Sky and Tel's anti-bible editorial

On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 11:04:27 -0700, Tim Killian
wrote:

Limiting class discussion might be justified because of time limits, but
he also refuses any discussion of the merits of evolution as a theory in
written assignments. His students are required to accept its precepts
unconditionally -- as an axiom. IMO, that is not science.

Good for him. Evolution is not a theory, it is an observed fact.
Depending upon the level of the class, and the depth of the material it
covers, discussion of the _mechanisms_ underlying evolution is
reasonable; if he disallows it, that is unfortunate.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

Ed T wrote:
"RichA" wrote in message

Anyone teaching that evolution is a theory
on par with the fantasy of "creation" should
be tossed in jail.

Not outrageous enough, lacks originality too. Take another run at
it.

Ed T.

Ha! I missed this. Good one Ed!

Clyde

Ummm...Rich is Canadian... :-)

- Craig


rms wrote:
A Rebumplican Bush Voter is lecturing us on the benefits of teaching
Evolution, what an occasion for laughter. You support a President
who has
aborted stemcell research funding, expressly denied the reality of
global
warming, is gleefully trashing the environment in expectation of The
Rapture, and last but not least building a fantasy-based propaganda
system
the likes of which hasn't been seen for 60 years.

How do you reconcile supporting Evolution when you deny the logical
conclusion belief in it inevitably leads to, and support a political
party
that is anti-Science ?

rms

Tim Killian:
Limiting class discussion might be justified because of time limits, but
he also refuses any discussion of the merits of evolution as a theory in
written assignments. His students are required to accept its precepts
unconditionally -- as an axiom. IMO, that is not science.

IMO, it is science. Because evolution is a *property* of all life that
we know of, it makes sense in a science class to discuss how evolution
works and its consequences, not to debate whether it exists or not.
That is already established. There are all sorts of other courses
available to those who wish to debate religion. There are even entire
universities devoted to teaching fundamentalist religion.

Because the public don't understand the meaning of "theory," I propose
changing the name of the Theory of Evolution to the Property of
Evolution to emphasize that evolution is part and parcel of being
alive.

Davoud

On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 12:22:44 GMT, "jimz" wrote:

Einstien believed in God and creation.
Are you smarter than Einstein ?



There have been plenty of intelligent people
who profess a belief in God and Creation but
they don't believe it happened 6000 years ago.
-Rich

Craig wrote:
Ummm...Rich is Canadian... :-)

- Craig

Yeah. That too. ;-)

Craig, look in your sent messages folder at your post.
rec.arts?

LOL.
UB

"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...

Good for him. Evolution is not a theory, it is an observed fact.
Depending upon the level of the class, and the depth of the material it
covers, discussion of the _mechanisms_ underlying evolution is
reasonable; if he disallows it, that is unfortunate.


Well put.

If a student does seriously object to what is taught, I think the best
thing they can do is to get into the scientific community, get their
ideas on solid ground, and get the ideas successfully through
peer review.

Rockett

On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 08:22:16 GMT, "rms"
wrote:

A Rebumplican Bush Voter is lecturing us on the benefits of teaching
Evolution, what an occasion for laughter. You support a President who has
aborted stemcell research funding, expressly denied the reality of global
warming, is gleefully trashing the environment in expectation of The
Rapture, and last but not least building a fantasy-based propaganda system
the likes of which hasn't been seen for 60 years.

How do you reconcile supporting Evolution when you deny the logical
conclusion belief in it inevitably leads to, and support a political party
that is anti-Science ?

rms



Only a dimwit Democrat lock-stepper would consider supporting someone
to represent 100% support for ALL their policies. Republicans are not
anti-science. You have to learn how to clarify you ideas. SOME
Republicans disagree with scientific findings when they conflict with
the literal translations of the bible. If you think they all do,
that's your problem.
-Rich

In article , says...
T.T. wrote:
In primary school we had a teacher who flatly stated that 3 + 3 = 6.

I've been taught that 2 + 2 = 5, for extremely large values of 2. Was I
misled?

Well, in floating-point arithmetic you could be right! For instance:

2.4 + 2.4 = 4.8

Now, round this off to the nearest integer, and you'll get:

2 + 2 = 5

:-) ....but seriously, this can be an issue (although in more subtle
ways) when doing floating-point arithmetic


Another case where the normal arithmetic rules sometimes are invalid is
modular aritmhetic (which is a vareiety of integer arithmetic). If
we use a modulus of 5, we get in modulus-5 arithmetic:

3 + 3 = 1
3 - 4 = 4
3 * 3 = 4
3 / 4 = 3



--
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at saaf dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/
http://home.tiscali.se/pausch/

Sorry to throw even a hint of dissent into the midst of all you learned
scientists, but "evolution" as you are characterizing it is not an
observed fact. "Variation" is certainly an observed fact but one
species changing into another is not observed in the fossil record or
in real time and the amazing diversity of life that we see in today's
world are not adequately explained by theories that preclude even the
hint of a Creator.

Whether or not you believe the account of Creation as recounted in the
Bible or other religious sources you should at least open your mind to
the possibility that this was not all an accident. Closing your mind
to that possibility is the antithesis of objective scientific thinking
IMHO.

Mark




Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 11:04:27 -0700, Tim Killian

wrote:

Limiting class discussion might be justified because of time limits,
but
he also refuses any discussion of the merits of evolution as a
theory in
written assignments. His students are required to accept its
precepts
unconditionally -- as an axiom. IMO, that is not science.

Good for him. Evolution is not a theory, it is an observed fact.
Depending upon the level of the class, and the depth of the material
it
covers, discussion of the _mechanisms_ underlying evolution is
reasonable; if he disallows it, that is unfortunate.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com