Slashdot Mirror
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."
I agree. Creationism and other pseudoscience should be discussed in science classes. I doubt that's quite what the good reverend had in mind though.
It should probably be discussed in any section on the history of biology as an example of an inferior theory that was replaced by a superior one.
Play Command HQ online
It's a bit worrying that the creationist movement is starting to raise its head in Europe as well. It's not that it's new, it's that previously only US creationists were bold, loud and revered enough to take science on headfirst and actually win. It used to be that we west-Europeans, including the creationists, took it as self-evident that creationist beliefs were just that, beliefs, and hence confined to the private sphere. But from the looks of it, our fundies are getting audacious and trying to manufacture the same kind of "controversy" here. Meh, did these people not learn about the Enlightenment? Do they not care? I guess that's why we cannot have nice things.
The problem here is that the people pushing this would quickly stir themselves into a froth over any honest discussion of these matters. This would quickly turn the class into an exercise in name-calling, pressure tactics, and outright threats, not unlike the talk show circuit, except probably even worse. It would end up becoming a denial of service attack upon the system.
Frankly, it probably should be discussed in the social classes, but if the public discourse that has already happened is any indication this would probably start something resembling a riot in many schools. I seriously doubt that the same society that has allowed this mess to escalate to this level would have the spine needed to put a stop to it.
I know general principals in evolution. The only thing I have against the word evolution being thrown around so much is that people use it for different things. For example last year the news was reporting,"Over fished species are showing signs of hyper evolution." They said this because weird genes are expressing themselves. They implied that when a species gets low on population that they evolve faster. As an arm chair scientist, I rather see this as the inbred effect that when there is less DNA in the gene pool that genes are expressed strongly for several reasons. I wouldn't call it evolution as much as gene loss or genetic erosion. I just think that the word evolution is overused.
That's exactly what evolution is. Evolution can be most evident when there are severe pressures on survival.
I'd liken it to "Driving". The individual processes inherent in the action are still called driving ( shifting, accelerating, braking, ect.. ), yet they are each unique in and of themselves.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
I always found the idea of swearing on the Bible to be very amusing.
-- Matthew 5:34-37
-- James 5:12
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
and here's an example of option C) John Davidson, Natural Creation or Natural Selection
i'm not saying his work is necessarily scientific (although he graduated cambridge with honours in biological sciences) -- but he interprets his science through the lens of buddhistic thought instead of judeo-christian creation myths. -- in doing so, he presents a radically different explanation of the fossil record which not only fits the with the facts, but also accords fully with indian philosophy.
then there's another, call it option D) -- and it doesn't necessarily contracdict darwin, but is based on a non-kantian epistemology -- theory of knowledge implicit in Goethe's World Conception - revision in Darwinian conception of time
it just seems that trying to even acknowledge the existence of any other stream of thought other than options a) judeo-creation myth and b) the darwinian version of evolution seems impossible with some people though.
i'm not saying his work is necessarily scientific (although he graduated cambridge with honours in biological sciences) -- but he interprets his science through the lens of buddhistic thought instead of judeo-christian creation myths. -- in doing so, he presents a radically different explanation of the fossil record which not only fits the with the facts, but also accords fully with indian philosophy.
I'm a Christ-follower, and a deep studier of Scripture, and I firmly disavow any belief or support of Creationism in whole or in most parts. When one studies how the ancient Israelites translated Genesis, one can not even begin to understand how modern Evangelicals and other groups of the mass deluded would even begin to believe it was written as an explanation of anything except for what Scripture was meant to do: open the doorway to why Jesus had to do what He did when He did it, and that's that.
For me, the biggest difficult I face living amongst Christians is their inability to discern what they believe in and why. Example: most Christians would hold the Bible up in the air and call it "the Word of God." The problem is that the Bible is NOT the Word of God. Read Scripture, one sees this thing called the Word, and it is not written or spoken. In fact, this Word is a person/part of God/God who would come to human form as Jesus, the Messiah/Savior of the Ancient Israelites. Holy Scripture is NOT the Word. So when God through Scripture tells one to stick to the Word, most of the deluded Christians believe they must stick to Scripture as fact and as literal, when in fact this is completely the wrong way to go about life. Even Jesus Himself bemoans His own Apostles when they try to force Scripture into the physical realm: "My Kingdom is not of this world," He said.
So as one Christian to the many others who are reading this: stop with this sola scriptura nonsense. It's not Scriptural, and has nothing to do with how one lives today. Genesis was about God's SPIRITUAL Creation, not about the physical world. Revelation was about God's SPIRITUAL Convenant with the Ancient Israelites being fulfilled about 2000 years ago (1938 years ago, how I read it), not about some future physical destruction of the physical. God's Kingdom is not of this world, Christians. So stop trying to force it here, when there's no need to. It only pisses off the non-Christians, and makes all your good actions fruitless since they're countermanded by your misuse of Scripture to try to change the physical world.
Actually, in my school, Alchemy *was* discussed in chemistry class and although Ebonics wasn't talked about in English, Pigeon English was. WRT alchemy, it was mentioned it was a precursor to chemistry, and although some ideas were sound and are still in use today, other ideas, like converting base metals into gold weren't (at least not with chemical reactions). Areas related to it, such as mercury poisoning, were also discussed. WRT Pigeon English, it was mentioned that it was a language invented by merchants who had better things to do than learn full blown English but still needed to communicate with English merchants. Do kids in the US not have a broad education in the natural sciences and liberal arts?
Back when I was in school, the boundaries between classes seemed hazy....the history of science in math class....philosophy in history class, archeology in geology class, mechanical engineering in biology class, architecture in classics class. While teaching this way isn't "efficient", every subject seemed to connect to every other subject so that knowledge was a unified whole with various facets and various perspectives.
It seems that classes these days focus more on "efficiency" or "playing it safe political correctness". Pity. No wonder post-modernism has become so wide spread. When things are not taught to fit together, no wonder people think it seems like a mixed up world.
When one studies how the ancient Israelites translated Genesis, one can not even begin to understand how modern Evangelicals and other groups of the mass deluded would even begin to believe it was written as an explanation of anything except for what Scripture was meant to do: open the doorway to why Jesus had to do what He did when He did it, and that's that.
I get what you're saying and appreciate you saying it, but I need to point this out: Genesis was the Hebrew record of creation before it was anything else. Jews do not see their scripture as a collection of prophecies which Jesus later fulfilled, it stands on its own and does not need justification.
(Raised Catholic, if it matters)
I'm a Christ-follower, and a deep studier of Scripture, and I firmly disavow any belief or support of Creationism in whole or in most parts. When one studies how the ancient Israelites translated Genesis, one can not even begin to understand how modern Evangelicals and other groups of the mass deluded would even begin to believe it was written as an explanation of anything except for what Scripture was meant to do: open the doorway to why Jesus had to do what He did when He did it, and that's that.
I hate to break it to you, but the ancient Israelites didn't translate Genesis.
And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.
According to 1 Corinthians 15:45-46, Christ was the "last Adam", who is a "quickening spirit". (Through your deep study, you should know that "quickening" in 17th-century English means "making alive".) The first Adam was made a living soul, and according to verse 46 was "of the earth". This quite plainly shows that Adam was a real man (living soul) with a real body (of the earth).
Example: most Christians would hold the Bible up in the air and call it "the Word of God." The problem is that the Bible is NOT the Word of God. Read Scripture, one sees this thing called the Word, and it is not written or spoken. In fact, this Word is a person/part of God/God who would come to human form as Jesus, the Messiah/Savior of the Ancient Israelites. Holy Scripture is NOT the Word. So when God through Scripture tells one to stick to the Word, most of the deluded Christians believe they must stick to Scripture as fact and as literal, when in fact this is completely the wrong way to go about life.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. -John 1:1-2
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: -2 Timothy 3:16
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. -2 Peter 1:21
You are correct in saying that Jesus is the Word, but you miss the point. Scripture is the Word. If you deny the literal inspiration of the Scriptures, then your faith is in vain. You are left with nothing to believe in but whatever you yourself make up.
Even Jesus Himself bemoans His own Apostles when they try to force Scripture into the physical realm: "My Kingdom is not of this world," He said.
Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews? Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me? Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done? Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence. Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.
-John 18:33-37
Jesus is NOT "bemoaning" his apostles. His apostles aren't even in the picture. Jesus is saying that if he had come to be an earthly king, then his servants would use force to overthrow the Roman empire (what the chief priests accused him of plotting). But that isn't why Jesus came into this world.
So as one Christian to the many others who are reading this: stop wi
The government can't save you.
The mathematics is not "evidence" for string "theory" at all. (Theory being in quotes because it is actually only a hypothesis; it has not earned the title of "theory" yet.)
And the reason that the mathematics is not evidence of the string hypothesis is that other hypotheses mathematically explain the same observations that the string hypothesis was created to explain almost as well, or even as well, as the string hypothesis does. For example, the MoND hypothesis arguably matches with prior math better than the string hypothesis does, since all it requires is a very slight (otherwise insignificant) adjustment of certain constants, whereas string hypothesis requires the addition of multitudes of dimensions and a great deal of other complexity.
Therefore, while the math for the string hypothesis might work out in a somewhat consistent manner, it is not "evidence" favoring the string hypothesis at all. On the contrary, if anything the mathematics favor other hypotheses such as MoND, which is approximately as consistent but much simpler. Admittedly, both hypotheses have some inconsistencies that researchers are trying to iron out.
In any case, in direct contradiction to your claim, it is clear that in order for ANY of these ideas to move from the level of hypothesis to the level of "theory", they require some kind of real-world testability. That may be forthcoming with the recent startup of the LHC; on the other hand it may not.