Posted on 11/25/2005 8:34:07 AM PST by Exton1
And yet he is a defender of science. Interesting.
I too taught a seminar course a couple of years back. It was called The chemical basis of evolution,... Half the class dropped after the first meeting, when they found they'd actually have to learn some science.
Why? It's not like you required any math. Anybody who can tie his own shoes can do that stuff.
Exactly! That's exactly what ID is. It's a reaction. The evangelical atheists don't see how they just feed it.
But the biggest environmentalists are English majors and the animal rights activists live in pet-free apartment buildings.
I just find it fascinating that scientists get so worked up over a "non-science" but have nothing to say when junk science overflows the landscape. As long as the grants keep coming, I guess.
You think so, huh?
Why don't you pull up, say, 20 sequences of one particular ribosomal protein, say s7, from 20 different and widely separated organisms, and cosntruct a maximum parsimony tree. Post it here, and I'll tell you how you'd have done in the course.
Disagree.
I'm sorry you missed this obvious point. Maybe if you let go of your anti-Christian bias, you'll be able to appreciate the reality of the situation.
Your point doesn't at all follow from what you posted. You can criticize Islam any way you want in America; I do, frequently. You can't in Saudi Arabia; and you weren't at all clear where you meant.
I don't have a bias against Christianity. I do have an animus towards creationists, based on long experience.
> Just *wanting* to 'stick it to the fundies' is indicative of severe corruption of the worldview, whether one acts out or not.
Really? Do you even know what he meant by "stick it" in this context.?
> That includes freedom from having it "stuck to you" in public places.
Hardly. If you saw, say, a Scientologist or a Wahabbi on a streetcorner handing out literature, you have the freedom to "stick it" to him by handing out debunking literature, engaging in debate or even mocking. You do not exactly have the freedom to lie, but you do, as with the case with the prof, have the freedom to point out the flaws, inconsistences, lies and whatnot in your opponents worldview.
Nonetheless, a quick search of the terminology leads to the fact that what you describe is an NP-hard problem. So, in general, it would be impossible to conduct an efficient algorithm for what you ask. Although approximation would be possible, any attempt to create a maximum tree would just be ad hoc.
But if you are in the habit of giving your students monkey-work, maybe they are able to get the measure of your field.
No, but I appreciate your attempt at creating a strawman. I am saying that believe in the validity of the scientific method is a faith. But you knew that. Unless you were being intentionally obtuse. Or you're stupid. I'll choose the former.
Thanks for sharing your opinion.
Actually, there are many, many Christian-bashers at FR. Typically they excuse, disguise, or redefine their bashing in terms of whatever theyv'e adopted as their preferred dodge. Frequently they use the current scientistic dogma as camouflage for their unresolved (or mis-resolved) personal issues with God. Unable directly to assault God Himself, they settle for venting their bile on His people; and the harder those targets try to be true to God — which necessarily involves being true to His word — the more arrogant and abusive they become.
Dan
Okay, you sold me. I think I will verbally assault some stranger on the street and then head down to the playground to call children some mean names.
Those who cite the First Amendment in order to justify crass behavior is using a coward's shield. Free speech is responsible speech, and frankly I'm tired of folks wheeling out the Bill of Rights every time they feel the need to be an a**hole. And since we are speaking frankly, I'm tired of colleges and universities protecting and paying these mealy mouthed individuals.
Free speech, free speech, free speech, decorum be damned. Everyone has the right to be a butthole while working in a publicly funded educational institution because free speech gives you the right to be a jerk. Respect means jack, cuz we got that free speech. Polite discourse is for suckers.
Whoopdie freakin' do. Just the kind of society I want to live in. Let's all embrace our right to be rude.
APf
believe=belief
It isn't "leftism" to put religious mythologies in a mythology class. It would be leftism, however, to "feel" for the other side, be politically correct, and allow unscientific stories be taught as science.
But also there are no trees before the supposed time of the flood. They all magically start at around 4000 or so years.
And I know you didn't expect me to know all the details of those fossils. What I'm wondering though is whether we know that the fossil evidence shows the progression of the evolution of the animals(or humans) or whether we have little jumps that could be seperate animal or human groups. Like say a black, white, and Asian face are all different but the same species. Perhaps Neanderthals are another segment of the homo sapiens who were very stupid and so got assimilated. Just wondering.
I'm not trying to argue with you. Just trying to learn like the student I am. I am acting from my religious belief in that I personally know that there is a God. From there I'm trying to see which one makes more sense.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.