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 have no problem with students being shown the difference between science and "creationism". One is the very antithesis of the other. How can the average student be expected to argue against this nonsense if they don't understand what it is and why it is not science?
I thought you were better than this. This is one American import I hope you don't accept.
Creationism is not science. Period.
If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
The summary here is absurdly slanted. Reiss didn't advocate discussing creationism in science classes; he wrote that, if students bring up creationism, science teachers ought to be in a position to explain why creationism isn't a scientific alternative to evolution, rather than simply refusing to discuss the issue at all. Quote:
"If questions or issues about creationism and intelligent design arise during science lessons they can be used to illustrate a number of aspects of how science works."
That's an eminently sensible position.
This is a great class to teach kids about what science is, and what the differences between scientific theories, and a non-scientific theory is.
For example, in science a theory is supposed to be able to make predictions: I throw the apple up, and gravity accelerates the apple back down etc. Have the kids then try to explain what predictive qualities Evolution has, and what predictive qualities Creationism has.
It could be a great teaching tool IMHO.
Embrace, and extinguish. ;)
Creationisum is an insult to the glory of God. How dare people say that God, being all knowing and all powerful, could not design and impliment a dynamic system but had to settle for a simple static one.
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
Because then you would be perpetuating the error you just made.
A "theory" in science has evidence to support it.
Where is the evidence to support Creationism?
But people are trying to get him fired over it? That's bullshit. The guy can hold his opinion, and as long as he sticks to the curriculum without creationism, why get him fired over his goddamned opinion? These Nobel laureates aren't the ones being taught in his class and have very little to do with him, but they'll gang up anyway. The theist/antitheist sword cuts both ways. Both sides are capable of being intolerant assholes, and this is just more proof.
To expound upon that...
Whether people like it or not, there ARE two major theories that both have evidence that can point to it, and plenty of credible scientists who think it happened that way. The only thing we know 100% is that we don't know 100%. The only reasonable thing to do, then, is to present both of these theories, give them equal time, and let the students draw their own conclusions about which one they're going to accept. I think this is the best way to make new discoveries, actually. If a young, bright, enterprising student is presented with two possible options, harmonizing on some points and conflicting in others, they may want to do more research, test things, and who knows? Maybe they will find the missing links in the fossil record, or maybe they'll find a giant fingerprint of God or something. Whereas if you just present one side and have the students remain ignorant about the other side, they will accept it complacently and not question things much further. That, obviously, would be a bane to discovery, and to progress.
10 FILL MUG WITH COFFEE
20 DRINK COFFEE
30 GOTO 10
.. to be taught in science classes next year.
Only 'flamers' flame!
Does slashdot hate my posts?
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.
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.
I also know creationism happened. The thing that strikes me is that non-Christian accounts of creationism would be taken in also. It said Muslim, but why stop there. Why not throw in other man made religions too? There is no end to the number of ways that the universe can be created when you use man made religions. I mean having all sorts of different theories on reality through string theory is bad enough. When you throw the scientific method out the window, you're not left with something that should be taught in a science course.
God spoke to me.
Again, a scientific theory has evidence to support it. It is falsifiable. It can be tested.
Yet you keep using the same word to describe evolution and Creationism.
It is that exact error that is the reason against teaching Creationism.
Please point out the credible evidence for creationism. It's not science. Creationism isn't a Theory in the scientific sense. Just in a layman's sense.
The columns seem reasonable. Creationism should not be taught in science class as science, but it certainly is part of the context in which the theory evolution came about. One could hardly teach about Copernicus without mentioning Heliocentrism, or Pasteur without Spontaneous Generation.
There is no more evidence for creationism than there is for absurd theories like the IPU (may Her Grace forgive me) and the FSM, I'm afraid. I've read their materials, their textbooks. They are full of misinterpretations, science that was current two decades ago, and outright false facts presented as truth.
A fact which contradicts natural selection is not the same as a fact which supports creationism. That is the product of a false dichotomy.
93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
And if you really want to count Creationism as a theory, even though it requires the lack of evidence in order to follow it..
Whether people like it or not, there ARE two major theories that both have evidence that can point to it
There are not 2 major theories; there are more than 200 major theories! You don't understand what you are talking about. If you really want to limit how humans were created (from dirt and a rib and a finger from a supernatural man no less) then you are one ignorant person.
Dr. Reiss has been repeatedly taken out of context with his comments. The media has consistently misinterpreted what he said to mean that he supports the teaching of creationism in science classes. In fact what Dr. Reiss said was that if a student asks about creationism, the teacher should be prepared to explain to that student why creationism is not science, something that I think most level-headed people would agree with. To reiterate, Dr. Reiss did NOT say that creationism should be in any way be endorsed in science classes, only that the student should be made aware of WHY it is not science.
I think creationism is nonsensical, but the reaction over this is reminiscent of the Inquisition. Calling for firing someone for voicing a heterodox opinion is getting uncomfortably close to a modern-day auto da fe.
Creationism / Intelligent Design isn't a theory. The only "evidence" for it is some text in a book and some fake photoshopped pictures of digs of four meter tall humanoid skeletons.
It is not reasonable to present both evolution by natural selection, which has mountains of evidence behind it, and creationism / ID as equally plausible scientific theories. The only role Creationism / ID should play in a science class is as an example of a nonscientific explanation of how we came to be here.
What missing links are you talking about? More fossils are unearthed every day, and regularly, they discover a new species of hominid that fits in between two known species. Then you'll just whine about the missing links between the older known species and the newly discovered ones, ad infinitum. Take the real numbers: there's an infinite amount of them between any two integers. The "missing link" between 1 and 2 would be e.g. 1.5, and that would give rise to two new "missing links" -- one between 1 and 1.5, and the other between 1.5 and 2. This could go on and on forever (no barrel-throwing monkeys at the end, though).
Of course they should not let students be ignorant of the fact that many people prefer to believe some old book instead of a theory that's been debated and improved for 150 years by thousands of very smart and diligent scientists, all trying to disprove (parts of) it, and replace it with new ideas -- that would make them very famous and allow them to hold a speech in Stockholm. There is no conspiracy to push evolution by scientists who are afraid of religion or something like that. It would require thousands of intelligent and ambitious people to willfully forego their chance at the Nobel Prize. Never gonna happen.
It comes down to this: evolution by natural selection is a good theory that explains the wide variety of life found on this rock, and which makes biology make sense, and creationism and ID are just the LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU yelling of desperate religious people.
I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
http://www.youtube.com/patcondell
Now imagine a class with 10 Creationist students in it.
All arguing their latest talking points with the teacher.
All demanding that books X, Y and Z be read to show the "facts" of Creationism.
All saying that authors A, B and C have "disproven" evolution.
All claiming that evolution is a religion.
Fuck that. Put Creationism in a World Religions class and just save the time and arguments. As can be seen from the comments here, even self described "nerds" have trouble understanding what science is (and is not). Why bother with the confusion and the arguments?
On a related note:
Church of England to apologise for rejecting evolution
As moderate religion steps away from fundamentalism, our scientists (if only through media slant) get closer to it!
Think of the children!!
> Many other religions believe that the universe was created in a different way.
i have always found it a poor choice between ONLY a) science (of the darwinian we came from frogs), or b) creationism (we came out of nowhere, with no proof, and you jus gotta believe).
why is there never any discussion of option c) d) or even something like e) the occult evolution of the cosmos?
no doubt, not many would choose option e) -- which both the creationists and scientists would think is just nuts -- but insofar as the number of possible theories examined, out of the many theories, it always only comes down to just two - ludicrous creationism, or ape science - other options aren't ever discussed, when there are other options. why are we caught in this polarity between the two ideas that have no overlaps in venn diagram...? :-P
This isn't about "teaching them both sides" or "balance". It's about pushing religion into science class because of a religious culture which is hostile to the very idea of science. Creationism, Scientific Creationism, Intelligent Design or whatever they're calling it today is not science. It is dogma which borrows a few scientific words. At best it's cargo-cult science. Mostly it's a fraud. We might as well teach "the other side" in Astronomy and invite in the Flat-Earthers and geoncentricists. It would make just as much sense to say that there's a "controversy" about Pasteur and say that since the germ theory is "just a theory" we need to let students make up their own minds and give equal time to vitalism, the four humors and spontaneous generation. The Royal Society stepped on its collective tallywhacker making this guy a spokesman. Let's see if they shoot themselves in the foot with their response.
The man who never alters his opinion is like the stagnant water and breeds Reptiles of the Mind -- William Blake
Read his original article. He's not suggesting creationism be taught as science, or even as non-science. He's suggesting that, when students raise objections to evolutionary theory, even objections based on a creationist foundation, that those objections be discussed in a scientific context. He's also suggesting that, rather than try to "change students' minds", science teachers focus on simply presenting the standard scientific view of cosmology. That seems perfectly reasonable.
"Reality-based thinking is vastly overrated and certainly won't prepare children for a career in the City or in government." ; )
"Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
Sure, why not. While we're at it, let's teach Holocaust denial in History class, and Ebonics in English lit. Also, we'll make sure to cover Alchemy in chemistry class, and our Geography teachers MUST give equal time to the idea that the world is flat!
I mean seriously, how DARE you people use logic and critical thinking when deciding what should be taught in school? Clearly we should teach every fantasy that's ever popped into anyones head - only that way can we ensure that nobodies feelings are hurt, and that all ideas get a fair hearing!
There were several different scientific opinions on the origin of the universe, but when the cosmic microwave background radiation was discovered in the 1960s, scientists agreed that the "big bang" hypothesis is the most likely.
That's why science is an absolute truth, which ultimately will prevail over personal opinions and beliefs. Science is based on experimental facts, to which logical reasoning is applied. You can believe as much as you wish on a "steady state" cosmology, for instance, but anyone with a microwave antenna and a spectrum analyzer will prove you wrong.
What ever happened to letting the facts prove themselves?
Yes, the facts are that the Flying Spaghetti Monster, who does not wish himself to be seen, created everything, including mountains and midgets. People who argue it was another imaginary force are fooling themselves. The FSM theory should also be taught in science class because it is a dissenting opinion. The people who argue against FSM theory make me doubt creationism. Creationists are the same guys who imprisoned Copernicus for arguing that the earth orbited the sun. FSM theory is consistent with heliocentricity, which we all know is correct now. Only creationists would doubt the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and they should be ashamed of themselves for not seeing why the FSM is the only true creator!
Just callin' it like I see it.
Creationism's Foundation: "God Isn't Infinite Enough..."
"God Isn't Infinite Enough to have created a balanced, self-sustaining, self-correcting Universe."
"God Isn't Infinite Enough to have created billions of years, instead having to fake it."
"God Isn't Infinite Enough to have created evolution, instead having to meddle endlessly to compensate."
Point out, forcefully absolutely & relentlessly, that creationism insists that god is incompetent, and that if god were REALLY infinite, then "god's hand" would be un-findable through physical evidence, and only perceivable through spiritual instruments/experiments.
Wow. WTB mod points! The bottom line here is- science is evidence seeking a conclusion. Creationism is a conclusion seeking evidence. That is why it should not be taught in science classes.
Check out my sci-fi book "Lacuna" at http://goo.gl/MVxX8
I have one word to say to your response sir: "AMEN!"
No, let's teach that the world is like a Swiss cheese: round, flat, AND hollow, all at the same time! That way nobody's feeling will be hurt.
This post is not insightful. Gravity and electricity can be demonstrated to any idiot, within seconds, and explained.
Evolution requires a little more thought and a little more time. This leaves it at the mercy of idiots who refuse to see this evidence as it takes too long - hence "It's UNPROVABLE!!"
Scientists are facing a fight with this one, and the creationists (who are plainly, outright WRONG) seem to be better funded. It is wholly right that the education director for the Royal Society be fired for such outlandish claims.
IAAST (I am a science teacher) and I would quit if I had to teach creationsim and frankly I expose them for the lunatics that they are whenever that 'view' is asked about in my classes.
I've always thought that these ideas were nowhere neither as polar as they are usually presented.
I mean, if you accept the initial premise of an all powerful God, standing outside spacetime, then it's not so far a step to imagining a God who created the whole shebang in all its four dimensional glory, and then instantiated it at a point in time about six and a half thousand years ago.
Hey presto! Science works. Physics works. Evolution works. And God created it all, quite possibly in six days, albeit in some other frame of temporal reference. Job done. The scientist can carry on with what they do, and the creationists can carry on with their beliefs, and neither has to feel threatened by the other side's epistemology. Granted there's a bit of work needed to reconcile 200,000 years of biological human history with six thousand or so from biblical references - but then Darwinian evolution isn't entirely without flaw either. I don't see why it shouldn't be possible to reconcile the two.
Except that I don't think anyone's interested in a framework that lets both belief systems co-exist. I think this is about intellectual authority. The religious right would like to be the ones who control what we are and are not allowed to believe, just like in the good old days when they could burn inconvenient scientists and philosophers at the stake if need be. I don't think some of the science community do themselves any favours either, in their zeal to debunk anything that can't be measured, weighed or dissected.
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
You contradict yourself.
The facts HAVE supported evolution so far. We've witnessed microevolution in animal populations in our own lifetimes, and evidence suggests that macroevolution does indeed take place, which also fits mathematical models as well as... well, common sense. Survival of the fittest, natural selection, works with almost all of the data we have.
The issue about teaching creationism is that the science class room should be about giving students the verifiable facts which we have. The notion of "Letting the children decide" is absurd. They don't have the foundation in logical reasoning yet, nor do they have the resources to verify claims from both sides. Not to mention that facts are not subjective. If we took a vote on which is true, natural selection, or creationism, regardless of how we voted or what we think, that does not change the facts, and that does not change which is, in fact, true.
Creationism is not a "dissenting opinion" as they would have you believe. Creationism is anti-science. Instead of trying to prove their theory right, they try to prove that evolution is wrong, thinking that if they could, it MUST mean creationism is correct. But this is simply not how science works.
Facts do not prove themselves in a classroom, they prove themselves in peer reviewed journals, with copious amounts of data, and logical reasoning. If the Creationism/Intelligent Design movements had ANY of those criteria, then we could have a discussion of its merits. But since it does not, the point is moot, and trying to force it into classrooms, on impressionable students, who have not yet fully understood how science works is simply an underhanded gimmick, and does a disservice to both the scientific community as well as the education system.
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.
It isn't like most high schools offer informal logic or the history of scientific methodology as separate classes.
I don't have serious disagreement with the article. I think much of what he is saying speaks directly to the practice of pedagogy and is not promoting the creationist belief system per se. Maybe we are assuming that since he is an Anglican priest, he is being less than sincere in his objectivity?
Teaching creationism in a Science class as Science is like teaching Spanish in and English class as English. Creationism is no more Science than Astrology. It should be discussed as a different branch of Philosophy as an alternative to Science, along with Astrology and Ghost-Hunting.
There are 10 types of people in this world, those who can count in binary and those who can't.
You'd be aware that Bugs Bunny is God,
and the Earth is shaped like a carrot.
Now begone with your novel speculations, knave.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
It's not a question of punishment. The problem here is that this individual occupies an extremely important position in a major scientific organization. It'd be akin to the head of PETA saying "You know, I see nothing wrong with torturing puppies and then eating them for breakfast". Sure, he's entitled to speak freely, but we're also entitled to question his qualification to hold that position.
With that said, it seems his actual statement may have been misrepresented. Based on his correction, I certainly wouldn't be in favor of firing him. It seems that the whole uproar might have been a wee bit of an overreaction.
When your knee has stopped jerking you might notice that Michael Reiss has nowhere suggested that creationism or ID should be taught in science classes. The RA specifically states that he does not believe that discussion of them in science would legitimise them. He also says that "when teaching evolution, there is much to be said for allowing students to raise any doubts they have (hardly a revolutionary idea in science teaching) and doing one's best to have a genuine discussion. The word 'genuine' doesn't mean that creationism or intelligent design deserve equal time."
In other words, if there are creationists in the class, Reiss says that the teacher should be allow discussion of the subject so the pupil can learn why science rejects creationism, rather than the pupil simply being presented with yet another competing dogma just on another adult's say-so. He is for critical thinking; it is those who are trying to silence him who are trying to stifle critical thinking.
Put it this way: If a kid puts his hand up in class and says that the universe was created in six days, should the teacher just say "No, you're wrong" or "Science says that's wrong because...". It's the latter that Reiss is pushing for, and that is so unthinkable to his opponents.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
America, watch and learn. That's how ludicrous we find theories that you find worthy of debate, in our decently educated countries. The content of the debate isn't as relevant about your poor education system as is the fact that the debate itself could even survive and thrive rather than get instantly shot down and laughed off.
You just got troll'd!
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.
They corrected sloppy journalism http://royalsociety.org/news.asp?id=8004
Evidence has a place in science classes, but what should really be taught is the scientific method. Teach creationism in science classes, by all means! It is a fabulous example of a scientific theory that makes all possible predictions and is therefore scientific crap. Teach it, and teach why it is junk. Science class should be about teaching a thought process, not a bunch of facts.
"The biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place."
How about this: God made the creatures and the way he did it was via evolution.
So, basically, what you are saying is that we have these two possibilities based on the exact same amount of evidence:
1.) All living organisms came about via evolution.
2.) All living organisms came about via evolution because God did it that way.
As there is ZERO empirical evidence for the existence of any such entity, what, beyond your fragile ego, makes the second option more compelling? Now, I agree that absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence, but when faced with a complete lack of evidence, the only rational conclusion is to accept the null hypothesis until such a time when evidence is available and the hypothesis can be re-evaluated.
*sits back and enjoys his smoke*
"Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
"Exactly - the reason we can teach about alchemy in chemistry class is because nobody takes alchemy seriously any more."
But we do teach Alchemy now. We just don't call it that anymore, because "Alchemy" is nothing but the idea that one element could be turned into another. What was once ludicrous fantasy and fiction is now science. We see Alchemy happening every day. The Sun turns Hydrogen into Helium constantly, and our earliest nuclear scientists practiced Alchemy, when you get right down to it. Modern Chemistry and Physics very much includes fields that were once considered Alchemy.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
I am a creationist, but the obvious problem with creation in a science context is that it is not testable. There are no experiments that can be done because it is not repeatable, and thanks to apparent age, there is no observable historic event. (Think about it - if the earth was created 6000 years ago in a 4 billion year old state, how old is it scientifically?)
Science is a world of logical positivism - "any statement that cannot in principal be verified is meaningless". Creationism is meaningless in that context because it cannot be verified. Intelligent design doesn't apply to the creation of the universe as a whole because it is a singular event. (It could apply to the creation of life or the earth - but requires experience with other worlds to have a better idea of just how special our world is.)
Now, where I diverge from your typical modernist is when they make logical positivism the end of the story. The problem is that the statement, "any statement that cannot in principal be verified is meaningless" is a statement that cannot be verified, and is therefore meaningless. When you try to make science the sole source of knowledge, you end up with meaninglessness: intelligence (literally "to choose between" i.e. free will) is an illusion, and all that.
And finally, intelligent design theory is *not* creationism in disguise. It is a general theory that is applied in many other fields. As a statistical analysis, it provides no absolute answers. But everyone should be familiar with the concepts, because they apply to forensics, archaeology, SETI, and many other other settings that need to distinguish (imperfectly) between intelligent and natural causes.
While a very good description of "science" indeed, you should look into the personal lives and believes of several of the "greatest evolutionist" through history. Terribly many of them haven't merely been "noble scientists", on the search for "thruth", ready to accept whatever that might be, but rather been die-hard anti-christians, searching for something to justify their believes, (and having realized better than most christians where to best attack Christendom.)
(On a side note, of course Creationism isn't "science", by science' definition. The Bible says there is a spiritual realm as well as a physical one. But science can't deal with anything beyond the physical one. As a result scientist easily conclude that as they can't "put God in a box", He cannot exist.)
As a software engineer, as part of my education we often examined code that was faulty. That doesn't mean defect-ridden code should be taught in schools, just that it was seen, discussed, dissected and its flaws revealed to the world.
It's good teaching practice. And what's more, once you learn to spot flaws in the bad code you might start finding flaws in the stuff that's supposed to be good. I think that applies to the scientific method, too. If you understand the how and why the scientific method works you can get an understanding of its limitations (as I mentioned earlier, it's based on the assumptions that there really is a world that we're observing and that rules that have applied in the past will continue to apply for instance. Both very good assumptions for getting on with life, but it's important to understand that they're pragmatic rather than strictly rational -- that way you get people who believe in science, not in scientism).
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
If you are lucky enough to live in a northern climate you will see, if you go to an open field, that in the spring once the snow starts to melt there will be an acumulated layer of dirt on the top of the snow. This is dust that has dropped out of the air during the winter. Now if you are even further north, say the Greenland Ice Cap, the snow will never really melt away. So year after year you will have layering in the ice cap, in the same manner as you have tree rings. One layer of dust per year.
Now if say today we were to go down 28 layers (28 years) we would find dust from Mount St. Helens. Go down another 87 layers and you will find dust from the Krakatoa erruption, another 1816 layers and we get to Mount Vesuvius which errupted in AD67.
So we have gone down almost 2000 layers and it equals about 2000 years. Now if the world were only here since 4004 BC then there should be only 4071 layers more in the ice cap. Instead we find that there are over 100000 layers to go.
Now we have seen and can prove that since 67 AD we have one layer per year so if we have over 100000 layers the earth must have been around for at least 100000 years in order to creat those layers.
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
Correct. For those screaming about how closed-minded discussing ID or creationism is they are themselves being closed-minded and not getting the point.
Step 1: Put down The God Delusion.
Step 2: Think for yourself. Mr Dawkins is terribly clever, yes, but you too have a brain. And being clever does not make him right about everything.
Step 3. Read Reiss' article. It won't hurt. You might even learn something.
Joe Bloggs is getting entirely the wrong idea about String Theory, owing to the misunderstood statement that "we can't test it".
String Theory is perfectly testable. It's just not testable by us RIGHT NOW, at the energy levels we can currently generate. (Although the LHC might provide some very early hints in that area.) In due course though, we'll be testing it alright, fully, and having a good laugh if it's way off target, or dishing out Nobel Prizes if it matches scientific observations.
This contrasts markedly with alleged "explanations" such as done by religion, which are not testable ever, even if we live a billion years.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
Who has suggested giving equal time to Creationism? Anyone can knock down straw men, but reading the discussion and responding to the points made needs a bit of thought something too many folks here seem to struggle with whenever anybody mentions religion.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
"Crush religious expression", eh? So you don't have the confidence in your own viewpoint to let it stand up to intelligent debate; other viewpoints need to be "crushed"? If you "crush" religious expression in the classroom, religious parents will just take their kids out of the state system and the kids will get exposure to no alternative viewpoint. Way to defuse religious/secular tensions!
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
That assumes that Earth wasn't created in 4004 BCE with 95 929 layers pre-packaged. Such a thing is of course untestable and therefore not scientific, but there is room for such a viewpoint.
I'd liken it to my ability to start virtual machine instances from certain saved states. In an odd way, familiarity with computers has brought me round to the creationist way of thinking a little.
Again, who is "questioning the very basic premise of Science" (whatever that is, and I'm interested that Science now gets a capital letter like God does). I think it's perfectly fair to acknowledge the benefits of the scientific method whilst still asking whether science can necessarily answer all of the questions that are of concern to us? Note that I say "asking", I don't say "claiming blindly that it can't (or, for that matter, can). When science ceases to allow questions, it ceases to be science.
Who has contributed more to the progress of society? Well, a lot of historians of science reckon that science developed out of religion; specifically that the Judeo-Christian religion taught that the universe is ordered, and so people started looking for that order. Those who thought the universe chaotic didn't bother looking because they didn't expect there to be anything to find. And, of course, religious institutions have traditionally been major sponsers of science. On that reckonning, religion can claim that it has contributed everything of its own and everything of science, so it's a clear winner. Too many people look at a view of history that has been heavily filtered by 19th century anti-clericalism.
Oh, and on the past abuses in the name of religion -- have you read Sam Harris' "The End of Faith"? He advocates initiating an apocalypse because the destruction of humanity is better than allowing religious people to continue to exist. It's an interesting book, that comes with a ringing endorsement from Richard Dawkins. Fundamentalist extremism, anybody? It's not just the religious who will kill and die for their ideologies.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
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 .
That is the present situation, yes. It wasn't the historical situation; for much of recorded history there was a religious powerbase that dictated one specific interpretation of religious questions.
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 .
Again, that's the situation now, but it's a view of science that emerged in the second half of the 20th century, with the development of logical positivism and Popper's idea of falsifiability. Newton did great stuff that we have been able to build on, but he didn't work according to the modern scientific method (which is why you find so much mysticism and alchemy in his writings; it's embarrasing to those who see a black-and-white "science always right, mysticism always wrong" that a religious mystic like Newton could get so much right.
A lot of the acrimony in the science v. religion arguments comes from a lack of awareness of our history. Scientists assume that the modern view of science is the way it's always been, but it's a 20th century development. Religious fundamentalists think that they're going back 2000 years but their ideas only go back to the 19th century. Reading up on the philosophy of science and its history can be really valuable. It won't change your ideas of who is right and who is wrong, but it should show you that the lines are not as crisply drawn as the Dawkins brigade would have us believe.
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
If there were hardly any common ground there would be hardly any territory to fight over -- Stephen Jay Gould's "Non-overlapping Magisteria". I agree that there's a lot of ground that is not common -- everything metaphysical (unfortunately we need metaphysics -- even the scientific method has metaphisical foundations -- and nobody -- not the scientific, not the religious, not the philosophical -- has yet come up with a dependable way of dealing with it). But all religions that teach interventionist deities are teaching that there is common ground, if not common methodology, between science and religion and so come within the scope of scientific investigation.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
Death penalty for thought crime, eh? Welcome to the brave new totalitarian world. If you want to kill anybody who disagrees with your beliefs, in my book that makes your beliefs a religion. Hope you remember to add yourself to your own list.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
OK, here you go. From talkorigins.org:
A similar event appears to have happened with dogs relatively recently. Sticker's sarcoma, or canine transmissible venereal tumor, is caused by an organism genetically independent from its hosts but derived from a wolf or dog tumor (Zimmer 2006; Murgia et al. 2006).
Many other examples there, too.
Professor Michael Reiss has quit as director of education at the Royal Society. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7619670.stm