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."

5 of 892 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Eh... by biryokumaru · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Inconceivable!

    --
    When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
  2. Re:options C, D, and E by TheSkyIsPurple · · Score: 1, Redundant

    I remember getting saved multiple times as a child because I wasn't sure.

    I like how taking "no man cometh unto the father but by me" as "if it weren't for me you wouldn't go to heaven, but now you are" as opposed to "you must believe in me specifically" takes God's a-holishness out of the picture. (you created us knowing we'd sin, then you "sacrificed" your son to save us from damnation that your judgement will send us to, etc... just not a problem anymore)

    I can also see following some of what Jesus said as good examples, but there were good examples of this same behavior from many earlier sources, and most societies of any size have developed them in one form or another.

    It's largely as if Jesus, in a useful sense, has been written out of the picture. We're all saved, so let's just try to live like reasonable humans and not try to kill each other. (which, excluding the saving part, is very secular humanist)

    So, with no Extra-Biblical support for Jesus in a miraculous sense, or even documentation that he said the things he said, and with as much of the Bible has written off our current need for him, and with as much of the Bible is misunderstood... I'm still not following how you can believe in Him.

    Humans wrote the books, humans spoke the traditions, humans screwed up and altered and lost so much of it, how can you believe that that one part is actually true?

    (I presume it boils down to faith)

  3. Re:First by digitig · · Score: 1, Redundant

    My kids were taught about holocaust denial; they were not taught holocaust denial. They were taught about alchemical theories, they were not taught alchemical theories. They were taught about flat-earth theories, they were not taught that the earth was flat. Reiss says that he wants kids to be taught about creationism, not that he wants them to be taught creationism. But then, this is /., so nobody reads the RA and everybody assumes that anybody with "Revd." in front of their name is automatically wrong about everything -- and then have the chutzpah to complain about a lack of critical thinking!

    --
    Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
  4. Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes by LaskoVortex · · Score: 0, Redundant

    You've called me a sheep and a hippie. Why do you finish your posts by calling names? Oh yes, you have a villain in your head who has many names and you see everyone who disagrees with you as that villain. What is that villain's name? Hippie? Sheep? Satan? Funny that the priest finished by damning someone to hell. What happens to the sheep that never find a shepherd? They go to hell, don't they? Religion rears its ugly head once again--very predictable.

    --
    Just callin' it like I see it.
  5. Re:First by pacificleo · · Score: 1, Redundant

    how on earth Science could have developed out of religion. Every religion and its teaching has multiple interpretation depending on whom you ask and in which era you ask . Thats not the case with science , basic premise remain the same in science whenever you find a "verifiable" evidence that premise is wrong or fail at some point we correct our theory by integrating the newly acquired knowledge to our existing framework . Newtonian Mechanics fail at subatomic level so we have theory of relativity and now there is no Ambiguity thats not the case with religon . so i guess its unlikely that science has anything to do with religon at all . there is hardly any common ground

    --
    somethings are best left unsaid , I am one of those things