I had a hard time narrowing down my interests for my history degree, but since one of my favorite profs specialized in the history of science ... and since I'm an engineer ... that's where I ended up.

What fascinates me most about the history of science is how human it is. It's not a story of dry formulas. For example, one of my favorite stories is about Lobachevsky, whom people considered insane for suggesting that Euclidean geometry had alternatives.

I mean, it wasn't a polite, "Hmm, that's an odd idea." They treated him like he was stark raving mad ... maybe he was. It's sometimes hard to separate genius from madness.

I haven't done much research into the history of science. You are right about how "human" science is; no scientist was infallible, but each had his own bias and blindness. I did find it interesting how it was a scientist but a little shop keeper in Holland who discovered microscopic life.
Louis Agassiz is an interesting character on whom I've done a bit of reading. I've never heard of Lubachevsky. When was he?

Early 19th century. My dad was a geometry teacher, and he always gave some history along with the math. While he loved geometry, I favored Calculus. Given that, and that Physics is my favorite science, I have a special fondness for Newton. I got to see an original copy of his Principia once.



I guess we get to trade. I've never heard of Agassiz. What nationality was he?

Even though my son loves it, Biology is my weakest science ... at least in terms of my ability to work with it. In terms of challenging evolutionary views I seem to do a good job of frustrating people.

Okay. Wow, an original - that's cool.

Agassiz was Swiss, but he moved to America later on and become one of the largest drivers behind the Smithsonian, I believe. Americans loved him. His specialty was fossils, and while we're on evolution, he he was a great opposer of evolution. He and Darwin were contemporaries. It's ironic; it seems that people criticize him for his racial prejudice as though that nullifies his legitimate concerns about evolution. They seem to forget that Darwin was racist too.

Yeah, it's a bummer when someone with the capacity to advance an important viewpoint has a fatal flaw. In my case, Newton was quite the jerk, a bit neurotic, and an Arian to boot!

But Agassiz sounds intriguing. Do you have the "nutshell" description of his alternative to evolution?

This is true about flaws! I do remember reading that Newton was amazingly absentminded.

Hmmm, I'm afraid I can't. I don't know if he posed an alternative, but as it was so early in the devlopment of evolution, so perhaps they weren't thinking in terms of alternatives. I think he just believed it be bad science and/or disliked the implications.

I think that back then people were either scared of new ideas, of change - or they were just very closed minded. So rather than just view someone spouting off new ideas as someone willing to think outside the box and search deeper, they went a few steps further and viewed them as mad, racist, or a trouble maker.

I learned about the history of Chemistry through a really interesting DVD series by Wes Olson. It was fascinating. I really think that the reason I remember so much about the actual chemistry taught in the series is because of the stories about the people and events related to their discovery.... Like you said, Resha, it's not dry.

I also read that Martin Luther, the founder of Lutheranism, was anti-Semitic. It is all very fascinating how certain people use science or religion to justify their bigotry and small-mindedness. I am actually in the process of writing a novel about a girl who is like the modern-day Copernicus in that she is ridiculed for her scientific inquiry.

*Nods* He was anti-Semitic. I find it really hard to believe that someone who was so intellectual in some ways, could be so deluded.

When people are inclined to be racist though, it really puts me off reading their material or listening to their theology or anything else. I suppose that may be a little unfair; but I just can't abide racism, so I wouldn't give him any of my time at all.

The statement is misleading though. Luther did not use his beliefs to justify his prejudice, rather his passion for his beliefs caused him to be more and more frustrated by the Jews because of their unwillingness to accept the gospels and for their blasphemy of Jesus as Lord. It hardly justifies his hatred, but that understanding is important so that we don't label everyone with a prejudice or a difficulty with certain groups as though they were nothing more than a bigot with an agenda veiled in religion.

That's a good way to put it. I'm a Lutheran, but I realize Luther was a sinner just like all of us. As you say, Luther tried to overcome his prejudices by living in Christ. He tried to witness to the Jews. It was only later that others emphasized his weaknesses as an excuse to use religion for persecution.

People abuse many of Luther's quotes because they don't understand Lutheranism. Another (which relates to the topic of science) would be his quote that reason is an enemy of faith. If you read Luther's writings on living in this world he speaks favorably of using our reason. It is only in the context of what God reveals through Word and Spirit that he insists we submit without using our reason to overthink and explain away what we don't like.