Nobody. I judge by John's posts who teaches in Utah compared to Nelson's who teaches in Harward.

You may look up at John's posts. His arguments are to the point, concrete, analytical and logical. And He sems to know well Bible and Mormon doctrine, newertheless he does not close his mind on them. He analysed what would world be if God ever interfered with physics-law based evolution of the Universe and shown that no traces of God exist.

In contrast, Nelsons posts while have wider vocabulary and better grammar, are mostly not concrete (more like philosophy/theology student essays), frequently not logical examples [how can you compare development of ever EXPANDING and DIVERSIFYING scientific knowledge and methods to motion along SINGLE path and ever narrowing path (among many branches of tree) and eventual "logical" inevitability to get into DEAD END?!], and without analysing in depth (of origin of science/religion and logic behind science and no logic behind religion).

Also, instructors in Utah seem to know that the Universe goes by itself based on physics/math while instructors in Harward seem to deny it (or at least do not know that).

I truly expected vice versa.

• Re: Utah beats Harward in teaching science. - yanniru - February 18, 2001 - 23:13 UTC