Slashdot Mirror
Royal Society "Creationist" Resigns
Chris_Keene writes in to let us know that the Prof. Michael Reiss, who recently caused a storm with comments about teaching creationism in schools, has resigned from his post as director of education at the Royal Society in the UK. This news coincides with word out of the Anglican church that it is ready to apologize to Charles Darwin, 150 years after it poured scorn on his theory of evolution by natural selection. "The Church of England will concede in a statement that it was over-defensive and over-emotional in dismissing Darwin's ideas. It will call 'anti-evolutionary fervor' an 'indictment' on the Church."
I AM A FISH!
Actually, no, it was survival by the fittest.
More than anything, this is an indictment on the scientists who pressured the good doctor out of his posting. He was bullied out for a misquote.
Unfortunately, rather than engage in a reasonable debate over the unreasonable subject, he rationally decided to avoid the controversy completely by leaving.
No matter what, the Royal Society is the loser here. Once they realized they were debating a misquote, the reasonable approach would have been to end the matter. Instead, they let the issue fester until a good man stepped down with a now-tarnished reputation.
John
The contemporary militant Tooth Fairy jihadist movement continues to be disrespected by these scientific infidels.
http://rocknerd.co.uk
anyone who puts religious convictions or beliefs higher than their science, are not worthy of any scientific post.
royal society did the right thing.
Read radical news here
The statement quotes Reiss saying, "Creationism has no scientific basis."
He goes on to say, "However, when young people ask questions about creationism in science classes, teachers need to be able to explain to them why evolution and the Big Bang are scientific theories but they should also take the time to explain how science works and why creationism has no scientific basis.
"I have referred to science teachers discussing creationism as a worldview'," he goes on to say, "this is not the same as lending it any scientific credibility."
) Human Kind Vs Human Creation
) It'd be interesting to see how many humans would survive to serve us.
Just like gravity.
I know. Everyone with any everyman common sense knows that a human looking super-being shit us out and cares about each of us individually. Those stupid int-eee-lec-tuuu-als think they know it all, don't they?
I guess you can never lose by appealing to the moron's distrust of people smarter than him.
"This news coincides with word out of the Anglican church that it is ready to apologize to Charles Darwin, 150 years after it poured scorn on his theory of evolution by natural selection. "The Church of England will concede in a statement that it was over-defensive and over-emotional in dismissing Darwin's ideas. It will call 'anti-evolutionary fervor' an 'indictment' on the Church.""
Now will the evolutionist and the creationists kiss and make up?
Gravity is just a theory, not a proven fact, but I still fall over...
-- oldthinkers unbellyfeel ingsoc
What evidence do you have that this is not the case?
None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
Yeah, makes much more sense to think an omnipotent being (who's origin we shall not discuss) created us in order to serve him and telepathically announce our eternal servitude to him so we can live forever.
http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?newsid=1190142
http://www.independent.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00004/protest120206_4781t.jpg
http://atangledweb.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/muslim_protest_2.jpg
http://www.goofigure.com/images/library/muslim_protest_1.jpg
http://www.goofigure.com/images/library/muslim_protest_7.jpg
let Sarah Palin be a member of the Royal Society!
Whether he was right or wrong, as I understamd it, A scientist should be able to state his ideas without fear of reprisals such as that.
Its the scientific version of the Church vs Galileo.
"the Prof. Michael Reiss, who recently caused a storm with comments about teaching creationism in schools"
He did not make a comment about teaching creationism in schools or say that it should be taught in schools. As the other article the post cites clearly points out, he merely said that teachers should discuss creationism with students if the student brings up the topic first. From the article cited:
"He was criticised by other scientists - though misquoted as saying creationism should be "taught" in science classes."
They quote a number of other professors who elaborate on it more.
I think this is a bit of an overeaction. While I hold that the theory of evolution is scientific fact and creationism is pure faith and religion, I don't think that Prof Reiss was in any way disparaging evolution. I believe he was trying to prevent educators from making children feel as though they are stupid because their parents or church have taught them to believe in creationism.
Well, sure, everything made by man fails. I'm just waiting for religion to fail completely.
Damn it, I accidentally marked you as interesting. Now I have to post to get rid of it. So, I'll take this opportunity to call you a moron. Moron.
The universe farted and presto, out we all came, purposeless beings.. you smart guys have it all figured out.
Assuming you aren't -1 flamebait in two seconds...
you assert that 'god' gives us purpose then? ok, but that purpose would only be of any matter to a purposeless being, since god can't have a greater purpose since nothing gave him one.
Oh what? God doesn't need anything to give him/her/it a purpose? Then neither do I. Piss off.
A scientist who commits a serious blunder has to face reprisals such as this. If a mathematician claims that he found a method to trisect an angle he should be fired. What this man did, is at least a serious a blunder. .. if he feels like it, he still can become a priest or some other person who makes a living by believing in unprovable fairytales.
Creationism contradicts the scientific principle
Yeah, makes much more sense to think an omnipotent being (who's origin we shall not discuss) created us in order to serve him and telepathically announce our eternal servitude to him so we can live forever.
You just described an evolutionist's understanding of DNA.
I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
You make this great point when you say:.
To suggest otherwise is just the sort of thing IDers want. . .
The effective firing of this man also plays into the hands of the "IDers". They can now decry the persecution of this individual (you know they will) and get good millage out of the argument because they would not have be totally wrong in this case. The Royal Society should not have caved in this way.
Scientists "preach" that true science is the observability, repeatablility and testability of the phenomena it seeks to explain. Yet scientists are still unable to create even a simple protocell directly from organic compounds. Show me evolution from the ground up to prove that life is not divine.
Why the hell did he quit? He was misquoted, taken out of context and made an example of... What in the shitting hell did he say to make this happen? I've read the articles and he has his head screwed on straight so for crying out loud, why hasn't this man been supported?
ARGH!
Do we have to deal with athiest fundies now?
Yeesh!
While his message was one of tolerance, he was also an ordained priest (or whatever those men in dresses call it). He just showed them why it is not such a good idea to put a religious person at the head of a science organisation. As Richard Dawkins suggested, he could have given up his religious position too, that would have been much more convincing.
This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
Please don't feed the troll. Anyone who actually believes in intelligent design would create a post much more coherent than this one. The goal of the person who wrote this was to get you all upset, the same way that people got mad at the Royal Society for using the phrases "Creationism" and "should be taught" in the same sentence.
Or, if he's not purposely trolling, then you shouldn't pick on him the same way that you shouldn't pick on a 5-year-old who tries to make a post with the same sort of sarcastic wit that the big boys do on /.
I'm not sure about whether he should have resigned or not, but I found this quote from the Royal Society statement interesting (from the BBC article) :
Gravity is a fact, the Theory of gravity is the mechanism by which it works.
Evolution is a fact, Darwin's Theory of evolution is the mechanism by which it happens.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I feel most of the scientific community are closet Militant Atheists, as are a good portion of you slashdotters. As previously written, a scientist should be able to state his ideas without fear of reprisals.
You don't know what a theory is, when you figure that out then you will understand why that statement makes no sense what so ever.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I wonder if they are checking to see who owns Bibles or attends a church, because that is where this is heading...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
Thunderclone: ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE! ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE!
I guess I must have missed the part on telepathy and omniscience.
They should be forcing Sarah Palin to resign instead.
Alcohol is just a theory, not a proven fact, but I still fall over...
Anonymous Coward
You might have to wait a while for that.
Wow, cool. So the KJV is the original word of God.
I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
I'm sorry, but it is just not acceptable to have someone who can believe in myths and nonsense in charge of science.
Science takes intellectual honesty. It is too easy to fool one's self. If you have the predilection to believing absurdities, you are automatically disqualified from being a scientist.
I guess I must have missed the part on telepathy and omniscience.
Then you either have not studied evolution from an evolutionist, or never asked questions when you had the chance...
I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
As far as I can tell, what Prof. Reiss actually said was not very unscientific at all.
It seems to me that this whole episode has the Royal Society played right into the hands of Ben Stein and the clowns behind that Expelled crap. They couldn't have asked for a better example of the kind of "persecution" they claim they're being subjected to.
They can now decry the persecution of this individual (you know they will) and get good millage out of the argument because they would not have be totally wrong in this case.
That's an excellent point.
And not just IDers, but also anyone who wants to paint atheists as being unreasonable - for example, I see that the Daily Mail are already at it: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1056715/Top-scientist-supported-teaching-creationism-schools-hounded-Royal-Society.html .
For non-UK readers - the Daily Mail is a conservative right wing tabloid. Whilst it doesn't seem to support Intelligent Design, it is very pro-Christian, and anti-atheism, and this is just the story it loves: look at the references to being "hounded" after a "campaign" by "militant atheists" / "atheist scientists". And the sad thing is that, for once, I can't fault their story for being misleading - despite the biased phrasing, it's one of the few media outlets to be reporting what actually happened.
You really need to post a link. I have to see this.
Please correct the slashdot story. Nowhere did he say that creationism should be taught at school. You are doing exactly the same thing as the journalists that misquoted him.
Evolutionary theory does not discount the possibility that the origins of life are divine. But since this is (as of yet) something that cannot be tested and proved or disproved it lies outside of the realm of science. Something can exist outside the realm of science and be true and valid. Sorry to feed the trolls . . .
Well, that's not what his blog in The Guardian says. He says: "I feel that creationism is best seen by science teachers not as a misconception but as a world view".
Anyone who feels that creationism is not a misconception has no place in the direction of such an important scientific body as the Royal Society. Even if he feels that students who have been raised by creationist parents will not change their point of view easily, that's no reason to tolerate such nonsense in a science class. What next, will he say that one must accept criminal behavior from students that have been raised by criminal parents?
The correct procedure would be, in my opinion, not to accept discussion of creationist nonsense, but to explain why evolution is a scientifically correct theory.
This seems to imply that the Church's "beliefs" are relevant in today's world. Curious; I was of the opinion that although they clearly control vast quantities of wealth of one form or another and have influence over a certain type of believer, that otherwise the Church's opinions on matters concerning the nature of the universe are considered realistic as those of astrologers (no offence to astrologers.)
Hasn't science replaced religion? Has religion noticed? Didn't the Church itself stop evolving somewhere back in the dark ages or am I poorly informed?
Requiem for the American Dream
Let's theorise someone holds a post at an educational institution, and makes a controversial statement.
For example:
"Western society is endemically a sick culture. People here should appreciate any cultural impulses that comes from elsewhere, because what it replaces is essentially of no value"
or
"Men are essentially flesh dildos and less developed than women. It should therefore be a goal for women to become completely independent of men in every way".
or
"The people who eat burgers made of meat are essentially ignorant but genocidal murderers. In the ideal society those people are not alive so the animals can be"
What is the probability that someone making one of these statements would be told to either resign or they would be forced out?
He said some really important things about the way we deal with creationism in the classroom, the media and blogosphere misinterpreted, abused and parroted incorrect versions of his comments, and he's got the guts to step down, not only saving the face of the organisation but shouldering blame more rightly levelled at the media, too. I'm sure I speak for all of us when I wish him luck.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
It's beyond unreasonable, they are dogmatic evolutionists to the point where it is a religious point of view of opposing the IDers.
The facts don't matter; even if some evidence supporting ID appeared, they would hold true to the evolutionist dogma.
Royal Society behavior makes their mannerism no more concentrated on science and truth than the ID manner of taking their position.
People are allowed to argue against darwinism. Thats the scientific process. But, darwinism is our best possible explaination for how we are here.
Religion is not science. In science class, you learn science. If you want to learn religion, you go to religion class (or, church).
Teaching creationism in science class would make about as much sense as teaching carpentry. Its another subject, one that not all of us care to learn, because not all of us will use it.
I read the article for the first time after reading parts of the replies here on Slashdot. I have the feeling after reading the article, although I can't know going about this in the wrong order, that I would have been incline to misinterpret the article.
This being said, I think he chickened out. How can he been chased out of office in 6 days of which only 4 was working days. He could have stand fast and made a difference in the debate.
His main point is that it's not a science teachers job to change the world view of his pupils, but it could be part of his job to reconcile conflicting ones.
The human brain doesn't seem to have any problem with this, living in one reality different from another depending on occasion.
... and it's fallacious. Make it seem like someone who advocates creationism or intelligent design is under attack and that person garners sympathy, but that doesn't make their point of view a valid scientific argument. It's perfectly fine and reasonable in the scientific community for someone to be religious and have religious beliefs. When you start saying that it's okay to pass religion off as a counter argument to science, well then the scientific community has the right to question your credentials as a scientist because you are committing a scientific error, just like if you said the earth is flat.
Galileo used reason and the scientific method to determine the earth and the planets revolve around the sun. Creationism and intelligent design fail the scientific method's process because they are not something that can be supported by impirical evidence. Under the rules of logic they are merely conjecture.
Intelligent design is a great thing to discuss in philosophy or theology class in a private institution that is not funded by public money. Governments and scientific institutions should not be in the business of teaching our children religious beliefs and passing them off as biology or physics. Next thing you know, there will be subtle shifts that the government wants us to start believing in a specific religion, to the exclusion of others.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
I really do understand your comment. I find it very interesting that so called intellectuals, have no imagination beyond what can be immediately proven. If we are nothing but an accident, in a universe that came from who knows where. Why do we care about such things as global warming, etc. The universe doesn't care if we live our die, we are like virus, in pursuit of continued existence, but nothing more. sucky
Which particular theory of gravity is fact?
Searching for theory of gravity at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity you'll find
Newtons theory of gravity
Aristotelian theory of gravity
Le Sage's theory of gravity
NordstrÃm's theory of gravity
Whitehead's theory of gravity
Brans-Dicke theory of gravity
Induced gravity by Andrei Sakharov
Rosen bi-metric theory of gravity
MOND
Process Physics theory attempts to address gravity
The self-creation cosmology theory of gravity
Nonsymmetric gravitational theory
Tensor-vector-scalar gravity
None of which explain observations entirely
Gravity is a fact, the Newton's Theory of Gravity is an explanation of the mechanism by which it works.
Evolution is a fact, Darwin's Theory of evolution is an explanation of the mechanisms by which it happens.
There are multiple theories attempting to shed light the phenomena of gravity, Newton's theory, general relativity, quantum gravity.
Evolution is an even more complex phenomena, the result of a whole heap of driving forces and facilitators. It probably makes more sense to talk of the "Theory of Evolution" as a field rather than a single theory.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
Science cannot, as of last check, account for the origin of matter in any empirical way. Nor can creationism.
Furthermore, elements of evolution -can- coexist with creationism. You need not say, "we've evolved, therefore we cannot have been created", nor "we were created, therefore we cannot have evolved".
Unbelievably sound arguments can be provided against EITHER creationism OR evolution. Creationism need not be true due to a lack of empirical evidence, scientific basis, or an account for the creation of whatever the 'creationary force' may be, or a million other reasons. Evolution need not be true due to its lack of a concrete explanation for the appearance of matter, the fact that things such as color or sound needn't exist in such a model (it's not so you can 'hear' your enemies approaching, as many would say, as there would be nothing to 'hear' at all if such a concept as sound never existed - this implies some level of creative conjuring).
Nor does it account for the variance of species (there are far fewer disparate environments than disparate species) or food groups (a food 'chain' need not exist), the seeming suitability of our form (blobs would suffice) and our habitat. (There are, after all, things in existence which don't 'need' to -be- in existence, and if evolution were a perfect theory, this would not be the case.)
And I -do- understand that this post will be received with warring retaliation, regardless of whether it should or should not be (I'm not dismissing or supporting anything). I'm merely pointing out that there is no harm in leaving the unknown open for interpretation, for this is, in fact, the only way science has ever come to fruition.
If you do wish to retaliate (either way), please do the following:
- Cover all of the above issues.
- In addition (creationists): Explain the creation of whatever creationary force you believe in.
- Or (evolutionists): Explain the evolutionary significance of a pine comb.
You really need to post a link. I have to see this.
You don't "really need a link" to attend a university course in evolutionary biology.
1. Look up university of your choice
2. Enroll in course
When I tell you that you obviously haven't studied it, I wasn't referring to reading something online. I was telling you to actually formally study it with someone you can address your questions to.
If you want to skip this process (After all, who wants to look dumb by asking the emperor why he looks naked?), pick up "The Blind Watchmaker", as I'm sure any Richard-Dawkins-fellating philosopher will tell you is the greatest literary work of our time. Read on how DNA calculates, predicts, economically manages inherent "bio-credits", plans, adapts, and self-motivates to construct massive biological machines and places illusions into the inanimate elements that compose those chemical reactions -- telling them the best ways to breed and prepare itself for further replication, because each construct will last only a few dozen years. If you don't think DNA is the all-knowing, mind-reading, future-predicting shit after reading this book, you don't agree with the most popular explanation of evolutionary theory available. You are not a "scientist"
I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
Unfortunately what Mr. Dawkins and his drones do for science is the same as what creationists do for evolution.
Without a valid argument how can you hope to ever win over the opposition? One must know their "enemy" if they wish to claim victory.
I understood what Reiss meant when I first read his article, I didn't need clarification. He is simply stating that in order for one to understand something, in order to be able to fully support your stance, you should know BOTH sides of the argument. How ever silly you may think the opposition is, calling someone a moron or idiot without having factual statistics to support your idea only shows your ignorance of the ideas you are in direct contention of.
I applaud Reiss for his ideas. Rather then sweeping away what seems to some as fairy tales, embrace it, learn about it, be willing to listen. Hiding from it won't solve anything. The fact is a majority of Americans believe in creationism of some form. They didn't go to college level biology and chemistry classes and are ignorant in most cases, but so are the college graduates who've never opened a bible.
I am currently pursuing a molecular biology degree and fully believe in the evolution of life on this planet. I also believe in a creator. Say for a moment that God or whatever you want to call him/her/it is real. We know the evolution of life after the big bang is as good as fact. Therefore would there not have to be a way for the two to coexist? I don't believe in ID, I believe in the beautiful chaos of random selection and chance. I've found a way for two seemingly at odd ideas to coexist quite happily. I came to that decision after trying to gather more information to support my atheist beliefs. I think its a shame all we can do is fight with each other when the majority of those fighting are only knowledgeable on their specific belief, as little as it unfortunately may be, and have no way to reasonably debunk or argue the opposing issue.
I could post my own opinion here, but I think The Panda's Thumb does a much better job of covering this fiasco.
Your Guardian article confirms that he wasn't misquoted at all. Mind you, I don't believe for a minute that he's a creationist, but his attitude to the issue was wrong. As you can see from the links below, there is more than one side to the issue, but on balance, I'm glad he's gone.
For more diverse and in-depth discussions on the topic than you'll find on Slashdot (mainly because they have been going on longer) have a look at for example:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/09/michael_reisss_big_mistake.php
http://richarddawkins.net/article,3100,n,n
http://richarddawkins.net/article,3119,n,n
I didn't read the GP as proclaiming that it is true that life is divine in origin. He or she merely pointed out that it is impossible to show that it is not. Surely the simple observation that evolution has not be demonstrated (in the non-theoretical sense) does not automatically create a presumption that it could only have been divinely created. That in and of itself advances the theory of evolution to some sort of inviolate stage where it cannot be questioned. It can always be questioned, and it only advances or becomes more refined when challenged.
I personally despise these religiously charged articles on slashdot. The rancor thrown by the atheist crowd abandons the passionless purpose of science, which is ultimately observation and description. The religious crowd is just as bad at damning the other side and not responding with any complex or nuanced theology. I know some very smart atheists and some very smart religious people -- scientists and engineers on both sides; Democrats and Republicans on both sides. Slashdot is not the place to convert people, because ultimately 99.9% (insert your own decimal level of confidence here) of people are not won over to either by the strength of any logical or reasoned argument, but by fickle emotion. Sure, everyone on slashdot will claim to be part of the .1% who chooses only on the basis of observable evidence, but given how emotionally charged these (and other - btw, Apple Sucks) discussions get.
I would agree with his approach as long as they teach evolution in church. You know, just to have a philosophical discussion. Like, "There's no scientific proof that God exists", "How can you believe in such BS when millions of kids are dying and being abused." If the church goers are open to that then I don't see why we cannot have a similar discussion in schools about creationism.
Just because creationism cannot be studied scientifically doesn't mean the universe wasn't created. Not much to argue about here. Just a thought.
I am a Jedi, only my master, Yoda, can explain the human existence. You usually give credits to God for all the things that you aren't able to explain.
-- Simon said: Die!
Why is this even an issue?
You don't see political machines engaged in the fight against spherical earth and a sun centric orbit.
Creationism and ID are no different. Why are there people clinging to myth and superstition?
For non-UK readers - the Daily Mail is a conservative right wing tabloid.
That's a contradiction in terms. Tabloids are anathema to social conservatives.
it is very pro-Christian, and anti-atheism
I have read scores of stories in the Daily Mail over the years (linked from Drudge), and I'm stunned at your opinion. Pro-Christian? On its site right now, there are no fewer than half a dozen headlined stories focusing on the "pro-Christian" topic of boobs--one of them on male boobs. It's like that every day. The site is almost pornographic. I try to ignore the naughty links on the side, and as a follower of the Bible personally, I'm a little ashamed to admit that I read stories there. The site, over all, definitely promotes an atheistic/humanistic philosophy over a Christian one. If the Daily Mail is what passes for "pro-Christian" in the UK media, the rest must have gone to hell, literally. I know it's not really that bad, but you calling the Daily Mail conservative is like Palestinians calling Bill Clinton a Zionist.
You're all crazy
DNA that calculates, predicts, economically manages inherent "bio-credits", plans, adapts, and self-motivates to construct massive biological machines and places illusions into the inanimate elements that compose those chemical reactions -- telling them the best ways to breed and prepare itself for further replication...
and listens to prayers, makes himself be born of a virgin, lets 1 child die from a very efficient parasite every 30 seconds, but is all loving and all knowing and almighty, has got to be much more complex and therefore unlikely to have come into existence without a cause. It is more unlikely than a hurricane assembling a fighter jet.
Heroes die once, cowards live longer.
Thank God.
it is possible for someone to understand and be able to employ the scientific method in all areas, except for evolution because here their worldview take priority...i.e. they are capable scientists...but reach a different conclusion based on their worldview.
If a person is able to employ the scientific method, but then fails to do so regardless of the reason, they are not a competent scientist, ipso facto. To practice science is to follow the evidence wherever it may lead; *not* to follow the evidence unless or until your "worldview" supersedes it.
In other words, the qualification you attach to "scientist" is an overwhelming one, negating all the force of the argument.
The trouble is that so many people assume that Creationist = can't do science, but the disagreement doesn't necessarily come down to an inability to 'do' science.
The thesis of creationism is outside the purview of science. It cannot be shown that the universe was not created five minutes ago, with all our memories and apparent history created in-place as they now appear. In that way it is not science.
Concluding, through objectively examining all the available evidence, that the thesis of creationism is a true statement about reality is non sequitur. To reach such a conclusion, one must either be selective about the evidence one considers or use spurious (formally fallacious) logic; in other words, the argument is either invalid or unsound via broken premises or implications. In that way it is not science.
There's one last refuge for them, and it's the bastion of crackpottery and crank-science. It's called denying the inductive step: "Even though the universe looks one way [like it wasn't created by a deity], it could still actually be another way if more evidence becomes available, or it's just a brute fact of reality. That's how some people justify the claim that "fossils are just testing our faith", and other less extreme examples.
Creationism makes a very specific claim about the nature of reality: that it was created according to the will of a deity, through the power of that deity. Scientific investigation indicates this is probably not the case. Reiss even stated as much in his blog: [I agree with the statement that] "The ideas offered by intelligent design creationists are not the products of scientific reasoning." If you wanted to defend his position, you could have pointed that out instead; why didn't you?
The point of science is to figure out what reality actually is. A "worldview" that prevents one from discovering certain states, if they end up being true, blatantly prevents one from actually *doing* science, because you one *doesn't* have any a priori knowledge of such invalid states; from our perspective, there are none. That is exactly the weak point of science, and where crackpots and conspiracy theorists attack it, and why they will always have a beachhead.
At best, he seems to be saying that he doesn't think a creationist "worldview" can be shaken and that everyone deserves to have their ideas respected no matter how poor or parochial those ideas might be. But some ideas are objectively better than others; certain ideas more closely reflect reality than others, no matter what some humans in a backwater star system in a backwater galaxy in a backwater supercluster might opine.
At worst, this very "worldview" against which he warns is affecting his own judgement. Most scientists think creationism has no place being associated with science, but that belief in it is a very real social phenomenon that should be discussed for what it is (but *not* what it merely claims to be) in the appropriate class on religion, literature, culture, history, or other sociology. In this worst case, he thinks creationism should be addressed as if it were a scientific issue, in a science curriculum. It is not, but he claims quite exp
It's not science, it's metaphysics. Go look up the definition.
Until someone creates a time machine, no one can prove origins - creation or evolution - with science.
I must say that while I agree that creationism, by definition, cannot be scientifically explained or studied, that doesn't convince me that evolution is undeniably the answer to all. I have to say that standing in the Field Museum in Chicago last spring, I watched VIDEO FOOTAGE showing the earth so many millions of years ago. There were volcanoes and lava everywhere. It was crazy to see. I almost thought it was fake. It's so cool that we can watch VIDEO FOOTAGE from a time before we existed. If, and it's a huge if, God created the universe, could he not create it in such a way that it looked old? Could he have created it yesterday and built my memory so that I could "remember" the past 23 years. I agree that none of this is scientific. That doesn't mean it never happened though... I'm not mad that evolution is secular man's best guess. I just don't totally buy it.
You know, it's possible to take a metaphor too far. Dawkins does it. You do it.
Does that make you Dawkins?
No, of course it doesn't, but that's what you've just implied.
Scientists and engineers are annoying because they won't just tell you why you're wrong, they'll also tell you how.
May I be the first one who says who gives fuck what IDers want?
Science is NOT about spiting ID'ers.
You haven't got a clue what I've studied and what I haven't. You claimed that evolutionary theory told of telepathic beings which demand our loyalty and praise which in turn give us eternal life.
Compatibility would mean there would be significant interfacing and it would be positive or neutral. That is not what has been observed for the last 20,60,120,500 years, take your pick : mostly incompatibility (negative feedback at the interface) or radically perpandicular spaces not intersecting. Science and Religion are definitively NEVER compatible as there cannot be a positive interfacing with an unchanging DOGMA (religion) to a changing face (science). What can happen accidentally/incidentally is that science finding MIGHT correspond to the unchanging dogma, which then religion will embrace science, but when it goes against the dogma, science is then stoned/burned/finger pointed as an evil.
The bottom line is that there is no compatibility *per see*.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
be a discussion about which theory is best, or makes sense or whatever...
Its about respecting other people's beliefs and being open to other ideas, while being secure with your own. If you are not secure with your own beliefs, then you will not accept any criticism of them, and that's when fights start. I've found that most fights start about religion because people simply arent secure about their own religious beliefs...and the same goes for scientific beliefs, particulary in cases where its all theoretical and proof is very very hard to get.
I think what the Professor was trying to get across (mainly to other teachers and educators) was that their students may come to their classes with perfectly well-formed views about the world, and as educators, they should accept that and adapt their teaching style accordingly, not just dismiss the student's point-of-view and give their own. The teacher can introduce new ideas/concepts to the student, and the student makes the choice of what to fit into their worldview....esp. if they want to pass the exam at the end ;)
What you ask is maybe not so far off at all ...
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/09/biologists-on-t.html
"Biologists on the Verge of Creating New Form of Life
A team of biologists and chemists is closing in on bringing non-living matter to life."
Paradoxically, the article uses the word "created" in a headline about that exact evidence which you ask for to show the opposite.
He came into his position as head of education under a lot of scrutiny. Many people in the Royal Society felt it was inappropriate for a member of the clergy to hold one of the most important scientific education positions in the country. They were waiting for him to screw up, and he knew it. His view that time in science class should be used by the teacher to debate evolution with creationist students is not at all in line with most of the Royal Society. He should have kept it to himself.
It's not like he got into trouble for some offhand remarks to a small press outlet somewhere, it was his blog, and his subtitle: "...discussing creationism and intelligent design as alternatives to evolutionary theory." While his comments in their entirety are perfectly normal for any reasonable person, they don't reflect what the membership and leadership of the Royal Society want out there in their name. Does the oldest and most prestigious scientific organization in the world want it to be attributable to them that "because something lacks scientific support doesn't seem to me a sufficient reason to omit it from a science lesson?"
Yeah, I'm taking his quotes out of context. He had a high profile position and should have been more careful.
Out of context but hey? a being developes over billions of years and his name is Q. A fun loving prankster, he snaps his fingers and creates a planet complete with ecosystem and intelligent life. Stupid can watch Star Trek and accept that. But can't accept a God. On the other hand... You wake up tomorrow and there is no phukIng way this planet was created, it just happened. Stupid is happy to believe that he is the pinnacle of evolution and he was shit out by the Universe like a golden egg. Which hypothetical describes your mental condition? Personally, just like politics, I won't vote. I would be to humiliated to participate in either camp.
It's beyond unreasonable, they are dogmatic evolutionists to the point where it is a religious point of view of opposing the IDers.
They're fundamentalist atheists, and yes, they pose at least as great a threat to science as fundamentalist Christians.
Loose lips lose spit.
Honestly, you have no idea about Britain and what people are like there. I'm not even trolling, or bashing you, it's just as simple as that.
And yes, by British standards it definitely is conservative, extreme right-wing. Although the right in Britain is completely different to that of the US. A US version of the Daily Mail would be calling for a split-up of the states, would be calling Canadians communists and Mexicans scum. It would also concentrate on public hanging of Paedos and anyone who's stupid enough to be unemployed.
Everything else in there would just be made up. That's the other thing the Daily Mail does: invent whatever bullshit it likes. But instead of printing anything libelous, they put out whatever correlation is not causation 'facts' they can muster juxtaposed with some nudge-nudge wink-wink punditry. These are the bastards who complained about the number of Jews entering Britain in the late 1930's.
Monkeydust sums it up best.
Evolution is a fact
It is? You mean that creature evolve over time due to environmental factors etc?
OR do you subscribe to the Universe Evolving from nothing, that the perfect order that the world and universe exists in (Without mans intervention) happened by mere chance?
Where did everything come from? Science cannot answer this.
Religion (Not a crackpot religion) can answer this but you don't believe what Religion believes to be plausible.
I myself reject what scientists say is the beginning of all things, something does not just form from nothing, it doesn't happen science itself says it doesn't happen. So why do you believe thats what happened with the Universe?
Well, it's even simpler.
The grouping didn't need to form inside a bubble of anything. The whole primordial soup was the first "cell", so to speak. It was a medium in which aminoacids and nucleotids formed by themselves. A self-replicating RNA piece would have just made lots and lots of it right there in the ocean, out of the building blocks available.
Lipids formed around too, and the funny thing about the kinds of lipids in the cell wall is that they already tend to form curved double walls. Ephemereal bubbles with some of that RNA and some of that "soup" inside would have formed all the time.
Most likely the first such groupings were actually a nuisance, as they would cut you off from the outside world and leave you without more nucleotids to replicate after a while. The first such mollecules which could assemble a hole in that lipid bubble, would have a huge advantage. (Your immune system does contain a mechanism to do just that, and of course the DNA code for it: assemble 3 proteins which combine to form the border of a hole in a cell wall.)
At that point already you have the precursor of what a lot of proteins still do: regulate the transfer of substances between the inside and outside. Increasingly more complex proteins would be better than a simple pipe to the outside, and give more and more advantages to whoever can put them on its bubble.
At some point and given enough such proteins and some changes to the outside world, it would become more of an advantage to stay in the bubble than simply survive until it bursts. Proteins which would form a scaffolding to support that lipid wall would become an advantage.
And so on.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
You know, that's the thing makes me wonder the most about the whole christian god thing. Essentially we're taught that the guy is a good and loving god, but if you look at what he does, he actually acts like a complete asshole. He'll:
- punish people for something their ancestors did. It's a bit like me kicking you in the nuts because one of your ancestors sold slaves 2000 years ago. But, no, if God does it, it's a good and just thing.
- he plays favourites among his sons, in a major way. See the Abel and Cain episode for the first instance of it. And that was already barely generation 2.
- is an asshole about accepting gifts. Abel and Cain again. I mean, imagine me as a cranky old guy and two grandsons bring me gifts. And I'd go, "WTF? You give me a tie? What am I supposed to with that? Get out of here, you idiot. Get a hint from your brother. He gave me socks. He's my new favourite. In fact, I'll disown you, you little prick." Seriously, if anyone pulled that kind of a stunt, he'd be seen as an antisocial arsehole, and rightfully so. But if God does it? Nah, he's a good and loving guy.
- doesn't even bother sorting evil-doers from good guys before doing a genocide or two in the name of good. See Sodom and Gommorah, plus the Noah incident. (I have trouble believing that everyone killed there was a monster, including some thousands of babies who hadn't done anything wrong yet.)
- if he has to do a miracle, hey, nothing beats a plague or two or killing a few thousand babies to make a point. See, convincing the Pharaoh to let the Jews go. You'd think there would be ways to do flashy stuff that doesn't arbitrarily punish millions of Egyptians peasants and craftsmen who didn't even own slaves, nor have anything to do with the Pharaoh's decision.
- has no qualms with punishing billions of people for all eternity, for merely not having heard a particular fairy tale. (The recent "anonymous christian" doctrine of Vatican kinda fixes that, but even there many see it as a heresy.)
- for that matter, if you take it all literally, he seems to care more about whether or not you brown-nose him or his Junior than whether you're a good man and live by the rules. Seriously, we're supposed to believe that essentially a loving and _omnipotent_ God can't possibly forgive you for that original sin, unless you choose Jesus.
- causes a war or two. Way to set the mood and an example, dude. E.g., that promised land wasn't exactly empty. You'd think an _omnipotent_ god could just snap his fingers and create an empty fertile island for his favourites. But, nah, let's make them kill some thousands of philistines instead and take their land. It's more fun that way.
- encourage a little genocide, war crimes, rape, etc, while you're at it. Why not?
- will randomly kick people in the nuts just to see how strong their faith was. Several biblical examples, plus used heavily to explain stuff like the plagues.
- what better way to make a cryptic prophecy than to ask a father to kill his son, then essentially tell him it was just a practical joke at the last moment. Like being on Candid Camera with a cruel twist, I guess. Bonus points if said son is an adult by now. You know, just for that "how the fuck _am_ I going to kill him?" factor on the way there.
You'd think that a sealed document to be opened on date X would do the same job of proving you always meant to have your Junior nailed, no? And you're omnipotent, so you _can_ make a seal that can't be broken. But, nah, let's scare the shit out of Abraham instead. It's more fun.
- playing favourites with some of his children again, for no other merit than being the guys whose ancestor was the random guy chosen for such a cruel prank`
- blame it on free will, or have it blamed in your name, when the world you created and uncertainty about the future create bursts of overpopulation and thus war, famines, and the like. (Bonus points if it results in witch hunts and pogroms, because, hey, if all evil is the result of free wil
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
I can't believe he changed his point of view. Must be about the benjamins.
of non-matter missing from nothing.
So, there was nothing. But nothing is the sum of matter and non-matter. And, at one random point, these two things got separated. Things got worse since then.
We now have multiple gods, flying spaghetti monster, scientologists...
All possible stuff and their opposite.
There was a theory that the sound barrier could not be broken, and this was considered a fact. Obviously we now know that this is completely wrong.
There is a theory of evolution, but because there are two types of evolution people usually confuse them, and arguments are pointless.
Micro Evolution is where species can adapt and change appearance due to environmental circumstances.
Macro Evolution is where one species changes to another species.
Micro evolution is factual, but macro evolution is purely speculative, having no facts behind it - which even Darwin himself concluded.
Linux/Open Source/Anti Microsoft News
Firstly, he's not being drummed out on a criminal charge and dragged away in legs irons - he being removed from a position that needs to be untainted by such non-scientific suggestions. I read about what he "said" elsewhere, and was appalled by it. Did I research it further and scientifically - no, because it is a political issue and so depends on interpretation.
I'm glad to see that he was misquoted, but damage has been done - the creationists will exploits these statements, and the word 'misquote' won't appear on any of their websites. The best that Royal Society can do, is to ensure that the quotes are attributed to the 'Former Education Director' as opposed to the 'Current Education Director'.
From the original /. posting:
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.
This is unfortunately quite true.
Secondly, as Richard Dawkins states, religion should keep its nose out of science. Equally, science should keep its nose out of religion - a sentiment that I think the good professor would agree with. Let philosophy heads discuss whether creationism should be taught in philosophy classes, that's their business - but its none of the Royal Society's. If there was some suggestion, as in the US, that it should be taught as a science - that's a different matter.
Genesis 1:32 And God typed
A science class is for teaching science, english literature class for teaching english literature, maths for teaching mathematical equations.
They are already full with that task.
So you take fifteen minutes out explaining the creationism is not scientific. Then another fifteen minutes on each of the thousand different other creation myths.
Then you've taught no science.
Schools need something I'd call a Randi Hour. that's a lesson where an authoritative person takes some pseudoscience subject, and tries to make a convincing case for it. And it leaves you on your own to see what you do with it. It's easy to disregard pseudoscience when you only hear it from helpful sources who ridicule it.
i wouldn't introduce it too early though, and as part of a course in hardcore skepticism. (unfortunately not-)Needless to say, this would be a very different proposal than the creationist proposal to just introduce creationism in the curriculum.
Yeah, I
It's not gravity, It's Intelligent Falling
as an idiot, i have the balls to post my opinions with my identity attached. you, on the other hand, insult people while remaining anonymous. lets see, in my book that trumps up whatever you have to say.
Read radical news here
...spread the gospel of the flying spaghetti monster to our next generation of pirates?
Fundamentalist? What fundamentalism is this? Atheists blowing themselves up in the name of their beliefs? States persecuting people for their religious beliefs? Atheists trying to force others to believe, or persecuting others, either through laws or violence? Atheists stifling criticism of their beliefs, again either through laws or violence? Perhaps you means people who take everything 100% literally true from a particular Atheist book?
What rubbish. Yes, people here are guilty of being misled or even possibly intentionally misrepresenting the facts, but this isn't anything to do with fundamentalism. Nor is it specifically an atheist issue - plenty of religious people oppose ID (remember this is the UK, where even though many are religious, hardly anyone believes in Creationism). A large amount of the media misrepresented Reiss's views, and it's not clear that atheists are in control of the media.
Trying to paint this as an atheist v. religious issue as the Daily Mail does is misleading, and is just as damaging when it comes to giving support to Creationists - it means they can hide in with the religious group, saying "Look how atheists oppress us!" In fact, many if not most religious people oppose Creationism is schools too. The issue here is "People getting the wrong end of the stick", where "people" includes both atheists and religious people.
And your post is a perfect example of using this issue to give support to Creationism.
It's beyond unreasonable, they are dogmatic evolutionists to the point where it is a religious point of view of opposing the IDers.
There is nothing wrong with opposing IDers, and this is done based on overwhelming scientific evidence.
But that is not what happened here. Scientists are not opposing IDers, because, for the millionth time, Reiss is not a Creationist. Both Reiss and those arguing against him agree that ID should be opposed, but unfortunately his views were misrepresented.
If Reiss really had supported teaching ID, then asking him to resign would have been perfectly fine.
The facts don't matter; even if some evidence supporting ID appeared, they would hold true to the evolutionist dogma.
Complete rubbish. Scientific theories are always modified or even discarded if new evidence suggests they are wrong. If evidence existed for ID, it would be accepted - but evidence does not exist. You might as well criticise zoologists for not accepting existence of unicorns, claiming "even if evidence of unicorns existed, they wouldn't accept their existence".
ID is not science, and it is unfalsifiable, and it is not something that can be easily tested anyway.
I have read scores of stories in the Daily Mail over the years (linked from Drudge)
First of all, it should be noted that their print edition is in my opinion worse than their online articles - although occasionally there are rather biased and prejudiced articles online, many of them are much more reasonable than the equivalent articles that's in the print edition (I read it for years, as my parents read it).
As for pro-Christian, I do not mean in the same sense as a committed Christian (e.g., a regular church goer), nor in the sense that people in the US are usually Christian. For the Daily Mail, it's more the sense that Christianity is seen as a fundamental part of our culture - yet they are unable to distinguish between the religion, and the cultural aspects of religion. So even whilst they aren't necessarily promoting Christian views, they think that everyone should be Christians and criticise anyone who isn't (in this case, atheists, but Muslims are another obvious target). They're representative of the people who believe in God, identify as Christian and will insist that faith is important, but who never go to Church except for christenings/weddings/funerals, and it's not clear whether they really believe anything specifically Christian, beyond a general belief in God. There seem to be quite a lot of these people in the UK.
So yes, pro-Christian isn't perhaps the right word for this - I'm not sure what is (pro-cultural Christian?) And I know plenty of Christians (actual Christians like you, not the ones I describe above) who hate the Daily Mail.
And as for porn, actually they do often take a rather prudish pro-Censorship issue, for anything more than a clothed woman showing a bit of cleavage. (The fact that they shove images of women's cleavage everywhere, whilst demonising porn, is just another example of their hypocrisy. Indeed this is true of the UK tabloid media in general - they shove sexualised images of women all over their articles, in some cases underaged women, but love to demonise porn, especially material on the Internet, even though the latter is often less likely to be seen by those who don't want to see it.)
I disagree that they have an atheistic or humanistic philosophy - what makes you think that?
Traditionally, the liberal view on science has been one of a fair amount of skepticism. Especially from the mid 20th century, this was largely a reaction to a whole bunch of junk science that had somehow gotten into the mainstream, from phrenology to racial science, leading to a rethinking of the relationships between science as a fallible sociological process and science as a truth-uncovering process.
Now that things have become politicized in the sense of two hot-button "liberal" issues being supported by science. with "conservatives" happening to be on the "anti-science" side on those two issues, it leads to an odd reversal. I hear things from political liberals about accepting scientific conclusions as dogmatic and un-questionable (except perhaps by people with PhDs and specialized training in the specific area), which until quite recently would've been seen as a highly reactionary and conservative viewpoint. And I hear conservatives talking about things like respecting "different truths" that come from different cultural traditions that until quite recently would've been more likely to come from a left-wing post-colonial theory academic than a right-wing politician.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
why go to all the trouble of building a large hadron collider if all we're going to do is teach everyone god is at the center?
the money may as well have been spent on restorations to big butter jesus.
Good people go to bed earlier.
Some of Professor Michael Reiss's recent comments, on the issue of creationism in schools, while speaking as the Royal Society's Director of Education, were open to misinterpretation. While it was not his intention, this has led to damage to the Society's reputation. As a result, Professor Reiss and the Royal Society have agreed that, in the best interests of the Society, he will step down immediately as Director of Education a part time post he held on secondment. He is to return, full time, to his position as Professor of Science Education at the Institute of Education. The Royal Society's position is that creationism has no scientific basis and should not be part of the science curriculum However, if a young person raises creationism in a science class, teachers should be in a position to explain why evolution is a sound scientific theory and why creationism is not, in any way, scientific. The Royal Society greatly appreciates Professor Reiss's efforts in furthering the Society's work in the important field of science education over the past two years. The Society wishes him well for the future.
God was my co-pilot, but then we crashed and I was forced to eat him.
Anyone seen the movie Expelled?
Don't let the door hit ya where the good lord split ya!
I do find it funny that Galileo fought so hard to overthrow the tyranny of the Catholic Church being so closed minded to different ideas and yet little did he know that he was paving the way for the tyranny of scientists who refuse to allow equal expression of different ideas.....why can't we let the kids decide for themselves?.....i thought that was the beauty of a an educational system.....equipping people to make decisions not just be handed them.
"Abuse of word "actually", requires that following sentence is factually accurate."
You failed to demonstrate that it was not accurate.
" What you mean is that science still can't explain it to you."
No, I think he means that it can't be explained beyond what are considered, at best, marginal hypotheses. YOu have yet to demonstrate that he is inaccurate, yet are still assuming so.
"Don't assume that knowledge doesn't exist just because you don't possess it personally."
So where is it? As far as I'm aware, "marginal hypotheses" more accurately reflects the state of thinking on the subject, and you still haven't done anything other that accuse GP of being ignorant. You've berated him plenty, now where is the actual information?
I hope you're seeing my point now, mods. This guy pandered to your biases, provided nothing beyond a thinly veiled attack, and you modded him to +5.
Your point is wrong, Gp os correct, at right now, the state of science does NOT have an explanation about the origin of DNA that rises above a very weak hypotheses. Any researcher who works in the area will tell you that.
Of course, this in no way supports creationism, but you don't get to jump all over the guy when you're demonstrably wrong.
You got played mods. Own it.
To quote LongNoi "QZTR was right and won't leave me alone because I called him a moron when I was wrong" FYS
If so, they must simultaneously claim that science == atheism.
I think that is complete and utter crap. Who decides what information is important? Say a kid is born to complete atheist parents, God/gods etc don't get mentioned in school so the child will never get exposed to those ideas. At best it slows the kid's exposure and adoption of the beliefs that he/she will chose, at worst it condones ignorance.
We as a society have gone far of course when we teach people that some knowledge shouldn't be taught. It seems contradictory that most of the western countries have a "freedom of religion" clause while at the same time they help enforce bias in the children towards the parents' beliefs. The child truly isn't free if they don't get equal access to information from which to make their own minds up.
You are mistaken, since science goes where the evidence leads. Evidence is not "dogma".
There is no "evolutionist dogma". Evolutionary scientists are arguing and sometimes even fighting over details like what this fabulous new fossil should be categorized as.
That is interesting, considering that Dawkins has repeatedly stated that he is open to the existence of God, as long as someone can provide him with evidence. If Dawkins is a good representative of "fundamentalist atheists", the author of that text has bigger problems than anyone can imagine.
Dawkins, a man who says that he's open to anything as long as there is evidence for it, is a threat to science? Good one.
"It will call 'anti-evolutionary fervor' an 'indictment' on the Church." ... Exactly how many indictments does that make? At what point do we convict it?
It gets really old seeing the same old tired arguments against evolution from people who completely fail to understand the basics of what science even is.
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/Top10MythsEvol.HTM
Scientists don't sit around and take votes to decide what is true or is not; NATURE decides. Rather a scientist will run an experiment to see if it supports his pet theory. If it does and if it is REPEATABLE by others, then depending on how well his theory is supported and how strongly the results refute other theories HIS THEORY BECOMES ACCEPTED.
Of course, scientists being human, this may take a while because of misunderstandings, ego, professional jealousy, investedness in another theory but eventually the theory with better supporting evidence wins out. IT MAY TAKE AWHILE, sometimes as long as waiting until the old stubborn scientists to DIE OUT and be replaced by younger ones who come in "unbiased". See Thomas Kuhn "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions". Not perfect but the best method we've got for discerning OBJECTIVE TRUTH.
There is nothing to deny that tomorrow everything could just float away (though extremely unlikely); the facts didn't change, just a new set of facts have been introduced into the discussion set.
As you rightly note, existing facts don't change or disappear just because new facts are introduced. Gravity is a fact today; if it disappeared tomorrow that would not change the fact that it existed today. The theory of gravity would have to change, to encompass and explain its sudden absence. But the theory would also have to encompass and explain its former existence as well--because that happened too. A working theory has to explain all known facts, past and present.
The law of gravity describes the current data data set. The theory of gravity takes things a step further to introduce method for predicting future observations.
The "law of gravity" is just an older name for the theory of gravity. Two different names for the same thing. Scientists today recognize your main point (that all knowledge is provisional), and thus have shied away from using the word "law" anymore.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
I appreciate your viewpoint and actually share it. Generally speaking I despise the debate because it is emotionally charged on both sides. However, I don't let that stop me from arguing logically and pointing out when others are not.
I believe I was quite correct in calling that post out as an argument from ignorance. The implication of the sentence "Show me evolution from the ground up to prove that life is not divine" is quite clear. It obviously points to a lack of evidence (the scientist's inability to show evolution from the ground up) as proof for another view (that life is divine).
Thunderclone: ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE! ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE!
Well, that is a highly coloured definition of faith, and just one of the senses offered by Wiktionary.
It's late in the day to be adding to this discussion, but what I really wanted to get at is this: that though you may like that definition of the word, it's not the one your creationist friend has in mind when he says that it is "faith" that leads him to the conclusion that Darwinian evolution is wrong.
For what it's worth, I think creationists are mistaken in their conclusion that Christian belief is inconsistent with evolution. This must be due to a false premiss or faulty reasoning, but we must avoid in turn the worse error of supposing that all religious premisses are false or all religious reasoning faulty: that's absurd.
-- Mike
PS. I read some of the Origin a couple of years ago, and I must say I was bowled over by the richness of Darwin's perception of the ecological complexity of nature. It is beautifully subtle and yet completely accessible.
In principal, science should normally go where evidence leads. But that assertion is irrelevent to the situation.
In practice, it does not always go that way.
Ye must remember that science is practiced by humans, not machines. I'm saying the association of scientists has become so dogmatic and shown so much antagonism for ID, that they may act with strong bias.
Humans are vulnerable to biases. Humans are vulnerable to ignoring evidence.
Humans are vulnerable to failing to draw the most likely conclusions warranted by that evidence due to bias.
Humans are vulnerable to drawing unwarranted conclusions due to bias.
When you put multiple humans together into larger groups, they become even more vulnerable to these things -- groupthink, and any "theory", whether reasonable/or not that goes against the group theory is automatically wrong.
I'm saying they sound so dogmatic, that even if evidence strongly favoring ID could be soundly shown through repeatable experiment, they would in all likelihood continue to reject it.
Heck, what about ELEMENTARY school??? Isn't philosophy the foundation of *all* education??? Why are we not teaching this in kindergarten??? Isn't this *the* problem that is wrong with our educational system???
In practice, it does go that way because science does not depend on humans, it depends on the process. Unlike religion, there are not unquestionable authorities, and as long as your research is done correctly, the results will speak for themselves.
But this is patently false, because what humans think or believe is irrelevant. All that matter is what the evidence shows.
Which is why we have peer review.
This is a dishonest argument on your part. There is no creationist/ID theory. Not even a hypothesis. All it is, is an attack on Evolution. Something which is not reasonable is not a theory. If it is reasonable, the facts will speak for themselves, and the peer review process can confirm that the research is indeed sound, which means that it will be accepted by other scientists.
The huge conspiracy about groupthink is nonsense. Creationism isn't kept out because of groupthink. It's kept out because it isn't science. It has no research, no explanations, no nothing.
No, they would not. They could not, because the scientific process would dictate it.
Remember, there are a lot of religious scientists out there, including one of the biggest defenders of Evolution, Dr. Ken Miller, a devout Catholic. Do you really think all these scientists are going to insist on evidence which points to the existenfe of God? Of course not.
The argument you are using is nothing but a dishonest red herring, based on your own ignorance of the scientific process.
There is no conspiracy to keep creationism out of science. There is only the brutal machine that is the scientific process, which discards claims that do not hold up to scrutiny.
Evolution is still a theory until proven a fact.
Why was this post labelled as 'Troll'?
It's true!
If anybody could prove, beyond any doubt, that all life evolved from simple organisms which miraculously appeared via the accidental collision of a few atoms, and that mankind evolved from apes, there would be no arguments on this subject!
The only reason there is such a commotion about evolution (where one kind of species changes to a completely different kind - e.g. fish to dogs) is because it has not been proven.
If it is a fact, why are people trying so desperately to prove it? Why are they getting so excited when new 'evidence' emerges?
We don't have perpetual arguments about gravity, so obviously the 'proof' of evolution is lacking.
If I get a few bird skulls and line them up from the smallest to the largest it doesn't mean that they evolved from one another. This is really the level of proof that scientists offer us.
There are black people, white people, asian, etc. It is obvious that changes and/or mutations in species can occur, but this does not prove that my great*billions grandfather was plankton.
"There are only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation, that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with the only possible conclusion that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible; spontaneous generation arising to evolution." -- George Wald, PhD, Harvard University (Nobel Prize Winner), Scientific American Vol. 199, 1958
Linux/Open Source/Anti Microsoft News