heritage Team (STScI/AURA) - ESA/Hubble Collaboration; used w/o permission.)

1. Long-Range Travel Plans

(From Adrian Mann, via Space.com, used w/o permission.)
("An artist's illustration depicts a future starship under construction in Earth orbit using a ring-type construction facility, which could provide hotel rooms for guests who wish to view the construction."
(Space.com))

"Want to Colonize an Alien Planet? Send 40,000 People"
Mike Wall, Space.com (July 28, 2014 )

"If humanity ever wants to colonize a planet beyond the solar system, it's going to need a really big spaceship.

"The founding population of an interstellar colony should consist of 20,000 to 40,000 people, said Cameron Smith, an anthropologist at Portland State University in Oregon. Such a large group would possess a great deal of genetic and demographic diversity, giving the settlement the best chance of survival during the long space voyage and beyond, he explained.

" 'Do you want to just squeak by, with barely what you can get? Or do you want to go in good health?' Smith said on July 16 during a presentation with NASA's Future In-Space Operations (FISO) working group. 'I would suggest, go with something that gives you a good margin for the case of disaster.'..."

If or when folks head out, bound for another star, it won't be the first epic voyage to a new world. More than two dozen centuries back, at least one colony ship crossed a substantial fraction of the Pacific Ocean on its way to what we call Hawai'i.

As I've said before, humans travel. Some of us, anyway.

My guess is that some of us will be living on Mars long before construction starts on the first interstellar generation ship. For all I know, descendants of the first Martian settlers may be the ones building the ship.

I'm also reasonably certain that the first voyage to another star won't happen for quite a while. On the other hand, maybe physicists will develop a practical application of Alcubierre's equations faster than I expect, and I'll see the first warp ship. (May 24, 2013)

What may not be apparent from the artist's illustration is the scale of a ship carrying 40,000 folks.

A 1975 NASA design study discussed a self-sustaining habitat for 10,000 people. A community that size, including their agricultural areas, would fit in a torus a bit over a mile across. (October 31, 2011)

Four of those would hold Cameron Smith's 40,000-population colony.

My illustration shows those four habitat rings next to an earlier generation's of state-of-the-art transportation technology.

There'd be more to the generation ship, of course: industrial facilities, vehicles, spare parts, and — almost certainly the largest part of the ship — the propulsion system.

We're close to having the necessary technology now. We don't, I think, have a big enough economic system to handle a project on this scale. Not yet.

Population Genetics and Occupational Training

"...In the past, researchers have proposed that a few hundred people would be sufficient to establish a settlement on or near an alien planet. But [Cameron] Smith thought it was time to take another look.

" 'I wanted to revisit the issue,' he said. 'It had been quite a long time, and of course we now know more about population genetics from genomics.'

"For his study, which was published in April in the journal Acta Astronautica, Smith assumed an interstellar voyage lasting roughly 150 years. This time frame is consistent with that envisioned by researchers at Icarus Instellar, a nonprofit organization dedicated to pursuing travel to another star...."
(Mike Wall, Space.com)

Cameron Smith has a point: this is a good time to review how many people it takes to make a healthy population. We've been learning a great deal about how genetics works in recent decades.

My guess is that trying to start a new civilization with just 40,000 folks is a low-end estimate.

The issue, I think, isn't physical health. We may have been down to around 10,000 people after the Toba eruption. Then again, maybe not. The last I checked, scientists are still debating what our Y-chromosome DNA is telling us.

I'm not sure that a community of 40,000 would include all the skills needed.

There was a time when members of an extended family knew every possible job, from gathering nuts and berries to weaving cloth. That was then, this is now. At one point, the Dictionary of Occupational Titles had more than 12,000 categories.

Granted, a high-tech society could probably get along without someone specifically trained as an athletic equipment custodian or baggage handler. But someone is going to have to know how to maintain and replace equipment; grow and harvest crops; and either navigate the ship, or give the autopilot sensible instructions.

Folks on a generation ship would want to be sure that at least one of their number was teaching a youngster how to get each of the more critical jobs done. There are limitations on how much useful experience we can pack into user's manuals and how-2 articles.

Should We Stay, or Should We Go?

Mike Wall's article doesn't address a basic question about finding or building homes away from Earth: Is starting a new civilization the right thing to do?

I don't see why not: but I'm descended from folks who left humanity's homeland a very long time ago, eventually spreading into Europe. My recent ancestors then decided, for a variety of reasons, to cross one of Earth's oceans and set up housekeeping in North America.

We've made mistakes along the way, some of them very costly. But I do not writhe in anguish at the thought that my ancestors didn't stay put.

If nothing else, folks who pull up roots and head over the horizon every few generations may have ensured humanity's survival. Disasters like the Toba eruption could have wiped out all of us, if everyone stayed near their homeland.

Island-Hopping to the Stars?

(From Inductiveload, via Wiki Wikimedia Commons, used w/o permission.)

There aren't obvious 'best destinations' among our sun's neighbors, but some look promising.

Alpha Centauri's two suns are nearby. There might be a planet orbiting Alpha Centauri B, but that hasn't been confirmed.

Epsilon Eridani has two asteroid belts that might supply a colony's need for raw materials.

At least one of Tau Ceti's planets may be about the right temperature for our sort of life, but the smallest is at least two to six times as massive as Earth.

But even if there's life there, the gravity would be too high for human comfort.

For some reason, discussions of interstellar travel usually don't include what I think is a very likely scenario: island hopping.

Scientists are reasonably sure that long-period comets come from a reservoir of material left over from the Solar system's formation: the Oort cloud.

Most objects in the Oort cloud would be icy planetesimals. Each of these solid comets-in-waiting could supply folks with tons of water, ammonia, and methane: vital ingredients for a habitat's agricultural systems, and more susceptible to leakage than metal and rock.

In principle, a large and tech-savvy community might decide that life in a semi-mobile habitat was better than staying on or near Earth. Energy, rock, and metal, would be in short supply after they left the inner Solar system: but they'd have plenty of room.

After many generations, some of those folks might reach the Oort cloud's outer fringe - - - and keep heading out.

2. Dinosaurs and an Asteroid: Really Bad Timing

(From SPL/Science Photo Library, via BBC News, used w/o permission.)
("Could dinosaurs have survived if the asteroid that wiped them out hit the Earth a little earlier or a little later?"
(BBC News))

" 'Bad luck' ensured that asteroid impact wiped out dinosaurs"
Pallab Ghosh, BBC News (July 28, 2014)

"Dinosaurs were wiped out by an asteroid impact when they were at their most vulnerable, according to a new study.

"Dr Steve Brusatte, of Edinburgh University, said sea level rises and volcanic activity had made many species more susceptible to extinction.

"They might have survived if the asteroid had hit the Earth a few million years later or earlier, he said, calling it 'colossal bad luck'....

" ...'It was a perfect storm of events that occurred when dinosaurs were at their most vulnerable,' Dr Brusatte told BBC News....

"...There is evidence that some species of dinosaur were dying off shortly before an asteroid hit the Earth.

"One of the key questions was whether this gradual decline would have led to the extinction of these animals even if the asteroid had not hit...."

If the Chicxulub impact hadn't happened, these scientists say that dinosaurs would quite likely have survived.

As it is, the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event wiped out a remarkable number of Earth's species: from plankton and fish, to pterosaurs and non-avian dinosaurs.

Some species would probably have died out anyway. Sea levels were high, and volcanic activity were pushing the more delicate critters to extinction.

I think it's prudent to remember that, although quite a few species died out when that asteroid hit: many did not. Scorpions and cockroaches are still with us, and are far from endangered. My guess is that humanity will prove to be as durable as scorpions and cockroaches: and, for that matter, rats. (November 29, 2013)

Brains, Dinosaurs, and Crows

"...Dr Brusatte believes that had the asteroid hit the Earth a few million years earlier before the environmental pressures became worse or a few million years later, when the dinosaurs might have recovered, they would be roaming the Earth to this day.

" 'Five million years earlier dinosaur ecosystems were much stronger, they were more diverse, the base of the food chain was more robust and it was harder to knock out a lot of species,' he said.

" 'If they had a few million years more to recover their diversity they would have had a better chance of surviving the asteroid impact. Dinosaurs had been around for 160 million years, they had plenty of dips and troughs in their diversity but they always recovered.'

"It was the demise of the dinosaurs that enabled mammals including our own species to diversify and evolve.

"Dr Brusatte said that if it were it not for an asteroid hitting the Earth exactly when it did we would be living in a dinosaur dominated world.

" 'Except that we would not be here because mammals would not have had the opportunity to blossom and we would not be having this conversation!' he quipped.

"This intriguing idea raises the question as to how dinosaurs might have evolved.

"Could they have developed in the same way as mammals, becoming an advanced species similar to modern humans?

"I asked Dr Brusatte: 'Could dinosaur you and dinosaur me be having this conversation, instead?'

" 'It's possible!' he said. 'With evolution never say never. It is certainly possible that dinosaurs could have evolved intelligence.'

"Professor Simon Conway-Morris from the University of Cambridge agrees, but does not go quite as far as Dr Brusatte.

" 'As far as dinosaurs becoming intelligent is concerned the experiment has been done and we call them crows,' he told BBC News...."
(Pallab Ghosh, BBC News)

Professor Simon Conway-Morris may be right: crows may be as smart as a critter descended from dinosaurs can get.

I'm inclined to agree with Dr. Brusatte, though. Our brains are more than twice as massive as an entire crow. If crows were as massive as we are, they might be a great deal smarter. Or maybe not. I think we have a great deal to learn about how intelligence works, and that's another topic.

I'm certainly not going to claim that God had to wipe out the dinosaurs, because people have to look like us. Back in 1277, some tightly-wound academics said that God had to agree with Aristotle: which is when the Catholic Church stepped in. (February 23, 2014)

Speculation and Uncertainty

I enjoy playing 'what if,' and have wondered what might have happened if life on Earth had taken different directions. (July 18, 2014)

Maybe we'll meet neighbors who look a bit like the two-legged dinosaurs. I have no idea how likely that is, but can't see why it couldn't happen.

People shaped like alxasaurus might be the most 'humanoid' folks we ever meet, and that's yet another topic. (July 18, 2014)

I don't believe that we are alone in the universe: or that we will discover people whose ancestors developed on another world. Today, we do not know. (January 17, 2014)

God, the Universe, and Authority

I'm a Christian, so I believe that God is created everything, and is constantly maintaining the universe. (Catechism, 302)

However, I'm a Catholic, so I do not have believe that God is a middle-aged European man with white hair and a muscular build.

I am obliged to believe that the universe is God's creation, that it is changing, and that what we observe are secondary causes: creatures participating in creation, according to their nature. (Catechism, 301-308)

Some folks have, over the centuries, disapproved of God's reality. That, in my considered opinion, is crazy. (July 15, 2014)

I like living in a vast and ancient universe, surrounded by wonders. Even if I didn't, it wouldn't matter. The universe is God's creation: and as my father said, 'at a certain level of authority, argument becomes pointless.'

3. Long-Distance Telephone Service: for Mars

(From NASA, via Reuters, used w/o permission.)
("NASA's Mars Odyssey spacecraft passes above Mars' south pole in this artist's concept illustration handout released by NASA July 24, 2012."
(Reuters))

NASA puts out call for satellite communication services – on Mars"
Irene Klotz, Reuters (July 23, 2014)

"In what may be the ultimate in long-distance telephone service, NASA on Wednesday put out a call for a commercially owned and operated satellite network on Mars.

"The U.S. space agency needs to keep in touch with its rovers, landers and orbiters that have been chipping away at studies and experiments to learn if the planet most like Earth in the solar system ever supported life...."

In a way, I miss the excitement of my youth, when spaceflight stopped being "Buck Rogers" fantasies.

On the other hand, I'm delighted that freight runs to a space station have become routine.

The International Space Station is a multinational government operation, but I'll be surprised if Bigelow Aerospace or other commercial outfits aren't setting up orbital research, manufacturing, and tourism stations within the next decade or so.

NASA's existing Mars communications system uses the Mars Odyssey and Mars Reconnaissance orbiters, launched in 2001 and 2005. The last I checked, the orbiters were still up and running: but they won't last forever.

Mars missions planned by the European Space Agency, India, Russia, the Netherlands, Finland, and NASA will need reliable communications. Upgrading service would be nice, as NASA points out:

"...One possible area for improvement is laser or optical communications. NASA successfully demonstrated laser communications technology in October 2013 with its Lunar Atmosphere and Dust Environment Explorer (LADEE) mission. LADEE made history using a pulsed laser beam to transmit data over 239,000 miles from the moon to Earth at a record-breaking download rate of 622 megabits-per-second (Mbps)...."
("NASA Seeks Proposals for Commercial Mars Data Relay Satellites"
NASA press release (July 23, 2014))

We're still at least five years from launching the Mars Piloted Orbital Station. The Orion Mars Mission's landing is set for around 2030. We'll probably have folks making Mars their home — eventually. But settling Mars will be much harder that many imagined, back when C. L. Moore wrote her Northwest Smith stories.

More posts, about why I'm okay with looking:

Back
- "Volcanoes and Fossilized Brains: Studying Earth's Past"
  (July 25, 2014)
- "Coping With Change for Millions of Years; Chatty Chimps"
  (July 11, 2014)
- "Lukewarm Dinosaurs, the Earliest Known Fish, and Durable Faces"
  (June 20, 2014)
- "Ticks in Amber, Mutant Crickets, and Paleolithic London"
  (June 6, 2014)
- "South American Dinosaurs, Large and 'Small;' and a Changing World"
  (May 23, 2014)
Around
- "Personal Preference, Reality, and Dealing with Knowledge"
  (January 2, 2014)
- "Love, Technology, and Being Human"
  (October 6, 2013)
- "God, Science, and Getting a Grip"
  (March 5, 2012)
- "Science isn't a Four-Letter Word"
  (January 29, 2012)
- "Faith, Reason, Certainty, and Getting a Grip"
  (January 11, 2012)
Ahead
- "Habitable Worlds, Homer, and Haldane — or — Ganymede's Oceans, and Imagining Kepler-186f's Sunsets"
  (May 9, 2014)
- "Lowering Costs on the Earth-to-Orbit Run, Preparing for Incoming Asteroids"
  (May 2, 2014)
- "Life in the Universe: Focusing the Search"
  (April 18, 2014)
- "Fusion Power, Terraforming, and Old Dutch Windmills"
  (October 11, 2013)
- "Warp Drive: Imagined and Real (Maybe, Eventually)"
  (May 24, 2013)

Marian Apparition: Champion, Wisconsin

Background:

• "Worthy of belief" Diocese of Green Bay, Wisconsin
• "Directory on Popular Piety and the Liturgy. Principles and Guidelines," 15; Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Vatican City (December 2001)
• "Basic Information on Apparitions, Diocese of Green Bay
- (Archived from (www.gbdioc.org/images/stories/Evangelization_Worship/Shrine/Documents/Basic-Information-on-Apparitions.pdf on December 8, 2010)
Catechism of the Catholic Church on:
- • Life as a pilgrimage, 1013
- • Pilgrimages and prayer, 2691

Posts in this blog:

• "Apparition of Mary, Champion, Wisconsin: A Pilgrimage? Not for Me" (April 10, 2011)
• "Wisconsin Apparitions Okay: Champion, Wisconsin: Not Necedah" (December 8, 2010)

In the news:

• "Wisconsin chapel approved as first US Marian apparition site" Benjamin Mann, CNA (Catholic News Agency) (December 9, 2010)

What's That Doing in a Nice Catholic Blog?

From time to time, a service that I use will display links to - odd - services and retailers.

I block a few of the more obvious dubious advertisers.

For example: psychic anything, numerology, mediums, and related practices are on the no-no list for Catholics. It has to do with the Church's stand on divination. I try to block those ads.

Sometime regrettable advertisements get through, anyway.

Bottom line? What that service displays reflects the local culture's norms, - not Catholic teaching.

Visit us online:
Spiral Light Candle	• Find a Retailer • Spiral Light Candle Store

A Catholic Citizen in America's Pages