^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ AWG E-MAIL NEWS 2002-17 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ CONTENTS 1) AGI GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS MONTHLY REVIEW MAY 2002 2) THE AWIS WASHINGTON WIRE - JUNE 15, 2002 3) CALL FOR PAPERS 2003 Illustrated Paper Student Competition 2003 Student Honors Paper Competition 4) LATIN AMERICAN LECTURE SERIES 5) 10 REASONS TO AVOID TEACHING INTELLIGENT DESIGN IN SCHOOLS 6) BOOK FAIR 7) REQUEST FOR INFORMATION 8) CONTACT INFORMATION ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Thanks to everyone who contributed to this issue of E-mail News ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 1) AGI GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS MONTHLY REVIEW MAY 2002 * House Vote Favors Yucca Mountain Repository, Senate Hears Testimony * Representatives Push for NSF Budget Doubling * Energy Conference Awaits Naming of House Members * USGS Re-Assesses NPRA Resource Potential * Court and Congress Reject New Definition of "Fill Material" * Bush Administration Agrees to Buy Back Florida Oil Leases * Federal Agencies Release Data Quality Guidelines * List of Key Federal Register Notices * New Material on Web Site *** House Vote Favors Yucca Mountain Repository, Senate Hears Testimony *** On May 8th, the full House of Representatives voted 306-117 in favor of House Joint Resolution 87, a measure to override Nevada Governor Kenny Guinn's (R) formal objection to the siting of a high-level nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain. The resolution was then passed on to the Senate where a much closer vote is expected. Guinn issued his objection on April 8th. Under the terms of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, Congress has 90 working days to override the governor's objection with simple majority votes in both chambers, not subject to filibuster in the Senate, which has until July 25 to pass its version of the override resolution. The Senate process began with a series of three hearings held by the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on May 16th, 22nd, and 23rd. Committee Chair Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) focused the hearings on hazards associated with transportation of the waste, an issue that has become the principal rallying point for opposition to the repository. The committee heard from Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham and from the project's regulators and federal oversight bodies. Non-federal witnesses testified on radiation exposure and threats to waste transportation, including vulnerability of waste shipments to terrorist attacks. These witnesses expressed great concern about the safety of moving nuclear waste and suggested that a more organized and detailed transportation plan be presented before allowing the site evaluation process to move farther along. On June 5th, the committee voted on Senate Joint Resolution 34 by a 13-10 margin. Nine Democrats were joined by Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell (R-CO) in opposition. If the resolution passes in the Senate, Congress will have approved the site selection, and DOE will have 90 days to submit a license application to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. More at http://www.agiweb.org/gap/legis107/yucca.html. Witness statements are available at http://energy.senate.gov/cfdocs/hearings.cfm?id=5#hearing. *** Representatives Push for NSF Budget Doubling *** As reported in a May 15th Action Alert, a bipartisan group of representatives are pushing to put the National Science Foundation (NSF) on track to double its budget over five years. A "Dear Colleague" letter making this case was sent to the House Appropriations Committee on May 28th. The letter was sponsored by Reps. Vernon Ehlers (R-MI), Rush Holt (D-NJ), Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY), Ralph Hall (D-TX), Constance Morella (R-MD) and Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX). In addition to those six, 126 of their colleagues also signed the letter. The group seeks a 15% increase for NSF in fiscal year (FY) 2003. Such an increase would make it possible for Congress to fund the EarthScope initiative and build other key geoscience programs. The letter to appropriators is part of a broader effort by the House Science Committee to support a five-year doubling of NSF's budget. The chairman of the committee's Research Subcommittee, Rep. Nick Smith (R-MI), introduced the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2002 (H.R. 4664) at a well-attended press conference on May 7th. The bill would authorize increases for the next three years that track with a five-year doubling. Such funding, of course, would be contingent upon congressional appropriators following through with the actual dollars, but passage of the bill would put Congress on record in support of this goal. The full House passed the bill on June 5th by a 397-25 margin, and the Senate has already begun the process of developing its own reauthorization bill. These efforts dovetail with the recommendations of the Coalition for National Science Funding (CNSF), to which AGI and several of its Member Societies belong. More at, http://www.agiweb.org/gap/legis107/nsfreauth.html and at http://www.agiweb.org/gap/legis107/nsf_alert0502.html. *** Energy Conference Awaits Naming of House Members *** A May 8th Special Update provided a comparison of the House-passed and Senate-passed versions of comprehensive energy legislation. The Senate passed its version of H.R. 4 late in April, and the House passed its version the previous August. The Senate members of the House-Senate Conference Committee were named at the beginning of May, but House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) has not yet announced the House conferees. It has already been agreed that Rep. Billy Tauzin (R-LA), the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, will serve as chairman of the conference. The Senate lineup includes eight Democrats, eight Republicans, and one Independent (Sen. Jim Jeffords, VT), which will favor the Senate majority on most matters but not on the key issue of drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge -- Sen. John Breaux (D-LA) supports opening the refuge for oil exploration as do all the Republicans. The conference is expected to get under way in June and complete action later this summer. It remains unclear whether any conference agreement can achieve House and Senate passage before the end of the session. The special update is at http://www.agiweb.org/gap/legis107/energy_update0502.html. *** USGS Re-Assesses NPRA Resource Potential *** On May 16th, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) released its re-assessment of the undiscovered oil and natural gas resources within the National Petroleum Reserve Alaska (NPRA). The reserve occupies 23 million acres on the western part of the North Slope along Alaska's arctic coast. The Survey's last NPRA assessment was completed in 1980, reporting that the technically recoverable oil on federal lands in the area totaled between 0.3 and 5.4 billion barrels of oil (BBO). In the new assessment, those numbers (which represent the 95% and 5% probability, respectively) jump to 5.9 and 13.2 billion barrels. The new assessment also includes an economic analysis, concluding that between 1.3 and 5.6 BBO are economically recoverable at market prices between $22 and $30 per barrel. The USGS also estimates that there are between 39.1 and 83.2 trillion cubic feet (TCF) of natural gas within NPRA. The economic viability of these resources, however, depends on developing the capacity to transport them to markets. According to the fact sheet released at the press conference (http://geopubs.wr.usgs.gov/fact-sheet/fs045- 02/), the "increase in estimated oil resources is largely the result of the recognition of new plays based on oil accumulations recently discovered just east of NPRA." Included in the assessment is a comparison of the resources available in NPRA (using the 2002 assessment figures) and ANWR (using the 1998 assessment figures) that will be of great political interest as Congress begins to craft compromise energy legislation this summer. *** Court Rejects New Definition of "Fill Material" *** With the approval of the Bush administration, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers recently changed their definition of "fill material" to match a broader definition of the material set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This change was intended to allow disposal of spoil from mountaintop- removal mining practices by filling in adjacent valleys. On May 8th, U.S. District Court Judge Charles Haden ruled in Kentuckians for the Commonwealth v. Corps of Engineers that the Corps does not have the authority to make the definition change, which would effectively reverses part of the Clean Water Act. Haden concluded that such a change would require a revision of the act by Congress. But a bipartisan group of House members have made clear that they would oppose any change. Before Haden's ruling, the group -- led by Reps. Chris Shays (R-CT) and Frank Pallone (D-NJ) -- introduced legislation to maintain the original limits placed on fill material in the Clean Water Act. Opposition to the definitional change has been expressed in the Senate as well. In response, mining industry representatives argue that the composition and structure of fills is largely misunderstood and that they abide by EPA standards and monitor for negative impacts on the affected streams. Information on other Clean Water Act issues at http://www.agiweb.org/gap/legis107/clean_water.html *** Bush Administration Agrees to Buy Back Florida Oil Leases *** On May 29th, the Bush administration announced that it has agreed to buy back portions of Florida's Gulf of Mexico offshore oil leases as well as some mineral rights in the Florida Everglades. The Department of the Interior (DOI) will spend $115 million to reacquire seven of nine existing leases in the natural-gas-rich Destin Dome Unit, located offshore Pensacola, from Chevron, Conoco, and Murphy Oil. Murphy Oil will suspend development of the two other leases until the moratorium on current leasing expires in 2012. Florida has contested development in the leases since 1998 under the Coastal Zone Management Act. DOI will also spend $120 million to purchase the mineral rights to 390,000 acres in the Everglades from Collier Resources Co. Collier will retain 200 producing acres that have an estimated 10 to 15 more years of oil production. This acquisition agreement, which covers parts of Big Cypress National Preserve, Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge, and Ten Thousand Islands National Wildlife Refuge, is supported by environmental groups concerned with habitat quality for the Florida panther and American crocodile. Also, Interior Secretary Gale Norton acknowledged that the purchase of this acreage further insures implementation of the $8 billion Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. Unlike the Destin Dome buyback deal, however, the Everglades agreement must be ratified by Congress. Both buyback agreements were sought by Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) as part of a wider effort to curtail oil and gas production in Florida. California, eager to begin lease buybacks of its own, promptly appealed to President Bush to extend buybacks to other states as well. More on outer continental shelf issues at http://www.agiweb.org/gap/legis107/ocs.html *** Federal Agencies Release Data Quality Guidelines *** As reported in the September 2001 Monthly Review, the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is requiring all federal agencies to establish procedures to improve federally produced information disseminated to the public. The agencies must develop quality criteria and an administrative mechanism to respond to inquiries about the quality of information provided. In recent months, several agencies have released their draft guidelines, including NSF (http://www.nsf.gov/home/pubinfo/infoqual.htm), EPA (http://www.epa.gov/oei/qualityguidelines/), the Department of Agriculture (http://www.ocio.usda.gov/irm/qi_guide/index.html), the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (http://www.ostp.gov/html/DataQuality.html), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration through the Department of Commerce (http://www.osec.doc.gov/cio/oipr/iqg.html). On May 1st, OMB announced in the Federal Register that it is seeking public comments on its draft Information Quality Guidelines for "pre-dissemination information quality control and an administrative mechanisms for requests for correction of information publicly disseminated by OMB." All federal agencies are required to make these guidelines available on their web site no later than October 1, 2002. The guidelines were originally required by a congressional mandate inserted into the fiscal year 2001 Treasury Appropriations bill by Rep. Jo Ann Emerson (R- MO). Additional information available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/infopoltech.html. *** List of Key Federal Register Notices *** A new feature of the AGI Monthly Reviews is a summary of Federal Register announcements regarding federal regulations and notices of interest to the earth science community. Entries are listed in chronological order and show the federal agency involved, the title, and the citation. The Federal Register is available online at http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/fedreg/frcont02.html. * Minerals Management Service (MMS). Environmental Documents Prepared for Proposed Oil and Gas Operations on the Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf. Vol.67, No. 86 (3 May 2002): p. 22447. * U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Request for Public Comments on Proposed Information Collection to be Submitted to OMB for Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act. Vol. 67, No. 89 (8 May 2002): p. 30950-30951. * MMS. Environmental Documents Prepared for Proposed Mineral Exploration on the Alaska Outer Continental Shelf. Vol. 67, No. 90 (9 May 2002): p. 31368-31369. * Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement. Bonding and Other Financial Assurance Mechanisms for Treatment of Long-term Pollution Discharges and Acid/Toxic Mine Drainage Related Issues. Vol. 67, No. 96 (17 May 2002): p. 35070-35073. * Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Modification of Secondary Treatment Requirements for Discharges into Marine Waters. Vol. 67, No. 103 (29 May 2002): p. 37418-37419. * EPA. Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Final Authorization for Hazardous Waste Management. Vol. 67, No. 103 (29 May 2002): p. 37420. * National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of Information Disseminated by NASA. Vol. 67, No. 104 (30 May 2002): p. 37873-37878. ** New Material on Web Site ** The following updates and reports were added to the Government Affairs portion of AGI's web site http://www.agiweb.org since the last monthly update: High-Level Nuclear Waste Disposal (6-5-02) Geotimes Political Scene: Energy Policy at the Crossroads (6/02) Action Alert: House Members Seek to Put NSF Budget on Doubling Path (5-28- 02) National Science Foundation Authorization (5-28-02) Special Update: Senate Passes Energy Bill, Conference Is Next Stop (5-8-02) Geotimes Political Scene: Becoming A Standard Bearer (by AGI 2001-2002 Congressional Science Fellow David Curtiss; 5/02) Monthly review prepared by Margaret A. Baker, David Applegate, and AGI/AIPG Summer Interns Sarah Riggen and David Viator. Sources: American Physical Society, E&E News, Federal Register, Greenwire, House Energy and Commerce Committee, Library of Congress, Minerals Management Service, National Academy of Sciences, OMBWatch, U.S. Geological Survey, and White House Office of Management and Budget. 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11 2) THE AWIS WASHINGTON WIRE - JUNE 15, 2002 The latest edition of the Washington Wire has been posted at . Topics for this week's wire are: International Perspective Report Says Women Targeted During India's Violence Long Hard Struggle for Green Beret Feminists Hail New Iranian Custody Law Government House Goes on Record: Double the NSF Budget Healthcare Irregular Periods in Young Women Could be a Warning Sign for Later Osteoporosis Single Injection Averts Pregnancy Danger Statin Drugs Lower Heart Disease Risk in Postmenopausal Women Education & the Workplace Single Gender Schools Gaining Favor, Success Study Stresses Importance of Support Networks for Female Engineers Announcements AAAS Research Grants for PhD Students HHS Issues New Statistical Report on Women's Health 222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222 22 3) CALL FOR PAPERS 2003 Illustrated Paper Student Competition Sponsored by the AAG Cartography, GIS and Remote Sensing Specialty Groups The purpose of this award is to promote presentation of illustrated papers (posters and a 5 minute talk) by students at the 2003 AAG National Meeting in New Orleans March. Illustrated papers that advance any aspect of cartography, GIS, or remote sensing may be submitted. Illustrated papers must be based upon original work, completed as an undergraduate or graduate student, relevant to the field of GIScience and current GIScience. Illustrated papers must be based upon research that has been completed within the past academic year research and not published or presented elsewhere. Illustrated papers must be compiled entirely by the applicant; however, thesis/dissertation advisors can be co-authors on the papers. Students who are selected as finalists will be placed in a special illustrated paper session at the annual meeting. An illustrated paper is a short (3-5 minute) oral summary of the problem, data, methods, and findings followed by one-on-one or small group discussion with interested listeners in poster format. All oral summaries will be given at the beginning of the illustrated paper session, before participants disperse to the poster boards around the room. Posters and oral summaries will be judged on potential contribution to the field of GIScience, originality, appropriate use of methodology, organization and composition, clarity, and appropriate use of graphics. Judging will take into account the academic level of the entrants. Posters will be judged by an Awards Committee consisting of the Academic and Student Directors of each of the three sponsoring specialty groups. Eligibility The competition is open to students at all academic levels. Applicants must be a current member of at least one of the three sponsoring AAG specialty groups. The academic level of the applicants will be taken into account. Award A $500 prize will be awarded to the first place poster. A $250 prize will be awarded to the second place poster. A $100 prize will be awarded to the third place poster. Additionally, the committee may choose an outstanding undergraduate winner and award a prize of $100. The Annual Banquet fee will be covered for all winners. Disbursement Check, disbursed at the Awards Banquet at the AAG Annual Meeting, or through mail if the winner can not attend the Awards Banquet. Application requirements Applicants must submit the usual short abstract and appropriate program participation fee as required by the AAG, at the AAG website (www.aag.org) by September 30, 2002. For the call for papers and AAG submission information guidelines refer to the June 2002 AAG Newsletter (Volume 37, Number 6). A copy of the abstract as well as the computer generated "Participation Number (PIN)", part of the AAG registration process, must be submitted to the RSSG-Student Director at: moskal@ku.edu. These materials are due September 30, 2002. Please indicate that these materials are being submitted for the AAG CSG/GIS/RSSG Student Illustrated Paper Competition. You will not be considered for the competition without submitting this information to the RSSG- Student Director, no late submissions, no exceptions. Students who are selected as finalists by the competition committee will be placed in a special AAG CSG/GISSG/RSSG Student Illustrated Paper Competition session(s) at the national meeting. Guidelines for Papers You will have 10 minutes prior to the poster session to put up your poster on the display boards. Your name will be placed on the appropriate board, please use the board that's assigned to you. You may only use one board per poster. The maximum display area available to you is 8 feet wide and 4 feet tall. The graphics show a suggested poster size that is acceptable for this competition; smaller posters or individual graphics are also acceptable. There will not be provisions for computer displays or other materials. You may want to make your business cards available; also you can have handouts of your poster (both can be attached to the poster board frame). Thumb-tacks will be provided, but you can always bring your own just in case. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 2003 Student Honors Paper Competition Sponsored by the AAG Remote Sensing Specialty Group The Remote Sensing Specialty Group of the Association of American Geographers is pleased to announce the 2002- 2003 Honors Competition for Student Papers on remote sensing topics to be presented at the Annual Meeting of the AAG in New Orleans, March 4-8, 2003. Rules for Submission Papers must be based upon original work relevant to the field of remote sensing and current remote sensing research. Papers must be based upon work done as an undergraduate or graduate student, and the research must have been completed within the past academic year. Topics are not restricted to work derived from theses or dissertations, provided the paper has not already been published or presented somewhere else. Papers must be written entirely by the applicant; however, thesis and dissertation advisors can be co-authors on the papers. Applicants must submit the usual short abstract and appropriate program participation fee as required by the AAG, at the AAG website (www.aag.org). For the call for papers and AAG submission information guidelines refer to the June 2002 AAG Newsletter (Volume 37, Number 6). A copy of the abstract as well as the computer generated "Participation Number (PIN)", part of the AAG registration process, must be submitted to the RSSG-Student Director at the contact below. Students who are selected as finalists by the competition committee will be placed in a special AAG-RSSG Student Honors Paper Competition session(s) at the national meeting. Eligibility The competition is open to students at all academic levels. Awards A $500 prize will be awarded to the first place paper. A $250 prize will be awarded to the second place paper, and a $100 prize will be awarded to the third place paper. The Annual Banquet fee will be covered for all winners. Disbursement Check, disbursed at the Awards Banquet at the AAG Annual Meeting, or through mail if the winner can not attend the Awards Banquet. Judging Judging will take into account the academic level of the entrants. Both the written and the oral version of the papers will be judged by a committee including the current Academic and Student Directors of the Remote Sensing Specialty Group. Guidelines for Papers ??Papers should be mailed and received by the RSSG-Student Director by January 31st, 2003? ??5 hard copies of the completed paper must be submitted (digital copies of the paper will not be accepted) ??Papers must not exceed 10 double-spaced typed or printed pages, exclusive of graphs, maps, tables, references, abstract, and title page. Please use only 10 or 12 point type. ??The paper must begin with a title page giving the title, the name of the author, the academic level of the author, when the research was completed, and a complete mailing address. ??A short abstract should appear on page 2. The abstract should define the problem, the methodology, and the results of the study in no more than 500 words. ??The text of the paper should begin on page 3 and end by page 12. ??The listing of references cited should immediately follow the text. List all references alphabetically using the following format: Jensen, J. R. 1996. Introductory digital image processing: a remote sensing perspective. 2nd Edition, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.? ??Within the text, use a standard format for citation that includes the author's last name, the date of publication, and the page referenced, if applicable. For example: Jensen (1996) ??Figures and tables must be referenced in the text and should appear in order immediately following the references section. Both figures and tables must have captions appearing on them. For example: Figure 1. Maps used as referents Submission of Abstracts and Papers Abstracts are to be submitted through the AAG website www.aag.org by September 30, 2002. Once you have submitted the abstract, send a copy of the abstract, title and "Participation Number (PIN)" to the RSSG-Student Director at: moskal@ku.edu. These materials are due September 30, 2002. Please indicate that these materials are being submitted for the AAG-RSSG Student Honors Paper Competition. You will not be considered for the competition without submitting this information to the RSSG-Student Director, no late submissions, no exceptions. 333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333 33 4) LATIN AMERICAN LECTURE SERIES Applications Sought for Latin American Lecture Series on Women The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) seeks input for a new Latin American Lecture series on women in science and engineering. US women scientists are invited to submit their stories about overcoming the challenges of pursuing scientific careers in scientific fields traditionally dominated by male scientists, including (but not limited to) the biological and physical sciences, mathematics and engineering. Scientists' careers may span academia, research, and industry. Nine scientists will be selected to participate in the project which will involve lectures and presentations at three major scientific events in Latin America in 2002 and 2003. AAAS will cover all travel and subsistence expenses and will publish papers and other visual materials presented by the selected scientists. Applications from US minority women, particularly Latinas, are greatly encouraged. This project is funded by NSF. Deadline to apply is June 28th, 2002. For complete information and an application form, contact: Marina Sansostri Ratchford Senior Program Associate, AAAS 202-326-6490 mratchfo@aaas.org 444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444 44 5) 10 REASONS TO AVOID TEACHING INTELLIGENT DESIGN IN SCHOOLS By Clay Farris Naff Several groups are petitioning to add intelligent design theory to our state's science standards. They argue that evolution is flawed and that intelligent design, or I.D. for short, should have a place in the science curriculum, too. I.D. holds that some intelligent being created the variety of life we see around us. The idea of teaching I.D. alongside evolution may sound reasonable and fair. It's not. It's bad for science teaching and bad for religion. Here are some reasons why. No. 1 Evolution is a scientific theory; I.D. is not. A scientific theory isn't just a guess. It's a tested explanation for a body of facts. Intelligent design has no test or detailed explanation to offer. Evolution, by contrast, explains in great detail nearly all the data we have about the history of life on earth. To put it simply, evolution says that natural selection acting on heritable variations can account for all forms of life. No. 2 Evolution has passed every scientific test thrown at it. The next three headings are things Darwin didn't know that might have proven him wrong. No. 3 The age of the earth fits. If geology showed the Earth was less than, say, a million years old, it would be difficult to believe that evolution could have produced so many species. In fact, converging lines of evidence indicate the earth is about 4.6 billion years old. That's 4,600 million- year stretches of time. No. 4 All fossil beds show a progressive order. If complex creatures were found in layers older than fossils of simple bacteria, that would be evidence against evolution. But worldwide, the progression of fossils is consistent and unmistakable: Life started simple, stayed simple for a long time, and then got more complicated. No. 5 DNA underpins all of life. If species used different means of encoding, that might sink evolution. Instead, we find DNA in all living things, and the more closely related they are, the more similar their DNA. In fact, with whole genomes being transcribed scientists are making surprising finds: Sure, humans share nearly 99 percent of their active genes with chimpanzees, but who expected that we'd have a 75 percent overlap with pumpkins? Evidently, big changes can occur through small alterations in genes. No. 6 Evolution is slow but observable. Numerous examples have been documented. Here's one: A fly that used to eat hawthorn fruit during its larval stage switched over to apples in the Hudson River Valley about 170 years ago. Over time the original hawthorn-fly and the new apple-fly developed different reproductive cycles, so now they rarely interbreed. The apple-fly is well on its way to becoming a new species. No. 7 Evolution explains things that are otherwise hard to explain. Why is the world filled with invisible, brainless and sometimes deadly bacteria? Why do people come in different colors? Evolution offers plausible, useful answers. Intelligent design has none. No. 8 What evolution doesn't explain today it may tomorrow. If scientists haven't yet found a tested answer to every question about life, that doesn't mean "an intelligent designer must have made it." Science produces continually improving models of the natural world. Intelligent design produces untestable mystery. No. 9 I.D. as science would degrade religion. If we apply scientific scrutiny to I.D.'s claim, we are obliged to examine evidence and make deductions. The purported designer's track record is hardly ideal: 99 percent of all species that ever lived were unable to survive changing conditions. In many of today's survivors, flawed structures abound. The human back, with its useless tailbone and tendency to ache, is one such. Amazing though life is, it lacks the qualities you'd predict from a hands-on, perfect Creator. No doubt religion can provide answers to these puzzles, but not in a public school classroom. Thus, I.D. in schools would be rightly viewed by many as not just an assault on science but an insult to God as well. No. 10 Religion can deal with evolution. Pope John Paul II has no problem with evolution. Many other religionists have no problem with evolution. In their view, evolution is God's way of weaving the tapestry of life. The fact is, most Americans believe in both God and science. Still, there are some who feel they must choose. So what's a rational solution to this conflict? Teach the best science available. In medical school, that means genetics, not bleeding. In science classes, it means evolution, not I.D. However, teachers could start the evolution unit by saying, "You are required to learn the methods, concepts and evidence and to discuss them in a knowledgeable way. But no one in this class is required to believe the findings or theories of science. That's entirely between you and your conscience." Clay Farris Naff is executive director of the Center for the Advancement of Rational Solutions of Lincoln, a nonprofit organization formed this year to promote rational solutions to policy conflicts arising between science, society and the world's many religions. This article was originally published in the June 1, 2002 edition of the Lincoln Journal Star http://www.journalstar.com. 555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555 55 6) BOOK FAIR Today through midnight on Thursday, June 27, you have a VERY UNIQUE opportunity to help The Rock Detective Geoscience Education (http://rockdetective.org/)! We have set up an Electronic Usborne Book Fair ("E-fair"), accessible via web page www.ubah.com/BF11590 , where your purchases will enable Rock Detective to receive FREE copies of the Spotter's Guide to Rocks and Minerals, to include in each Rock Detective kit! To help achieve our goal, please go to the E-fair web page www.ubah.com/BF11590 , and click on the "Enter Bookstore Here" button. From there you will be able to browse the full catalog of fantastic Usborne Books, search for books of different subjects and reading levels (baby to adult), and even click on "Wish List for this E-Fair- Rock Detective" in order to directly donate Spotter's Guide books to Rock Detective. 25-50% of your purchase goes toward free books for Rock Detective. On checkout, you will be asked whether your purchase will be sent immediately to any address you designate (your home, or gift recipient's home), OR if your books will be donated directly to Rock Detective in Dresden Mills, Maine, after the conclusion of the E-Fair. In addition, 17% of each sale will go toward two scholarship funds administered by the AWG Foundation, the Hanshaw and Greenwood scholarships. If you have questions, please contact Jane Jenness, Independent Usborne Book Consultant, at jjenness1@earthlink.net. Thank you for supporting the Rock Detective! Rock Detective is a 501(c)(3), non-profit educational organization whose mission is to encourage the teaching of pre-college Earth Science. All proceeds from the sale of the Rock Detective Program support recovery programs for adults who were abused as children. 666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666 66 7) REQUEST FOR INFORMATION I am studying to be a geologist, or more specifically, a paleontologist. I am in the process of completing my course work in geology and am also taking courses in physics. I am studying in Madrid, Spain. I would like to study in the U.S., but don't know the best place to study the Paleozoic. I would like to get some information about it, and would be grateful if could you help me. If you are able to assist, please contact me at: anasanz@wanadoo.es. Thank you, Ana Sanz 777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777 77 8) CONTACT INFORMATION To submit an item to E-MAIL NEWS contact: editor@awg.org To submit advertising contact: ads@awg.org To change your address or be removed from the list contact: office@awg.org