Royal Society "Creationist" Resigns 658
Chris_Keene writes in to let us know that the Prof. Michael Reiss, who recently caused a storm with comments about teaching creationism in schools, has resigned from his post as director of education at the Royal Society in the UK. This news coincides with word out of the Anglican church that it is ready to apologize to Charles Darwin, 150 years after it poured scorn on his theory of evolution by natural selection. "The Church of England will concede in a statement that it was over-defensive and over-emotional in dismissing Darwin's ideas. It will call 'anti-evolutionary fervor' an 'indictment' on the Church."
What a waste. (Score:5, Insightful)
More than anything, this is an indictment on the scientists who pressured the good doctor out of his posting. He was bullied out for a misquote.
Unfortunately, rather than engage in a reasonable debate over the unreasonable subject, he rationally decided to avoid the controversy completely by leaving.
No matter what, the Royal Society is the loser here. Once they realized they were debating a misquote, the reasonable approach would have been to end the matter. Instead, they let the issue fester until a good man stepped down with a now-tarnished reputation.
Re:What a waste. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:please, please ... (Score:1, Insightful)
You're a idiot -- and I'm speaking scientifically, cause anyone who makes your claim in the defense of science must have a very low IQ.
No good deed goes unpunished (Score:5, Insightful)
Whether he was right or wrong, as I understamd it, A scientist should be able to state his ideas without fear of reprisals such as that.
Its the scientific version of the Church vs Galileo.
Re:please, please ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Pressuring someone to resign because they mention the word "creationism" in a not entirely disparaging context, despite being misquoted, sounds like "religious convictions or belief higher than their science" to me. Unless their science involves propaganda and gut feeling rather than logic an facts. So who isn't worthy of a post here?
Re:That was an intelligently designed decision (Score:5, Insightful)
Other way around.
Creationists exist because a clever human engineered a story ("In the beginning...") that could propagate from believer to believer in spite of of evidence to the contrary.
Evolutionists exist because "evolution through natural selection" is the theory that has survived a repeated process of that has rendered (thus far) all competing theories extinct.
If a memetic equivalent of an asteroid strikes (say, a sequence of DNA from a 200-year-old Galapagos Tortoise, that, when translated from base-4 to base-2 and divided into 8-bit bytes, produces ASCII for "This being copyright God, Inc., 4004 BC, and limited license is hereby given to this being to go forth and multiply", and said sequence is discovered before the invention of self-propagating genetically-engineered Galapagos-Tortoise-specific retroviruses), we evolutionists will be happy to reconsider our views. The creationists, not so much.
Re:please, please ... (Score:1, Insightful)
You realize that the situation you describe has nothing to do with this story right?
The man said that if Creationism is raised in class by a student it should be dealt with there as a teaching opportunity on the scientific method.
He was right but badly quoted.
Kevin
PS - On a note unrelated to the story but related to your attitude. Nothing in this world is more annoying than an American atheist ... and their dogmatic approach appears to have leapt the pond as well.
Re:please, please ... (Score:5, Insightful)
anyone who puts religious convictions or beliefs higher than their science, are not worthy of any scientific post. royal society did the right thing.
Please RTFA. By your standard, the royal society did not do the right thing, because the professor did not advocate, putting his, "religious convictions or beliefs higher" than science. He clearly stated in his original article that creationism or intelligent design where not scientific viewpoints and should not be taught as such. He was misquoted.
Re:What a waste. (Score:2, Insightful)
>>More than anything, this is an indictment on the scientists who pressured the good doctor out of his posting. He was bullied out for a misquote.
Right. By the slashdot and article summaries, it sounded like he wanted to replace evolution with creationism in the classroom, which wasn't what he said at all.
It's so nice that we've come to a point in our society that merely being Christian is enough to get you kicked out of the Royal Society.
Sorry, not kicked out. Chased out by rabid morons who can't read TFA wielding pitchforks and torches.
Re:please, please ... (Score:5, Insightful)
1.) This man didn't put religious belief higher than science. He just said it should be taught in school rather than ignored, but still taught in a way that promotes the theory of evolution as a science, and creationism as a religious belief not founded on logic and empirical evidence. He didn't want to waste hours on end talking about creationism--he just wanted to explain WHY its not science. Nor did he want to profess it was right.
This is why philosophy should be taught (again) at the high school level. Creationism, intelligent design, etc., are important topics for any introduction to philosophy class. And when they are taught in a philosophy class, they actually promote critical thinking. On the other hand, when they are taught as an alternative in a science class, they only promote closed thinking.
Re:What a waste. -- Mod up (Score:5, Insightful)
You make this great point when you say:.
To suggest otherwise is just the sort of thing IDers want. . .
The effective firing of this man also plays into the hands of the "IDers". They can now decry the persecution of this individual (you know they will) and get good millage out of the argument because they would not have be totally wrong in this case. The Royal Society should not have caved in this way.
WTF? (Score:4, Insightful)
ARGH!
Do we have to deal with athiest fundies now?
Yeesh!
Re:please, please ... (Score:5, Insightful)
But he didn't do that!
He just said that science teachers should be free to discuss creationism, i.e. why it isn't science.
The creationists couldn't have asked for a better outcome. They have always claimed that scientists "believe" in evolution as if it is was a religious faith, and that they won't tolerate criticism of their ideas or other beliefs. Scientists always said that was nonsense... and yet, now we have an example of a man who has been persecuted for speaking out of turn.
The greatest threat to science isn't the creationists, but the armies of Dawkinsbots who defend "science" with fundamentalist fervour. If you're going to fight creationism, you have to stick to the facts, otherwise you're as irrational as they are.
Re:romancer (Score:5, Insightful)
That's exactly what he was saying.
If you approach someone with a holier-than-thou attitude or mock them, they get pissed off and the discussion becomes a personal conflict. If you insult (not "state something that conflicts with", but actually insult) something that they regard as part of their culture, it becomes a political conflict.
Once that happens, none of the logic you throw at someone is going to make a bit of difference.
If you want to fight someone, insult them. If you want to convince someone, educate them.
Re:What a waste. (Score:5, Insightful)
Everything in his essay seems reasonable to me. The fuss arose in part, I think, because attacks on the scientific community have forced scientists into such a bunker mentality that they acted irrationally (i.e., not like scientists)
Re:That was an intelligently designed decision (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:That was an intelligently designed decision (Score:3, Insightful)
Where DNA came from? It's called ribose/deoxyribose. Or if you wish to go further back, lets just say carbon oxygen and sugar.
Easy answer, done.
See, you think too complicated. All things are really not that complicated. Especially since we are carbon based life forms.
It is for this reason, you are marked redundant. Because we don't have a tag for "factually incorrect" because it would be abused.
Next time, accept that you essentially evolved from a monkey that evolved from a fish that evolved from an amoeba that evolved basically from a molecule and so forth and so forth.
If you refuse this explanation, then you refuse your own view as well.
Re:That was an intelligently designed decision (Score:5, Insightful)
It doesn't tackle those subjects yet you always see those lumped into evolutionary discussions.
You're absolutely right; people act as if it's creationism vs evolution, but it's actually creationism vs the whole of science. If creationism is right we've got geological science wrong, the science of star and planet formation wrong, the speed of light wrong, radioactive decay rates, the universe's rate of expansion, the doppler shift's effect on light, the cause of the background x-ray radiation, etc, etc.
If it was just creationism vs evolution creationists wouldn't be so hypocritical when they accept the parts of science which they think fit.
Re:The good doctor was a vicar instead (Score:5, Insightful)
He just showed them why it is not such a good idea to put a religious person at the head of a science organisation
Because people will attack him irrationally? That doesn't make sense.
he could have given up his religious position too, that would have been much more convincing
How would that have been more convincing? People thought he was asking to teach creationism in school, which he wasn't, and they were refusing to believe the truth even when the option for evidence was out there. Why would his stepping down from his position as a priest have been any more effective? Because scientists are taking an irrational stance towards religious people?
The point of the matter is that this is a classic example of intolerance because of his beliefs, not his performance. He was put at the head of the science organization for a reason, so presumably he was a good scientist. Why do his religious beliefs and practices suddenly matter if not because of an irrational bias against religion?
Re:That was an intelligently designed decision (Score:5, Insightful)
umm no.
the theory of evolution makes no claims on the origin of life.
the big bang is more of an attempt at that, sure, and it too supported by much evidence. like all things in science, evolution and big bang are the best we have right now given what we know, can observe and test against. that's infinitely more useful than what creationists have(nothing), and it certainly isn't a religion as you attempt to claim.
science follows theories best supported by evidence. if evidence contradicts the theory it must be adapted.
there is no reason to expect science will ever know how everything originated with high certainty. we may simply not have access to information needed to study and test with.
feel free to provide your arguments for why evolutionists should change their views. so far you have parroted typical creationist nonsense, typically fed by total ignorance of the theories you are arguing against.
Re:The good doctor was a vicar instead (Score:5, Insightful)
Richard Dawkins is an atheist who believes that science and faith are fundamentally incompatible, so it makes sense that he'd think that. But that is not a consensus view among scientists. Plenty of other people think that science is compatible with religion and spirituality because they address different concerns.
Unless the Royal Society is now taking positions on the acceptability of religion, there should be no consideration given, pro or con, to the religious beliefs or affiliations of its officers.
Re:The good doctor was a vicar instead (Score:5, Insightful)
You are correct that it would have been convincing if renouncing and denouncing religion altogether were his aim. Clearly, that is not the case. Nor does the tone of his resignation suggest any disrespect for the theory, practice, or establishment of science. I am quite confident that this man retains both a respect for the scientific method and also his religious faith. He resigned to avoid the appearance of impropriety within the scientific community. Most probably, his church does not feel as though his involvement in science tarnished his faith. On the other hand, this incident has caused the scientific community to question his credentials as a scientist. He resigned from the community that was at odds with what he had said.
Re:What a waste. -- Mod up (Score:5, Insightful)
They can now decry the persecution of this individual (you know they will) and get good millage out of the argument because they would not have be totally wrong in this case.
That's an excellent point.
And not just IDers, but also anyone who wants to paint atheists as being unreasonable - for example, I see that the Daily Mail are already at it: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1056715/Top-scientist-supported-teaching-creationism-schools-hounded-Royal-Society.html [dailymail.co.uk] .
For non-UK readers - the Daily Mail is a conservative right wing tabloid. Whilst it doesn't seem to support Intelligent Design, it is very pro-Christian, and anti-atheism, and this is just the story it loves: look at the references to being "hounded" after a "campaign" by "militant atheists" / "atheist scientists". And the sad thing is that, for once, I can't fault their story for being misleading - despite the biased phrasing, it's one of the few media outlets to be reporting what actually happened.
He was NOT misquoted! (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, that's not what his blog in The Guardian [guardian.co.uk] says. He says: "I feel that creationism is best seen by science teachers not as a misconception but as a world view".
Anyone who feels that creationism is not a misconception has no place in the direction of such an important scientific body as the Royal Society. Even if he feels that students who have been raised by creationist parents will not change their point of view easily, that's no reason to tolerate such nonsense in a science class. What next, will he say that one must accept criminal behavior from students that have been raised by criminal parents?
The correct procedure would be, in my opinion, not to accept discussion of creationist nonsense, but to explain why evolution is a scientifically correct theory.
Umm (Score:2, Insightful)
This seems to imply that the Church's "beliefs" are relevant in today's world. Curious; I was of the opinion that although they clearly control vast quantities of wealth of one form or another and have influence over a certain type of believer, that otherwise the Church's opinions on matters concerning the nature of the universe are considered realistic as those of astrologers (no offence to astrologers.)
Hasn't science replaced religion? Has religion noticed? Didn't the Church itself stop evolving somewhere back in the dark ages or am I poorly informed?
Re:romancer (Score:3, Insightful)
" If you insult (not "state something that conflicts with", but actually insult) something that they regard as part of their culture, it becomes a political conflict."
To the dedicated religionist, there is no difference between disagreement and blasphemy.
A round of applause for the man. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:please, please ... (Score:2, Insightful)
I want to agree with you. Your points make some sense. The problem I have is when I try to extrapolate from your arguments.
You see, I was brought up in the Catholic faith so these belief don't seem that weird to me. Well, maybe they seem weird but I've grown used to them. But what about other religions? Should we teach about Eloims, Buddha, Flat Earth, Greek Gods? Maybe, but not in a science class.
By the way, not wanting to listen to the same unsupported evidence doesn't make someone ignorant. It's more of a selective usage of one's personal time.
Re:What a waste. -- Mod up (Score:2, Insightful)
It's beyond unreasonable, they are dogmatic evolutionists to the point where it is a religious point of view of opposing the IDers.
The facts don't matter; even if some evidence supporting ID appeared, they would hold true to the evolutionist dogma.
Royal Society behavior makes their mannerism no more concentrated on science and truth than the ID manner of taking their position.
Science (Score:2, Insightful)
People are allowed to argue against darwinism. Thats the scientific process. But, darwinism is our best possible explaination for how we are here.
Religion is not science. In science class, you learn science. If you want to learn religion, you go to religion class (or, church).
Teaching creationism in science class would make about as much sense as teaching carpentry. Its another subject, one that not all of us care to learn, because not all of us will use it.
Re:What a waste. (Score:5, Insightful)
Typical "religion is under attack" argument (Score:3, Insightful)
... and it's fallacious. Make it seem like someone who advocates creationism or intelligent design is under attack and that person garners sympathy, but that doesn't make their point of view a valid scientific argument. It's perfectly fine and reasonable in the scientific community for someone to be religious and have religious beliefs. When you start saying that it's okay to pass religion off as a counter argument to science, well then the scientific community has the right to question your credentials as a scientist because you are committing a scientific error, just like if you said the earth is flat.
Galileo used reason and the scientific method to determine the earth and the planets revolve around the sun. Creationism and intelligent design fail the scientific method's process because they are not something that can be supported by impirical evidence. Under the rules of logic they are merely conjecture.
Intelligent design is a great thing to discuss in philosophy or theology class in a private institution that is not funded by public money. Governments and scientific institutions should not be in the business of teaching our children religious beliefs and passing them off as biology or physics. Next thing you know, there will be subtle shifts that the government wants us to start believing in a specific religion, to the exclusion of others.
Re:That was an intelligently designed decision (Score:5, Insightful)
"Actually science still can't explain where DNA came from"
Abuse of word "actually", requires that following sentence is factually accurate. What you mean is that science still can't explain it to you. Don't assume that knowledge doesn't exist just because you don't possess it personally. "Generalising from self" is a form of inductive reasoning which should only be used when sufficient data for deductive reasoning cannot be easily obtained. You should remember though, that as this form of reasoning does not always yield a correct result, you should always be sure to word such uncertainty into your statements based on it so as to not inaccurately portray the level of research you have carried out which you base the statement upon.
"The big bang was a theological idea used to give scientists a starting point"
The big bang is a mathmatical idea resulting from divisions by zero in the time dimension... or something... it's not purely theological.
"I reject it as an explanation for the source of all matter"
The metric of whether a theory should be considered true or not should not be whether it explains the source of all matter, as explaining the source of all matter is not a prerequisite in explaining unrelated things and even many related things.
Re:That was an intelligently designed decision (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:please, please ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What a waste. (Score:4, Insightful)
Because for the most parts Atheists are not organized and a minority they haven't had the chance to organize into a violent group. However it they were organized and rather high they could get violent. Except fighting for God, they will just use a different call. Fight for Reason or Fight for Science, Fight for Darwin... It really doesn't matter people of any group are all messed up.
Personally, I am somewhere in the middle of Group one and Group two. I would be more firmly in the camp of Group two (i.e. live and let live), except that here in the US, anyhow, the other side is insistent in forcing their worldview on me. And so I feel that I must return the favor.
What irritates the piss out of me about fundamentalists is that they pick and choose the bits of science that fit their small-minded view of reality. If their appendix is infected and about to burst, they'll happily accept the intervention of modern medicine which is based on ... biology, which is based on ... science! Germ theory, sterilization, antibiotics, cauterization, etc. etc. None of that came from the Bible. They'll even use their computers (all that theory and math? based in logic...) to post on /. in defense of their belief system.
Science is a thinking system, rather than a belief system... Those of us who understand the scientific method use it as a malleable model for understanding our world. It's not set in stone, although much of what we use for models is based on previous work by many people. It's all based in logic and empirical observation.
Paradigm shifts do happen, but they're relatively rare. Because we know that current theories have been agreed upon by many smart people, we resist radical ideas that challenge the status quo. That's not to say that changes can't happen, though. New theories which last long enough to become paradigm shifters have survived the gauntlet of experts attempting to kill the idea. It's all about proof and rigorous logic.
Do I claim to know that there is no God? Of course not. I can't prove it, any more than I can prove that there isn't an invisible pink unicorn standing next to all of us. I don't need a god, though, any more than I need an invisible pink unicorn. It's functionally irrelevant. Do I claim to know how/why we're here? No, and anyone who claims to know is a liar or is misguided.
(Directed at any fervent believers who have read this far...)
Do I need to make something up in order to live my life every day? No. And neither do you.
Remember that for every one of your close-held beliefs about the supernatural, there are billions of folks out there who believe something entirely different. Think about that. Is everyone but you wrong? If your answer to that is "yes", then you need to grow up. We'll be waiting for you at the adults' table when you're ready.
Re:That was an intelligently designed decision (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually science still can't explain where DNA came from or for that matter science cannot explain matter.
As Stephen Fry once said: "Science may not know everything, but that doesn't mean science knows nothing".
Re:please, please ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly right. It would be one thing if "creationism" meant discussing all of the worlds major creation myths. But that's absolutely not what they're talking about. It's the Christian view of Genesis. Period. As long as "creationism" means "Christian dogma" then it does not belong in any science curriculum.
It's not like science teachers have all this extra time in their curriculum to be teaching things that don't have anything to do with science. You want to teach creationism? Do it in Sunday School. Not in any publicly funded education system. I don't know if the kids in the UK are beating the world when it comes to learning science, but I'm betting there are more important things science teachers might be covering.
Re:please, please ... (Score:2, Insightful)
And if a student brings up what happens when you mix Mentos and Coca Cola in Modern European History it should be "dealt with as a teaching opportunity"?
There are better ways to teach the scientific method than discussing Christian theology, and they won't result in wasting a day's class time arguing over religion.
Maybe this Reiss guy had good intentions, but you cannot let the nose of religious fanaticism into the tent of science. Maybe one teacher would make a good example of how not to think scientifically, but another just might try to use it to proselytize.
Re:please, please ... (Score:5, Insightful)
David Hume is philosophy. Kierkegaard is philosophy. Plato is philosophy.
Religion is not philosophy, it's superstition.
Re:That was an intelligently designed decision (Score:5, Insightful)
There is still a sizable population of slashdotters who think the scientific process doesn't work when it comes to climate.
IMHO there is too little effort spent teaching the role of skepticisim in science and too much effort spent teaching factoids. I think the good reverend was trying to make a similar point but that was ignored in favour of a good ol' fashion witch burning.
Re:The good doctor was a vicar instead (Score:4, Insightful)
Plenty of other people think that science is compatible with religion and spirituality because they address different concerns.
I'm not sure who these "plenty of other people" are, exactly, but I suspect they're not real scientists if they're comfortable with allowing dogmatic religion to coexist alongside science.
For many folks, religion is a nice story about what happens when we die. And some stuff about not being assholes to each other while we're alive. That's not incompatible with science.
The problem comes in when religious nutbars (a certain vice-presidential candidate comes to mind) push an agenda that is hostile to scientific evidence which contradicts their worldview. And those people have become an increasingly vocal presence in US politics.
Please don't forget that it was only 3 years ago, in 2005, that we had serious Federal (!!) court proceedings to decide whether or not a creationist worldview could be taught alongside scientific theory as an equivalently valid explanation for the existence of life as we know it.
That is scary, scary stuff. Maybe not scary if you believe in that crap, but imagine if a court had ruled that ALL creation "theories" had to be taught alongside evolution. Are you comfortable with the idea of your children being taught that the world came from fragments of a proto-god's egg? Or that we are effectively a supernatural wet spot after an orgy among creator gods? I could go on for a while, or even make up shit on my own. Where do you draw the line?
The bottom line is that science and religion are compatible in the same sense that science and literature are compatible. If we all agreed on that, the world would be a much less crazy place.
Re:He was NOT misquoted! (Score:2, Insightful)
This is not what he stated. Read the citation again.
"I feel that creationism is best seen by science teachers not as a misconception but as a world view."
He is suggesting a different approach. Nowhere does he suggest creationism is not a misconception. That's something you are reading into what he has said.
Re:please, please ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Further, Confucius is philosophy, Lao Tzu is philosophy. The teachings of Jesus Christ are philosophy, but modern day fundamentalist Christianity has as much to do with the teachings of Jesus as the modern day Republican Party has to do with the ideas of Thomas Jefferson or James Madison.
Re:He was NOT misquoted! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Nonsense (Score:1, Insightful)
Pity you weren't around to tell Michael Faraday and James Clerk Maxwell that their evangelicalism were incompatible with them being among the greatest scientists in history.
And Isaac Newton believed in alchemy. Does that mean that alchemy should be referenced in chemistry class as a valid contemporary "worldview?"
The "God of the Gaps" was evicted from quite a few of those gaps between Newton's time and Maxwell's, and between Maxwell's time and ours.
Re:That was an intelligently designed decision (Score:5, Insightful)
The other problem esp with climate change and evolution is that it has been politicised, and so effectively it doesn't matter any more what the underlying truth is, for most people your belief about it is formed as an extension of your other beliefs which don't have anything to do with the issue.
Re:He was NOT misquoted! (Score:3, Insightful)
1) Creationism is a misconception, and
2) Creationism is a world view.
When discussing creationism, which of the two is more likely to fuel conflict and which is going to foster understanding? When you have a group of people with a world view that differs from yours, discussion will leave both you and them more enlightened, even if they are wrong. In another context, if certain groups view Americans in a particular (wrong) way, it does not work to say that they are wrong, but rather Americans need to understand why they think that way. Otherwise things don't work.
Re:please, please ... (Score:5, Insightful)
what he actually said (Score:1, Insightful)
it is possible for someone to understand and be able to employ the scientific method in all areas, except for evolution because here their worldview take priority...i.e. they are capable scientists...but reach a different conclusion based on their worldview.
If a person is able to employ the scientific method, but then fails to do so regardless of the reason, they are not a competent scientist, ipso facto. To practice science is to follow the evidence wherever it may lead; *not* to follow the evidence unless or until your "worldview" supersedes it.
In other words, the qualification you attach to "scientist" is an overwhelming one, negating all the force of the argument.
The trouble is that so many people assume that Creationist = can't do science, but the disagreement doesn't necessarily come down to an inability to 'do' science.
The thesis of creationism is outside the purview of science. It cannot be shown that the universe was not created five minutes ago, with all our memories and apparent history created in-place as they now appear. In that way it is not science.
Concluding, through objectively examining all the available evidence, that the thesis of creationism is a true statement about reality is non sequitur. To reach such a conclusion, one must either be selective about the evidence one considers or use spurious (formally fallacious) logic; in other words, the argument is either invalid or unsound via broken premises or implications. In that way it is not science.
There's one last refuge for them, and it's the bastion of crackpottery and crank-science. It's called denying the inductive step: "Even though the universe looks one way [like it wasn't created by a deity], it could still actually be another way if more evidence becomes available, or it's just a brute fact of reality. That's how some people justify the claim that "fossils are just testing our faith", and other less extreme examples.
Creationism makes a very specific claim about the nature of reality: that it was created according to the will of a deity, through the power of that deity. Scientific investigation indicates this is probably not the case. Reiss even stated as much in his blog: [I agree with the statement that] "The ideas offered by intelligent design creationists are not the products of scientific reasoning." If you wanted to defend his position, you could have pointed that out instead; why didn't you?
The point of science is to figure out what reality actually is. A "worldview" that prevents one from discovering certain states, if they end up being true, blatantly prevents one from actually *doing* science, because you one *doesn't* have any a priori knowledge of such invalid states; from our perspective, there are none. That is exactly the weak point of science, and where crackpots and conspiracy theorists attack it, and why they will always have a beachhead.
At best, he seems to be saying that he doesn't think a creationist "worldview" can be shaken and that everyone deserves to have their ideas respected no matter how poor or parochial those ideas might be. But some ideas are objectively better than others; certain ideas more closely reflect reality than others, no matter what some humans in a backwater star system in a backwater galaxy in a backwater supercluster might opine.
At worst, this very "worldview" against which he warns is affecting his own judgement. Most scientists think creationism has no place being associated with science, but that belief in it is a very real social phenomenon that should be discussed for what it is (but *not* what it merely claims to be) in the appropriate class on religion, literature, culture, history, or other sociology. In this worst case, he thinks creationism should be addressed as if it were a scientific issue, in a science curriculum. It is not, but he claims quite exp
Re:The good doctor was a vicar instead (Score:3, Insightful)
Plenty of other people think that science is compatible with religion and spirituality because they address different concerns.
People who say that usually do so due to pressure to be politically correct and/or to justify irrational beliefs that they themselves hold.
No spiritual or moral code can be valid if it is inconsist with the truth. The truth is best understood via the scientific method. Sure if it's not provable or ther is some leeway for interpreting the truth, there is room for a moral code and you could call that religion or spirtuality. However you can't simultaneously hold the belief that the world was created in 6 days by a god and that it was created over billions of years and that life evolved over a long period. Therefore any religion that insists in the former is incompatible with the truth as we best understand it. The trouble then is if a religion is considered wrong about something so fundamental, how do you take the rest of that religion seriously? How much more of that religion is wrong.
Another fundamental problem with religion is that there are so many competing and mutually exclusive religions and belief sets. Most dismiss the others as flawed or evil (false gods etc.) Which one you are born into is a matter of blind luck. So to believe in a religion based on traditional values makes no sense as opposed to believing in a process that can be improved, includes provability and testability and isn't mutually exclusive with a whole raft of competing belief sets.
Re:That was an intelligently designed decision (Score:5, Insightful)
The glitch in your argument is that few people outside of Biblical literalists and creationists actually believe that the universe requires a different model if God is present. In fact, many Biblical non-literalists who believe that scripture is comprised of moral and spiritual, but not necessarily historical, Truth believe the exact opposite.
You say that "Evolutionists" are afraid to lose their jobs if the science is debunked... could it also be that Creationists are afraid to lose theirs?
Re:please, please ... (Score:4, Insightful)
And if a student brings up what happens when you mix Mentos and Coca Cola in Modern European History it should be "dealt with as a teaching opportunity"?
Only if the mixing of Mentos and Coca Cola is part of an already enormous and still growing movement which is constantly butting heads with historians.
The fact of the matter is that the Creationism/ID juggernaut is here, and like it or not, it's influencing political, scientific, and religious discourse. Science teachers who ignore it are not doing their students any favours. Right now they have students in their classes who are being taught by their parents and their religious leaders to ignore what their teachers say, because those teachers are godless heathens who "believe" in this Darwinist cult which attacks the foundations of The One True Religion.
These teachers can pretend it's not happening, and their students will learn nothing, or they can address it, and use it as a vehicle to teach the scientific method.
Your Mentos example is silly, as is any talk of the FSM, or other creation myths, simply because Creationism/ID is, unfortunately, a special case. That's reality. Ignoring it won't fix it. Talking about it might.
Re:That was an intelligently designed decision (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually.. it's complete nonsense. Mixing evolution with cosmology with abiogenesis is just a distraction, a smokescreen. If you accept change over time adaptations, then you accept evolution. The so called "micro" and "macro" evolution are one and the same, just over different time scales.
Re:That was an intelligently designed decision (Score:3, Insightful)
Regardless of how you think the Earth got here, you have to believe either matter (or some elementary particle, dimension, etc.) always existed or God always existed and created that matter.
Why do you believe there are only those two options? Locking out other possibilities actively being explored by physicists is basically screwing your eyes shut and shouting "LA LA LA CAN'T HEAR YOU".
Re:please, please ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:please, please ... (Score:3, Insightful)
So his concerns are demonstrably valid.
His opinion is it should be dealt with rather than dismissed outright. I do not think he should have to lose his position just because of that.
Pity the fervent atheists declared fatwas on him, and kept saying he called for the teaching of creationism in the classroom, despite evidence to the contrary. Talk about faith vs evidence based
Re:That was an intelligently designed decision (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, that's just the thing (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, that's the thing makes me wonder the most about the whole christian god thing. Essentially we're taught that the guy is a good and loving god, but if you look at what he does, he actually acts like a complete asshole. He'll:
- punish people for something their ancestors did. It's a bit like me kicking you in the nuts because one of your ancestors sold slaves 2000 years ago. But, no, if God does it, it's a good and just thing.
- he plays favourites among his sons, in a major way. See the Abel and Cain episode for the first instance of it. And that was already barely generation 2.
- is an asshole about accepting gifts. Abel and Cain again. I mean, imagine me as a cranky old guy and two grandsons bring me gifts. And I'd go, "WTF? You give me a tie? What am I supposed to with that? Get out of here, you idiot. Get a hint from your brother. He gave me socks. He's my new favourite. In fact, I'll disown you, you little prick." Seriously, if anyone pulled that kind of a stunt, he'd be seen as an antisocial arsehole, and rightfully so. But if God does it? Nah, he's a good and loving guy.
- doesn't even bother sorting evil-doers from good guys before doing a genocide or two in the name of good. See Sodom and Gommorah, plus the Noah incident. (I have trouble believing that everyone killed there was a monster, including some thousands of babies who hadn't done anything wrong yet.)
- if he has to do a miracle, hey, nothing beats a plague or two or killing a few thousand babies to make a point. See, convincing the Pharaoh to let the Jews go. You'd think there would be ways to do flashy stuff that doesn't arbitrarily punish millions of Egyptians peasants and craftsmen who didn't even own slaves, nor have anything to do with the Pharaoh's decision.
- has no qualms with punishing billions of people for all eternity, for merely not having heard a particular fairy tale. (The recent "anonymous christian" doctrine of Vatican kinda fixes that, but even there many see it as a heresy.)
- for that matter, if you take it all literally, he seems to care more about whether or not you brown-nose him or his Junior than whether you're a good man and live by the rules. Seriously, we're supposed to believe that essentially a loving and _omnipotent_ God can't possibly forgive you for that original sin, unless you choose Jesus.
- causes a war or two. Way to set the mood and an example, dude. E.g., that promised land wasn't exactly empty. You'd think an _omnipotent_ god could just snap his fingers and create an empty fertile island for his favourites. But, nah, let's make them kill some thousands of philistines instead and take their land. It's more fun that way.
- encourage a little genocide, war crimes, rape, etc, while you're at it. Why not?
- will randomly kick people in the nuts just to see how strong their faith was. Several biblical examples, plus used heavily to explain stuff like the plagues.
- what better way to make a cryptic prophecy than to ask a father to kill his son, then essentially tell him it was just a practical joke at the last moment. Like being on Candid Camera with a cruel twist, I guess. Bonus points if said son is an adult by now. You know, just for that "how the fuck _am_ I going to kill him?" factor on the way there.
You'd think that a sealed document to be opened on date X would do the same job of proving you always meant to have your Junior nailed, no? And you're omnipotent, so you _can_ make a seal that can't be broken. But, nah, let's scare the shit out of Abraham instead. It's more fun.
- playing favourites with some of his children again, for no other merit than being the guys whose ancestor was the random guy chosen for such a cruel prank`
- blame it on free will, or have it blamed in your name, when the world you created and uncertainty about the future create bursts of overpopulation and thus war, famines, and the like. (Bonus points if it results in witch hunts and pogroms, because, hey, if all evil is the result of free wil
Re:please, please ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:That was an intelligently designed decision (Score:5, Insightful)
Apparently, these literalists believe that the bible is 100% literally true. Where do they get this idea? Does the bible say that the bible is 100% literally true? I don't think it does, because it says several times in the bible that it is not completely literally true. For example:
A parable is not literally true, it's a comparison, an allegory. If somebody claims to be taking the bible completely literally, the obvious question to ask them is why they are doing that. If they are also claiming to base their beliefs totally on the bible, they should be able to point out the part of the bible which says that it should all be taken literally. Which they won't be able to, because the bible is chock-full of parables, stories, and symbolic language.
That's where this problem is coming from. Some people have decided that everybody must accept that the bible is completely literally true. And it's not. It's a spiritual book, not a science textbook.
Royal Society did the right thing... (Score:3, Insightful)
Firstly, he's not being drummed out on a criminal charge and dragged away in legs irons - he being removed from a position that needs to be untainted by such non-scientific suggestions. I read about what he "said" elsewhere, and was appalled by it. Did I research it further and scientifically - no, because it is a political issue and so depends on interpretation.
I'm glad to see that he was misquoted, but damage has been done - the creationists will exploits these statements, and the word 'misquote' won't appear on any of their websites. The best that Royal Society can do, is to ensure that the quotes are attributed to the 'Former Education Director' as opposed to the 'Current Education Director'.
From the original /. posting:
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.
This is unfortunately quite true.
Secondly, as Richard Dawkins states, religion should keep its nose out of science. Equally, science should keep its nose out of religion - a sentiment that I think the good professor would agree with. Let philosophy heads discuss whether creationism should be taught in philosophy classes, that's their business - but its none of the Royal Society's. If there was some suggestion, as in the US, that it should be taught as a science - that's a different matter.
Re:please, please ... (Score:4, Insightful)
So, kids in the UK are doing so well in physics and biology, and they've got so much excess class time that they should bring up a topic that has absolutely no basis in science? I'm sure the members of the Royal Society are horrified by the lack of comity shown to Mr. Reiss, but he sounds like a bit of a tool to me.
Are you a troll or do you honestly have no idea of what the original gist of Mr. Reiss' remarks were before they were misquoted?
I'll spell it out for you nice and slowly, paraphrasing to make it easier to understand:
"If a pupil says to their science teacher "Evolution is wrong because it's not in the bible", the science teacher should not say "You're wrong. End of discussion. Next subject...". Instead, the science teacher should explain that the whole point of science is to try and explain things on the basis of available evidence rather than just taking someones' word for it (which is essentially what "faith" means) as the final answer to any questions one might have - and if new evidence which breaks your explanation comes to light, you accept that your explanation was wrong and try and alter it (or even completely rewrite it) to fit the newly discovered evidence."
Re:The good doctor was a vicar instead (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm afraid you lost me right there. You are setting up a dichotomy between "real scientists" and "dogmatic religionists" as if there were no other category.
Typical. I'll make it simple for you. There really is a dichotomy between those of us who use logic and reason to shape our thinking, and those of you who pick and choose the bits of science which don't conflict with your faith.
You say you are a "scientist by training", but that you believe in the Bible as the infallible Word of God. I'll skip the tired old arguments about internal Biblical contradictions and just ask this: Why is it that your personal faith is the correct faith? Have you studied religions other than your own? All your rationalizations about WHY you believe what you believe ultimately boil down to personal faith. It feels right to you.
You believe what you want to believe, and I have to respect that. What I don't have to respect is an opinion that a faith-based explanation for anything is as equally valid as a scientific-based explanation. That's nonsense.
I find it interesting and illuminating that you chose not to respond to the rest of my post. I'm sure you shrug off those alternative creation stories as rubbish, not fit for consideration. ... But the idea that some random woman was impregnated by an unseen, all-powerful deity (hello, Greek mythology anyone?), and that the offspring of this union is somehow his own father and who sent himself to be sacrificed as part of some scheme to absolve us all of original sin makes sense?
Sigh. There's no reaching folks like you. You lack insight, and you are willfully ignorant. A very close friend of mine works as a medical doctor in a locked-ward psychiatric hospital. As she puts it, "The ones who say they're crazy really aren't. Usually they're there to get drugs or get a break from the street. It's the ones who insist that they've got a gold orb in their head to receive transmissions from the Freemasons (actual example) who really need help."
Re:That was an intelligently designed decision (Score:3, Insightful)
I like to think that if God exists that he wants us to work out what is going on and so has left just enough clues to find out ...
So... Hes just toying with us...
But you are assuming "if God exists" 'now'. What if he no longer exists? What if God (our creator) was not as powerful as you think? Technically we can consider ourselves god when we create things.
Sadly enough I have to quote Dogma: beliefs are taken too far. People die for beliefs, a theory is just that, a thought.
Time and time again, people are afraid to admit any changes in their view of their own god, and tend to reject any evidence that he is different than the way they think he is, but my (theory) is that this is because you were taught religion when you were a naive child. People tend to stick to their childhood beliefs a lot more than you think (fears, things you like, right and wrong, etc.). If you don't teach a child religion until they are adults, there's a far less chance they "convert" once they develop reasoning skills.