Friday, 27 December 96 Washington, DC
1. LIFE ON MARS: IS AN INORGANIC EXPLANATION EQUALLY LIKELY?
Some scientists who have examined the evidence think so. Their comments, along with responses, appear in this week's issue of Science. If the debate seems unusually restrained, it may be that scientists on both sides of the question fear a backlash. Public expectations were sent into orbit by the announcement in August. Regardless of whether the evidence from the meteorite holds up, many scientists believe prospects for finding life or fossil life on Mars are good. But that could be a hard message to sell if the claims for the meteorite now fail to stand up.
2. SPACE STATION: "REPHASING OF UTILIZATION" MAY NOT BE ENOUGH.
To cover cost overruns, NASA simply postponed science on Alpha for a few years (WN 20 Sep 96). To cover Russia's delay in building the Service Module, NASA merely postponed human occupancy of Alpha (WN 6 Dec 96). The conviction is growing that the Service Module won't be built at all unless the U.S. pays for it. Our principle "partner" then becomes just another NASA contractor. Among other things, the Service Module provides the propulsion needed to keep the station in orbit. NASA is now working furiously to cobble together a substitute propulsion system. NASA has not said what will be postponed to pay for it.
3. CORRECTION: BEMS LETTER TO CONGRESS PRECEDED THE NRC REPORT.
WN 13 Dec 96, quoted a letter from the Bioelectromagnetics Society complaining of "...public statements by those who we believe are lacking the requisite multidisciplinary expertise." The text was on the BEMS home page under "Position Statements, updated 31 Oct 96," along with a press release on the NRC report. But BEMS President Richard Luben informs me the letter was actually sent much earlier -- long before the NRC report was released. He did not say who the letter was talking about.
4. BOOK REVIEW: INTELLIGENT DESIGNER MEETS THE BLIND WATCHMAKER.
So maybe creation didn't take place 10,000 years ago. "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution" by Michael Behe concedes that, but not much more. There is, he contends, an "irreducible complexity" in nature that must have come from an "intelligent designer." As if by grand design, the response to Behe was already in the works; "Climbing Mount Improbable" by Richard Dawkins delights in showing just how complexity comes about -- one tiny step at a time. His chapter on the evolution of the eye alone is worth the price of the book. Interviewed for the Chronicle of Higher Education, Dawkins dismissed intelligent design as "a pathetic cop-out" and Behe as simply too lazy to figure out how things work. But to attribute natural events to supernatural forces is not merely lazy, it defines anti-science. Besides, any intelligent designer who would wrap the prostate gland around the ureter must have a wicked sense of humor.
|
