If you are interested in learning a little bit of history on how one of the most prominent scientists of all time eventually was able to publish one of the most influential books all time. This is a movie you cannot miss.

I took the book home and read it. Livio presents an actually well written book. Anyone interested in reading about popular science, or anyone with limited mathematical background will constantly find themselves saying to themselves “I did not know that” or “Ah, that is interesting.” Other than that, you will not gain much from it.

The truth is that the book doesn’t do justice to the title. The majority of the book is nothing more than a historical account of several mathematical topics, which Livio then links to how they relate to our present day life. That is all great, but he never really goes on to say how and where does he come up with the conclusion that god is indeed or is not a mathematician.

This brings me back to what I really think is the important part on this. My wife was completely right. Before one can say anything about god, or anything else for that matter, the object, place or thing of which is referring to must be defined. Furthermore that definition must either well understood or stated. She wasn’t completely right, but she was on the right track. Before Livio can say talk about god in any sense he must define what god means. The word god can have some many different meaning to different people. What is even more frustrating is that a well respected scientist would use a catchy title in an attempt to sell books. In my opinion a more fitting title would be “Great achievements  in mathematics and how they relate to everyday life.” Furthermore, under this vision, what prevents god from being a chemist, physicists or biologist?

The last thing I would like to see is scientist turning science into propaganda. Science is science, and it can never be mistaken for religion or faith. Even when they attempt to explain the universe, they are totally different practices and should not be juxtaposed.

Charles Darwin

The Texas board of education is in the process of adopting new science standards. This means there is a controversy brewing over how evolution is taught in the classroom. Today teachers are required to state the “strengths and weaknesses” of evolution.

Now, while I am not completely opposed to having intelligent debates on evolution, or any other scientific theory for that matter. I am opposed to using such rules to impose religious beliefs on students. While it doesn’t bother me that there exists a “strength and weaknesses” clause in today’s science curriculum. It does bother me that people feel the need to actually spell it out. The very basis of science accounts for the strengths and weakness of any theory. The simple notion of an idea being a theory, underlines the fact that there is not conclusive evidence to determine that is in fact true. In fact, evolution may never become a scientific law or be universally accepted by the science community. That is just how the scientific community works.

There should not be a requirement that special language be used when teaching science. Students should be taught what science is and how the community works. Students should be able to understand what a “theory” is before they are exposed to any theory.

Text books should be written with the intent to educate students about science, and not to defend it. There should be no reason why Science should be defended or explained. Science stand on its own. If one day and “intelligent designer” showed and proved that he in fact designed all of the existent life. The scientific community will be the first to say they were wrong.

We should not be using the public education system to impose our personal beliefs on society, we can do that on Sunday mornings. If you want your kids to learn what you believe, teach them that yourself.

More importantly, it doesn’t matter how much people hate it. Evolution is a valid scientific theory!