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."
Post!
UM, I think you neglected to mention that Evolution is also just a theory at this point.
Yeah, you might want to mention that part when you advocate suppressing alternative beliefs in the classroom...
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.
So, science is open to all topics except religion, eh?
Doesn't sound very open to me, or very scientific.
Sounds like a bunch of people ganging up on a guy because he has certain personal beliefs. Beliefs that threaten an athiestic view of the humanists.
From what I have been reading in a book by John Grant called "Corrupted Science", this type of behavior is quite common in the practice of science, probably even more so today.
Robert Oppenhiemer, arguably a very brilliant man....
until he said his religion brings us a warning about the use of Nuclear Weapons and creating them that he finds hard to justify building them.
Unfortunately, his career and his life thereafter where pretty much destroyed by the scientific community and government labeled him "questionably patriotic US citizen."
Sound familair? "Oh, but scientists are so much better human beings and so much more educated in thier ways than those backward religous people!"
Yep, but it isn't the preachers these days I would like to point out that are so "hell bent" on killing God and inventing ever more gruesome weapons of destruction.
No, that would be our scietific community.
So for those of you posting his speech should be censored, and he be removed...
I would like to point out you are following in the fine scientific footsteps of hundreds of scientists that are morally bankrupt, cheat, steal and corrupt ever so nicely documented in "Corrupted Science".
As far as I am concerned, I am more worried about what will happen to our world if science is not managed correctly and the humanists win.
I assure you, the existence they envision for humanity is far more horrific than any Spanish inquisition ever was.
There will be no place on the planet that is safe.
You will have no where to run.
This will be our destiny if science continues to be a free for all, all in the name of progress and anything goes.
After all, God doesn't exist so there really is nothing to be worried about.
If these people are so concerned with the mans private views, then may I suggest an experiment that conculsively demonstrates God does not exist.
Then we can go about our business destroying ourselves with a clean conscious.
-Hackus
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
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.
I believe Creationists are attacking the holy altar of science wrongly. We need to argue about what makes the "scientific method" so holy that no one can dare tamper with it - we should argue about the definition of science itself.
Unlike what many have said here there is an overwhelming body of evidence for an intelligent designer to anyone who is honest with themselves and has half a brain (the former requirement is the most difficult to most).
Also, unlike the science community claims, acknowledging a creator does not necessarily mean weakening the fundamentals or ability of science - eg "because God made is so" does not equate to "we'll just believe that and not try to understand it how God made it so".
Now they are spending how many billions more to find the "God particle" to essentially prove that God doesn't exist.. good luck!
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.