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."
That was an intelligently designed decision (Score:5, Funny)
Actually, no, it was survival by the fittest.
Re:That was an intelligently designed decision (Score:5, Funny)
Creationists Evolved, Evolutionists were created....
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.
God spoke English in 4004 BC? (Score:3, Funny)
Wow, cool. So the KJV is the original word of God.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:God spoke English in 4004 BC? (Score:4, Funny)
My neighbor Yoshi disagrees, as does my neighbor Ramanathan and my neighbor Ali. I'd ask my neighbor Steve, but he's an Evangelical, and at the moment he and his wife are getting their nightly word of God from Fox News.
Re:That was an intelligently designed decision (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:That was an intelligently designed decision (Score:5, Interesting)
Evolution is not put forth as an explanation for the origins of matter or life. It is put forth as an explanation for how life, once begun, spread, adapted, and led to more complex organisms.
I hear people make this argument all the time, but it never comes from a biologist. Do you know why? Because biologists realize that "life" is hard to define.
In reality, there was no paramount "moment of conception". Life evolved out of simple molecules, just as animals evolved out of simple organisms. The method of selection was different, in that there were not yet 'genes' per say, but there was still selection. When one grouping of molecules failed to produce a self-replicating grouping, it would eventually be broken into quasi random parts. Those parts would then have another chance to form a self-replicating grouping.
Eventually, a grouping came about (most likely RNA) that could replicate and store information. This grouping may have been formed inside of a 'bubble' of polymer that protected the grouping from the outside world - and the first 'virus' was born.
I could go on, but I think you get the idea. Natural selection can be seen all around you - not just with 'genes'. Every system has states that are favorable for the continuation of said system.
Re:That was an intelligently designed decision (Score:4, Informative)
I hear people make this argument all the time, but it never comes from a biologist.
That's completely BS. Read Stephen Jay Gould, he wrote several chapters debating exactly this point. But do not let the facts get in the way.
Re: (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: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
All possible stuff and their opposite.
So somewhere out there is a man called Bush W George, an intelligent and respected man, who is opposed to war and cares deeply about the environment.
Of course with all things being opposite Bush W George lost the election to the warmongering, environment destroying imbecile Gore Al, so the anti-matter universe is not really all that different too our own in the end.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (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
Re:That was an intelligently designed decision (Score:4, Interesting)
No matter how stupid this question is, creationists still think it somehow stumps evolutionary biologists!
For more information: http://www.skeptics.com.au/articles/dawkins.htm [skeptics.com.au]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Information is not a conserved quantity. Have you ever heard of the Mandelbrot set? A very complicated object that encodes an infinite amount of information in the equation z = z^2 + c.
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:That was an intelligently designed decision (Score:4, Insightful)
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: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: (Score:3, Funny)
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: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.
Re:That was an intelligently designed decision (Score:4, Interesting)
This is the problem - If God can do everything then he can do anything!, no matter how illogical or apparently impossible - which means that we cannot discover anything because God can just change the rules anytime he likes ...
God could have created the universe in 4004 BC and made it look like it was created several billion years ago ... or he could have done it last tuesday ... we could never tell unless he wanted us to
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 ...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Was it the first mention of rain? Rain requires clouds to form.
I'm going to regret wading into to this I suspect.
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: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:5, Informative)
I think it's interesting that you complain that the Big Bang, the origin of DNA, etc. get muddled up with evolution, and yet you are the one who has introduced these subjects to a discussion about about the theory of evolution. I think this is part of the reason these subjects get mingled together in the first place (besides the fact that they're all fascinating science that offers an explanation of our origins, albeit at different levels), somehow or another, these issues all get invoked beside each other, even if it's by someone who brings up the subject to make the point that we shouldn't do that!
In any event, I think you're off the mark with this statement. The Big Bang developed out of Einstein's discoveries and astronomical observations -- the physics, mathematics and stars all seemed to indicate that the universe was/is expanding. If you follow that discovery out to its logical conclusion, you figure out the universe was once much smaller and more dense. Theology had nothing to do with it, even if "sudden creation" is an idea the world was already familiar with thanks to religion. If anything, it just paved the way of acceptance of the theory among the public. Also, "sudden creation" isn't the same as "rapid expansion," which is what the Big Bang theory is really about. Further, many people/scientists, for a long time, didn't presume either rapid expansion or sudden creation, but instead believed the universe was something eternal and relatively stable -- that's the "starting point" they were working from.
As for "evolutionists" overapplying the concept of evolution, I see that much less than you apparently do, and when it does happen, I think you can attribute it to scientific illiteracy in general. If by "evolutionist" you mean "a person who subscribes to the theory of evolution," most evolutionists are ignorant about the nuts and bolts of evolution, as are most non-evolutionists. It shouldn't be surprising if they get abiogenesis and the theory of evolution mixed up. It is creationists who I see really get things confused by connecting the Big Bang with the theory of evolution though.
Also, evolution, in the broadest sense, just means "change over time." That makes it a word applicable to pretty much anything in the world. You can speak of the evolution of the cosmos or DNA, and you're not wrong to do so. What might make you wrong is if you get into the specifics of that evolution.
Even when we're dealing with specific mechanisms though, it may be fair to draw from the theory of evolution to seek explanations (or new perspectives) on other phenomenon. The law of natural selection is probably the mechanism that is most often invoked, since it can be applied to anything which replicates, can be modified, and is acted on by some sort of selection pressure (how many non-living entities like that exist is a matter that's up for debate). Probably the most common extension of natural selection outside the domain of biology is memetics, a way of looking at the evolution of ideas/culture. Memetics doesn't give you a grand, overarching "theory of culture," but it may be a piece of the puzzle, and gives us an interesting alternative perspective on things.
As for the origins of DNA, this is an area where natural selection may be applicable. For the scientists engaging this issue, given the relevance of natural selection in the post-DNA world, I think it would be stupid for them not to ask, "Can we explain any of this with natural selection?" Some people may be overconfident that the answer is "yes." This likely stems mostly from ignorance among people who don't understand the distinction between abiogenesis and the theory of evolution, but a few more knowledgeable "evolutionists" do like the theory of evolution so much that they don't see any reason to make such a distinction.
On the origin of matter, I know of very, very few
Re:That was an intelligently designed decision (Score:5, Interesting)
And religion can't explain why God created birth defects.
Re:That was an intelligently designed decision (Score:4, Funny)
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: (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:That was an intelligently designed decision (Score:5, Funny)
Actually science still can't explain where DNA came from or for that matter science cannot explain matter.
Which is why I personally don't believe in matter.
I would love if Evolutionists would reconsider their views but for them it is the Holy Grail and a religion
Damn scientists and their unwavering, dogmatic belief in whichever theory is best supported by the evidence!
I don't dispute evolution as in "Survival of the fittest" and change over time and adaptations. I reject it as an explanation for the source of all matter, dna, and life. It doesn't tackle those subjects yet you always see those lumped into evolutionary discussions.
You stand brave against that strawman! I also reject evolution as an explanation for continental drift, tornados, and the northern lights. Take THAT, scientific dogma!
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:5, Informative)
And a Bachelors in Communications. Don't forget that Bachelors in Communications. She worked six long years for that degree.
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: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: (Score:3, Interesting)
They're a minority in the US, yes.
You should come to northern Europe, atheists are clearly in the majority here, and the result is that religion is not a big deal. There's a really low tolerance for religious extremism, or mixing religion and politics, but I would say that it's probably a lot easier to be religious over here, than an atheist in the US.
Re:What a waste. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What a waste. (Score:5, Informative)
Agreed, and just for reference (since Slashdot, along with the rest of the media, seem unwilling to link to them):
Here is what he originally said: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2008/sep/11/michael.reiss.creationism [guardian.co.uk]
Here is the clarification just one day later: http://royalsociety.org/news.asp?id=8004 [royalsociety.org]
I think he expressed his views rather poorly in what was said originally, making it easy to misread unless you look very closely. And it was reasonable to express criticism over that. But the media should not ignore the clarification after it has been made.
Sure, there's a valid argument that it's better not to mention creationism at all (even to debunk it and explain why it isn't science, as Reiss was suggesting), but let's be clear: he was not advocating teaching creationism.
To suggest otherwise is just the sort of thing IDers want - do we really want them to be able to say "Leading scientists support teaching creationism in science lessons"? Of course not, which is why this myth should not be propagated.
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.
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.
The good doctor was a vicar instead (Score:4, Interesting)
While his message was one of tolerance, he was also an ordained priest (or whatever those men in dresses call it). He just showed them why it is not such a good idea to put a religious person at the head of a science organisation. As Richard Dawkins suggested, he could have given up his religious position too, that would have been much more convincing.
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:The good doctor was a vicar instead (Score:4, Funny)
It'd be like finding out a Linux admin runs Windows at home. He'd be ridiculed until he had to step down with a tarnished reputation and may not ever be able to work in computers again.
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: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: (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 yo
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Albert Einstein had a lot to say about religion, I'd recommend not bring him into your argument unless you wish to be humbled. Here's some choice quotes:
"Intelligence makes clear to us the interrelationship of means and ends. But mere thinking cannot give us a sense of the ultimate and fundamental ends. To make clear these fundamental ends and valuations and to set them fast in the emotional life of the individual, seems to me precisely the most important function which religion has to form in the social li
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. (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)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (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 wron
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:please, please ... (Score:5, Funny)
Mentioning "creationism" when your in the Royal Academy of Science is not unlike mentioning "blowjob" at a meeting of the Evangelical Women's Association. It's a little more than a "slip of the tongue", and you might get asked to leave.
Re:please, please ... (Score:5, Interesting)
2.) Religious persons are fully capable of using the empirical method to logically deduce (and/or prove/discover) and record evidence (i.e. "science"). They shouldn't let their convictions stand in the way of their findings and remain a large part of an empirical system such as the royal society--but they shouldn't be completely disregarded by the society for a misguided attempt at teaching a social science alongside a theory of science. And in the end that's all he wanted to do. Teach a historically valid world view that is being phased out due to vast scientific evidence. Believing and learning about old beliefs and pseudo-sciences are two different things entirely. And refusing to listen to your opponent's argument isn't science: its ignorance.
3.) From another article about him, I already read he also wanted to try to help kids who get picked on in science classes for their religious belief. Science should take precedent in a place of logic and learning over religion (especially in a state that holds a firm belief in religious tolerance). But the school should not be a place that allows religious intolerance to spread, even if it spreads as a result of empiricists ragging on dualists (I'm assuming dualism here as its "god created everything", making a clear separation from reality and the spiritual world).
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:please, please ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (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.
Re:please, please ... (Score:5, Informative)
Go read the article.
The original story was based on a misquote. The article that this summary links to says so. Why does the summary imply that the original story valid while linking to one that debunks it!?
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: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.
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
Re: (Score:3)
Except that the guy was saying exactly the right thing - that creationism is not science, and that science teachers need to be able to explain why creationism is not science.
Someone is guaranteed to bring up the question about creationism in science class. The proper answer is a discussion about what science is, why creationism is not science and why it is better discussed in the context of social sciences and philosophies. This is the position Reiss advocated. I have no idea how people managed to contort t
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:please, please ... (Score:5, Insightful)
David Hume is philosophy. Kierkegaard is philosophy. Plato is philosophy.
Religion is not philosophy, it's superstition.
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:please, please ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:please, please ... (Score:5, Informative)
Sigh. Learn to fucking read.
The guy's original article essentially boils down to: "If students ask about creationism, science teachers should explain why it's bullshit."
What part of that do you disagree with?
Re:please, please ... (Score:4, Funny)
Clearly, you've never met a Missouri fundamentalist.
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: (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
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Well, no. That is not true at all.
It sucks that his quotes were misinterpreted and he chose to step down to avoid the resulting controversy. But this was a reaction to the misperception that he was pushing creationism into science education, not just the fact that he was Christian. While I am embarrassed that such an ill informed fuss was made, I can understand it as there are plenty of people repeatedly trying to do just that:
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Nevermind, posts in this thread already provided it:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2008/sep/11/michael.reiss.creationism [guardian.co.uk]
Seems reasonable to me, but I found it objectionable on couple of points:
1. Don't make creationism a special case. There are plenty other widely-held non-scientific beliefs, and they should be treated the same way in science classes.
2. It would take great care to avoid getting swamped by the debate on the differences in the premises of science and various non-scientific be
A terrible shame (Score:3, Funny)
The contemporary militant Tooth Fairy jihadist movement [today.com] continues to be disrespected by these scientific infidels.
romancer (Score:5, Informative)
The statement quotes Reiss saying, "Creationism has no scientific basis."
He goes on to say, "However, when young people ask questions about creationism in science classes, teachers need to be able to explain to them why evolution and the Big Bang are scientific theories but they should also take the time to explain how science works and why creationism has no scientific basis.
"I have referred to science teachers discussing creationism as a worldview'," he goes on to say, "this is not the same as lending it any scientific credibility."
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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: (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.
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.
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
WTF? (Score:4, Insightful)
ARGH!
Do we have to deal with athiest fundies now?
Yeesh!
director to professor (Score:3, Informative)
I'm not sure about whether he should have resigned or not, but I found this quote from the Royal Society statement interesting (from the BBC article) :
A round of applause for the man. (Score:5, Insightful)
That sucks (Score:3, Interesting)
I could post my own opinion here, but I think The Panda's Thumb does a much better job of covering this fiasco [pandasthumb.org].
he put himself in this position (Score:3, Informative)
He came into his position as head of education under a lot of scrutiny. Many people in the Royal Society felt it was inappropriate for a member of the clergy to hold one of the most important scientific education positions in the country. They were waiting for him to screw up, and he knew it. His view that time in science class should be used by the teacher to debate evolution with creationist students is not at all in line with most of the Royal Society. He should have kept it to himself.
It's not like he got into trouble for some offhand remarks to a small press outlet somewhere, it was his blog, and his subtitle: "...discussing creationism and intelligent design as alternatives to evolutionary theory." While his comments in their entirety are perfectly normal for any reasonable person, they don't reflect what the membership and leadership of the Royal Society want out there in their name. Does the oldest and most prestigious scientific organization in the world want it to be attributable to them that "because something lacks scientific support doesn't seem to me a sufficient reason to omit it from a science lesson?"
Yeah, I'm taking his quotes out of context. He had a high profile position and should have been more careful.
Re:Evolution (Score:5, Funny)
Gravity is just a theory, not a proven fact, but I still fall over...
Sigh, ... (Score:5, Informative)
Gravity is a fact, the Theory of gravity is the mechanism by which it works.
Evolution is a fact, Darwin's Theory of evolution is the mechanism by which it happens.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:First Intelligently Designed Trout! (Score:5, Funny)
I AM A FISH!
I am the walrus.
That means you are dinner.
(And before some smart-ass tells me that walruses prefer mollusks, yeah, I know. Now stop trying to ruin my joke.)
(And before some smart-ass tells me that I did that all on my own, yeah, I know. Now stop trying to ruin my meta-joke.)
Re:First Intelligently Designed Trout! (Score:4, Funny)
Does 'meta-joke' refer more accurately to a joke about jokes, as in your example, or a joke that generates other joke, like the Irish knock-knock joke (hint: you start), or one that sort of does both?
"Three blokes go into a pub. One of them is a little bit stupid, and the whole scene unfolds with a tedious inevitability."
-- Bill Bailey
Re:First Intelligently Designed Trout! (Score:5, Funny)
wehat dio yoiui meaan fgins domnt woerk, yiou inswensatiove clode!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance [wikipedia.org]
Re:Intellectuals are so right... (Score:4, Funny)
I guess I must have missed the part on telepathy and omniscience.