Take THAT religious nutters!

[Blaupanzer]

Originally posted by Whaleboy As for theological disputes, I do agree that people who want to argue that 1 is 3 and 3 is 1 are living somewhere very far removed from the real world.

But if you focus hard enough on Whaleboy's postulation while sharing Ben's special substance, you will find God. Or at least the Christian triumverate -- literally a case of 1 = 3; 3 = 1.

[Whaleboy]

I'm sure there are laws in Leviticus that would prevent me from sharing Ben's "special substance".

[Ben Kenobi]

I fail to see what this has to do with my original point:
I'm saying that teaching a position with no evidence behind it (on whatever basis, "teach the controversy" or however they market it) is not just non-science, it's anti-science.

First off, having to accept any scientific theory as inerrant is contrary to science. "Teach the controversy", is really more of an issue, as any theory in science could be wrong, and we must be willing to discard it if a better one comes along.

Students would be well served to understand science in this way. I don't agree with Intelligent design, but to be honest, it stacks up well against evolution because of the paucity of evidence for the conclusions that evolution tries to draw.

Again, your point being... what exactly? Where did this mention of "philosophy" come from?

You said mentioning theism was contrary to science, so I am going into more depth as to why that's not the case. Science cannot be taught without some philosophy.

Do you mean to say that teaching evolution (a principle that supports atheism) is tantamount to promoting one view over another, equally valid view? That's ridiculous.

No, I don't think that teaching evolution in and of itself without the philosophical braggadocio of "God is dead", etc etc etc, is tantamount to promoting one view. Teaching evolution as the cornerstone of the atheist faith, is no different then what the theists do.

I don't believe evolution supports atheism, and any textbook which says so is wrong.

Being taught evolution is not tantamount to having atheism thrust on believers (which imo is a fear at the root of much theistic polemic these days). God should stay out of the science class just as the bible is completely devoid of science.

Yes, it is if you are taught that evolution justifies atheism, along with the actual theories. If you are going to teach Darwin's philosophical speculations (ie, in reading the Descent of Man), then it is necessary to cite the opposite perspective that evolution is not contrary to Christian faith.

Does not compute.

A geologist studies rocks. Rocks don't move. Rocks can be perfectly controlled during an experiment. A ornithologist studies birds. She can't make them sit for an experiment, and has to observe them indirectly so as not to spook them and ruin her experiment. They cannot be completely controlled.

An anthropologist studies people. It's not entirely scientific because we can't know people to the same extent as birds, and we need their permission in order to engage in the experiment.

Finally, there is God. The experiment doesn't start unless he says so. You can beg and beg and beg, but if he doesn't want to be part of it, it won't happen. This is why God cannot be proven via empirical means.

Read the sodding thread!!! I hate to quote myself but:

Evolution requires...
- Heredity
- Selection
- Variation.

Indeed once you have these three things, you MUST have evolution.

Yes, but the variation within a species is distinct from evolution which also refers to the changes between species. Differentiation is the better term, (and the one that Darwin himself uses).

The lack of evidence? Whatever you're smoking tonight pass it over!

I don't consider a closet full of bones as sufficient evidence.

I don't know whether to laugh or to cry! What does growing a beard have to do with a population of animals evolving a thicker coat in a colder climate?

And they shed it when they get to a warmer one. How about a better example. Say the world warmed by 5 degrees. Would people get bigger?

By bringing in philosophical disputes you're opening a can of worms and creating a mess. I've no desire to clean up after you. As for theological disputes, I do agree that people who want to argue that 1 is 3 and 3 is 1 are living somewhere very far removed from the real world.

[Morpheus]
What is real? Is it what you see, and taste and touch? If that is so, then reality is merely a series of electrical impulses....
[/Morpheus]

[Whaleboy]

First off, having to accept any scientific theory as inerrant is contrary to science. "Teach the controversy", is really more of an issue, as any theory in science could be wrong, and we must be willing to discard it if a better one comes along.

This assumes a logical equivalency of various theories. That kind of relativism is ridiculous - we judge a theory on its merit according to the observational evidence observed.

Students would be well served to understand science in this way. I don't agree with Intelligent design, but to be honest, it stacks up well against evolution because of the paucity of evidence for the conclusions that evolution tries to draw.

You've been asked before for examples of this "paucity" in evolution. I call BS.

No, I don't think that teaching evolution in and of itself without the philosophical braggadocio of "God is dead", etc etc etc, is tantamount to promoting one view. Teaching evolution as the cornerstone of the atheist faith, is no different then what the theists do.

I don't believe evolution supports atheism, and any textbook which says so is wrong

There is no atheist faith. You know very well why this concept is plainly ridiculous and I'm struggling to understand why you raise it unless you're being deliberately disingenuous. If you need a reminder let me know.

Teaching evolution is not like teaching the story of Adam and Eve, respective to both atheism and Christianity. Evolution will tend to atheism but as has previously been mentioned there's no reason why you can't be a Darwinian Christian. I have some objections to the concept of course but they're not relevant here.

I'd like to point out that I doubt anyone here has seen a single textbook on the topic of evolution which explicitly denies the existence of god. It makes life very difficult for creationists of course, to which I say "boo hoo, deal with the evidence", because it is the evidence and the strength of the principle that imo should define whether it is taught in schools rather than a kind of relativism that BK seems to be aiming for.

Yes, it is if you are taught that evolution justifies atheism, along with the actual theories. If you are going to teach Darwin's philosophical speculations (ie, in reading the Descent of Man), then it is necessary to cite the opposite perspective that evolution is not contrary to Christian faith.

But where is the evidence? Where is the argument? What are you going to teach if there's nothing there? The fact that you wish for a supporting argument isn't going to call it into existence by sheer force of will. I know you're a fan of the Ontological argument so perhaps your confusion isn't so surprising

Finally, there is God. The experiment doesn't start unless he says so. You can beg and beg and beg, but if he doesn't want to be part of it, it won't happen. This is why God cannot be proven via empirical means.

But that wasn't part of the original postulation was it? The argument was that while if you assume that God exists and build up a house of cards on that basis, it is prima facie possible that natural selection could be divine selection. You would need not only to demonstrate the verity of your underlying assumption but provide observational evidence to this effect. Otherwise you cannot make the claim and it becomes a mute point. Thus, by your own admission that god can't be proved by empirical methods (which I presume would mean you can't give me any evidence), god-directed evolution is false.

Yes, but the variation within a species is distinct from evolution which also refers to the changes between species. Differentiation is the better term, (and the one that Darwin himself uses).

How is it distinct? How is differentiation between species (by which I refer to the ability for a population to interbreed with another) governed by a different evolutionary process to variation within that population?

I don't consider a closet full of bones as sufficient evidence.

You think that the evidence supporting evolution is confined to, what, a few fossils?

And they shed it when they get to a warmer one. How about a better example. Say the world warmed by 5 degrees. Would people get bigger?

Hard not to get a better example. Your first one indicated that you don't really seem to care for accuracy in your arguments - beards and fur coats?

People's size is governed by any number of different genes - shall we say muscle mass? Body fat? Height? Bone structure? Your example is, again, far too simplistic because you haven't really defined any selection pressures. Let us say that early man has to walk 20 miles to find food whereas his ancestors only had to walk 2. You can make a prediction that the population will over time develop legs better suited to walking long distances.

What is real? Is it what you see, and taste and touch? If that is so, then reality is merely a series of electrical impulses....

Suggesting that we all might just be brains in a vat is not a sufficient refutation of the scientific / empirical method; not least because of the lack of evidence but who really believes that? Why?

[Kirnwaffen]

I don't think the University really took a side in the culture war here. They merely stated that the high school courses failed to meet the school's criteria for science education, and, therefore, the students would have to take remedial courses. It's really no different than CU telling me that I failed to complete adequate geography coursework prior to attending, therefore, I have to take geography.

The beef, as I understand it, is with the textbook and curriculum failing to support critical thinking and possibly promoting patently false claims that are incompatible with science education at the school. The students have the opportunity to "test out", so what's the problem?

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Arrian

I agree with you. It isn't science. Neither for that matter is atheism. Are atheists willing to have all atheist philosophy pulled from every 'scientific' textbook?

Did Ben say that? (I have him on ignore)

[Ben Kenobi]

This assumes a logical equivalency of various theories. That kind of relativism is ridiculous - we judge a theory on its merit according to the observational evidence observed.

Where's the observational evidence for the early period in evolution? I agree we should judge a theory based on observational evidence, but by that standard, evolution as a whole doesn't stand up very well against intelligent design.

That a theory without observational evidence whatsoever is plausible when compared with evolution, means there is plenty of work left to be done in order to prove evolution is in fact true.

You've been asked before for examples of this "paucity" in evolution. I call BS.

I gave one. We don't know very much at all how a soup can develop life, even after enormous periods of time. It's pretty much all conjecture. It's a theory, but there isn't observational evidence as of yet to back it up.

There is no atheist faith. You know very well why this concept is plainly ridiculous and I'm struggling to understand why you raise it unless you're being deliberately disingenuous.

All I am saying is a very simple statement. If a textbook, in teaching evolution states that the theory affirms atheism, then that is no different then when the theists say that evolution is contradictory to scripture. Do you agree with this?

Teaching evolution is not like teaching the story of Adam and Eve, respective to both atheism and Christianity.

It shouldn't be, but evidence of evolution is often presented as confirmation that atheism is in fact true. When it strays into theology, then yes, it's not different then Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.

Evolution will tend to atheism but as has previously been mentioned there's no reason why you can't be a Darwinian Christian. I have some objections to the concept of course but they're not relevant here.

I agree. Which is why I've stated that God-directed evolution is one theory that has been presented to reconcile the two. If commentators can state that evolution has been use to confirm atheism, then they should also state that there are other interpretations out there.

I don't want to get into the ID debate, I wasn't and will not make a case for ID. So please don't lump me in with them.

I'd like to point out that I doubt anyone here has seen a single textbook on the topic of evolution which explicitly denies the existence of god.

I have. I've seen extensive discussion about Darwin's conclusions and why he rejected Lyell's catastrophism because he feared that could bring in the hand of God. He wanted a mechanistic, deterministic process so that God was eliminated from the process entirely.

I'm not sure why you are playing dumb here Whaleboy. There's extensive commentary about the relationship of evolution with the growth of atheism, even in the science textbooks on the topics.

Personally, I liked that part because it gave us a clue what was in Darwin's head. What I would have liked to see are some alternative interpretations of the evidence, and more discussion about theoretical alternatives to Darwin's evolutionary theory. To paint the picture of Darwin or nothing misses quite a bit of the scientific investigation going on at the time.

it is the evidence and the strength of the principle that imo should define whether it is taught in schools rather than a kind of relativism that BK seems to be aiming for.

The term you are looking for is skeptic. I'm not a relativist, and I'm rather shocked you would say that I am. I don't believe all scientific theories are equal, and I agree that they all need observational evidence. I just don't believe evolution has sufficient evidence for all the claims the theory makes about the development of life in the universe.

But where is the evidence?

Where's the evidence needed beyond Darwin's musings that Evolution is an affirmation of atheism?

I know you're a fan of the Ontological argument so perhaps your confusion isn't so surprising

Another argument at another time perhaps. I do like the ontological argument, and I think it stands up well under scrutiny.

But that wasn't part of the original postulation was it? The argument was that while if you assume that God exists and build up a house of cards on that basis, it is prima facie possible that natural selection could be divine selection.

Did I say that was a scientific theory? No, it's not. It's theology and philosophy. It cannot be proven empirically, hence it's not a scientific argument. I'm not sure who you are arguing with, but it's not me.

You would need not only to demonstrate the verity of your underlying assumption but provide observational evidence to this effect.

I'm not an IDer. I've never claimed this position is a scientific argument.

Otherwise you cannot make the claim and it becomes a mute point. Thus, by your own admission that god can't be proved by empirical methods (which I presume would mean you can't give me any evidence), god-directed evolution is false.

Thank you. I already said that a few posts ago.

How is it distinct? How is differentiation between species (by which I refer to the ability for a population to interbreed with another) governed by a different evolutionary process to variation within that population?

Differentiation hasn't been shown to lead to the formation of new species as an extension of Darwin's process. Darwin observed that species change to fit into different ecological niches. What we haven't seen is a species of cat turning into a species of dog, and being able to breed with dogs and not cats.

You think that the evidence supporting evolution is confined to, what, a few fossils?

I don't like the fact that each dig comes up with a new form of 'man' and that we attempt to sum up millions of years in the span of two digs. That would be like digging up Verne Troyer and using his body to conclude that humanity evolved to be smaller. There are problems with sample size.

I know if I did any estimates on population, I'd be very wary about drawing conclusions of the entire population of several million years of people based on one individual, and not even a whole skeleton at that.

People's size is governed by any number of different genes - shall we say muscle mass? Body fat? Height? Bone structure? Your example is, again, far too simplistic because you haven't really defined any selection pressures.

I did state a selection pressure. The temperature over the entire earth rises by 5 Kelvin. What impact would such a temperature rise have on the size of people over a long period of time? Would it be advantageous to be smaller, so you could radiate body heat?

Suggesting that we all might just be brains in a vat is not a sufficient refutation of the scientific / empirical method; not least because of the lack of evidence but who really believes that? Why?

I'm suggesting the same thing they are, that there is more to the world then merely the material. Empirical means are useful, but they are not the whole kit and kaboodle.

Why do they believe that there is a spiritual world? Because there are certain things that science explains very poorly, or because of their own observations don't corroborate with what science should say happens.

[Guynemer]

Honest to goodness, why do you people still bother debating evolution/science/creationism/etc. with Ben? Couldn't you all be doing something more productive and beneficial to society with your time, like picking your nose?

[Pekka]

From science point of view, creationism, ID and all that follows the logic of the existance of God, it is really very simple. It is NOT a scientific theory.

As someone who is doing theory development, I do grasp what theory is not. There's good articles, actually one is called "what theory is not".

A theory involving God would look as following: Construct called God, which cannot be operationalized, that is tested, or falsified (ever), is simply not science. Yes, very few theories are actually universal theories, such as the law of gravity, and even that one is actually inductive.

We do not need to call for Popper here, who said all good theories need to be deductive. Which is extremely difficult and impossible most of the times. His idea was that well, you can still prove it wrong, in a deductive way, so... of course leading to a situation where no science gets done. It's a very crappy idea. However, this does not mean that science has taken a more relaxed view, where we disregard this idea of rigor and whatnot. It does not mean that well, since most are likely to be inductive in nature anyway, and thus just probabilistic, that is determining the probable outcome and not necessarily the truth, that there are no standards. There definitely are standards to making science.

And this has got nothing to do with religion vs science. Absolutely nothing. This is why we don't find many real scientists getting into these debates, it is totally worthless, and has absolutely no contribution in it. They are not theories, period. There is no scientific debate occuring, so no scientist needs to take part in it.

A more Kuhnian way to look at it is that knowledge in itself, truth and what ever, is not necessarily what science owns. There are all kinds of knowledge, religion included. And just like religion, science goes from paradigm to the next one, adopting what the text books say about science making, through serious of ground breaking research, that then attracts more scientist to that direction, ultimately leading into a new paradigm. Scientists do realize, that their stuff isn't necessarily very tight. But it is still science in method and ways theories are constructed. Scientists do realize, that we follow the current paradigm, that will be likely proven wrong on many points later on by the next generation or the generation after that, and we look like tools. But that's the way it goes. It all changes all the time.

But some ideas of what science is and how it is done do prevail, and religion has got nothing to do with it. God can be never proven scientifically, thus it is out of its scope and doesn't belong into it.

The debate does not go any further, it stops here. Right at the door, it stops. You can't have a phenomenon, that can't be tested in the future either with scientific methods, and then have it as a part of a theory, and not just some part, but actually the most important construct. You just can't have that, it's NOT a theory, period. It stops here. People, calm down, it really does stop here. There's no point arguing that no it doesn't, because it does. To claim otherwise is to show lack of knowledge what science is and how it is done, _especially_ theory developing, which is according to most, what science is about. It is about theory.

And yes, some of the "theories" in science shouldn't be called theories either. Darwin's theory still offers the best possible explanation AS OF YET, in science. In religion, there's other explanations. People, stop trying to have an ownership on everything, and then get panties in a twist when it is not appreciated. Of course there's lots of Christian scientists. Heck, I'm one. So what? I can still enable the use of rationality and leave God out of it.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Guynemer
Honest to goodness, why do you people still bother debating evolution/science/creationism/etc. with Ben? Couldn't you all be doing something more productive and beneficial to society with your time, like picking your nose?

I wonder the same thing. Whaleboy in particular seems like a masochist.

[FrostyBoy]

No surprise that I enjoyed this thread.

Btw, there is evidence visible today of evolution. In China, there is an area where farmers have to walk over extremely muddy land to grow their rice or whatever it is they grow. The mud is extremely thick/deep and a bit mushy. Over the many years, the villagers who have worked the land, have developed very strange looking feet, generally very wide and distorted, allowing them to walk through the mud with more ease than the rest of us. Their children also develop these extra wide distorted feet. Maybe its on the net somewhere, quite interesting to read.

[MORON]

*delurks*

Ben:

Science is a methodology, not a philosophy. Some people take empiricism as a philosophy, but science is quite independent of that.

The purpose of education of science is on the methods and results of science, not forcing the philosophy of empiricism. It should be taught like mathematics, with things like 1+1=2. Science as a methodology, like mathematics is a logical construct, is value free and do not make claims about truth, existence, reality, or flying panda worship.

"Science for the Christian Soul" is as absurd as "Generally Accepted Accounting principles for the Christian Soul" or "Car Repair for the Christian Soul." All are absurd in that an secular concept is attached with an metaphysics that does not help the understanding of the rules and ideas at hand.

Evolution or any theory is not a "truth" and no honest scientist that understands the principles of science would claim so. It is a result of empiricist methodology no different from 1+1=2 is a result of mathematical axioms. There is no reason to bring in other related ideas as they are at the current time, irrelevant to science.

There is no picking and choosing "parts and aspects of science" to teach. That is violating the fundamental integrity of the idea of science. Science has to be taught as a whole, and other, irrelevant factors removed to prevent confusion in minds like yourself that fail to understand that science is a methodology. An "special" textbook about religious science in itself implies an relation between the two, which is a gross error that needs to be corrected.

Just because one teaches science does not mean one has to believe the results of them. One can reject empiricism as a general epistemological principle.

So atheism is anti-science? I reject that interpretation. Philosophy is not 'anti-science', in fact science is based in the philosophy that we can derive true knowledge about the world by empirical means. It's impossible to teach science without also teaching some philosophy.

Atheism and Theism is IRRELEVANT to science. Neither should be taught as a part of science.

As for philosophy:

The education of basic language follows the philosophic belief that other people exists and communication is possible. Thus, the first lesson of an English class is to discuss this concept compared with the alternative view point of solipsism which rejects fundamental meaning in communication altogether. Parents can choose "Basic English for Solipsists" as an alternative textbook.

If commentators can state that evolution has been use to confirm atheism, then they should also state that there are other interpretations out there.

1. Evolution do not confirm atheism, and to claim otherwise is an error and need to be removed from the text.
2. The other interpretation is the wholesome rejection of the scientific methodology. The fact that rejection of empiricism as epistemology is possible should be taught when teaching the principle of science, but not for individual theories.
---------------
An wealth of education subjects have "assumptions" built in. For example, the teaching of law implies that it is immoral to become criminal. (we need "Social Studies for the Sociopath" to be "fair and balanced") The teaching of human geology implicitly justify the existence of governments (we need "Geology of the Anarchist"). The teaching of history implies the existence of the past. (which is never proven) The very existence of education implies that education makes a difference, which rejects certain branches of fatalism and nihilism which either states human effort is useless, or human achievement is meaningless.

Should the the existence of France be open to debate and approached with a open mind?

Just because a certain tradition of "study" (I refrain from the word knowledge, as it is another pit of philosophic incoherence) does not support the idea of god or a particular metaphysics does not mean it has to be attacked and dismantled, while violating its internal logic, so that theists can feel good about it.

-------------------------
Since I'm a little up set, I present you

"Basic Mathematics for the Christian"

1+2 =3
2+1 =3

As we can see here, there is symmetry in mathematics. Since there symmetry is beautiful and god is the source of all beauty, we can thus see that mathematics is the result of god.

[Ben Kenobi]

Science is a methodology, not a philosophy. Some people take empiricism as a philosophy, but science is quite independent of that.

Science is a subset of empiricism. All science is empirical in some way shape or form, irrespective of methodology.

The purpose of education of science is on the methods and results of science, not forcing the philosophy of empiricism.

Not quite. The purpose of science is to gain an insight as to how the world works. Empiricism says that we can gain a true insight through the use of the scientific method, ie, that our results will be a representation of the way things truly are, not just numbers on a page.

Any true education in science will acknowledge why it is important to science, and why empiricism is essential in order to obtain reliable data. Science, or natural philosophy hasn't always been empirical, one such example, among many is Aristotle. One of the problems with his observations is that they did not represent the way in which the world truly works, which is a flaw because his observations did not follow the scientific method.

It should be taught like mathematics, with things like 1+1=2.

They are two very different disciplines. What is the role of observation in mathematics?

Science as a methodology, like mathematics is a logical construct, is value free and do not make claims about truth, existence, reality, or flying panda worship.

It also raises questions such as what is a reliable observation, and how should we conduct science in such a way that the information we get actual represents the way things work in the real world. Mathematics doesn't care about that. Math only cares is that the structure is logical, the real world applications are irrelevant. The scientist has to make predictions that square up with things.

"Science for the Christian Soul" is as absurd as "Generally Accepted Accounting principles for the Christian Soul" or "Car Repair for the Christian Soul." All are absurd in that an secular concept is attached with an metaphysics that does not help the understanding of the rules and ideas at hand.

The idea that the universe was governed by a set of natural laws, which underlay everything is a Christian concept, it was Christians who first initiated it, because it was seen as an outset of the argument from design. This is why they would look for natural laws even if they were not readily apparent, because it was expected they would be there. There is a long tradition in science that is associated with the idea of a natural order, and the funny thing is that most scientists take it for granted, in that they don't even have to think about it anymore.

If you don't believe there is something more then you are looking for, why wouldn't you simply accept Aristotle's observations?

Evolution or any theory is not a "truth" and no honest scientist that understands the principles of science would claim so. It is a result of empiricist methodology no different from 1+1=2 is a result of mathematical axioms. There is no reason to bring in other related ideas as they are at the current time, irrelevant to science.

They are quite different from each other. Your analogy is poor. Some parts of evolution are attested by observation, others are not. Some parts of the theory are empirical, others are not. The question remains whether the whole must be accepted as true or not.

There is no picking and choosing "parts and aspects of science" to teach. That is violating the fundamental integrity of the idea of science.

The fundamental truth of science is that science can be wrong and that theories can change. The same is not true of mathematics, because science is based on observation, not just logic constructs. If you exclude this and say , X is true just as 1 and 1 is 2, then you effectively say that it is illogical to question a scientific theory. Yet this is just where advances have been made. Empirical science doesn't care if it is a theory, or what conclusions have been arrived at previously, all it cares about is what has been tested and what hasn't. Is there something we have overlooked? etc etc etc.

Science has to be taught as a whole, and other, irrelevant factors removed to prevent confusion in minds like yourself that fail to understand that science is a methodology. An "special" textbook about religious science in itself implies an relation between the two, which is a gross error that needs to be corrected.

Again, science relies on the philosophy of empiricism. Important questions as to the nature of science ought to be addressed prior to the exposition of the contents of scientific theories. Without this, we obtain an improper understanding of science. Yes, science is a whole, which is another principle, because one part of science ought not to contradict any other part, and that if there exists a contradiction, this means that one or the other theory is wrong, or even that both of them are. Science is not math, and if we accept that scientific theories are like math theories, then science will be destroyed.

Just because one teaches science does not mean one has to believe the results of them. One can reject empiricism as a general epistemological principle.

Yes, you can, and revert to the world of Aristotle, undoing 6 centuries of work. This is why it's important to discuss these issues.

Just because a certain tradition of "study" (I refrain from the word knowledge, as it is another pit of philosophic incoherence) does not support the idea of god or a particular metaphysics does not mean it has to be attacked and dismantled, while violating its internal logic, so that theists can feel good about it.

Why do you hate philosophy? You even employ their terms, epistemology, etc. I agree with you that theology is irrelevant to the education of science, but I disagree that the teaching of philosophy is at all harmful to a science student. It has always been considered the hallmark of true education that people are taught all disciplines, and not just one to the exclusion of all others. It puzzles me that science hates philosophy, because the whole concept of the methodology relies upon the philosophical assumptions of empiricism. The method does not work if you reject the first principle that we can obtain knowledge through empirical means.

As we can see here, there is symmetry in mathematics. Since there symmetry is beautiful and god is the source of all beauty, we can thus see that mathematics is the result of god.

Indeed. I take it you haven't spent much time reading up on Aristotelianism? I'm rather amused that you are trying to mock the connection between science and theology by appealing to symmetry.

[Jon Miller]

See, in one way I agree with what Ben jsut said. The philosophy of science needs taught.

But in another way, I disagree. I tihnk that science needs to be taught to prepare people for university/life in soceity. And this second isn't being taught by some of the courses that are suppose to be teaching it (according to the linked article).

JM

[Jon Miller]

You need to understand some science (like biology), even if you don't understand the why of science.

JM