Churches urged to back evolution

British Broadcasting Corporation ^ | 20 February 2006 | Paul Rincon

[P-Marlowe]

Oops. That just sounded too much like an urban legend. I still have my doubts. I have requested that my post be pulled.

[Always Right]

The Indiana Pi Bill (1897).

Ironically it was not religious beliefs but faulty scientific theory which brought the bill about.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

From your own link:

"Though the claim about the Alabama state legislature is pure nonsense, it is similar to an event that happened more than a century ago. In 1897 the Indiana House of Representatives unanimously passed a measure redefining the area of a circle and the value of pi. (House Bill no. 246, introduced by Rep. Taylor I. Record.) The bill died in the state Senate."

[P-Marlowe]

FWIW, it does not appear that they were trying to use any kind of biblical formula. I don't see any attempt to make pi=3.

[P-Marlowe]

But they didn't try to do it to match the biblical problem we have been discussing here. They did it apparently to give some recognition to a theory about the area of a circle being impossible to determine using the pi r squared formula.

Donh stated that they tried to pass a law making pi=3. Which is not exactly true.

[Always Right]

FWIW, it does not appear that they were trying to use any kind of biblical formula. I don't see any attempt to make pi=3.

Some guy did some experimenting with squaring circles and figured the area was actually 3.2. The guy had a buddy who was a legislater who intoduced the bill and would give the guy royalties to anyone who used his value. Ironically, it was lousy scientific and definitely not religious.

[curiosity]

I have no problem with science per se being concerned with the "non-miraculous." The division of the world into the "natural and supernatural" as though the natural world just chugs along on its own is a product of rationalism, not science. I believe that the majesty of God is exercised (in fact, I believe it is DEMANDED) by the complexity and order of the universe. This was the world of some of the greatest scientific minds the world has ever known.

Generally, I agree with you. Notice, however, that the above in no way conflicts with Darwin's theory. Nor does the above imply what people like Dembski and Behe call "intelligent design."

I object to scientists attempting to do a bait and switch and talk about issues outside their domeain and call it "science."

I agree, though I think most scientists do respect the boundaries of their discipline. The Dawkins of the world are a tiny minority.

Please see my response to Thatcherite for a slightly more treanchant statement of that point.,

I'd like to take a look at it. Would you mind giving me a post number?

[Ken H]

Oops. That just sounded too much like an urban legend. I still have my doubts. I have requested that my post be pulled.

Sounds like a slice of humble pi is in order:)

[P-Marlowe]

Sounds like a slice of humble pi is in order:)

After review the actual bill it is clear that what Donh said was simply not true. Indiana did not try to redefine the formula to pi=3. That was a false statement. What Indiana tried to do was to codify a new formula for determining the area of a circle. There was no attempt to legislate the I Kings 7:23.

Don had it half right, so I can't accuse him of being a "liar" but he made an error.

[andysandmikesmom]

Why have your post pulled?...frankly, I find the whole discussion about this subject and the different responses to it, enlightening...

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" Don had it half right, so I can't accuse him of being a "liar" but he made an error."

You also had it half right/half wrong too. You wouldn't have made that mistake if you had read that last paragraph from the link you provided, where the Indiana bill was mentioned. It seems there is enough blame to go around. We all have pi on our faces. :)

[P-Marlowe]

Why have your post pulled?.

I feel that it was too harsh. Don made an error, but so did I. The fact is that the Indiana Legislature did try to redefine the formula for determining the area of a circle (a rather stupid leglislative enterprise). I had assumed that was a rumor as well. But Donh interjected the rumor of pi=3 into the fact of the Indiana Legislature's bill and made the claim that the Indiana Legislature tried to redefine the formula for pi to match the alleged error in I Kings 7:23. That is not what happened.

So I think it would be best if the post were pulled. Now that we've dispensed with the silly rumors, perhaps we can get back to an intelligent discussion.

[andysandmikesmom]

'Pi' placemarker

[P-Marlowe]

See post 1832. :-)

BTW when are we going to meet again for practice? I left the lyrics to my last song on some faraway thread and I can't find it. Since I abandoned it, I suspect it will show up on some platinum label sleeve jacket someplace.

[andysandmikesmom]

Well, I think what was learned was that sometimes people on both sides of the issue can and do make mistakes, and perhaps this latest exchange showed the 'correct' way in which to work through it, in a civil manner...

All too often, when someone has been shown that they are in error, they refuse to admit it, and holler and scream and then run away...and often go on to repeat the very same error...

In this case now, errors made on both sides were recognized, and handled in a civil mature manner...thats a good lesson for all, I think...

Just my opinion for what its worth, and some on these threads think my opinion is worthless....I just think this exchange was an education in how to resolve things in the true FR spirit...

[metmom]

A quick google search will show that it was the medical establishment which rejected Semmelweiss' observations initially because it went against current scientific opinion at the time. Can't blame the *church* for that one too much.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis

[stlouisgirl777]

hey just putting my two measly cents in....

I'm currently taking an anthropology course in college...
My professor is a great lady who has approached her teaching with respect of other people's opinions...she has been the only reason I have stayed in the class

The book we are being taught from, on the other hand, is not at all respectful of other peoples views...basically what they said is, if you are religious and you are skeptical about evolution you are fundamentalist with a pea brain.

basically

As a christian I have absolutely no aversion to science...I don't have to agree with the science simply because I learn about it. My objection isn't to the science, it's to the way the scientists..some...have shown no regard whatsoever for other people's views.

I don't see how evolution doesn't fit in with the bible...

I also don't think, after taking this class, that's it's quite as proven as some like to claim...

They state they have overwhelming evidence...but just today we learned most of the fossil evidence they have amounts to nothing more than disjointed and fragmented bone.

It's very much conjecture on their part.

Some of the theory makes sense, but as of yet, I haven't seen this overwhelming evidence they speak of.

I'll let ya'll know more when I'm done with the class...

by the way...I have a solid A in this class...goes to show not all fundamentalist christians are incapable of intelligent thought.

Oh about teaching it in school...it should be taught in science class. Religion should be taught at home or in a class that is not required...I certainly don't want them requiring my child to learn all about the Koran...or the Church of Satan...come on now this is America....Intelligent design is not scientific...believing in God is not scientific...they don't call it faith because it's easy to believe or easily provable. Comparing science and religions is the best example I can think of for the apples and oranges adage.
However this works both ways....no one should ever start carping on churches about what they teach or how they teach it....beliefs are just that and people should leave the churches alone.

[whattajoke]

I was going to pick your post apart but then your last paragraph stopped me. Since you have your head on straight, I'll leave you alone to learn. And hopefully, your professor will do a better job explaining the fossil record to you in the future.

Good luck!

[Elsie]

Sad, but true.

Hello?

What 'reason'?

[Elsie]

I could easily show it's accuracy in a court of law...

Ha!

You can't even show it HERE as I have post quitely plainly ALL of your rant about me!

---

....just an obnoxious repeat of the original slander.

Indeed!