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."
What? You expect a group of militant atheists to be any better behaved than a bunch of religious fundamentalists? They are basically the same thing, and rely on unbelievably literalist or warped interpretations of various religious texts to attempt to maintain their relevance.
I am just as disgusted by the militant atheist blathering on about Science proves there is no God as I am the religious fundy trying to pass of creationism as Science. The only way the militant atheist can even begin to pretend to "disprove God" is to rely on bizarre interpretations of God in the most literal sense from the most wackaloon fundy.
I suspect that if somehow we could destroy one of these polar forces the other would follow and we would finally wind up with a balanced world wehre Science can do Science and Religion can do Religion and neither one will have penis envy over the other and we can all move on.
The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
I happen to believe in Evolution, and believe Evolution is strong enough to withstand the crackpots who believe in Creationism.
Talking about Creationism is about being able to speak openly and being able to discuss things. Of course Creationists will always resort to the bible as proof, which is kind of ironic since the bible is just words that somebody happened to have written. It's like saying, "oh Lead Zeplin in the stairway to heaven meant blah, blah."
Getting back to the point science is about discussion, even if sometimes that discussion is pointless.
I always bring up the following point. Imagine today somebody came up and said, "hey God spoke to me and said we should do x,y, and z." The first reaction is crackpot, and that is not good. Because who knows maybe God did speak to them. Maybe God did say something. We have become so cynical that if something does not fit into a nice neat folder xyz then well it simply cannot exist. And I know that this is not the case since so many things happen that we cannot explain.
Here is an example, why can twins "sense" each other? I am not going to revert, "because God did xyz" What I am saying is that this ability of one twin sensing the other is something that we have just not being able to explain and it does not fit neatly into our standard discussion points. And hence we kind of have to be careful of what is right, and wrong.
Though I am all for a good logical creationist discussion, and I am guessing it will be rather short.
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
that IT girl, I was gonna make you my next beat-off girl, but now that I know that you are a follower of this "evidence of the supernatural" when it comes to the ehem CHRISTIAN religion, I'll beat off to someone else. Personally the pagans always win me over. If you want to worship anything, worship nature. I'll continue to understand what theories REALLY ARE, and keep my own mind open on feasible possibilities, none of which are based on the supernatural.
I daresay that all other religions believe that the universe was created in a different way.
I'd love to know what evidence could falsify Evolution. Even something as straightforward as the Law of Biogenesis isn't enough to falsify so eminent a theory as Evolution.
And as another commenter said, how does one test evolution?
Neither Evolution nor Creation are scientific, since they both (or rather, the right one) took place in the past. This is what science students should be taught.
The government can't save you.
Don't forget that you are reading this on a computer which was made by scientific methods of inquiry. I will give equal time to Creationism when it will get me a equally good machine to read /.
and contrary to public perception iPhone is not Jesus phone so that won't count
somethings are best left unsaid , I am one of those things
I'm not even sure what to say! I'm not the one who is angry, but your "god" is supposed to be one of love and understanding?
No, that would be you. I'm a thinker, not a believer, so the very idea of a god is silly nonsense to me. You're the one claiming absolute morality and lying in an attempt to put forward your delusional view. I called you on your blatant dishonesty.
Secondly, go read the Genesis account and Judges, and find out why he would order the genocide of those people (which He did do and had good reason to do).
So you think genocide is good. That makes you a monster. You have lost any sort of moral argument that you could ever hope to make, especially that there is anything absolute about your *evil* "morals".
As I said before, I'm done.
Yes, you've been proven a liar and so you run away since you can't defend your position as it's completely wrapped up in delusion.
Best wishes and good luck with that he/she/it thing that you worship!
Again, that would be you. Your demand that your delusions are true is the reason that you're inable to think rationally or even avoid bald faced lies.