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."
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.
Agreed, and just for reference (since Slashdot, along with the rest of the media, seem unwilling to link to them):
Here is what he originally said: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2008/sep/11/michael.reiss.creationism
Here is the clarification just one day later: http://royalsociety.org/news.asp?id=8004
I think he expressed his views rather poorly in what was said originally, making it easy to misread unless you look very closely. And it was reasonable to express criticism over that. But the media should not ignore the clarification after it has been made.
Sure, there's a valid argument that it's better not to mention creationism at all (even to debunk it and explain why it isn't science, as Reiss was suggesting), but let's be clear: he was not advocating teaching creationism.
To suggest otherwise is just the sort of thing IDers want - do we really want them to be able to say "Leading scientists support teaching creationism in science lessons"? Of course not, which is why this myth should not be propagated.
Citation please, where he did this?
royal society did the right thing.
Both The Royal Society and Reiss are entirely in agreement that creationism should not be taught as a science: http://royalsociety.org/news.asp?id=8004
Go read the article.
The original story was based on a misquote. The article that this summary links to says so. Why does the summary imply that the original story valid while linking to one that debunks it!?
What's your problem? She's a fucking nutcase, she has no business aspiring to a leadership position that requires clear thinking and a reality-based worldview. She should quit, no, be fired, from her aspirations. I'm not suggesting she be destroyed. Religion, on balance, is nothing.
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
Sigh. Learn to fucking read.
The guy's original article essentially boils down to: "If students ask about creationism, science teachers should explain why it's bullshit."
What part of that do you disagree with?
Maybe not
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
Thunderclone: ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE! ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE!
Well, no. That is not true at all.
It sucks that his quotes were misinterpreted and he chose to step down to avoid the resulting controversy. But this was a reaction to the misperception that he was pushing creationism into science education, not just the fact that he was Christian. While I am embarrassed that such an ill informed fuss was made, I can understand it as there are plenty of people repeatedly trying to do just that: push creationism into science education. After defending against this again and again, I can see why supporters of science are a little trigger happy.
He just showed them why it is not such a good idea to put a religious person at the head of a science organisation.
What, by saying that teachers should explain why creationism isn't scientific, when trying to get children to accept evolution?
Dawkins is making the more general point about whether a priest should be in such a position, which is a matter for debate, but not relevant to this issue. I've generally been a great fan of Dawkins, but would lose respect if he decides to make an issue out of this false version of Reiss's views - especially since usually I'd expect Dawkins to be arguing against the creationists false claims that "leading scientists support teaching creationism"!
As Richard Dawkins suggested, he could have given up his religious position too, that would have been much more convincing.
An interesting idea, but not sure it's relevant here, since (a) it wasn't fellow vicars asking him to resign from being a vicar, and (b) as much as I dislike the Church of England for other reasons, they neither support teaching creationism, nor oppose teaching evolution. In fact, in 2002 a group of bishops wrote a letter to the Government to oppose a school which was teaching creationism ( http://richarddawkinsfoundation.org/foundation,questionableFoundations ).
I think it's interesting that you complain that the Big Bang, the origin of DNA, etc. get muddled up with evolution, and yet you are the one who has introduced these subjects to a discussion about about the theory of evolution. I think this is part of the reason these subjects get mingled together in the first place (besides the fact that they're all fascinating science that offers an explanation of our origins, albeit at different levels), somehow or another, these issues all get invoked beside each other, even if it's by someone who brings up the subject to make the point that we shouldn't do that!
In any event, I think you're off the mark with this statement. The Big Bang developed out of Einstein's discoveries and astronomical observations -- the physics, mathematics and stars all seemed to indicate that the universe was/is expanding. If you follow that discovery out to its logical conclusion, you figure out the universe was once much smaller and more dense. Theology had nothing to do with it, even if "sudden creation" is an idea the world was already familiar with thanks to religion. If anything, it just paved the way of acceptance of the theory among the public. Also, "sudden creation" isn't the same as "rapid expansion," which is what the Big Bang theory is really about. Further, many people/scientists, for a long time, didn't presume either rapid expansion or sudden creation, but instead believed the universe was something eternal and relatively stable -- that's the "starting point" they were working from.
As for "evolutionists" overapplying the concept of evolution, I see that much less than you apparently do, and when it does happen, I think you can attribute it to scientific illiteracy in general. If by "evolutionist" you mean "a person who subscribes to the theory of evolution," most evolutionists are ignorant about the nuts and bolts of evolution, as are most non-evolutionists. It shouldn't be surprising if they get abiogenesis and the theory of evolution mixed up. It is creationists who I see really get things confused by connecting the Big Bang with the theory of evolution though.
Also, evolution, in the broadest sense, just means "change over time." That makes it a word applicable to pretty much anything in the world. You can speak of the evolution of the cosmos or DNA, and you're not wrong to do so. What might make you wrong is if you get into the specifics of that evolution.
Even when we're dealing with specific mechanisms though, it may be fair to draw from the theory of evolution to seek explanations (or new perspectives) on other phenomenon. The law of natural selection is probably the mechanism that is most often invoked, since it can be applied to anything which replicates, can be modified, and is acted on by some sort of selection pressure (how many non-living entities like that exist is a matter that's up for debate). Probably the most common extension of natural selection outside the domain of biology is memetics, a way of looking at the evolution of ideas/culture. Memetics doesn't give you a grand, overarching "theory of culture," but it may be a piece of the puzzle, and gives us an interesting alternative perspective on things.
As for the origins of DNA, this is an area where natural selection may be applicable. For the scientists engaging this issue, given the relevance of natural selection in the post-DNA world, I think it would be stupid for them not to ask, "Can we explain any of this with natural selection?" Some people may be overconfident that the answer is "yes." This likely stems mostly from ignorance among people who don't understand the distinction between abiogenesis and the theory of evolution, but a few more knowledgeable "evolutionists" do like the theory of evolution so much that they don't see any reason to make such a distinction.
On the origin of matter, I know of very, very few
And a Bachelors in Communications. Don't forget that Bachelors in Communications. She worked six long years for that degree.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
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.
I hear people make this argument all the time, but it never comes from a biologist.
That's completely BS. Read Stephen Jay Gould, he wrote several chapters debating exactly this point. But do not let the facts get in the way.
> Eventually, a grouping came about (most likely RNA) that could replicate and store information. This grouping may have been formed inside of a 'bubble' of polymer that protected the grouping from the outside world - and the first 'virus' was born.
You really shouldn't call that thing a 'virus'. A virus, by definition, cannot reproduce on its own.