Royal Society and Creationism In Science Classes

An anonymous reader writes "The Reverend Professor Michael Reiss, a biologist and Anglican priest, is the education director for the Royal Society, the venerable British science institution. He recently called for creationism to be discussed in science classes, not just in religion or philosophy classes. Science journals reacted with a world of 'WTF' and the Royal Society backpedaled furiously. Now Nobel laureates are gathering to get him fired: 'The thing the Royal Society does not appreciate is the true nature of the forces arrayed against it and the Enlightenment for which the Royal Society should be the last champion.' The blogs, of course, are loving it."

Comments

Eh...

[that IT girl]

Honestly, why NOT teach both? Look, depending on which way your beliefs slant, you have a little bit of evidence and a lot of faith that it happened that way. Nobody has conclusive proof of either one, so why not teach both major theories?

Re:First

[Forge]

so let's get this straight.

A scientist / clergyman argues that creation should be discussed in science class and 'scientists' want him fired or this?

WTF?

What ever happened to letting the facts prove themselves?

What ever happened to the notion that your scientific theories are better because they match the available evidence more closely than anything else available?

Now we have scientists trying to silence a dissenting opinion? You guys are starting to sound like the geniuses who after proving that the Earth was flat set out to imprison and torture those heretics who argued otherwise.

This attitude makes me more weary of Evolution than of any other scientific theory. no matter how may ways people try to argue ague against gravity or electricity, they are simply confronted with the evidence or simply ignored.

Only Biologists try to get heretics fired or simply silenced in defense of the sacred Evolution dogma.

This is wrong!

You should all be ashamed of yourselves for not seeing why.

Re:It's spreading to Europe too?

[rrohbeck]

That's what really bothers me.

Dawkins gets beat up because he's too harsh and divisive, while creationists get lenience because... why?

Because they're the poor deluded non-thinkers? That's exactly what Dawkins says!

Because being religious is somehow better than being atheist? Why?

Because religious people are "better" than atheists? Yeah right.

May I point out that the major political problems we're having worldwide are at least in part caused by religious differences - from Israel and the Palestinians to Christian soldiers in Mekka, to Christians (or economic interests of a mostly Christian country, or a Christian leader going nuts over terrists, whatever) vs Muslims in Iraq, to Iran feeling threatened by the US and viewing that as a fundie Christian threat (which it probably is to a small degree.)
Just listen to Bush and Palin making dangerous statements that the Iraq war was commanded by God. Sheesh. Cut out this nonsense and 90% of the fighting in the world would stop.

This article hits the nail right on the head. It's being criticized for being over the top, but I can only think "Imagine".