Christian biologist fired for beliefs, suit says (Reuters)

[smoogatz]

By Jason Szep
Mon Dec 10, 11:25 AM ET


BOSTON (Reuters) - A Christian biologist is suing the prestigious Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts, claiming he was fired for refusing to accept evolution, lawyers involved in the case said on Friday.

Nathaniel Abraham, an Indian national who describes himself as a "Bible-believing Christian," said in the suit filed on Monday in U.S. District Court in Boston that he was fired in 2004 because he would not accept evolution as scientific fact.

The latest U.S. academic spat over science and religion was first reported in The Boston Globe newspaper on Friday. Gibbs Law Firm in Florida, which is representing Abraham, said he was seeking $500,000 in compensation.

<snip>

The case underscores tension between scientists, who see creationist views as anti-science, and evangelical Christians who argue that protections of religious freedom enshrined in the U.S. Constitution extend to scientific settings.

more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071210/od_nm/evolution_lawsuit_dc

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

1. He's at Liberty University now, so we know he's a scumbag.

Probably already was. His job description involved evolution when he got hired.

The whole thing's a big publicity stunt.

[LeftyMom]

2. No doubt he'll write a book about how Big Science hates Jesus,

soon to be a big seller at Christian bookstores and WalMarts everywhere.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

3. Yup.

It'll be the neocon talking point du jour.

[LeftyMom]

8. I get a homeschooling catalog that's full of that shit.

I laugh my ass off at it, but then I realize fundies actually teach that crap, and I need a drink or three.

[magellan]

4. BS, he wouldn't be asked to accept evolution as "scientific fact"

...because "fact" is not how any scientist worth his/her salt would describe evolutionary theory. He was more than likely told that his refusal to accept the amassed evidence supporting evolution wasn't reconcilable with the work he was hired to perform for them as a biologist. It's pretty difficult to make a meaningful study of living organisms when you believe they appeared out of thin air.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

6. Sorry, no, evolution is fact.

Any scientist worth his/her salt would say as much and wouldn't beat around the bush.

[TalkingDog]

9. In daily jargon, yes, I would say "fact".

But speaking in the context of technical specificity, "theory" is the proper terminology.

If it goes to trial, any scientist getting up on the stand and uttering the word "fact" should be beaten with many thorny sticks, rubbed down with salty vinegar and stripped of his rank.


IMHO.



My Favorite Master Artist: Karen Parker GhostWoman Studios

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

11. Again, no.

Evolution is quite obviously a fact. End of story.

Scientists have better things to do then argue semantics.

[TalkingDog]

21. "Scientists have better things to do then argue semantics. " Agreed 100% n/t

My Favorite Master Artist: Karen Parker GhostWoman Studios

[mike_c]

16. I disagree.....

Evolution is directly observable, in nature. One would be hard pressed to find anything more "factual" than something you can watch with your own eyes. On the other hand, the MECHANISMS and CAUSES of evolution are proposed explanations, and those that have acquired the strength of much supporting evidence are "theories" in the scientific sense.

[magellan]

18. You won't find a reputable scientist calling it fact

There's plenty of proof lending to the high probability that evolution is fact, but it's wrong to say evolution is a fact full stop. Evolution is a scientific theory that is constantly being tested and supported by evidence.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

20. I wouldn't consider one who didn't reputable.

[Bolo Boffin]

22. Evolution is a fact just like gravity is a fact.

There are theories of evolution just like there are theories of gravity.

But both evolution and gravity are observable facts.

[mike_c]

23. well, call me unreputable, then....

Biological evolution is a directly observable phenomenon. There are numerous well established "theories" to explain the mechanisms and causes of evolution, but I would say exactly the opposite of your statement: one's scientific reputation would be highly suspect if one refused to accept that evolution is a "fact."

[magellan]

28. Parts are fact, parts are theory

Yes, we can observe evolution in changes in gene pools. No, we cannot observe that humans descended from a common ancestor with apes. The first is fact, the second is theory. Well-evidenced theory, but still theory.

If evolution were fact, full stop, it would be called the FACT of Evolution, not the Theory of Evolution.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

29. The whole thing's a fact.

This never comes up anywhere else in science.

When expert witnesses take the stand in rape cases, they don't talk about the theory of DNA, or the theory of molecules, or the theory of genes.

When a chinese toy gets recalled, they don't talk about the theory of lead poisoning.

When they teach the holocaust in history class, they don't teach it as a theory.

This "theory vs. fact" is just a bullshit Creationist red herring.

[magellan]

30. Delete

I'll be back. I just had this whole discussion last week and will find the arguments that were made to ME for not calling it fact.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

31. Because they're using a different definition of "theory."

"Theory" as in school of thought. Not a hypothesis.

Same reason they call it the theory of gravity, or germ theory, or color theory, or the pythagorean theorem.

Evolution happened. Get over it.

[magellan]

32. I KNOW evolution happened

And I'll thank you to leave off with your usual smart-assed assumptions. You're WRONG to call evolution "fact". It is fact in the common use sense of the word, but not in the scientific use. Scientists may call it "fact", you and I may call it "fact", but in technical terms it is not fact. It's a theory supported by a high probability of evidence.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

36. Then by all means...

Quit spewing Creationist rhetoric.

[magellan]

41. You first

If you'd stop buying into the creationist definition of "theory" you'd have no trouble accepting how evolution can be TRUTH yet not FACT.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

47. What fresh hell is this?

fact-
noun

1. something that actually exists; reality; truth:

[magellan]

60. Again, I'm not denying evolution is fact as in "beyond reasonable doubt"

What I'm saying is that "fact" in science is not absolute; it means "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." (- Stephen J. Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981)

[mike_c]

33. two reasons, primarily....

First, because most of the folks using the term "theory" do not understand the way scientists use it-- to describe a very well supported hypothesis. More on this below.

Second, because there are a number of social institutions that prey on that lack of understanding and use it to deliberately undermine the the legitimacy of biological evolution, which conflicts with their "beliefs."

Back to the first point, because it is essential. One OBSERVES a phenomenon, then proposes HYPOTHESES to explain that phenomenon, model it, etc. In the current context, evolution is the phenomenon that we observe-- it is not in question at all. Many of the hypotheses put forward to model its mechanisms, on the other hand, have achieved the status of hypotheses overwhelmingly supported by data, i.e. theories in the scientific sense. This distinction is very important, because "theories" must emerge from the confluence of hypotheses and research data. Evolution emerges from direct observation.

Your comment about changes in allele frequency being directly observable but human evolution from other primates being unobservable is simply not true any longer, although the data from which that evolution can be observed-- molecular sequence homologies, for example, are still being gathered and are not yet fully understood, so some ambiguity in the observations and interpretations still remains. However, I am not aware of any data that are truly inconsistent with the broadly accepted understanding of human evolution from progenitor species.

[magellan]

34. Neither am I

"However, I am not aware of any data that are truly inconsistent with the broadly accepted understanding of human evolution from progenitor species."

But no scientist will say it's a scientific fact, unless they're being loose with the language to mean the evidence is overwhelming. THAT use of the word "fact" is correct.

Look, I had this discussion last week when several of us boiled over at being told nothing can be proved fact using the scientific method. You can only put a theory through rigorous, ongoing tests to disprove it. If it holds up, it becomes the accepted truth. But it is always open to adjustment or being thrown out.

[mike_c]

35. but the fact of biological evolution stands outside the "scientific method...."

There is absolutely no need to invoke any method of argument to observe evolution, just as there is no need to use the scientific method to observe light emitted when I turn on my desk lamp. That's a fundamental misunderstanding about science, IMO. I might use hypothetico-deductive reasoning to test ideas about WHY the light emerges, or the nature of the light itself, its consequences that cannot be observed, etc, but the FACT of the phenomenon is not in question. Indeed, it is that fact that drives hypotheses that are subject to the scientific method.

Likewise, evolution is an observable phenomenon-- it happens, you can see it, manipulate it, change it, and so on. That fundamental truth undermines virtually every argument offered "against evolution," which are tantamount to my turning on my desk lamp and saying that no light is emitted, despite being able to see it with my own eyes. One does not need science or the scientific method to see it-- only to explain it. It's "fact" is only as disputable as our willingness to trust our own perceptions-- but that is a VERY dual edged sword!

[magellan]

37. Not everything we know about evolution is observable

Do you agree with that or not?

[Deep13]

40. like what?

[magellan]

42. The ascent of man from a common ancestor with apes

We have boatloads of evidence, but it isn't observable.

[Deep13]

48. evidence = observable

No, no one has seen the change happening. Fortunately, humans are not so lacking in intellectual resources that we suppose that is the only way it can be proved. The evidence that has been discovered is certainly observable. It is easy to sit in the bleachers and cast aspersions. Actual scientist spend decades searching for evidence and figuring out what it implies.

[magellan]

61. I am NOT casting aspersions

I'm trying to get you mugs to understand that "fact" in science is not absolute certainty! It means "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." - Stephen J. Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

49. The irony of your username is amusing.

I gues Magellan showed the world was round with a 99% certainty.

:rofl:

[magellan]

62. Your username, on the other hand, is quite apt. n/t

[mike_c]

52. I most strenuously disagree....

First, speciation is often not a discrete event, but it is an event nonetheless, and human divergence from a common primate ancestor is in fact observable because it is still in progress. I don't want to make this a VERY long and technical post, but the essence of the matter is that evolutionary change occurs at different rates in different parts of organisms (and populations of organisms)-- it is a mistake to think only in terms of gross morphology, although even there we can see clear evolutionary relationships between humans and the extant great apes. There are MANY aspects of humans that identical to those same aspects in similar ape species, because they have not yet evolved significantly. More to the point, molecular homologies and sequence conservation occur along a continuum of evolutionary change, with divergence increasing over evolutionary distance (which often correlates with chronological time, but often not). This isn't just evidence of past evolution-- it is evolution in progress, there for anyone to see.

[mike_c]

44. you're missing the point....

Not everything you know about yourself is observable, but the fundamental fact of your existence is not in question because of that.

Yes, I agree-- "not everything we know about evolution is observable." Further, much of what we know ABOUT evolution is hypothesized. But that does not change the factual nature of evolution one bit-- what we know ABOUT evolution is completely irrelevant to that question. Evolution occurred before we knew ANYTHING about it. Our understanding of its mechanisms-- or lack of understanding-- has nothing to do with it's factual occurrence.

Another analogy: it is a FACT that the Earth is spherical, more-or-less. That fact was not realized until a few hundred years ago-- for much of our history we thought the earth was flat-- and it was vigorously debated for many years. Throughout that debate the Earth remained spherical, and the outcome of the debate had no impact on the facts. It was irrelevant. What we know or didn't know about the Earth had no impact upon its shape.

Likewise, what we know or don't know about evolution has no impact upon its reality, which, like the shape of the Earth, we can observe directly. Science is completely unnecessary in this regard (technology, which provides some tools for observing evolution under some circumstances, is not science).

[nealmhughes]

51. Actually by classical times the philosophers and sailors "knew" the earth was a sphere.

The entire "flat earth" until Modern Times is an ahistorical invention to malign the Medieval era.

Everyone pretty "knew" the earth was "round," however, the Mesopotamian model held that the earth was flat and a semi-circular arc of ether with "windows" which allowed the star light and precipitation to emit onto the earth. Since that was enshrined in the Bible, people "agreed" to lip service, but not in reality.

Models of early globes exist, not just flat maps, but globes. The roundness of the moon and sun also allowed them to deduce that the earth was also round. Round was considered "perfect" in the order of Ptolomey.

See:

http://www.bede.org.uk/flatearth.htm

sample passage:
"The myth that Christians in the Middle Ages thought the world was flat was given a massive boost by Andrew Dickson White's weighty tome The Warfare of Science with Theology. This book has become something of a running joke among historians of science and it is dutifully mentioned as a prime example of misinformation in the preface of most modern works on science and religion. The flat Earth is discussed in chapter 2 and one can almost sense White's confusion that hardly any of the sources support his hypothesis that Christians widely believed in it. He finds himself grudgingly admitting that Clement, Origen, Ambrose, Augustine, Isodore, Albertus Magnus and Aquinas all accepted the Earth was a globe - in other words none of the great doctors of the church had considered the matter in doubt. Although an analysis of what White actually says suggests he was aware that the flat Earth was largely a myth, he certainly gives an impression of ignorant Christians suppressing rational knowledge of its real shape."

[mike_c]

53. OK, I'll withdraw that analogy....

eom

[nealmhughes]

58. I didn't teach History 101 for five semesters of suffering for nuttin'!

Bless the little freshmen's hearts.

[magellan]

57. Yes, all right

The fundamental fact of my existence is observable. The fundamental fact of evolution is observable. But the mechanisms behind evolution are theory.

[mike_c]

63. exactly so....

You can only imagine what a struggle it is to get a couple of hundred freshman biology students to appreciate that distinction.

[magellan]

65. It's because science is so peculiar about how it defines "fact"

If I shared this quote with you already, forgive me. This says exactly what I've been trying, unsuccessfully, to say:

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.

- Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981

[Deep13]

39. well put.

:applause:

[Deep13]

38. wrong. Facts are specific.

When tested an apple will fall to earth from a tree. That's a fact. The moon orbits the Earth. Another fact. A theory is a complex model containing many facts. Gravity, therefore, is a theory.

The same with evolution. Calling it a theory in no way implies that it is not understood or is being guessed at. We are more sure about evolution and its engine, natural selection, than we are about gravity.

[magellan]

46. Wrong

"A theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena." (From this page, since others define it far better than I.)

In that vein, a scientific theory must also be falsifiable. Every new bit of evidence is held up against the model to see how it fits in, if it does, and what to do if it doesn't. Is the evidence wrong or the theory? This is an ongoing process that further cements the theory as accepted truth, or raises questions that must be further explored.

That's why intelligent design cannot be accepted scientifically; there's no way to prove it's wrong since it's based on BELIEF.

Evolution is a scientific theory. Parts of it are observable, other parts are not, but evidence supports a very high level of confidence in the overall probability of evolution being truth. You and others here are implying that I think "theory" means it isn't understood or is being guessed at, just because I say evolution is not scientific fact. That isn't right at all.

[Deep13]

50. none of the evidence on which it relies are unobservable

If that were true, it wouldn't be evidence.

[magellan]

67. Observe the evolution of dinosaur to chicken

You can't. You have evidence to support that THEORY. But you cannot observe the actual evolution as it occurred.

There ARE, of course, observable models of evolution. Speciation is an ongoing process, and in some cases it occurs in a short enough timespan to be observed.

[mike_c]

59. I think we have some difficulty with terms in this discussion....

These are my definitions of some of the terms and concepts we've tossed about. I believe they are pretty consistent with those most of my colleagues would express.

Biological evolution: Changes in genetic allele frequencies within populations over time. Many workers refer to this as microevolution. This is the most fundamental definition of biological evolution.

Speciation: the creation of new species, an outcome of evolution. This is often termed macroevolution, but that term is flawed on several grounds, not the least of which is that there is no unambiguous species concept to which irreducible macroevolutionary reasoning can be applied. Nonetheless, speciation clearly does occur, and evolution is undoubtedly its main driver, so the whole issue can be resolved by regarding speciation as the result of evolution rather than as some discrete (but unidentifiable) type of evolution.

Phylogeny: evolutionary relationships among species.

Natural selection or more broadly, simply selection: one of the hypothesized mechanisms of biological evolution, along with random genetic drift, mutation, and various population level genome events. All of these hypotheses propose that changes in allele frequency (evolution) result when some alleles convey reproductive advantages (selection), when new alleles arise (mutation), when outside forces alter genetic diversity (founder events, genetic bottlenecks, assortive mating, etc.), or simply by random chance (genetic drift).

on edit-- oops, hit submit too soon.

Evolution, as I've described it here, is an observable phenomenon, a factual occurrence. So is speciation, although specific phylogenies are nearly always hypothesized. Likewise, many of the mechanims of evolution are observable phenomena, but their relationships to evolution are hypothesized.

[0rganism]

45. evolution is BOTH factual and theoretical

The facts of evolution are explained by the theory of evolution.

cf http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

[Chemical Bill]

71. I'm with you...

I had a freshman chemistry teacher who would use the words "100% probability" but he never said "fact" that I can recall. My favorite theory is the electron orbital that is shaped like a barbell. The electron has a 100% probability of being within the area defined by the two halves of this orbital, and a zero percent probability of being on the plane that separates the halves. How does the electron get from one side to the other? Well, we can't explain everything, hence the word "theory".

The word "fact" is good for literature. That scientists recognize gray when we see it is what gives fundies the room to stick their "facts" into the debate.

Bill

[greenman3610]

5. asshole

[mike_c]

7. as a biologist, I would fully support firing a colleague...

...who insists on substituting superstition for the dominant paradigm fundamental to understanding virtually EVERYTHING in biology. It's one thing to QUESTION the mechanisms of evolution, i.e. natural selection, Darwinism, etc, but quite another to put on blinders and refuse to acknowledge something that is directly observable in nature, supported by massive volumes of research results, and so on, simply because it is inconsistent with one's superstitions. I'd likewise fire a physician who refused to accept that diseases were caused by microorganisms rather than by evil spirits, or an engineer who proclaimed that blessing a bridge was sufficient to insure its integrity, so no further design criteria were necessary.

[TZ]

14. Exactly

A job entailing science if for SCIENTISTS, not for people who think the Bible is literal.

[treestar]

43. Exactly, how can he even be a biologist without at least understanding

the theory? He can believe in whatever religion he wants to, but if teaching, he can hardly deny there is a theory of evolution or refuse to teach it.

[Buzz Clik]

10. "Sir: I know I'm a chemist, but there are but five true elements: earth, wind, fire, rain, void"

"I'm sorry. Say that I again."

"Well, sir, I've been giving this some thought. I've been working in the geochronology lab for a year now, and it's starting to bug me. All this is based on a lie."

"Ermmmphhh!????"

"Er. Yeah. Five basic elements -- the vertices of the pentagram. A lot of ancient philosophies believe that to be true, and I'm convinced they are correct. And, as such, it means that you're, well, a non-believing infidel."

"Okay, now you're making me concerned. You think that I'm an infidel and that you can no longer be a chemist because of some Greek writings from more than 2000 years ago."

"Well, Hindu and Japanese..."

"And I suppose you think the world is flat."

"HAHAHAHAHA! I'm not an idiot. The world is a huge ball carried on the back of a giant turtle. That's from Siamese philosophy."

"No it isn't. That was from the musical, The King and I."

"Oh. So the world is flat? Ok."

"Dear, God. Just stop this and get back to work."

"No can do. You're asking me to risk the dangerous confluence of the five elements could which mean my destruction ... ours ... the end of the world!"

"I'm serious. Shut the hell up and get to work."

"You're discriminating against my beliefs!"

"No, I'm firing you. Get the fuck out of my lab."

"You'll be hearing from my lawyer!"

"Have him send me a letter etched in Cuneiform on a mud tablet."

[Deep13]

12. Reminds me of the harassment I had in high school physics...

...for my support of the Intelligent Falling Theory as an alternative to gravity.

[Cronus Protagonist]

24. Hahaha, that would be CREATIVE falling theory, dumb-ass!

God wouldn't create anything intelligent lest it challenge His powers.

:sarcasm:

[Deep13]

26. That is becoming increasingly apparent. nt

[SidDithers]

13. Idiot...

Now, I'm gonna go run off and get a job as a Baptist preacher. You think it'll be a problem that I don't believe in God?

Sid

[TZ]

15. ROFL!

Thats perfect....

[annabanana]

17. It is clear that he doesn't measure up to the job requirements.

I would expect anyone working for the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution to have a genuine respect for scientific inquiry, in it's strictest sense.

[onenote]

19. copy of the complaint here

http://www.courthousenews.com/2007/12/06/WoodsHoleXtian.pdf

[johnp]

25. Firing him was the right thing to do

You know, I just got finished taking Geology and they spent allot of time talking about the fossil record and mass extinctions which have occurred twice, and they've got it all right there in front of you in the rocks. For someone to get up and say I don't believe any of this shit your presenting to me and I won't support it, well you just can't work with someone like that. How would you work with someone doing any kind of work and they refuse to except the fact that yeah, this is what were working on? It would be like working on computers and refusing to acknowledge they use electricity, your just going to look stupid amongst your peers and cause lots of problems on the job, and a person like that should be fired.

[Occam Bandage]

27. That would be similar to NASA firing a flat-earth physicist.

Expected and welcomed.

[Ezlivin]

54. Christian biologist is as oxymoronic as an Atheist Missionary

So this "biologist" spent his college years lying on exams so that he could practice biology under his Xian faith?

[nealmhughes]

55. My word! The semiotics are onboard today.

The English word "theory" has different uses. For one use, it is a hint, a supposing, awaiting empirical evidence that is satisfactory to the speaker to no longer term it such, rather, now "fact."

To another speaker/listener it means an idea of how something works. Hence we have a theory of light diffusion. It has largely surplanted pre-Newtonian concepts. His prism experiments showed that the previous "fact" was flawed.

Newtonian optics remain a theory, albeit a verifiable one, backed with over 200 years of observation. Most would obviously call it a "fact."

What is interesting is that "fact" is in the eyes of the beholder. We cannot still explain why one pole is positive and the other negative except within the theory of domain alignment. North is attractive to south and south repulses south. Why? Because of the domain alignment. But what casuses the domains to align so? It is fact that there is a north and a south pole on a magnet, but try to explain these facts beyond theory, rather than merely observe them.

Finally, evolution is novel enough a concept for we humans being unable to observe macroevolution during our period of observation. Only through the fossil record is empirical evidence found. We are talking about evolution, not natural selection such as Darwin's finches.

The theory is that one leads to the other. However, we simply cannot "prove" it. Is there enough evidence to support macroevolution? In my opinion, obviously. May one refer to macroevolution as a theory and not be denigrating the theory/fact? Absolutely.

[mike_c]

68. with respect, we can indeed observe macroevolution...

...sometimes unambiguously, as in the case of polyploidy, and sometimes through a murkier lens. The fossil record is only one such lens, and often a particularly poor one, despite the attachment of paleontologists. Molecular data provide much richer sets of homologies to work with, and give a picture of macroevolution that is continual but at different rates in different parts of the genome, i.e. every microevolutionary change represents a continuum of divergence from the most recent common ancestor of all life on Earth. The accumulation of microevolutionary change, which is directly observable, is the means for macroevolutionary speciation.

I'll offer an analogy: we cannot directly perceive the hour hand of a clock moving, but if you look inside a clock you can see at least some of the gears moving, some fast, some slowly but perceptible. Change in the position of the hour hand is like macroevolution-- excluding sudden speciations-- it's an ongoing process, not a progression from one discrete, static state to another, so viewing its component turning cogs is in fact a view of the process itself. In terms of evolution, the molecular data simply give us a perspective on macroevolution at the finer scale of those individual cogs.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

56. How can he be a biologist and not accept evolution?

Ironically, when I was in high school and college, evolution was completely non-controversial with everyone, including the kids from the "non-denominational" fundie church, except the Jehovah's Witnesses.

This revival of anti-evolution nonsense seems to have started, like so many other stupid trends, some time during the Reagan administration.

[Swamp Rat]

64. He going after the Sacred Cash Cow.

:D

[dsc]

66. The Bible also says Pi is 3

so can I still teach trig if I say Pi is 3?

[mike_c]

69. LOL-- is that inaccurate, or just imprecise...?

3 or 3.0? :rofl:

[dsc]

70. The verse is question gives the dimensions of an object

with diameter 7 cubits and circumference 21 cubits. 22 cubits would be at the precision of the day (ancient Greeks had pi as 22/7)