Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is this education?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Keith C
    started a topic Is this education?

    Is this education?

    Since its founding in 1930, Bryan College’s statement of belief, which professors have to sign as part of their employment contracts, included a 41-word section summing up the institution’s conservative views on creation and evolution, including the statement: “The origin of man was by fiat of God.” But in February, college officials decided that professors had to agree to an additional clarification declaring that Adam and Eve “are historical persons created by God in a special formative act, and not from previously existing life-forms.”
    Christian College Faces Uproar After Bolstering Its View on Evolution

    This statement rules out the Catholic position that the human body may have evolved, but Adam was the first to have a soul.
    But is it true if it is not consistent with genetics etc?

  • inertia
    replied
    Originally posted by Keith C View Post
    Christian College Faces Uproar After Bolstering Its View on Evolution

    This statement rules out the Catholic position that the human body may have evolved, but Adam was the first to have a soul.
    But is it true if it is not consistent with genetics etc?
    Majors in their list do not include any hard science. Why is there so much "fuss" if science is not the focus?

    Inertia
    Last edited by inertia; 05-02-16, 06:53 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bob Carabbio
    replied
    Originally posted by Keith C View Post
    Christian College Faces Uproar After Bolstering Its View on Evolution

    This statement rules out the Catholic position that the human body may have evolved, but Adam was the first to have a soul.
    But is it true if it is not consistent with genetics etc?
    OF COURSE IT'S EDUCATION!!!!

    Any impartation of knowledge whether accurate or otherwise is "Education". Looks like "Bryan College" (whoever they may be) aligned their views more closely to the Biblical Standard - which is a good thing in the absolute.

    But practically it's probably totally meaningless.

    Simple as that.
    Last edited by Bob Carabbio; 05-02-16, 01:33 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • LittleDrummerBoy
    replied
    Originally posted by Lntz View Post
    You use the term "we"; are you involved in those fields?
    Yes. I earned a PhD in Physics from a top 5 school and I have served on the faculty of several institutions.

    You should know that Einstein was the most prominent dissenter of Quantum Mechanics. At a recent conference, attendees were surveyed on a number of questions relating to their belief in QM. The survey is longer and more involved, but 6% of physicists surveyed thought that Einstein's view of QM would ultimately turn out to be correct.

    See: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1301.1069v1.pdf

    I've also spoken with a number of colleagues over the years who also agree with Einstein on QM or with some variation of a hidden variable theory. Out of respect for the privacy of private communications, I won't give their names or institutions, but I don't think I've been at an institution without at least one faculty member holding this position. Most faculty at your school probably can tell you who they may be at your school, and I'm sure a visit to their office would lead to an educational conversation for you.

    There are at several categories of dissenters of General Relativity and various categories who dissent from Special Relativity. One category of dissenter from GR are those who disagree with the equivalence principle. An example is Dr. Andrei Lebed in the Physics Department of the University of Arizona. See: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.4044v1.pdf The other category of dissenters from GR are those who think the predictions of black holes and gravitational waves are wrong. This article (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/p...al-relativity/ ) provides some names and institutions if you want to follow up.

    Originally posted by Lntz View Post
    "did not believe in forces and Newton's laws" - I don't know where to begin with this. What does that even mean?

    Did this person reject that Newton's laws provide an excellent description of classical mechanics, or the concept of a force as understood in classical mechanics?
    This physicist disagree both with the concept of force and with Newton's laws as a description of classical mechanics. You may know by now that there are three descriptions of classical mechanics: Newton's laws, Hamiltonian Mechanics, and Lagrangian Mechanics. The consensus view (held by most physicists) is that the three descriptions are completely equivalent (will always make the exact same predictions for a given system) and that choosing a given approach is a matter of convenience rather than correctness.

    This physicist holds that only the energy-based approaches (Hamiltonian and Lagrangian) are correct and that the forces of Newtonian mechanics are nothing more than useful fictions that happen to produce accurate predictions in most cases. No one in the department seemed to mind, since he was a great teacher, was willing to teach what he regarded as "useful fictions", and his students performed very well on common department exams in the intro courses that he taught.

    Leave a comment:


  • TeabagSalad
    replied
    Originally posted by archaeologist55 View Post
    I would disagree with you but am not in the mood to go into much detail here. Suffice it to say that General Relativity is wrong and I have proven it to be so. Einstein made a fatal error in his calculations and thinking

    You also forget that a lot of physics is theoretical not actuality thus your claims about losing those subjects is erroneous as well.

    I like your signature quote and enjoy reading Feynman though I would say he is in error in part because the theory may be correct because the possibility of something going wrong during the experiment is very probable.
    I don't believe that you have proven General Relativity to be wrong. In fact I am calling you on it, see this thread here: http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthrea...tivity-is-Wong! and offer your explanation.

    I think that you're either going to have to admit that you were wrong, or that you lied.

    Leave a comment:


  • HumbleThinker
    replied
    Originally posted by LittleDrummerBoy View Post
    Physics departments regularly employ faculty who may not believe in relativity or quantum mechanics.
    At what schools? And who?

    Leave a comment:


  • HumbleThinker
    replied
    Originally posted by archaeologist55 View Post
    I would disagree with you but am not in the mood to go into much detail here. Suffice it to say that General Relativity is wrong and I have proven it to be so. Einstein made a fatal error in his calculations and thinking

    You also forget that a lot of physics is theoretical not actuality thus your claims about losing those subjects is erroneous as well.

    I like your signature quote and enjoy reading Feynman though I would say he is in error in part because the theory may be correct because the possibility of something going wrong during the experiment is very probable.
    Do you have any idea how many have claimed to disprove general relativity and been shown to be utterly wrong aka quacks? Given this, why should we believe that you are the special snowflake that has actually done it? Given your past posts, I honestly do not have faith that you even understand how to disprove something in science.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lntz
    replied
    Originally posted by archaeologist55 View Post
    I would disagree with you but am not in the mood to go into much detail here. Suffice it to say that General Relativity is wrong and I have proven it to be so. Einstein made a fatal error in his calculations and thinking

    You also forget that a lot of physics is theoretical not actuality thus your claims about losing those subjects is erroneous as well.

    I like your signature quote and enjoy reading Feynman though I would say he is in error in part because the theory may be correct because the possibility of something going wrong during the experiment is very probable.
    Right, so you're a quack.

    Feel free to change my opinion at anytime by actually supporting your claims.

    Leave a comment:


  • archaeologist55
    replied
    I would disagree with you but am not in the mood to go into much detail here. Suffice it to say that General Relativity is wrong and I have proven it to be so. Einstein made a fatal error in his calculations and thinking

    You also forget that a lot of physics is theoretical not actuality thus your claims about losing those subjects is erroneous as well.

    I like your signature quote and enjoy reading Feynman though I would say he is in error in part because the theory may be correct because the possibility of something going wrong during the experiment is very probable.
    Last edited by archaeologist55; 01-10-16, 09:01 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lntz
    replied
    Originally posted by LittleDrummerBoy View Post
    Theories of origins are a small subset of the whole body of science. Physics departments regularly employ faculty who may not believe in relativity or quantum mechanics. It would be odd and unfortunate, but since these too are a small subset of the whole body of science, I'd still think a good education would be possible at a University that did not believe in relativity or quantum mechanics or evolution.
    I am a physics student at a good university in the UK, and I completely disagree with you that it would be possible to receive a decent education in physics at an institution that rejected QM or SR/GR. Furthermore, I would like to see some evidence that physics departments hire people who don't "believe" in these fields.

    The courses I would lose without QM and SR/GR are;

    QM 1 & 2, Further QM, Further Electrodynamics, Cosmology, Nuclear and Particle Physics, Atomic Physics, Condensed State Physics (and Further Condensed State Physics), Lasers, Atom Light Interactions, Electrons Cold Atoms and Quantum Circuits, General Relativity, Quantum Field Theory, Quantum Optics and Information.

    What I would be left with is essentially;

    Introduction to Astrophysics, Classical Mechanics, Waves and Optics, Lab (though of course you'd need to throw out all of the spectroscopy, hall effect, transistors, super conducting etc experiments), Thermal and Statistical Physics, and Classical Electrodynamics.

    This is not a well rounded physics program. Quantum Mechanics, and Special and General Relativity underpin the vast majority of university level physics courses. To suggest otherwise only betrays a lack of experience with physics programs.

    I once supervised a physics faculty member who did not believe in forces and Newton's laws, although he was a great teacher and all his students learned all they needed to know about forces and Newton's laws. His students consistently outperformed students taught by other faculty on common graded events. Should he be regarded as unqualified simply because he didn't believe in forces and Newton's laws? No one in the Physics Dept seemed to mind.
    "did not believe in forces and Newton's laws" - I don't know where to begin with this. What does that even mean?

    Did this person reject that Newton's laws provide an excellent description of classical mechanics, or the concept of a force as understood in classical mechanics?

    I wonder if a Biology teacher who understood and taught evolution better than the other faculty would be well accepted in a Biology Dept at a secular institution if it happened that she believed in six day creation and a literal Adam and Eve? Somehow I doubt it. Evolution is a sacred cow, and belief is some kind of litmus test.
    I wouldn't want to be taught cosmology by a creationist, any more than I would want to be taught evolution by one. I would have concerns about their ability to separate beliefs from the course content, and their understanding of the material.

    In physics and math and chemistry, we don't really care if students believe 100% of the material we teach them. We would be very pleased if they could describe all the models and solve all the problems even if they put little asterisks on their tests saying, "I know this is how my teacher and the book wanted me to answer, but I really believe something different."
    You use the term "we"; are you involved in those fields?

    Leave a comment:


  • LittleDrummerBoy
    replied
    Originally posted by Keith C View Post
    Christian College Faces Uproar After Bolstering Its View on Evolution

    This statement rules out the Catholic position that the human body may have evolved, but Adam was the first to have a soul.
    But is it true if it is not consistent with genetics etc?
    Theories of origins are a small subset of the whole body of science. Physics departments regularly employ faculty who may not believe in relativity or quantum mechanics. It would be odd and unfortunate, but since these too are a small subset of the whole body of science, I'd still think a good education would be possible at a University that did not believe in relativity or quantum mechanics or evolution.

    I once supervised a physics faculty member who did not believe in forces and Newton's laws, although he was a great teacher and all his students learned all they needed to know about forces and Newton's laws. His students consistently outperformed students taught by other faculty on common graded events. Should he be regarded as unqualified simply because he didn't believe in forces and Newton's laws? No one in the Physics Dept seemed to mind.

    I wonder if a Biology teacher who understood and taught evolution better than the other faculty would be well accepted in a Biology Dept at a secular institution if it happened that she believed in six day creation and a literal Adam and Eve? Somehow I doubt it. Evolution is a sacred cow, and belief is some kind of litmus test.

    In physics and math and chemistry, we don't really care if students believe 100% of the material we teach them. We would be very pleased if they could describe all the models and solve all the problems even if they put little asterisks on their tests saying, "I know this is how my teacher and the book wanted me to answer, but I really believe something different."
    Last edited by LittleDrummerBoy; 01-10-16, 02:20 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • fusilier
    replied
    Originally posted by wincam View Post
    this idiot, according to you, was the first to prove - see www.galileowaswrong.com - just see for yourself who the idiots really are who think and accept and would have us accept that somehow Galileo was right and that Sungenis/God/Bible/Church were and still are wrong - wincam
    All We Need To Know.
    Last edited by fusilier; 06-10-15, 12:08 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • wincam
    replied
    Originally posted by fusilier View Post
    Sungenis is a blithering idiot. He's "not even wrong."

    Your other cites are equally irrelevant and mis-represent the cirecumstances.

    this idiot, according to you, was the first to prove - see www.galileowaswrong.com - just see for yourself who the idiots really are who think and accept and would have us accept that somehow Galileo was right and that Sungenis/God/Bible/Church were and still are wrong - wincam
    Last edited by wincam; 06-10-15, 10:57 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • fusilier
    replied
    Originally posted by Ryushiferu View Post
    don't call him an idiot :/
    Point well taken, "lying male offspring of a mingent homogametic canid" would be more accurate.

    Leave a comment:


  • User Ry
    replied
    Originally posted by fusilier View Post
    Sungenis is a blithering idiot. He's "not even wrong."

    Your other cites are equally irrelevant and mis-represent the cirecumstances.
    don't call him an idiot :/
    Last edited by User Ry; 06-09-15, 10:26 AM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X