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."
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
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
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.
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.
Actually science still can't explain where DNA came from or for that matter science cannot explain matter. The big bang was a theological idea used to give scientists a starting point. That they don't believe in what caused that starting point is moot. I would love if Evolutionists would reconsider their views but for them it is the Holy Grail and a religion. I don't dispute evolution as in "Survival of the fittest" and change over time and adaptations. I reject it as an explanation for the source of all matter, dna, and life. It doesn't tackle those subjects yet you always see those lumped into evolutionary discussions.
The only people who always lump all that other stuff into evolutionary discussions are creationists.
MrCreosote Meow!Thump!Meow!Thump!Meow!Thump! "You're right! There isn't enough room to swing a cat in here!"
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.
I'm as anti-religious as they come. I think that religion is a despicable con propagated by evil people for their own nefarious ends. But I still disagree with you. I learned the theory of evolution from an ordained minister and his education was perfectly sound. He was a nice guy actually (besides being evil and nefarious, that is). There are enough safety checks in place in an organisation like the Royal Society that someone's religion is unlikely to cause too much harm. In fact, this event shows that those safety checks may have been a little too easy too trigger.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
Is it really that surprising people choose faith over science?
See, I think of it the other way. In what sort of world would you want to live? A world where some arbitrary and capricious god or god-like being determines whether you live or die, succeed or fail, based on one of a large number arbitrary religious teachings of which you must choose correctly in order not to be cursed?
Or would you rather live in a world where the laws of physics and nature are constant for everyone?
Personally, I'd prefer option B, thank you very much. The whole god thing is nonsense and the fact that people believe that stuff is disturbing.