Royal Society and Creationism In Science Classes 892
An anonymous reader writes "The Reverend Professor Michael Reiss, a biologist and Anglican priest, is the education director for the Royal Society, the venerable British science institution. He recently called for creationism to be discussed in science classes, not just in religion or philosophy classes. Science journals reacted with a world of 'WTF' and the Royal Society backpedaled furiously. Now Nobel laureates are gathering to get him fired: 'The thing the Royal Society does not appreciate is the true nature of the forces arrayed against it and the Enlightenment for which the Royal Society should be the last champion.' The blogs, of course, are loving it."
tooth fairy, santa, and easter bunny ... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Misleading summary (Score:5, Funny)
I am just as disgusted by the militant atheist blathering on about Science proves there is no God as I am the religious fundy trying to pass of creationism as Science.
Now, I must admit I haven't read any atheists more militant than Dawkins, so I might be out of my depth, but I haven't ever encountered the stance that "science proves there are no gods".
As a linguist, I can readily assert that gods do in fact exist. So do elves, gnomes, unicorns and honest politicians. Now, outside language, that's a wholly diferent and highly debatable matter (do note that I never put trolls on the list, as we have the whole of the internet to actually prove their existence).
options C, D, and E (Score:4, Funny)
> Many other religions believe that the universe was created in a different way.
i have always found it a poor choice between ONLY a) science (of the darwinian we came from frogs), or b) creationism (we came out of nowhere, with no proof, and you jus gotta believe).
why is there never any discussion of option c) d) or even something like e) the occult evolution of the cosmos [rsarchive.org]?
no doubt, not many would choose option e) -- which both the creationists and scientists would think is just nuts -- but insofar as the number of possible theories examined, out of the many theories, it always only comes down to just two - ludicrous creationism, or ape science - other options aren't ever discussed, when there are other options. why are we caught in this polarity between the two ideas that have no overlaps in venn diagram...? :-P
Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes (Score:1, Funny)
Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you the Platypus...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platypus [wikipedia.org]
Sure looks unfinished to me.
Re:tooth fairy, santa, and easter bunny ... (Score:5, Funny)
"Reality-based thinking is vastly overrated and certainly won't prepare children for a career in the City or in government." ; )
Re:First (Score:5, Funny)
What ever happened to letting the facts prove themselves?
Yes, the facts are that the Flying Spaghetti Monster, who does not wish himself to be seen, created everything, including mountains and midgets. People who argue it was another imaginary force are fooling themselves. The FSM theory should also be taught in science class because it is a dissenting opinion. The people who argue against FSM theory make me doubt creationism. Creationists are the same guys who imprisoned Copernicus for arguing that the earth orbited the sun. FSM theory is consistent with heliocentricity, which we all know is correct now. Only creationists would doubt the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and they should be ashamed of themselves for not seeing why the FSM is the only true creator!
Re:First (Score:5, Funny)
The Earth is a Swiss cheese! (Score:5, Funny)
No, let's teach that the world is like a Swiss cheese: round, flat, AND hollow, all at the same time! That way nobody's feeling will be hurt.
Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes (Score:5, Funny)
The key point to take home though is that there is no confirmed proof of string theory at the present time but it is still being taught much like evolution for that matter.
String theory is not taught in any class I ever took. It's not taught in anything but advanced physics courses because it's beyond the capability of the vast majority of educators to understand. I would wager that you don't know the first thing about string theory and probably lack the proper math skill to even evaluate it objectively. Reading a watered-down pop-science book on the topic one time DOESN'T count as any expertise whatsoever. Being Stephen Hawking does.
So lets compare what an evolution class discussion might look like compared to a creationism class discussion. We'll start with the evolution class:
=====
TEACHER: Class, we have finished learning the rise of the four legged terrestrial animals in the context of global climate changes a billion years ago. Any questions?
STUDENT: Yes, how do we know about the climate changes?
TEACHER: Good question. We know because we have rock samples that we can date to an accuracy of 50 million years and can compare isotopic abundance of key elements in those rocks we know to have formed in the last million years. Differences in the isotopic profiles between the two rock samples suggest rapid significant changes in the atmosphere that were likely to allow for the colonizing land by amphibian like animals. Rock samples about two billion years old suggest that earth's atmosphere before that time would have been too harsh to allow terrestrial colonization by any animal more advanced than an insect.
=====
Now for the creationism class.
=====
PRIEST: So now you have learned that god made the creatures. Any questions?
STUDENT: Could we also explain that diversity of the creatures could come about through natural variation and selection based on adaptive advantage?
PRIEST: God made the creatures.
STUDENT: But there is a geological record consistent with a diversification mechanism based on natural selection. How do we account for this geological record.
PRIEST: God made the rocks and god made different creatures.
STUDENT: Why would god deliberately make this geological record that could go a long way towards explaining biological diversity?
PRIEST: Don't question god. You are going to hell.
=====
Defense Against the Dark Arts (Score:2, Funny)
If Royal Society students were blank slates, who were helpless but to believe exactly the words any sacred professor spilled into their brains like a blank hard drive being formatted with an operating system, then a professor espousing a controversial or even ridiculous viewpoint would be dangerous indeed.
I'd like to think the average Society student is a capable student already familiar with skepticism and the scientific who could handle dismantling the logical flaws of untenable positions.
It makes me think of an academy of legendary knights and wizards. Do they need to be protected from any and all threats? If the occaisional monster wonders in, they should be able to subdue it with their budding hero skills. In fact, one might go as far to say that occaisionally monsters should be introduced DELIBERATELY, so the students don't get too comfortable or cloistered. Diplomatically disagreeing with someone in a position to cut your funding (or GPA anyway, in this case) is actually a useful real-world skill to have.
Re:Proof Earth 6000 Years Old (Score:3, Funny)
That assumes that Earth wasn't created in 4004 BCE with 95 929 layers pre-packaged. Such a thing is of course untestable and therefore not scientific, but there is room for such a viewpoint.
I'd liken it to my ability to start virtual machine instances from certain saved states. In an odd way, familiarity with computers has brought me round to the creationist way of thinking a little.