when math attacks

What I have never understood entirely is why this isn’t a simple “debate.”

I believe in a Creator and an account of Creation. If someone believes in something different, that’s no skin off my nose. If science appears to disagree with me, there are a number of possibilities: current scientific is flawed (certainly plenty of historical precedence) which shouldn’t make me freak out, or my understanding is flawed (also with plenty of historical precedence, I’m here to tell you) which is something I’d better learn to live with being fallible, or the appearance of contradiction is illusory, which, by the way, also has some historical precedence and shouldn’t make anyone loose sleep.

My point being: any way it comes down, what of it? The whole thing seems just as shallow as when the other (let’s call it “Chris’s”) “side” makes big hash out of “aaaaa the Bible says pi is exactly 3 look how stupid!” Anyone honest knows that’s making a big deal of nothing, and so is spazzing out constantly over an apparent disagreement here.

And I’ve said it before here: so what if it’s taught in school and you don’t believe it? I haven’t noticed anyone getting half as excited about the utter hogwash that’s passed off as history in school, and honestly, that has a lot more impact on your life than whether someone doesn’t agree with you about how the world was created (seemingly an unprovable question, anyway.)

Sorry, Chris, I guess I’ve said all this before in one form or another. I just never seem to run out of feelings of “shut up all of you” on this subject. :)

-R

The reason I am compelled to keep up this debate is because I believe that attempts to tie up concepts of faith with concepts of science are actually dangerous to its existence – probably to the existence of both.

I am not opposed to the idea of faith. It’s just different. I don’t understand the compulsion to attempts these sorts of ridiculous conflations of faith and science in an attempt to “validate” faith in some way. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Isn’t the point of faith that it necessarily does not require empirical validation?

I’m reminded of the title and refrain to the John Lennon song “Whatever Gets You Through the Night.” Whatever anyone chooses to believe with reference to creationism, evolution, or any intermingling thereof, is perfectly okay with me.

However, my jockeys begin to get a little bunched up in the rear when folks take their personal conceptions of these aforementioned ideas and feel entitled to foist ‘em on other individuals. Sharing and dialogue are one thing; self-righteous imposition is quite another.

Just my proverbial two bits.

Thanks, Tim

In fact, it’s in the very definition, at least, if you’re a Christian and feel you should accept the Biblical definition of faith.

Hebrews 11:1: “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”

Science stays the heck out of the domain of the hoped for, and even theoretical sciences, I would argue, rarely operate in the domain of the entirely unobserved. (And when they do, nobody seems to get worked up about what they’re saying. Computer science, for example, and pure mathematics, for another, can be awfully abstract, but in being so it becomes virtually incapable of threatening anyone. Except other theoreticians, but never mind that.)

Apples and oranges, baby, apples and oranges.

-R

I may or may not agree with you, depending on your definition of “foist.” If people want to teach what they think is truth, great. I support the right of people to do so. If people want to force others to do so, then we gon’ have a problem. Which I think in fact is what you were saying there at the end.

-R

Hi R, I definitely don’t want to get into a peeing match about semantics–let me be clear about that right at the outset.

I’m talking about people “teaching” others what they think is the “truth” as regards their notions of creation/evolution/admixture/whatever. :)

Look, this is a personal subject to me, my experiental basis for my final comment, speaking very candidly here, is having had conversational encounters with admittedly well-meaning people who have looked me in the eye and asked me, “Tim, have you been saved yet?” with a perfectly straight face, after which entering into a discourse on how I can avoid the “resurrection unto damnation” by entering into a “personal relationship with Jesus Christ.”

This kind of “conversation” is galling to me for an almost uncountable number of reasons.

This is one example. I’m not going to induce anything from there, but there ya go. My experience, in all of its subjective glory.

-T

One thing I would like to say to these people:

Really, the formula

e^πi = -1

is just a special case of the really awesome, superamazing formula

e^ix = cos x + i sin x !!!!!!

Isn’t that formula super ultra amazing? Doesn’t it PROVE the existence of God? Isn’t it just TOTALLY OBVIOUS FROM THAT FORMULA THAT GOD EXISTS?

No? Don’t see it?

…

…

…

THEN SHUT THE GODDAMN HELL UP BECAUSE YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT THE FUCKING HELL YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

The Wikipedia page on Euler’s identity says it was voted “the greatest equation ever” in a magazine poll. Which I can’t help but read in the voice of Comic Book Guy.