\magnification=\magstep1
\noindent {\it Mary Arnold -- Faith and the Everyday Practice of Science}
\bigskip
Mary, this is a very good start on an essay concerning Grinnell's ideas about complementarity of science and
religion.  However, I don't think you have really ``nailed'' a description of the differences between the two
fields, at least according to common thinking (what Grinnell is arguing {\it against}). Your first paragraph
points to the distinction between pragmatic concerns and theoretical concerns.  But that is not so clear-cut
(see comment 1 below).  Your second paragraph says the fundamental conflict between science and religion is in
how they draw conclusions.  There certainly is a difference there, but is that the most central difference?  It
might be good to start a revised version of this by addressing another question:
What are the ultimate goals of science and religion, and how are they different (and/or similar)?

It is also important to keep a bit of critical distance and 
ask the question whether Grinnell's suggested reconciliation of
religion and science is really possible.
\bigskip
\noindent {\it Specific Comments}
\bigskip
\item{1.}  It sounds as though you are equating science with the pragmatic and religious with the theoretical
    here.  But I would say that science and mathematics certainly have a theoretical side as well as a pragmatic
    side.  So the difference between science and religion is not only the difference between pragmatic and
    theoretical concerns. 
\item{2.}  {\it Everyday Practice of Science} is a rather unclassifiable book, so it
    could be called ``novel,'' meaning new or unusual. I'm guessing that is what you were thinking here.  But
    when I read this the first time, it seemed that you were calling the book a work of fiction.  It would be
    better to rewrite this to eliminate the possible confusion. 
\item{3.}  I think it would be better to say
    here that {\it courts held that the introduction of creationist science curricula was a breach of the
    separation of church and state}.  This is a somewhat controversial legal issue.  Your flat statement makes
    it sound too cut and dried.  Also, it's interesting to consider the way creationism is often presented as a
    {\it ``scientific''} theory and an alternative to Darwinian evolution.  Why do you suppose the supporters of
    creationism try to do that? 
\item{4.}  This is still a part of an expression of Grinnell's opinion. It would
    be good to make that clearer because there are certainly lots of scientists who would disagree violently
    with this statement. 
\item{5.}  I am not sure what you meant by this.  Do you mean science cannot {\it explain} the human feelings 
of a connection to the divine?? 
\item{6.}  This idea that embracing
    complementarity could lead to mutual respect and acceptance between religious and scientific viewpoints is a
    very good one.  You could say more about that!  But on the other hand, is Grinnell's proposal {\it realistic}?
    as a way to reconcile science and religion? 
\bigskip
\vfill\eject \noindent {\it Amanda Cabrera -- One Natural World, Two Visions}
\bigskip
I got your email message accompanying the paper, and I agree that this is still somewhat rough and unfinished.
I hope you will have the time to think over the following comments and resubmit a revised version of the paper.
It is also important to keep a bit of critical distance and 
ask the question whether Grinnell's suggested reconciliation of
religion and science is really possible.
\bigskip
\noindent {\it Specific Comments}
\bigskip
\item{1.}  Saying ``integrated'' here sounds a little strange. Many scientists might say that when religious
    concerns impact how science is taught and practiced, then it is more an {\it intrusion} than an {\it
    integration}.  (The primary meaning of {\it integration} is {\it inclusion or mixing} in a more neutral
    way.)  Your second sentence is making a very different point (following Grinnell).  So this probably
    deserves to be expanded and explained a bit more -- you need to give the reader a clue that you will be
    dealing with two very different things. 
\item{2.}  The people who have been agitating for ``creationist
    science'' in schools are primarily fundamentalist Protestants. In recent times at least, the Catholic Church
    has been less prone to that sort of literal interpretation of Scripture and much more open to modern
    geological theories of the age of the Earth and biological theories of evolution.  So I think this sentence
    is somewhat inaccurate.  (By the way, I'm thinking of the Church as the whole community of 
Catholic believers and Catholic institutions -- colleges and universities included -- not just
the Church hierarchy.)
\item{3.}  Grinnell's idea of ``intelligible design'' is also a very good point to
    spend more time on.  The idea here is the feeling (which comes down to a form of faith, for Grinnell at
    least) that there are underlying patterns in Nature that humans are able to understand. 
\item{4.}  I don't
    really see the connection between what you are saying about Biblical literalism and Grinnell's
    complementarity here.  This is something you probably want to rethink. 
\item{5.}  Is it {\it faith} that is
    expressed through the reasoning of where to go on the bicycle?  Isn't this sort of reasoning more closely
    related to ethics or morality?  Aren't those different from {\it faith}? (That is, religion also includes
    ethical and moral statements of what we {\it should do}.) 
\item{6.}  Could you say more about why you think
    Grinnell's dabbling in philosophy is dangerous here?  Are you saying he is not qualified to offer those
    opinions because he is ``only'' a scientist?
\bigskip
\vfill\eject \noindent {\it Stephanie Craig -- The Battle Between Effect and Passion}
\bigskip
I like your first draft paper very much -- it has a number of good points and it strikes a good balance between
your personal experience and the ideas expressed by Grinnell in his book.   There are a few places where you had
typos or minor slips.  Also there were a few examples of what I would call overly colloquial language --
``zapping the life out of'' (page 1) in particular.
\bigskip
\noindent {\it Specific Comments}
\bigskip
\item{1.}  I gather that a lot of students feel the way you describe here (that is, that having to explain a
    solution takes the fun of out finding the solution).  Could you say more about why you have that feeling?  I
    don't really understand that myself, since I always think that the best way to make sure you really
    understand something is to try to explain it to someone else.  Any gaps in one's thinking become painfully
    clear then, either because of the uncomprehending stares that you get from one's audience, or from the
    feeling of ``hand-waving'' that comes from trying to dance around a point that is not entirely nailed down.
    \item{2.}  I like this example very much -- I think it is exactly right! 
\item{3.}  You are also correct
    that statistics is often used in the way you describe -- as a way to summarize a large collection of
    information and make it easier to deal with. You seem to be saying that this is like the process of writing
    a short and to the point research article without any of the distracting extra information that might have
    been developed along the way to the final results.  Am I catching your point here, or did you mean something
    different? Also, aren't there times when you might {\it discover} new things in the process (patterns that
    were not apparent in the whole data set at the start).  That is, couldn't working with the statistics be
    part of the discovery process, in addition to or rather than the credibility process? 
\vfill\eject \noindent
    {\it Josh Hauser -- Practice of Science and Mathematics}
\bigskip
Your first paragraph was a little rough (see the suggested corrections marked on the paper).   But after you got
started, your writing improved quite a bit.  One suggestion -- ``kids'' sounds too informal for this kind of
writing. What you really mean is ``students'' so say it that way.

I agree with a lot of what you are saying here, and you present your points pretty well.
\bigskip
\noindent {\it Specific Comments}
\bigskip
\item{1.}  This is a very important point.   This kind of training in logical thinking and mental discipline is
    also one of the traditional reasons for including mathematics in school curricula.  This goes all the way
    back to the ancient Greeks. 
\item{2.}  I'm not sure it's really accurate to say that there is ``much room
    for extra information'' in research articles. After all, textbooks are usually hundreds of pages long, but
    articles are only rarely longer than 20 or 30 pages.  There is a difference too in the level of knowledge
    assumed of the readers. In research articles, the audience is the community of experts in a field, so not
    all of the background needs to be filled in. 
\item{3.}  I'm not sure I follow what you are saying here. It
    is not that common, I think, for later articles to re-work the data from earlier ones.  So I don't think
    ``taking the results from a previous experiment in order to find different patterns and characteristics''
    happens that often (at least not in the parts of science I know the most about).  Instead, people might try
    to reproduce other scientists' results by redoing the experiments in a different way and generating new data
    of their own. 
\vfill\eject 
\noindent {\it Paige Carr -- Faith in Religion and Science of the Natural World}
\bigskip
Your essay is well-structured and presents a good synthesis of Grinnell's ideas about the relation between
faith, science and religion.  One suggestion:  It is also important to keep a bit of critical distance and 
ask the question whether Grinnell's suggested reconciliation of
religion and science is really possible.  Other than that, I only have a few small corrections and comments.
\bigskip
\noindent {\it Specific Comments}
\bigskip
\item{1.}  You say that ``without religion, there would be no point in discovering the reason why things in life
    work.''  Does Grinnell say anything like that?  Or is this a personal opinion of your own? It would be good
    to say more about this and try to justify it, because I think this is a statement that many people might
    disagree with.  Isn't it possible for an atheist to be a scientist and want to understand how nature works?
    Can't an atheist be a good, moral person and be concerned with the welfare of others?  Is religion the {\it
    only} source of moral and ethical values that provide the basis for a good life? 
\item{2.}  Toward the end
    of the essay when you are discussing Grinnell's idea of {\it complementarity}, there are a few instances
    where you are misusing the word.  This is a noun -- the property of being complementary.  The adjective form
    is {\it complementary}. 
\vfill\eject
\noindent
{\it Nick Foster -- (no title)}
\bigskip
Your view of three stages in the process of the development of 
scientific truths -- the notebook stage, the article stage, and 
the textbook stage -- has a lot of truth to it.  Still, I think
you could say more about {\it why} the later stages in the process look
so different from the notebook stage.   See the comments below for 
some ideas.  Your writing is generally very good, although 
there are a few cases where I think your spell-checker and/or
your proof-reading may have
let you down(!)  Also, {\it notebook} and {\it textbook} are
single words.  
\bigskip
\noindent
{\it Specific Comments}
\bigskip
\item{1.}  I think it might be a slight overstatement to 
say that ``usually'' the final result of a scientific
investigation ``is in no way related to what [the scientist]
originally intended to discover.''  Grinnell was saying
that this happens more often than one might think if one
believes the textbook picture of the ``scientific method.''
But there are times too when scientists do succeed in finding
what they are looking for!
\item{2.}  I think it's important to realize that  
bias can also come into the choice of questions
that the scientist thinks are important or that he
or she decides to investigate.  For example, the meeting I was at
two weeks ago was the national convention of a group
called SACNAS (Society for the Advancement of Chicanos
and Native Americans in Science).  One of the plenary
sessions was a pretty interesting discussion
about the ways modern ``evidence-based''
medicine can learn things about treating Native American
patients from traditional tribal
healers.  Those questions probably would not even occur
to doctors who had no experience with Native American
cultures.
\item{3.}  Careful -- a scientist's notebooks are almost
never published.  They are retained to provide back-up
if questions arise concerning the results the scientists
claims to have found.  But usually they are not 
shared directly with other scientists.  
\item{4.}  Here's a question to think about.  Are all the
misadventures and false starts that a scientist may have
had on the way to discovery even {\it relevant} to the
credibility process?  Might they even be a distraction
from the {\it real issue} of determining whether the
results are credible?  Could that explain the difference
in the ways the different stages are presented?
\item{5.}  This sentence does not read correctly.
I think you might have left out a part of what you 
meant to say, although what you intended is pretty clear
from the context.  What does this say about the 
textbook format as a learning tool, though?  If
better-quality learning happens through discovery, shouldn't
teachers try to include more of that kind of experience
in students' education?
\vfill\eject
\noindent
{\it Brandon Nunn -- Frederick Grinnell's Everyday Practice of Science}
\bigskip
This is, for the most part, a very good essay on Grinnell's ideas 
about how scientific practice differs from the textbook picture
of the ``scientific method.''  The one criticism I have is that
the last page or so seems to just rehash points you have made previously.
You don't bring things to a strong conclusion.  There are some
things you could add or expand earlier in the paper, though, so
the length should not be an issue if you want to do a revision.
See the specific comments below for some ideas on this.
\bigskip
\noindent
{\it Specific Comments}
\bigskip
\item{1.}  Actually, in mathematics, the proof of a statement is
supposed to be a way to convince others that the statement is true.
If you saw the proofs (and not just worked out examples, procedures
to follow, and so forth) then your teachers probably thought that
they were showing you why those facts were true(!)
\item{2.}  I think there are really two points here.  One is
that most experiments just don't work at all.  The lab animals
die, or the meter doesn't work, or the computer was misprogrammed, etc.
Then sometimes, there are unexpected results (the ``serendipity'' 
idea).  
\item{3.} This high school chemistry course sounds like it
was a great experience.  You must have had a very dedicated,
knowledgable, and confident teacher!
\item{4.}  I think Grinnell would say that this effect is 
even more pronounced on the discovery side.  Scientists don't
want to make extravagant claims that are later proved to 
be false because that would hurt their reputations even more.
\item{5.}  You introduce the idea of {\it intersubjectivity}
here without really explaining what Grinnell means by this
term.  This could be expanded quite a bit.  Don't assume
the reader knows what Grinnell has said about this.
\item{6.}  I agree that statistics could be used to discover
patterns.  Couldn't those techniques also be used to 
demonstrate to others that a pattern observed more
intuitively are ``really there?''
\vfill\eject
\noindent
{\it Patrick Jarvis -- Faith vs. Science}
\bigskip
To me, your paper sounds almost {\it angry} in places and from your
writing it seems that this topic has a large component of emotional
resonance for you.  It is sometimes difficult to write about
topics like that because the temptation is to get
carried away and overstate your ideas.  
However, I think the picture is really quite a bit
less clear-cut than you seem to think.  There are lots of
``gray areas'' and distinctions that need to be taken into
account to get a balanced view of the issues that you 
are raising.  Although you mention several points that
Grinell makes about the relation of faith and science,
you should see that he comes to a quite different final
conclusion in his final chapter.  I hope you will 
consider revising this paper.  If you do, it might be good to 
refocus your topic and address Grinnell's ideas in more 
detail.  It is also important to keep a bit of critical distance and 
ask the question whether Grinnell's suggested reconciliation of
religion and science is really possible.
\bigskip
\noindent
{\it Specific Comments}
\bigskip
\item{1.}  In recent times (say the last 100 years), the 
situation is not at all as clearcut as you are indicating.  
Because the Catholic Church is such a large and diverse 
institution, it is really hard to pin down a single ``Catholic'' 
point of view on topics like this.  (By the way, I'm thinking 
of the Church as the whole community of Catholic believers 
and Catholic institutions -- colleges and universities 
included -- not just the Church hierarchy.)  Within that 
group, I think it's accurate to say that literal 
interpretation of Biblical scriptures about the age of the 
Earth, and rejection of the idea of evolution based
on those interpretations, is far {\it less} common than 
in some more fundamentalist Protestant groups.  
The Church positions against abortion, embryonic stem cell 
research, and so forth are based not only on passages 
from the Bible, but on a whole moral 
tradition of respect for human life in every form.  
Biblical literalism has not really been a part of the 
wider Catholic tradition for some time.  
\item{2.}  I don't think it is accurate to implicate the 
Catholic Church in the Scopes trial.  Don't forget
that this trial dealt with teaching of evolution
in a public school in the state of Tennessee.  The issue 
was whether a state law could forbid teaching that topic
in biology classes (based on a literalist, Protestant
interpretation of the Bible).  While some Catholics
certainly held opinions one way or the other, this trial
did not involve the Church directly.  
\item{3.}  The charge that humans are trying to ``play God''
by engaging in research about stem cells could also be a scare tactic
to stir up emotion against a legitimate scientific object
of study.
\item{4.}  I really doubt that bringing Dan Brown's 
novels into this discussion adds anything to your 
arguments.  As you say, the plots are farfetched 
and sensationalized.  While they are admittedly fun
to read, the picture they paint of the Catholic
Church is hardly a realistic or realiable one.
\item{5.}  If you choose to revise the paper (and I hope you 
will), it would be really good to ``dig into'' Grinnell's
idea of complementarity of science and religion in more
detail.  Personally I think that his ideas are one way
to reconcile the conflicts between science and religion
that you have highlighted, at least for an 
{\it individual} scientist.
\vfill\eject
\noindent
{\it Carl Losito -- Faith in Science and Religion}
\bigskip
Your essay makes a number of very good points, and 
you have raised an important possible objection
to Grinnell's vision of ``peaceful coexistence'' of science
and religion in the notion of complementarity.  So, the main
comments I have are not so much about {\it what you say}, 
but rather about {\it how you say it}.  I think there
are a number of places that could stand some rewriting
to simplify and clarify what you wrote the first time.
I have tried to point out the simpler ones where just
changing a word or two would make a sentence read more
clearly directly in the paper.  The more extensive
comments are below:
\bigskip
\item{1.}  I didn't quite follow this transition
between the idea of Nature changing over time and
the idea of researchers studying the changes to see
if new antibiotics are possible.  The transition
is too abrupt for a reader to follow your thoughts.  
I think you need a sentence or two more here to say first 
that science looks for patterns in that changing
landscape.  Then, add that some of the patterns 
they find can have practical applications such as
chemicals with antibiotic properties produced
by natural organisms.  
\item{2.}  It's true that nature can change over
time.  An important part of what Grinnell is
saying, though, is that however the natural world
develops, scientists still must have a sort of 
faith that the patterns that are present are things
that they (the scientists) are {\it capable of finding and
understanding} -- that there is an ``{\it intelligible} design''
(Grinnell's term) underlying the natural world.
\item{3.}  I'm not sure what this phrase ``more difficult
to welcome'' means.  Could you explain this more
fully?
\item{4.}  Instead of ``does not imagine,'' wouldn't
it be more accurate to say something like 
``does not believe that a person should have that
sort of power over another person.''
\item{5.}  This sentence was another ``tough nut''
for me.  I don't understand what you are trying to say.
\item{6.}  This point could be expanded and explained
more.  Science and technology provide the tools to
do things; religion furnishes (among other things) 
the moral compass that leads to good choices about how
the technology will be used.  
\item{7.}  This is a really important point.  You
are asking, in effect, how open fanatically religious
people would be to the complementarity and dialogue
that Grinnell sees as the ideal relation between science
and religion.  Is Grinnell being too optimistic about
the chances for these ways of looking at the world
to coexist?
\vfill\eject
\noindent
{\it Shelby Proft -- The Practice of Science}
\bigskip
You have some good things to say here, especially
about the different ways statistics might be used
at all stages of the process of discovering and
establishing the credibility of a scientic result.
However, the way you present your ideas sometimes
makes it very difficult for a reader to decipher 
what it is you are trying to say.  Your writing 
is sometimes unclear and overly complicated.  Good
writing does not have to make use of long, convoluted
sentences and ``vocabulary list'' words.  My advice to 
any ``apprentice writer'' (a class that includes 
almost all college first-year students!) is that 
simpler, more direct ways of saying things can be 
even more effective.
Striving for simplicity can also {\it help you}
refine your ideas and come to a clearer understanding
of just what it is that you are trying to say(!)

I ``marked up'' your essay especially heavily with
suggested rewordings and reorganizations of 
some sentences.  I also indicated a number of 
possible deletions of phrases or sentences 
that are unnecessary or repetitive.  There are also
some more extensive specific comments below.  Please take
a close look at all of these and come talk to me in 
office hours if they are not clear or if you 
want to discuss what I am suggesting.   
\bigskip
\noindent
{\it Specific Comments}
\bigskip
\item{1.}  This first sentence is not even especially
complicated, but I {\it do not know what it means}.  What
does ``measured down to'' mean here?  The first sentence
of an essay has to be {\it especially clear} to 
give the reader the introduction to what you 
are going to say.  
\item{2.}  In this sentence, I don't know what you mean
by ``projects.''  Are you saying that the typical 
science fair project that a student does {\it gives a false
impression} of what science is actually about?  Also note
the possible confusion for a reader -- when I see 
``science fair projects'' I almost automatically think
of ``projects'' as the {\it noun} referring to the activities
the students carry out and present at the fair.  Be alert
to what the reader will be getting out of what you 
write.
\item{3.}  ``The lack of clarity ... is clear.''  Did you 
mean to say this?  There are places for jokes or puns in
formal writing, but I don't think this is one of them.
\item{4.}  Your last paragraph is not a very strong conclusion
to your paper.  The final sentence just meanders without
getting anywhere.  The conclusion of an essay also requires
special attention.  The idea is to tie things up for the 
reader and reiterate the most important point you want
her or him to take away from what you have said. 
\vfill\eject
\noindent
{\it Andrew Coury -- Identifying the Ideal Way of Practicing Science}
\bigskip
I do not think your title really describes what you 
end up saying in the paper.  But the essay itself is generally very good.
Your writing is, for the most part, clear and direct.  The main 
comment I have (see below) is that you have essentially made two 
different claims about where statistics ``fits into the picture.''
While they are not entirely contradictory, they do conflict
to a certain extent.  You should think this through again and
decide which of the two positions you want to assert.  Of course
it may be the case, too, that you ultimately say you think 
statistics fits both in the ``discovery side'' and the 
``credibility side'' of the picture(!)
\bigskip
\noindent
\item{1.}  Your first sentence involves a sort of {\it pun} because
the word ``practice'' has two different meanings.  Grinnell is 
using the word in the same sense it has in the phrase ``common practice''
-- that is, practice as ``the way things are done.''  The saying, of course,
involves ``practice'' in a different sense -- the idea of preparing 
for doing something by repeating exercises designed to develop the skills that
will be needed (think band practice, or football practice).  I'm not sure
that ``practice makes perfect'' really has that much to do with
what Grinnell is saying, although you could argue that it does, I suppose.
If you want to make a connection, you would have to say more.
\item{2.}  It would be a good idea to put ``Professor Anybody'' 
and ``Professor Particular'' in quotes and identify them 
as coming from Grinnell's discussion of how science is done.
\item{3.}  A main reason that traditional geometry courses
have been included in school curriculums has always been that 
the process of developing and writing proofs
is thought to be good training in logical thinking 
and also good training in the careful presentation
of results.  Those skills are intended to be transferable to 
other areas besides geometry.  ``Practice makes perfect'' in action! 
\item{4.}  You say ``research articles should provide more detail ... ''
Why?  Is that detail needed for their intended readers?  Is that
added detail about how the results were discovered even relevant to
the ``credibility'' process?  (Also, please use the format given
in the assignment for identifying quotations from Grinnell.)
\item{5.}  What does ``adversity in validating thoughts'' mean?
Are you trying to say that research papers have to undergo a 
more stringent process of examination before they achieve
a degree of credibility?
\item{6.} (and 7.)  This is what I meant above when I said
you are arguing both sides of the question about where 
statistics fits into the picture.  Your statements are
not exactly contradictory but they are close to contradictory.  Think this
through again and decide which it is (or whether, in fact,
it is both).
\vfill\eject
\noindent
{\it Kyle Walraven -- Faith in Religion and Science}
\bigskip
This is an {\it excellent}, well-argued, and rather persuasive essay.  You
took a somewhat unusual approach by criticizing Grinnell's point of 
view, but I think your reservations about Grinnell's ideas 
are generally well-founded.

If I were trying to {\it defend} Grinnell here, I would say
that his picture of complementarity might work best as a way
for an {\it individual scientist} (like Grinnell himself)
to reconcile his or her profession as a scientist with the religious
impulses that he or she might also have.  (Think of the ``bicycle and rider''
metaphor -- science gives the tools for doing things, religion
gives the guidance for what things should be done.)  Grinnell
also seems to be thinking on a very abstract level -- he seems to 
be thinking about the {\it idea of religion}, for instance, rather than 
the specifics of any particular religion.  But if you 
think on a wider, or a more realistic, level (whole groups of 
people or institutions, actual particular religions), 
the conflicts you point out definitely tend to work against
the coexistence that Grinnell is hoping for.  

Your writing is generally strong and clear.  I have marked a few
minor suggestions on the paper.

\bigskip
\noindent
{\it Specific Comments}
\bigskip
\item{1.}  You might want to put in a separate sentence here to 
give an example to replace the phrase ``such as the sun'' that
I deleted to make this sentence flow better.  Also, this question
of why religions of the past have died out is an interesting one.
Why do you think that has happened?  What replaced the Greek
(and ancient Roman) religions?
\item{2.}  Even the first statement here is questionable.  Is
fundamentalist Islam (or fundamentalist Christianity, for that 
matter) willing to accept all of science? parts of science?  
\vfill\eject  
\noindent
{\it John Vatalaro -- (no title)}
\bigskip
Your essay is a good summary of Grinnell's ideas about faith 
and science.  But I think it is also important to keep a bit of critical distance and 
ask the question whether Grinnell's suggested reconciliation of
religion and science is really possible.  Your writing is also generally 
good (direct and clear).  There are a few somewhat minor corrections that 
I marked on the paper itself.  You might also want to think
about the following comments.  
\bigskip
\noindent
{\it Specific Comments}
\bigskip
\item{1.}  Isn't this difference between religion and 
science a really big obstacle to the kind of coexistence
that Grinnell is proposing?  Is Grinnell underestimating
the difficulty of this coexistence by saying ``religions
change too?''
\item{2.}  While some traditions of interpretation of Jewish scripture 
have some of the scientific aspects that you are describing,
I'm not sure that this is a completely {\it representative}
example of the way religions operate.  Think of fundamentalist
Protestant groups where the Bible is taken completely literally.
(That is, for instance, the universe was created in 6 literal 
days, about 4000 years ago.)  
\item{3.}  Why do religion and science ``have to be synchronized?''
There are some very outspoken atheist scientists who argue that 
there is no place at all for religion in a rational view of 
the world.  (Look up the biologist Richard Dawkins for a 
really extreme example.)
\item{4.}  Is the purpose of religion really to ``solve problems?''
Or is that what you are saying here?  
\vfill\eject
\noindent
{\it Dan Schmader -- Faith in Science and Religion}
\bigskip
Your essay is a pretty good summary of some of 
Grinnell's ideas  about faith and science.  You seem to be
focusing on the level of {\it individual experience}, and I 
guess you could say Grinnell does the same thing.  But
I think it is also important to keep a bit of critical distance and 
ask the question whether Grinnell's suggested reconciliation of
religion and science is really even {\it possible} on the level of 
groups of individuals or religious and scientific institutions.
Can the differences really be reconciled?
Your writing is mostly good, although there are a few unclear
places that I tried to mark on the paper or point out in
the following comments.
\bigskip
\noindent
{\it Specific Comments}
\bigskip
\item{1.}  Check the spelling of Grinnell (!)
\item{2.}  That is perhaps a part of what Grinnell
is saying, but there are other aspects of this as well.
It would be good to look over his comments on the need
for scientists to have a kind of faith that Nature has
patterns that human beings can understand -- the idea
of ``intelligible design.''  That is another important
aspect of what he is saying in this connection.  What 
you say later on page 2 is also getting at this idea
but you never really state it explicitly.
\item{3.}  Although this is somewhat unclear from
the historical record, most people think Galileo
was mistreated to a much greater degree than
just being denied credit for what he had discovered.
He was apparently forced to renounce his ideas about
the Earth moving around the Sun and forbidden
to discuss them in public by the Church.
\item{4.}  This is the place I indicated above 
in comment 2.  There is more to what Grinnell is
saying about the role of a sort of faith for
scientists than you are getting at.
\item{5.}  I am not sure what you mean by this.
Does the ``it'' refer to the self?  I think
a lot of people would say religion is a lot more
than just a way to self-understanding.
\item{6.}  This is another place where what you 
are saying is not so clear.  Do you mean that 
the student was asking Grinnell to justify why
he existed?  If so, I think there is an even 
more basic point that comes up in a lot of first-year
philosophy classes.  Namely, can any of us really
say that we know we exist in a real world outside
of our own minds?  How do we know what we think
we know about that world?  In other words, this 
is a question of {\it epistemology} -- the 
branch of philosophy that deals with the 
foundations of knowledge and addresses questions
such as ``how do we know
what we know?''
\vfill\eject
\noindent
{\it Greg Monfette -- Faith in Science}
\bigskip
Your writing here is generally good.  However, I think
there are some aspects of what Grinnell is saying about
faith in science, and the relation of science and
religion, that you have not completely understood.
It would be good to go back over what he is 
saying and try to address some of the points in the 
specific comments below.  
\bigskip
\noindent
{\it Specific Comments}
\bigskip
\item{1.}  ``Adhesion'' is the wrong word here, I think.
You want ``adherence to'' or maybe even better ``agreement with.''
\item{2.}  I think this example is one where it is almost {\it too easy}
to reconcile relgious ideas with scientific theories,
because they are already very close.  The scientific Big
Bang theory omits any speculation about what caused the Big Bang to
occur or why it happened.  Introducing a Creator is one 
possible explanation for what might have caused it to 
occur or why it happened.  Since science doesn't try to answer that
question, there is no real conflict.  In other words, there is not
that much of a disagreement.  It is different, 
I think, for other areas where modern scientific theories
have a greater degree of conflict with traditional religions. 
(For instance, how could you reconcile a literal interpretation
of the Bible, such as is common in some fundamentalist Protestant
sects, with scientific estimates that the Earth is between
4 and 5 billion years old?)
\item{3.}  This seems too general to me.  There is a lot of 
variation within religions and between religions.   For example,
the people who have been agitating for teaching ``creationist
    science'' in schools are primarily fundamentalist Protestants. 
    In recent times at least, the Catholic Church
    has been less prone to that sort of literal interpretation of Scripture and much more open to modern
    geological theories of the age of the Earth and biological theories of evolution.  
\item{4.}  Grinnell's complementarity is much more subtle than
you are saying it is here.  It is not only the idea that 
people's views or the teachings of a religion can change.  
It has more to do with the relation between the scientific and 
religious viewpoints.  This is one aspect of the paper
that should be rethought and reworked.
\item{5.}  I think it is also important keep a bit of critical distance and 
ask the question whether Grinnell's suggested reconciliation of
religion and science is really even {\it possible} on the level of 
groups of individuals or religious and scientific institutions.
Can the differences really be reconciled?
\vfill\eject
\noindent
{\it Jack Karlovec -- Practice of Science}
\bigskip
This a start but it is not a good effort.  
I hope you will take the following comments 
seriously and rethink and rework this essay.  

First, there are a number of very basic spelling 
and grammatical errors here that must be corrected.  
The most glaring ones:  please make sure you understand
the difference between ``then'' (sequence in time) and ``than'' 
(comparison).  Also make sure you understand the 
difference between ``its'' (possessive) and ``it's'' (contraction
for ``it is.'')  In formal writing, using the contractions is
generally frowned on (unless you are quoting direct speech).  
So if in doubt, spell it out. If you are not 
sure about any of this, ask me.

Even worse than the technical problems, the essay 
really does not say very much and it does not show a good understanding
of what Grinnell was getting at.  In addition, much of it repeats the same ideas
over and over without any development.  Did you try to outline
what you wanted to say before you plunged in to write, or
did you just grind it out?  It reads as though you did the
latter.  I marked some corrections and suggestions about rewordings
on the paper itself.  Please think about the following comments
before you start rewriting.
\bigskip
\noindent
{\it Specific Comments}
\bigskip
\item{1.}  I do not know what you mean by saying that scientists
and mathematicians are ``more important'' on the discovery side.  
Everything that Grinnell is discussing deals with what scientists
and mathematicians do.  
\item{2.}  This is overstated.  I think it is better to say that
Grinnell points out that failure is sometimes a part of scientific
work.  That failure might sometimes be worthwhile if it leads the scientist
to a different and ultimately successful way of approaching the 
problem.  But that does not always happen and the experience is not 
always worthwhile.
\item{3.}  This is one of the places where you have really just
repeated the same statements several times without developing them
or drawing any conclusions.  
\item{4.}  You seem to be focusing on the fact that textbooks can 
seem tedious (maybe especially so for readers who are not especially 
interested in the subject).  That is certainly true.  But what 
Grinnell is saying is partly that he thinks that the situation might be 
{\it different} if textbooks showed more of what the scientists
actually did to find the facts that those textbooks present.
Did you think about that?  Do you agree with it?  Can you see ways
that might make calculus books (to take just one example) more interesting?  
On the other hand, might there be good reasons why textbooks are written 
the way they are?
\item{5.}  I really do not agree with this statement that
anyone can write a textbook (if that is what you meant to say).
Writing a good textbook is different from doing
research.  But it is also {\it really hard} and requires 
knowledge both of the subject and of effective ways to present it. 
\item{6.}  I think you could probably make just as good a case to
argue that statistics are primarily important on the ``credibility''
side.  There are times when scientists may have an intuition
that a pattern is present without really being able to say 
why they think it is so.  Doing the number-crunching to 
compute a correlation coefficient (for instance) can also 
be a way to convince other scientists that the pattern they think
they see is really there. 
\vfill\eject
\noindent
{\it Jonathan Ye -- (no title)}
\bigskip
This is an excellent and persuasive essay on some of the educational
effects of the standard methods of presenting science and mathematics
in textbooks and courses.  I agree with most of what you are
saying here, and I think that things have to change too.  Your writing
is generally very strong too.  There are a few places where I think
you chose the wrong word or where you might reword things for greater
clarity.  See the comments on the printout of the paper.
\bigskip
\noindent
{\it Specific Comments}
\bigskip
\item{1.}  I think what you are describing here is actually relatively
rare.  In mathematics (which is, of course, the literature I know
best), there is a tradition of showing only the polished final 
result without any of the background or the false starts or setbacks
that might have led the authors to the final conclusion.
I think most scientific articles are pretty similar.  This is 
Grinnell's view too.  The papers you read for your project sound
very unusual.
\item{2.}  It is possible that showing how something like the
Pythagorean Theorem might be used in other contexts could make
it seem more relevant and interesting to students learning 
geometry.  But at the same time, doing that would require
the students to learn some of the background needed to understand
the applications.  That would take time and also require
some knowledge on the part of the teacher.  Maybe you can
see from these comments why this approach is not always followed(!)
\item{3.}  This was one place where what you said was not entirely
clear.  Did you mean ``definitions'' or ``proofs?'' There are 
probably well over 200 different proofs of the Pythagorean Theorem that
people have found and published over the years.  Or did you 
mean that the concepts involved in the Pythagorean Theorem
require lots of background (preliminary definitions) to understand?

\end
