> Stephen,
>
> I don't know what e-mails you are receiving, but I never said you were
> misinformed about anything
>
You described my argument as "inane grenades", but if I have
misunderstood this statement, then I apologize.

> If you read my e-mail, you'll note that you are not mentioned in it,
> nor are any specific claims attributed to you or anyone else.
> Certainly, I did not say that you had said that the world was six
> thousand years old.  I'm aware that you never posted that claim.  I
> said that people who thought the world was six thousand years old were
> wrong.  I happen to think you're wrong, too, but that's really not
> what I said.
>
>
No, you are making assumptions about my intent or are confusing the
issue in question.  I purposefully stayed away from "the age of the
universe" arguments because it is a different topic than the origins of
life.   As I said yesterday, we can tackle a new topic in due time, but
not today.

>
> I respect everyone's religious beliefs -- if they have faith in
> talking snakes and a big flood with every critter jammed onto one, big
> boat, fine.  It sounds unlikely to me, but there's no point in arguing
> against a person's relgious faith, and what do I know?  The End Times
> may have already started, and won't I be surprised?  But I don't have
> to respect such religious beliefs as science, and I don't think
> scientists should have to either, not in the classroom or anywhere
> else. I happen to have some religious beliefs of my own that are
> scientifically unlikely, but they're religious beliefs so I don't
> teach them to my students or try to drum up scientific evidence to
> convince them of seeing things my way.  I like to think they're might
> be life after death, but I don't go giving my students all the stuff
> you can find on various websites that supposedly prove
> "scientifically" that there's a life after death.

Again, you're confusing the issue.  I'm not asking for Scripture to be
quoted, mentioned, or even discussed.  I simply want scientific dissent
to be included in the discussion.

> And I don't expect that a scientist should have to present such stuff
> to her students just because it's a "possibility" and "one way of
> interpreting the evidence."   Just because it's "one way" doesn't mean
> it's worth the same amount of classtime as another way.
>
>
I guess you subscribe to the "my science is better than your science"
way of thinking.  Science is the search for truth.  It does not have an
agenda.  Why shouldn't scientists consider and present all of the
possibilities?   Isn't that what drives scientific discover?  Isn't that
why Darwinism came to the fore front in the 19th century because the
prevailing idea that life was static and unchanging did not fit the
evidence?  Now dissent against neo-Darwinism is on the rise because some
scientists conclude that it does not completely fit the evidence
either.  And stifling that dissent makes you no better than the
scientists who opposed Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler or those who
opposed Darwin.

> Maybe I'd read their books, like when I have time in the afterlife
> Chris
>
> Christopher Stuart
> UC Foundation Assistant Professor
> English Department
> University of Tennessee at Chattanooga


I have a few I could suggest if you find the time between now and then.