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."
It /should/ be discussed in science classes (Score:5, Insightful)
I have no problem with students being shown the difference between science and "creationism". One is the very antithesis of the other. How can the average student be expected to argue against this nonsense if they don't understand what it is and why it is not science?
C'Mon England (Score:3, Insightful)
Creationism is not science. Period.
Creationism vs Evolution (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a great class to teach kids about what science is, and what the differences between scientific theories, and a non-scientific theory is.
For example, in science a theory is supposed to be able to make predictions: I throw the apple up, and gravity accelerates the apple back down etc. Have the kids then try to explain what predictive qualities Evolution has, and what predictive qualities Creationism has.
It could be a great teaching tool IMHO.
Embrace, and extinguish. ;)
Creationisum == Stupid God (Score:4, Insightful)
You are using "theory" incorrectly. (Score:5, Insightful)
Because then you would be perpetuating the error you just made.
A "theory" in science has evidence to support it.
Where is the evidence to support Creationism?
Yeah, stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Creationisum == Stupid God (Score:5, Insightful)
The root of it all is that these American "evangelicals" aren't what the rest of the world uses "evangilcal" to mean. It's just a word the've taken to replace "literalist". These are literalists, plain and simple. Why don't they call themselves that? Because literalism is frowned upon by most of mainstream Christianity.
You've just repeated your error. (Score:5, Insightful)
Again, a scientific theory has evidence to support it. It is falsifiable. It can be tested.
Yet you keep using the same word to describe evolution and Creationism.
It is that exact error that is the reason against teaching Creationism.
Re:Eh... (Score:3, Insightful)
Please point out the credible evidence for creationism. It's not science. Creationism isn't a Theory in the scientific sense. Just in a layman's sense.
Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes (Score:5, Insightful)
From the link ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2008/sep/11/michael.reiss.creationism [guardian.co.uk] ), here's what he said:
"Creationism can profitably be seen not as a simple misconception that careful science teaching can correct. Rather, a student who believes in creationism has a non-scientific way of seeing the world, and one very rarely changes one's world view as a result of a 50-minute lesson, however well taught."
Seems very reasonable to me.
If you do things the wrong way, you can prove you are right, but teach nothing.
If you teach nothing, you do not have a science class.
The uproar over what he said appears to be rather unscientific.
Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes (Score:5, Insightful)
Using that yardstick, you have to teach about the Flying Spaghetti Monster in science classes too, so you can argue against this nonsense.
Students learn how to identify and dismiss bullshit by being taught the scientific method [wikipedia.org] . It works on any bullshit.
Discussion != Endorsement (Score:5, Insightful)
The columns seem reasonable. Creationism should not be taught in science class as science, but it certainly is part of the context in which the theory evolution came about. One could hardly teach about Copernicus without mentioning Heliocentrism, or Pasteur without Spontaneous Generation.
Re:Yeah, stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Worse. Go read _everything_ he said here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2008/sep/11/michael.reiss.creationism [guardian.co.uk]
I think he actually deserves an apology. It's amazing the reaction he got.
What next, are they going to burn down churches because of what he said? Just because someone happens to mention creationism in the same breath as science classes?
They're starting to behave like religious nutters too.
Re:Eh... (Score:2, Insightful)
There is no more evidence for creationism than there is for absurd theories like the IPU (may Her Grace forgive me) and the FSM, I'm afraid. I've read their materials, their textbooks. They are full of misinterpretations, science that was current two decades ago, and outright false facts presented as truth.
A fact which contradicts natural selection is not the same as a fact which supports creationism. That is the product of a false dichotomy.
Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes (Score:5, Insightful)
We don't object to theories being taught, we object to things that aren't science being touted as science.
Re:You are using "theory" incorrectly. (Score:3, Insightful)
Where is the evidence to support Creationism?
The bible. And when you take an oath, on what do you lay your hand? A science textbook?... Heeey...wait a minute...Isn't a violation of some such n' such amendment?
Burn the heretic! (Score:4, Insightful)
I think creationism is nonsensical, but the reaction over this is reminiscent of the Inquisition. Calling for firing someone for voicing a heterodox opinion is getting uncomfortably close to a modern-day auto da fe.
Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is, that if you're not prepared to have your beliefs shaken, you're not really fit for science. Maybe it should be prefixed with a 'shake-your-belief' class, in which you do all sorts of little experiments like trying to see colour in the semi-dark, do simple maths in base-9, explain the mating behaviour of seahorses, and compare the height and circumference of a drinking glass (just things off the top of my head that could confuse a fourteen year old).
Re:Eh... (Score:3, Insightful)
Creationism / Intelligent Design isn't a theory. The only "evidence" for it is some text in a book and some fake photoshopped pictures of digs of four meter tall humanoid skeletons.
It is not reasonable to present both evolution by natural selection, which has mountains of evidence behind it, and creationism / ID as equally plausible scientific theories. The only role Creationism / ID should play in a science class is as an example of a nonscientific explanation of how we came to be here.
What missing links are you talking about? More fossils are unearthed every day, and regularly, they discover a new species of hominid that fits in between two known species. Then you'll just whine about the missing links between the older known species and the newly discovered ones, ad infinitum. Take the real numbers: there's an infinite amount of them between any two integers. The "missing link" between 1 and 2 would be e.g. 1.5, and that would give rise to two new "missing links" -- one between 1 and 1.5, and the other between 1.5 and 2. This could go on and on forever (no barrel-throwing monkeys at the end, though).
Of course they should not let students be ignorant of the fact that many people prefer to believe some old book instead of a theory that's been debated and improved for 150 years by thousands of very smart and diligent scientists, all trying to disprove (parts of) it, and replace it with new ideas -- that would make them very famous and allow them to hold a speech in Stockholm. There is no conspiracy to push evolution by scientists who are afraid of religion or something like that. It would require thousands of intelligent and ambitious people to willfully forego their chance at the Nobel Prize. Never gonna happen.
It comes down to this: evolution by natural selection is a good theory that explains the wide variety of life found on this rock, and which makes biology make sense, and creationism and ID are just the LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU yelling of desperate religious people.
Re:Misleading summary (Score:3, Insightful)
You sir, are an extreme moderate.
No worries though, I also make an attempt to stand between the darkness and the light. It's an impossible goal that is worth pursuing.
If I may expand upon that ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Now imagine a class with 10 Creationist students in it.
All arguing their latest talking points with the teacher.
All demanding that books X, Y and Z be read to show the "facts" of Creationism.
All saying that authors A, B and C have "disproven" evolution.
All claiming that evolution is a religion.
Fuck that. Put Creationism in a World Religions class and just save the time and arguments. As can be seen from the comments here, even self described "nerds" have trouble understanding what science is (and is not). Why bother with the confusion and the arguments?
Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes (Score:3, Insightful)
You know, the whole FSM thing is funny, but when it becomes the knee-jerk reaction to every discussion about creationism, it gets old fast.
The reason it makes sense to discuss the differences between scientific reasoning vs. creationist belief is that there is a significant, vocal population of people who earnestly believe that creationism is not only true, but just as valid in a scientific context as evolution.
By that yardstick, it does not make sense to worry about showing why FSM isn't science -- because nobody honestly believes that it is.
Whether one believes that science can answer all questions, or that the answers science yields are true (or what "true" even means in that context) are matters of philosophy. But when people are honestly pushing to blur the distinction between a non-scientific conclusion and a scientific conclusion by trying to insist on teaching the former in a course about the latter, then it does make sense to ensure that the curriculum includes a section on telling the difference, and a high-profile example like creationism certainly would belong as part of that discussion.
This does not mean teaching it "alongside evolution", though. The true subject matter would be the reasoning proces behind the theory, not the theory itself; and hence it would properly belong in an introductory-level general science class -- not a biology class in particular.
Re:Misleading summary (Score:3, Insightful)
Which amuses me that they would waste so much of their lives dedicated to proving a negative that, according to them, has absolutely no impact on their lives anyways.
I'm not sure what world you live in, but in my world, the existence of religion has a *very* significant effect on *everyone's* life, whether they want it to or not. If only we had a world where belief in religion only affected that individual, and their actions were completely independent of whatever superstitions they wanted to embrace.
But I agree with the other poster. I've never seen any atheist or agnostic claim to "prove" God didn't exist, which is logically impossible. Overwhelmingly convincing evidence, yes. Proof, no.
Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes (Score:5, Insightful)
Lamarckism was a perfectly logical and convincing theory to explain evolution; it turned out to be wrong, but there's nothing inherently unscientific about it in a pre-Mendelian world.
Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly people should be confronted, as early as possible with both right AND wrong thoughts, and the evidence supporting them.
Of course, anybody can make a politic like this look bad by saying "look he's asking for creationism to be taught alongside evolution !". Of course ! How else do you suggest we teach children the difference.
Something like creationism is what a literal interpretation of the bible would yield. Distribute the first chapter of genesis, have students read it. Demand the children argue for and against at least 3 interpretations of the text, right there in biology class.
Explain the problems related to this (such as people like harun yahya using violence to enforce a similar view, the use of violence in this case is apparently mandatory for muslims). I mean this is a beautiful opportunity to explain the difference between a free society, like america, and let's say politely "the alternatives" (islamic states, communist states, dictatorships, ...)
This might also be time to just research all the different versions (Christian, Jewish, islamic, buddhist, shinto, hindu, ...), and how and why these are accepted (e.g. explain that in theory it's every muslims "sacred duty" to answer challenges to creationism with first a threat, then violence, explain how buddhism sees the world and why it doesn't have a real creation myth. Show them a few of the colorful hindu parades ...
Then take creationism under the loop. The basic principle of eternal resource wars between races and even families. The fittest survive, when faced (in some way) with a resource shortage. Perhaps even give a demonstration with a genetic algorithm solving an actual problem (although this would require teachers with actual brains, so it may be a non-starter). Illustrate with the different stages of evolution, and please for once leave the dinosaurs out of it. The eye is a beautiful example since you might actually be able to actually show the different stages in real, live, touchable animals. Skin "vision" is something all humans have (e.g. you can easily detect infrared rays even behind you), but you can show it in many animals. "blind" moles can be shown to have basic focusing abilities without a lens. Then a basic simple eye like a crocodile or a lot of reptiles have, which lacks many parts a human eye has. Then human eyes. And then some animals having much, much better eyes than humans, like cats. It should be beyond obvious that all these are mere variations on a theme, and if you show it in live animals, is there really any argument left ?
Explain the problems creationism faces, such as there being some discussions relation to abiogenesis.
CONTRAST. Let people decide for themselves, having full information.
But obviously idiots will be able to say that "creationism is taught alongside evolution". And they'll be right. For that is the RIGHT way to do it.
(I do believe this is exactly how Gov. Palin "supports creationism" despite the knee-jerk press reaction against her)
Teach Science in Science Class (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is that, given evolution, the superior theory is the one that survives. It is *not* at all a given that evolution will survive.
Not to give offence to anyone, but it has been all but extinguished in the entire muslim world, and it's slipping even in Turkey. (and not slipping like this message, but there is real, actual, physical violence from muslims attempting to enforce creationism in Turkey)
Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes (Score:5, Insightful)
String Theory is not based on *physical* evidence, but it is supported by *mathematical* evidence, as are pretty much all modern scientific theories.
Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes (Score:5, Insightful)
First, many scientific theories are based on no evidence (string theory) and at this time we don't even know when they can be proven, if ever, but yet I'm sure many people can cite cases where universities are teaching string theory.
No scientific theory can be proven. We have always to expect new information or newly discovered facts to contradict scientific theories and finally to disprove them. And that's exactly the point. That makes a theory scientific.
And yes, there might be facts that contradict String Theory. We just don't know them yet.
And yes, there might be facts that contradict Evolution. If we ever find a halfly designed and then not finished model of a potential organism, which can not have lived this way, has no known predecessor and now known parallel, then we could hypothetize that a designer was at work (and didn't finish it).
Many theories are also based on assumptions that, given the human tendency to act holier-than-though, we think must be right or otherwise, God forbid, our theory might end up being wrong.
That was never a problem with a scientific theory. They often have proved to be wrong (then they got abandoned and replaced by other theories), or incomplete (then they have been extended) or being valid only for a very small subset of events (then they have been superseeded by a more general theory).
The daily work of a scientist is not to find more evidence for a well established theory. More evidence you need only for a hypothesis, a not-yet-theory. The daily work of a scientist is crashtesting theories. Hit it with extreme conditions, with imaginative setups, with an alternate hypothesis, with better measurement. If you can poke a hole in a well established theory, a scientific price is not far away. If you find yet another evidence for a well established theory, all you get is a yawn from your colleagues.
Re:First (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, why not. While we're at it, let's teach Holocaust denial in History class, and Ebonics in English lit. Also, we'll make sure to cover Alchemy in chemistry class, and our Geography teachers MUST give equal time to the idea that the world is flat!
I mean seriously, how DARE you people use logic and critical thinking when deciding what should be taught in school? Clearly we should teach every fantasy that's ever popped into anyones head - only that way can we ensure that nobodies feelings are hurt, and that all ideas get a fair hearing!
Re:Misleading summary (Score:5, Insightful)
why should my kids be deprived of a real science education just because someone else indoctrinated their children with specious non-scientific beliefs?
if a kid raises creationist objections to evolutionary theory, the teacher should kindly say to him "that is religious mythology, not science," and end the discussion there. pseudoscience is pseudoscience, and there's no reason to make special allowances for discussing pseudoscience in a science class just because it's based on a popular religion.
As a teacher, I believe it is vital that we take the time to explain why creationism is not science, so that the students have a solid understanding of the issue to debate and defend their positions. Your approach is asking the students to accept your statement on faith, which will not help them learn science.
Creationism's Foundation: God Isn't Infinite Enoug (Score:2, Insightful)
Creationism's Foundation: "God Isn't Infinite Enough..."
"God Isn't Infinite Enough to have created a balanced, self-sustaining, self-correcting Universe."
"God Isn't Infinite Enough to have created billions of years, instead having to fake it."
"God Isn't Infinite Enough to have created evolution, instead having to meddle endlessly to compensate."
Point out, forcefully absolutely & relentlessly, that creationism insists that god is incompetent, and that if god were REALLY infinite, then "god's hand" would be un-findable through physical evidence, and only perceivable through spiritual instruments/experiments.
Re:First (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes (Score:1, Insightful)
Sorry, no. Creationism and other pseudoscience should be discussed in Mythology class. The distinction needs to be made that clear in schools. Only science in Science class. Underlined, full stop, no errosion for the pop-cult of the day. For a very large section of the population it's the only uncluttered view they're going to get in their lives. Make that foundation stone as pure as possible.
Re:First (Score:4, Insightful)
Evolution requires a little more thought and a little more time. This leaves it at the mercy of idiots who refuse to see this evidence as it takes too long - hence "It's UNPROVABLE!!"
Scientists are facing a fight with this one, and the creationists (who are plainly, outright WRONG) seem to be better funded. It is wholly right that the education director for the Royal Society be fired for such outlandish claims.
IAAST (I am a science teacher) and I would quit if I had to teach creationsim and frankly I expose them for the lunatics that they are whenever that 'view' is asked about in my classes.
Re:You've just repeated your error. (Score:4, Insightful)
You obviously didn't take biology or study - because if you did, you'd know that a few weeks and some fruit flies could give you all the evidence that you need.
That's not even talking about the absolutely MASSIVE amount of DNA/RNA evidence in all living things today.
Here's a funny thing - you don't need to wait for millions of years to confirm evolution, just like we don't need to wait thousands of years to confirm the half life of C-14.
Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
This might be a good point if it weren't completely wrong. String theory is at an entirely different level of acceptance than evolution and there is still significant debate within the scientific community over its veracity. Why? For exactly the reason you mention-- there's very little evidence to back it up, merely a nice solution to a set of abstract equations that implies that such a configuration of spacetime would be awfully convenient. Which, incidentally, is how a lot of the Standard Model was first postulated which has turned out to explain subsequent experiment extremely well.
Creationism/Intelligent Design isn't science! (Score:1, Insightful)
Evolution is supported with scientific experiments. Creationism and Intelligent design are based on faith and cannot be tested using the scientific method. Therefore there is no place for them in science class. They would fit just fine in a class called "religion." Or maybe a philosophy class debating what we are in this world.
Creationism is an alternative to Science (Score:3, Insightful)
Teaching creationism in a Science class as Science is like teaching Spanish in and English class as English. Creationism is no more Science than Astrology. It should be discussed as a different branch of Philosophy as an alternative to Science, along with Astrology and Ghost-Hunting.
Re:Creationism is an alternative to Science (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the thing gp was describing was that alchemy wasn't taught as chemistry in chemistry class. It was taught as "here's what people though, and here's why we know it's wrong".
I would love to have this same level of discourse in biology classes with respect to creationism, but for one thing. Saying creationism is not scientific and not factually based will be construed by too many as an attack on their religion and you end up in a real mess.
Or you end up with the folks in Texas who are allowed to answer that "it doesn't agree with my beliefs", and get credit.
We are incapable of handling the controversy appropriately in general, so I think its best to just leave it out. Science is X, following from X and these observable facts we learn Y...
If you knew your Illuminatus Trilogy (Score:3, Insightful)
and the Earth is shaped like a carrot.
Now begone with your novel speculations, knave.
Re:Creationism is an alternative to Science (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly - the reason we can teach about alchemy in chemistry class is because nobody takes alchemy seriously any more. Similarly, you can teach about pre-Galilean follies because nobody will take offense to it or try to argue that the sun spins around the earth.
Unfortunately, way too many people still cling to the idea that our world and all the species on it were created by some mystical being. So how exactly do teach the follies of creationism, when half your class still believes in it? It's not so much a question of education, as de-programming.
Re:First (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not a question of punishment. The problem here is that this individual occupies an extremely important position in a major scientific organization. It'd be akin to the head of PETA saying "You know, I see nothing wrong with torturing puppies and then eating them for breakfast". Sure, he's entitled to speak freely, but we're also entitled to question his qualification to hold that position.
With that said, it seems his actual statement may have been misrepresented. Based on his correction, I certainly wouldn't be in favor of firing him. It seems that the whole uproar might have been a wee bit of an overreaction.
Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes (Score:5, Insightful)
UM, I think you neglected to mention that Evolution is also just a theory at this point.
Theory of Relativity.
Atom Theory.
Electromagnetic Theory.
Theory of Gravity.
Yeah, let's remove all "just theories" from science class. You have a pop-quiz asking them how to spell 'science', and then you send them home with nothing else to teach. Brilliant!
Yeah, you might want to mention that part when you advocate suppressing alternative beliefs in the classroom...
Excuse me, but we don't teach Swedish in English class.
We teach English in English class, and we teach Science in Science class.
And in Science class teachers should not be teaching "beliefs". They should be teaching accurate overview of the various fields of science as understood and practiced by professionals in those fields. And the indisputable FACT is that Evolution is the one and only understanding and practice of the field of biology by 100%(*) of professional biologists. "Welcome kids, this is biology class. The one and only scientific understanding and practice of biology among professional biologists is evolution and some other things I'll get to later. Here is what evolution says and he's how it works and here let me show you this shitload of evidence that convinced all of those scientists that evolution was valid and accurate. You don't have to believe in evolution any more than you have to believe in atoms, but you do need to understand the material and you do need to pass the tests."
It wouldn't matter if Atom Theory were wrong and atoms don't exist. A Chemistry class must teach an accurate overview of Chemistry as understood and practiced by professional Chemists. Even if atom theory is wrong and atoms don't exist, it is impossible to understand the modern field of chemistry without knowing atom theory. Even if atom theory is wrong and atoms don't exist, it is impossible to enter and practice modern Chemistry unless one understands atom theory. Even if atom theory is wrong and atoms don't exist, it is impossible to do good science proving atom theory is wrong unless one first understands atom theory.
So even if you have the ignorant notion that evolution is wrong, it doesn't matter. The absolutely indisputable fact is that among 100%(*) of professional biologists evolution is the one and only modern scientific understanding and practice of biology.
(*)Footnote: Rounded to the nearest full percentage point 100% of biologists accept evolution, rounded to the nearest full percentage point 100% of chemists accept atoms, rounded to the nearest full percentage point 100% of astronomers accept the fusion-powered-sun. Just because one-in-a-couple-hundred people-witha-a-degree is a crackpot does not mean we teach the Electric Universe electric-powered-sun crapola in highschool science class.
-
Re:C'Mon England (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Discussion != Endorsement (Score:2, Insightful)
Or.. let's stick to science in science classes.
No one is saying that we shouldn't teach science in science.
However, if a growing number of children have creationist beliefs (of whatever religion), that are ingrained into them (part of Reiss's point is that this makes it hard to correct them, like a simple misconception), the question is how do we tackle this? Reiss gives his suggestion, for which he is for some reason ridiculed. So what's your suggestion?
Yes, it is a fair point that there is no need to debunk creationism anymore than we debunk belief in fairies. On the other hand, belief in fairies either isn't widespread among fairies, or it doesn't affect their accept of scientific facts.
Re:options C, D, and E (Score:2, Insightful)
Evolution has no proof. An overwhelming pile of evidence is not proof. Evolution may be the closest thing to actual truth, but proof, there will be none. Only an all seeing, all knowing, being would be able to show proof.
Your argument does not justify your conclusion. (Score:5, Insightful)
On Alchemy (Score:3, Insightful)
"Exactly - the reason we can teach about alchemy in chemistry class is because nobody takes alchemy seriously any more."
But we do teach Alchemy now. We just don't call it that anymore, because "Alchemy" is nothing but the idea that one element could be turned into another. What was once ludicrous fantasy and fiction is now science. We see Alchemy happening every day. The Sun turns Hydrogen into Helium constantly, and our earliest nuclear scientists practiced Alchemy, when you get right down to it. Modern Chemistry and Physics very much includes fields that were once considered Alchemy.
Re:First (Score:2, Insightful)
(On a side note, of course Creationism isn't "science", by science' definition. The Bible says there is a spiritual realm as well as a physical one. But science can't deal with anything beyond the physical one. As a result scientist easily conclude that as they can't "put God in a box", He cannot exist.)
Re:First (Score:3, Insightful)
As a software engineer, as part of my education we often examined code that was faulty. That doesn't mean defect-ridden code should be taught in schools, just that it was seen, discussed, dissected and its flaws revealed to the world.
It's good teaching practice. And what's more, once you learn to spot flaws in the bad code you might start finding flaws in the stuff that's supposed to be good. I think that applies to the scientific method, too. If you understand the how and why the scientific method works you can get an understanding of its limitations (as I mentioned earlier, it's based on the assumptions that there really is a world that we're observing and that rules that have applied in the past will continue to apply for instance. Both very good assumptions for getting on with life, but it's important to understand that they're pragmatic rather than strictly rational -- that way you get people who believe in science, not in scientism).
Re:Logical positivism (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is that in I.D., the intelligence that interacts with the natural world is supernatural in nature and beyond the scope of science. That doesn't make I.D. notions meaningless, but it does make scientific discussion of I.D. meaningless and a waste of time.
If human intelligence is 100% natural in nature then Science has hope of someday explaining how it arises... but rather if human intelligence has a supernatural component, i.e. a soul, then science will not ever be able to explain intelligence.
If the Intelligence in I.D. is natural rather than super-natural then the existence of this intelligence can be tested via Scientific methods. However, such a test comes awfully close to proving or disproving the existence of God. That is why God is to be considered supernatural and beyond the natural world and the realm of Science. An Atheist would be one who discounts the supernatural and a Theist would be one who believes in some notion of the Supernatural. An Atheist is therefore forced to accept Science, but a Theist is forced to neither accept nor reject Science.
<ok enough being polite... now I'm going to go into a Palin-induced rant-mode>
This is the philosophical framework of Science laid down by DesCartes. Proponents of I.D. are at best ignorant of what the word "Science" actually means, and at worst they are dishonest in their attempts to proselytize their religious views under the guise of pseudo-science.
We would be well to remember that the current scientific enlightenment that brings us the many benefits of modernity is but a small blip in human history. To protect our children from the brutish lives more typical of humanities 20,000+ year history, we must stand steadfast in our opposition to the mindless minions of conformity and orthodoxy who would force-feed us knowledge based on tradition and authority over knowledge based on reason, questioning, and experiment.
Re:options C, D, and E (Score:4, Insightful)
You sir, by denying the very first verse of the Bible, deny Christianity and are I contend are NOT a Christian.
You, sir, by arrogantly presuming the spiritual and scriptural authority to excommunicate someone based on a slashdot post, ARE a douchebag.
Re:Yeah, stupid (Score:1, Insightful)
> The guy can hold his opinion, and as long as he sticks to the curriculum without creationism, why get him fired over his goddamned opinion?
Because he's the EDUCATION DIRECTOR for the ROYAL SOCIETY of Britain.
Re:First (Score:4, Insightful)
Correct. For those screaming about how closed-minded discussing ID or creationism is they are themselves being closed-minded and not getting the point.
Step 1: Put down The God Delusion.
Step 2: Think for yourself. Mr Dawkins is terribly clever, yes, but you too have a brain. And being clever does not make him right about everything.
Step 3. Read Reiss' article. It won't hurt. You might even learn something.
Why is creationism so important? (Score:1, Insightful)
Genesis (which I've read in several interprettations as well as in hebrew as b'rashit) and even when I was younger and willing to believe what my parents believed and I hadn't even heard of evolution as of yet, I had many questions regarding the logic behind it. After all, it seemed very unrealistic to me that everythe was created so quickly.
This didn't change my faith. It just struck me as if God had provided us with a VERY short answer to a question that he himself didn't consider to be the important to what he was attempting to accomplish. He described it in a way that people who lacked education could be pasified and if you wanted the real answer, you can look deeper and figure it out. What Genesis was saying was that God created it all. He provided something similar to a childrens book version of what he did and moved on.
So, now that I'm enlightened and no longer believe in fairy tales like God, I am forced to wonder why creationism is taken so literally by religion. They constantly try to tell us that it is not our job to question Gods motives but instead to accept what he did was for our best interests in the greater picture. Yet, they can't accept that a story of creation fed to Mose's flocks might have been an extremely simplified version of what happened and that the real deal could in fact be a process that took him 13 billion years to accomplish.
So, why is the literal interprettation of Genesis so important to them? I mean really... they talk about Intelligent Design to try and make science accept the literal translation of Genesis. Why can't they assume that maybe the scientists have simply finally figured out what their God did and take credit for that instead?
After all, who would want to pray to an ever eternal God that has existed infinately, who considers a billion years to be little more that how we see waiting 5 minutes for a bus that slapped all this shit together in 7 days? I mean really, if God loves us nearly as much as they say he does, wouldn't he have spent the equivilent of one of our hours (about 13 billion years hehe) trying to actually get it right?
Re:First (Score:3, Insightful)
Who has suggested giving equal time to Creationism? Anyone can knock down straw men, but reading the discussion and responding to the points made needs a bit of thought something too many folks here seem to struggle with whenever anybody mentions religion.
Re:First (Score:3, Insightful)
"Crush religious expression", eh? So you don't have the confidence in your own viewpoint to let it stand up to intelligent debate; other viewpoints need to be "crushed"? If you "crush" religious expression in the classroom, religious parents will just take their kids out of the state system and the kids will get exposure to no alternative viewpoint. Way to defuse religious/secular tensions!
Re:First (Score:4, Insightful)
how on earth Science could have developed out of religion. Every religion and its teaching has multiple interpretation depending on whom you ask and in which era you ask .
That is the present situation, yes. It wasn't the historical situation; for much of recorded history there was a religious powerbase that dictated one specific interpretation of religious questions.
Thats not the case with science , basic premise remain the same in science whenever you find a "verifiable" evidence that premise is wrong or fail at some point we correct our theory by integrating the newly acquired knowledge to our existing framework .
Again, that's the situation now, but it's a view of science that emerged in the second half of the 20th century, with the development of logical positivism and Popper's idea of falsifiability. Newton did great stuff that we have been able to build on, but he didn't work according to the modern scientific method (which is why you find so much mysticism and alchemy in his writings; it's embarrasing to those who see a black-and-white "science always right, mysticism always wrong" that a religious mystic like Newton could get so much right.
A lot of the acrimony in the science v. religion arguments comes from a lack of awareness of our history. Scientists assume that the modern view of science is the way it's always been, but it's a 20th century development. Religious fundamentalists think that they're going back 2000 years but their ideas only go back to the 19th century. Reading up on the philosophy of science and its history can be really valuable. It won't change your ideas of who is right and who is wrong, but it should show you that the lines are not as crisply drawn as the Dawkins brigade would have us believe.
thats not the case with religon . so i guess its unlikely that science has anything to do with religon at all . there is hardly any common ground
If there were hardly any common ground there would be hardly any territory to fight over -- Stephen Jay Gould's "Non-overlapping Magisteria". I agree that there's a lot of ground that is not common -- everything metaphysical (unfortunately we need metaphysics -- even the scientific method has metaphisical foundations -- and nobody -- not the scientific, not the religious, not the philosophical -- has yet come up with a dependable way of dealing with it). But all religions that teach interventionist deities are teaching that there is common ground, if not common methodology, between science and religion and so come within the scope of scientific investigation.
Re:If I may expand upon that ... (Score:1, Insightful)
I believe the good reverend is trying to make a very subtle point that seems to be lost on many people. Much of the "teach creationism" crowd wants to see creationism taught as though it were a scientific theory. Teaching creationism in this way gives it much greater validity than it has, opens the unfortunate teacher to the situation you describe, and in no way advances student's grasp of "science."
The reason to mention (not teach) creationism is not to prove it wrong, but to prove it not science. All scientific theories make predictions, and given an experimental condition, one can say certain observations would or would not be consistent with the theory. With creationism, for any experiment, any observation at all is consistent with the "theory," which is equivalent to making no prediction at all.
For example, imagine moving a flock of flamingos to Anchorage, or Kirkwall. Evolution would predict that many birds would die but those those that don't would pass their survival traits to their progeny, who would survive better. Creationism would predict that a) all animals die because man interfered with God's plan; b) all animals thrive by the grace of God; c) those animals chosen by God for their exceptional faith survive; d) all animals spontaneously sprout heavy fur coats; e) climate conditions in and around Anchorage suddenly become favorable for flamingos; etc
Discussing or addressing creationism does not mean teaching it as a valid-but-wrong theory. Perhaps, if we could find a way to discuss creationism, and other non-scientific uses of the word "theory" in this way, we would eventually see fewer calls to teach creationism in science class.
Re:First (Score:3, Insightful)
Death penalty for thought crime, eh? Welcome to the brave new totalitarian world. If you want to kill anybody who disagrees with your beliefs, in my book that makes your beliefs a religion. Hope you remember to add yourself to your own list.