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
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
You're a idiot -- and I'm speaking scientifically, cause anyone who makes your claim in the defense of science must have a very low IQ.
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.
Pressuring someone to resign because they mention the word "creationism" in a not entirely disparaging context, despite being misquoted, sounds like "religious convictions or belief higher than their science" to me. Unless their science involves propaganda and gut feeling rather than logic an facts. So who isn't worthy of a post here?
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
1.) This man didn't put religious belief higher than science. He just said it should be taught in school rather than ignored, but still taught in a way that promotes the theory of evolution as a science, and creationism as a religious belief not founded on logic and empirical evidence. He didn't want to waste hours on end talking about creationism--he just wanted to explain WHY its not science. Nor did he want to profess it was right.
2.) Religious persons are fully capable of using the empirical method to logically deduce (and/or prove/discover) and record evidence (i.e. "science"). They shouldn't let their convictions stand in the way of their findings and remain a large part of an empirical system such as the royal society--but they shouldn't be completely disregarded by the society for a misguided attempt at teaching a social science alongside a theory of science. And in the end that's all he wanted to do. Teach a historically valid world view that is being phased out due to vast scientific evidence. Believing and learning about old beliefs and pseudo-sciences are two different things entirely. And refusing to listen to your opponent's argument isn't science: its ignorance.
3.) From another article about him, I already read he also wanted to try to help kids who get picked on in science classes for their religious belief. Science should take precedent in a place of logic and learning over religion (especially in a state that holds a firm belief in religious tolerance). But the school should not be a place that allows religious intolerance to spread, even if it spreads as a result of empiricists ragging on dualists (I'm assuming dualism here as its "god created everything", making a clear separation from reality and the spiritual world).
Ginga no Rekshiya Mata Each page.
Did you happen to RTFA by chance? You seem a little mixed up on what happened. Reiss was misquoted. He did not put any religious convictions above scientific teaching.
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!?
You realize that the situation you describe has nothing to do with this story right?
The man said that if Creationism is raised in class by a student it should be dealt with there as a teaching opportunity on the scientific method.
He was right but badly quoted.
Kevin
PS - On a note unrelated to the story but related to your attitude. Nothing in this world is more annoying than an American atheist ... and their dogmatic approach appears to have leapt the pond as well.
anyone who puts religious convictions or beliefs higher than their science, are not worthy of any scientific post. royal society did the right thing.
Please RTFA. By your standard, the royal society did not do the right thing, because the professor did not advocate, putting his, "religious convictions or beliefs higher" than science. He clearly stated in his original article that creationism or intelligent design where not scientific viewpoints and should not be taught as such. He was misquoted.
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.
1.) This man didn't put religious belief higher than science. He just said it should be taught in school rather than ignored, but still taught in a way that promotes the theory of evolution as a science, and creationism as a religious belief not founded on logic and empirical evidence. He didn't want to waste hours on end talking about creationism--he just wanted to explain WHY its not science. Nor did he want to profess it was right.
This is why philosophy should be taught (again) at the high school level. Creationism, intelligent design, etc., are important topics for any introduction to philosophy class. And when they are taught in a philosophy class, they actually promote critical thinking. On the other hand, when they are taught as an alternative in a science class, they only promote closed thinking.
Except that the guy was saying exactly the right thing - that creationism is not science, and that science teachers need to be able to explain why creationism is not science.
Someone is guaranteed to bring up the question about creationism in science class. The proper answer is a discussion about what science is, why creationism is not science and why it is better discussed in the context of social sciences and philosophies. This is the position Reiss advocated. I have no idea how people managed to contort that into something else.... unless the world is a lot more like Slashdot than I care to think.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
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.
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!
But he didn't do that!
He just said that science teachers should be free to discuss creationism, i.e. why it isn't science.
The creationists couldn't have asked for a better outcome. They have always claimed that scientists "believe" in evolution as if it is was a religious faith, and that they won't tolerate criticism of their ideas or other beliefs. Scientists always said that was nonsense... and yet, now we have an example of a man who has been persecuted for speaking out of turn.
The greatest threat to science isn't the creationists, but the armies of Dawkinsbots who defend "science" with fundamentalist fervour. If you're going to fight creationism, you have to stick to the facts, otherwise you're as irrational as they are.
>north
You're an immobile computer, remember?
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 Please yourself. This had nothing to do with religion. And you are just shooting yourself in the foot. The philosophers used to be in control back in the time or Aristotle and the scientists were ridiculed. Now that scientists are in control they ridicule philosophy. I'm quite tired of the whole thing. Both sides are big babies.
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
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
First: this man is a priest, and a biologist, and a respected biologist at that.
Second: the 'blunder' was basically failing to say things in a way that couldn't be misquoted. His original suggestions, which were also written about on Slashdot, were reasonable ones saying 'let students, and teachers, discuss it in class and compare its reasoning to that of science'. That's a good approach, just what Mythbusters does and excellent material for exploring scientific reasoning versus superstition or dogmatic beliefs.
Unfortunately for him, he's not a Jesuit. If he were, he'd have had far more practice in the kind of spirited debate that would have helped him avoid being misquoted and misunderstood.
Also unfortunately, the shouting has obscured one of the dangers of his actual suggestion. But bringing creationism into the classroom, even to discredit it, it is lent a certain respectability for people who are not in the class. And other teaching professionals, more convinced of their religious versions of biology and physics, can hide their fraudulent scientific claims by calling it 'analysis'. That kind of stunt used to be pulled all the time in US classrooms, teaching political propaganda, and I can only assume that it also occurs in UK classrooms as well. So we want to be very careful about what, exactly, we spend valuable classroom time analyzing.
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
Wrong. I am an irrelevantist. Religion is without value except as a curiosity of human behavioral defects.
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.
You (and the Slashdot editors) committed a serious blunder: you failed to read what he actually said.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2008/sep/11/michael.reiss.creationism
http://royalsociety.org/news.asp?id=8004
Even if the Guardian summary ("Teachers need to accommodate the differing world views of students from Jewish, Christian or Muslim backgrounds â" which means openly discussing creationism and intelligent design as alternatives to evolutionary theory") were true, I don't think it warrants the kind of Muslim-esque head-on-a-platter firestorm we saw yesterday.
The government can't save you.
Alcohol is just a theory, not a proven fact, but I still fall over...
Anonymous Coward
In my opinion, being religious. let alone a priest, and being a scientist is not compatible unless one manages to keep up some odd kind of schizophrenia.
I agree that discussing the flaws of creationism could be a good idea in a society where obviously a significant number of people think that creationism is an "alternative" to science.
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 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.
Please Please yourself.
No - please please me - whoa yeah!
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.
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.
Gosh. It's been a long time. I'm pretty sure I could divide an angle into an number of divisions using my compass and a straight edge. The trick is that you have to be an engineer instead of a mathematician. It reminds me of a joke...
An engineer and a mathematician are standing some distance away from Natalie Portman who is holding a pot of steaming hot grits. They are told that they can only approach Natalie by covering one half the distance with each iteration. They can use as many iterations as they want to approach Natalie. The mathemetician leaves in disgust. The engineer says, "I can get close enough for practical purposes."
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
"I feel most of the scientific community are closet Militant Atheists,"
Logic and reason might well make one antagonistic to superstition.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
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?
Pity you weren't around to tell Michael Faraday and James Clerk Maxwell that their evangelicalism were incompatible with them being among the greatest scientists in history.
I want to agree with you. Your points make some sense. The problem I have is when I try to extrapolate from your arguments.
You see, I was brought up in the Catholic faith so these belief don't seem that weird to me. Well, maybe they seem weird but I've grown used to them. But what about other religions? Should we teach about Eloims, Buddha, Flat Earth, Greek Gods? Maybe, but not in a science class.
By the way, not wanting to listen to the same unsupported evidence doesn't make someone ignorant. It's more of a selective usage of one's personal time.
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.
Exactly. Science classes should not be dogmatic, but keep our minds forever voyaging, but within the bounds of reason and empirical data.
It will eventually work out this way - creationism will take a limited foothold in the short term, and science education will respond decisively and embarrass it soundly. We're not doing creationism versus evolution; we're doing a watered-down creationism (which is still palpably absurd) against "science" classes with questions like this:
The scientific method requires ______ (choose the most appropriate answer below).
a. truth
b. inquiry
c. air
d. pizza
Except that I give too much credit; "truth" versus "inquiry" might give rise to critical thinking and an interesting discussion. Actually, choice (a.) would be something like "thermometers". Seriously, I "learned" what the scientific method is about fifty times in elementary school, not once even rubbing a balloon on a piece of wool or whatever. We crushed peppermint life savers once.
And the political correctness around evolution (even at good colleges, the professors tend to pussy-foot around it; think about that!) is sickening. We need to pull this diseased slice of anachronism into the light, so we can crush it. That's messy work, but otherwise is just dishonest.
"What is evil, but that which conspires to do good?"
"They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
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"
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
Nothing in this world is more annoying than an American atheist .
The only reason you even know there are atheists in America is because the Christians are even more annoying than they are. In the US, there is literally no escape from religious influence in public life, and it's getting worse by the day.
So you can expect atheists and other advocates of rationalism to become even more "annoying," to use your word.
I agree with A.C. that philosophy is important for the development of critical thinking. I don't follow the bit about the teaching of alternatives in science as promoting closed-mindedness, though. How does that work? If you teach only the One Accepted Theory, this promotes open-mindedness? Seems backwards to me.
proof, n. A demonstration that a conclusion is implied by certain premises and axioms.
I have very strong opinions in these matters, and I still have no reason to see this as anything other than a witch hunt. I don't know about his past performance, but if this was all over this one quote, it's a damn shame, because what he said was nowhere near "we should teach creationism in schools". It was more like "we should come up with good ways to show students why Creationism is not science, should they bring it up in class."
This makes the Royal Society look bad, it makes British science in general look bad, and it makes any scientist trying to defend the theory of evolution looks bad.
"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."
Well, you should certainly be forbidden to hold any mathematics related position, apparently, because what you said is absolutely untrue. It is possible to trisect an angle--any angle--or do you think division by three is impossible? Perhaps what you meant to say was that it is impossible to trisect an arbitrary angle by geometric construction. But that's not what you said, and it's not even misquoted like Reiss's statement--it's just flatout wrong.
And while we're persecuting you for being dumb, maybe we should focus our efforts on history and denounce any mathematician who claims to have found a geometry of many dimensions. I suppose Gauss was right to hold off in his discovery, fearing confrontation with Kant's argument that any more than 3 dimensions was impossible. Or we may go against Isaac Newton/Leibniz in the theory of infinitesimals (which was not only thoroughly criticized by rigorous mathematicians, but has only recently been given a solid mathematical basis). Or maybe we will go after those who propose the existence of negative or imaginary numbers--an obvious impossibility! Who could conceive of a negative apple!?
No, sir, science has no room for an inquisition of its own, and your desire to purge the heretics is best kept to yourself. A good scientist is any scientist who can perform well in the context of modern scientific theory, which he knows by heart. Not believes in--that is religion--knows. It doesn't matter at all what he believes, whether it is in the FSM or negative numbers. If a man knows every rule of calculus, every proof, every theorem, and can solve any problem that is tractible, then that is faultless. His other bizarre ideas should not only be tolerated, but encouraged. It is what is called "hypothesis" which is absolutely integral to the scientific process, even, and especially, when it contradicts known rules.
When things get complex, multiply by the complex conjugate.
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.
Mentioning "creationism" when your in the Royal Academy of Science is not unlike mentioning "blowjob" at a meeting of the Evangelical Women's Association. It's a little more than a "slip of the tongue", and you might get asked to leave.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I could post my own opinion here, but I think The Panda's Thumb does a much better job of covering this fiasco.
Exactly right. It would be one thing if "creationism" meant discussing all of the worlds major creation myths. But that's absolutely not what they're talking about. It's the Christian view of Genesis. Period. As long as "creationism" means "Christian dogma" then it does not belong in any science curriculum.
It's not like science teachers have all this extra time in their curriculum to be teaching things that don't have anything to do with science. You want to teach creationism? Do it in Sunday School. Not in any publicly funded education system. I don't know if the kids in the UK are beating the world when it comes to learning science, but I'm betting there are more important things science teachers might be covering.
You are welcome on my lawn.
So, kids in the UK are doing so well in physics and biology, and they've got so much excess class time that they should bring up a topic that has absolutely no basis in science? I'm sure the members of the Royal Society are horrified by the lack of comity shown to Mr. Reiss, but he sounds like a bit of a tool to me.
You are welcome on my lawn.
And if a student brings up what happens when you mix Mentos and Coca Cola in Modern European History it should be "dealt with as a teaching opportunity"?
There are better ways to teach the scientific method than discussing Christian theology, and they won't result in wasting a day's class time arguing over religion.
Maybe this Reiss guy had good intentions, but you cannot let the nose of religious fanaticism into the tent of science. Maybe one teacher would make a good example of how not to think scientifically, but another just might try to use it to proselytize.
You are welcome on my lawn.
your silly. . . everyone well knows that blowjobs are just fine, as long as in the confines of marriage. Never heard of the undefiled marriage bed? Seriously.
Self proclaimed wannabe geek. You know how it is. Most of us who read this stuff probably fit in that category.
Clearly, you've never met a Missouri fundamentalist.
You are welcome on my lawn.
People may see my post as a troll, but while it is strongly worded, it is not intended as a troll.
You mean the way civil liberties eventually took hold in fundamentalist islamic society? No, bro. The good guys do not always win. How many generations do we have to sacrifice to religious fanatics?
You are welcome on my lawn.
I have no objection to philosophy being taught in high school. Both religion and science derive from philosophy. Religion is a branch of metaphysics and science is a branch of empiricism. If it is taught that way that is fine with me. I just don't want the two confused.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
David Hume is philosophy. Kierkegaard is philosophy. Plato is philosophy.
Religion is not philosophy, it's superstition.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
I agree. Catastrophic blunder to say you should explain to a child why creationism isn't science, instead of kicking the child from the class. Good thing the Royal Society agrees with you, and took exactly your position: He says we shouldn't lynch creationists, but instead explain why they are wrong! LYNCH HIM
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
Just because creationism cannot be studied scientifically doesn't mean the universe wasn't created. Not much to argue about here. Just a thought.
The good guys don't always win, but the status quo sucks and we're sacrificing (part of) a generation right now. The Dawkins-crusaders aren't doing much, and the "Brights" movement smacks of a populist MENSA: all of the arrogance, with no entrance requirement. Any ideas?
Xian fundamentalism isn't going away without something happening (whether or to what extent it was engineered by a Republican alliance is irrelevant now); and finally, the equation of fundamentalist USian Xianity (2x offensive abbreviation combo!) with Islamic fundamentalism is tired & ridiculous.
I suspect that the real story behind this ID thing is that the Republican interest (the real players are as agnostic as the rest of us) in this is really in disgracing the Department of Education. If we get the government teaching religion, it legitimizes opposition to yet another government program.
"They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
Further, Confucius is philosophy, Lao Tzu is philosophy. The teachings of Jesus Christ are philosophy, but modern day fundamentalist Christianity has as much to do with the teachings of Jesus as the modern day Republican Party has to do with the ideas of Thomas Jefferson or James Madison.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Pity you weren't around to tell Michael Faraday and James Clerk Maxwell that their evangelicalism were incompatible with them being among the greatest scientists in history.
And Isaac Newton believed in alchemy. Does that mean that alchemy should be referenced in chemistry class as a valid contemporary "worldview?"
The "God of the Gaps" was evicted from quite a few of those gaps between Newton's time and Maxwell's, and between Maxwell's time and ours.
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.
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.
Depends - often there is little point teaching alternatives if there are no good ones. Science is not a good place for this as all the low level stuff that children would be learning are solid - a subject like politics is more suitable for that, where there are different core philosophies.
Control is an illusion, order our comforting lie. From chaos, through chaos, into chaos we fly
Thank God.
I've never read Confucius or Lao Tzu, but the teachings of Jesus are not philosophy, as the philosophers would have know it, as it contains no reasoning. Its loosely metaphysics.. or perhaps a system of values.
Control is an illusion, order our comforting lie. From chaos, through chaos, into chaos we fly
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.
"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?"
If there was any evidence whatsoever for there being a god, this would be a valid point. However, as there is none, it is not.
I'm a Christian. Let me be one of the first Christians in this thread to say that Creationism (or its hideous offshoot Intelligent Design) should not be taught in science class. The teachers do have too much to do to get bogged down in debates. There are a couple of conditions though.
Separation of church and state sounds good in theory, but what it really boils down to is exclusion of Christianity, just because it happens to be the majority religion at the moment. All other peoples and their belief systems are OK to study under the context of broadening the mind and multi-culturalism. Just don't let the mind of any kid who isn't fortunate enough to go to Sunday School get his or her mind broadened to include Christianity. That would be a violation of church and state, for heaven's sake.
And before you lump me in with the crowd who says the earth was created a few thousand years ago, I would go on record that you won't find that anywhere in the Bible. I've argued the subject recently and won't repeat myself here.
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.
How else are you proposing the judge the veracity of statements? Wait for signals from imaginary friends?
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 ;)
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.
Usually saying "Your religious beliefs are bullshit" is counterproductive to teaching.
It boils down to if students mention creationism, science teachers should still figure out how to teach them the scientific way (e.g. evolution etc). People can hold two (or more) ideas in their head. Forcing them to decide between their religious beliefs and science in 50 minutes is not a good approach.
Also attacking students for their beliefs, is not very productive and a waste. People who think that students won't be attacked for their beliefs can take the example of Professor Reiss himself.
Professor Reiss himself has proven there is a problem with fervent anti-creationists.
They deal out fatwas without even examining the evidence.
What a waste - Reiss obviously understands how to teach people. In contrast the Dawkins bunch might win more arguments but win less people.
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.
And if a student brings up what happens when you mix Mentos and Coca Cola in Modern European History it should be "dealt with as a teaching opportunity"?
Only if the mixing of Mentos and Coca Cola is part of an already enormous and still growing movement which is constantly butting heads with historians.
The fact of the matter is that the Creationism/ID juggernaut is here, and like it or not, it's influencing political, scientific, and religious discourse. Science teachers who ignore it are not doing their students any favours. Right now they have students in their classes who are being taught by their parents and their religious leaders to ignore what their teachers say, because those teachers are godless heathens who "believe" in this Darwinist cult which attacks the foundations of The One True Religion.
These teachers can pretend it's not happening, and their students will learn nothing, or they can address it, and use it as a vehicle to teach the scientific method.
Your Mentos example is silly, as is any talk of the FSM, or other creation myths, simply because Creationism/ID is, unfortunately, a special case. That's reality. Ignoring it won't fix it. Talking about it might.
"You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein
This is why philosophy should be taught (again) at the high school level.
Do you know how to get the Philosophy PhD off of your doorstep?
Pay him for the pizza!
<rimshot>
libertarian: (n) socially liberal, financially conservative; neither left, nor right.
Thank you for that, I may shamelessly steal it for my sig :) Wonderful post.
Slashdot, where armchair scientists get shouted down and armchair theologians get modded up.
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?
Except there was no suggestion to teach them as alternatives, just to discuss creationism if it should come up, in order to clarify the difference between an item of religious belief and a scientific theory.
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.
Well I think Reiss has proven that there is a high chance of people going crazy just because someone says "creationism" in the context of "classroom".
;).
So his concerns are demonstrably valid.
His opinion is it should be dealt with rather than dismissed outright. I do not think he should have to lose his position just because of that.
Pity the fervent atheists declared fatwas on him, and kept saying he called for the teaching of creationism in the classroom, despite evidence to the contrary. Talk about faith vs evidence based
Or examined the biology and physics research done at major religious universities worldwide. Some priests believe that actually observing and understanding their god's more practical handiwork is a form of worship, and I can certainly work with such people to do so. People believe all sorts of mythical beings, like truth, justice, demoracy, murphy's law, and various forms of god. As long as they keep a handle on it, we can work with them in real and effective ways.
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.
Well, that makes it sound like, "open-mindedness has its place, but the scientific elite will decide under what circumstances it's allowed -- and that will generally be in areas other than science, since science has a Method for determining whether alternatives are good or not, and bad science is not allowed." There's nothing wrong with that as such, but (a) it's not exactly a thorough endorsement of open-mindedness (it's like the Chinese promotion of "freedom" and "democracy", which are fine so long as they don't upset the status quo), and (b) it sounds a lot like a priesthood deciding which ideas are heretical, and I thought people didn't like that kind of thing thanks to the Galileo incident.
proof, n. A demonstration that a conclusion is implied by certain premises and axioms.
I can't believe he changed his point of view. Must be about the benjamins.
Ok - there is no scientific elite (I guess Nobel prize winners might be the "elite" but what they say is not taken as gospel), nor hierarchy - its a distributed system, that operates on consensus. There is no central system or "high scientists" that define what science is currently "accepted". What children get taught are not the cutting edge of science either - they are taught things that we have known for a long time, and have survived challenges. The places where you would start to encounter real scientific uncertainty would be at 2nd or 3rd year level at university. So until then there is no real need to talk about "alternative theories".
What teacher should do is to encourage students to challenge them for proof - my fondest memories of science class in high school was when the teacher would be asked to prove something, and he would make an experiment to prove it to us. This has both education value, and encourages evidence based thinking.
I am not sure how what I have said in post above made you think that it resembles the Chinese government!
Control is an illusion, order our comforting lie. From chaos, through chaos, into chaos we fly
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
So, kids in the UK are doing so well in physics and biology, and they've got so much excess class time that they should bring up a topic that has absolutely no basis in science? I'm sure the members of the Royal Society are horrified by the lack of comity shown to Mr. Reiss, but he sounds like a bit of a tool to me.
Are you a troll or do you honestly have no idea of what the original gist of Mr. Reiss' remarks were before they were misquoted?
I'll spell it out for you nice and slowly, paraphrasing to make it easier to understand:
"If a pupil says to their science teacher "Evolution is wrong because it's not in the bible", the science teacher should not say "You're wrong. End of discussion. Next subject...". Instead, the science teacher should explain that the whole point of science is to try and explain things on the basis of available evidence rather than just taking someones' word for it (which is essentially what "faith" means) as the final answer to any questions one might have - and if new evidence which breaks your explanation comes to light, you accept that your explanation was wrong and try and alter it (or even completely rewrite it) to fit the newly discovered evidence."
You didn't read what he actually said them. He didn't say they should be taught as acceptable alternatives, he said they should be discussed critically.
He was saying they should bring up the topic because about 10% of the kids in the class believe in creationism. So you should rather engage in critical discussion than just ignore them.
He is an evolutionist. Him being pressured to resign is ridiculous, and largely due to people assuming he meant something different to what he said because he is an Anglican minister. That's called discrimination.
"I am the bread of life."
"I am the light of the world."
"It is not I alone who judge, but I and the Father who sent me."
"Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
Etcetera. Jesus wasn't handing out philosophical advice on how to live, like Confucius or Lao Tzu. The fact that many fundamentalists have got his teaching all wrong doesn't change the fact that Jesus clearly proclaimed himself Messiah and Savior.
And which of you by being anxious can add a single hour to his span of life? If then you are not able to do as small a thing as that, why are you anxious about the rest?
(Luke 12:25)
It may not be pure reasoning on the lines of Greek philosophy, but it does contain reasoning.
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
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
its the same as saying nazizm should be allowed as an ideology. because, its just an ideology.
stuff starts that way. if creationism is even 'discussed' at schools, it gives a bonus to the segments of the society who are trying to brainwash kids with it. +5 to persuasion, for it was also in school, so it should be credible.
Read radical news here
jesus of nazareth says that there is a single 'god' entity, it sent him as its ambassador, and it asks you to obey some rules. thats no philosophy.
Read radical news here
being free to discuss something opens up possibilities for many points of view, in which there would be a noticeable number of teachers who would express favorable views of creationism. which would be little different than letting them teach it.
Read radical news here
what about a good number of teachers who would express positive views of creationism when the topic is brought up ?
Read radical news here
"it is just not acceptable to have someone who can believe in myths and nonsense in charge of science."
I didn't know anyone was "in charge of science"-
"If you have the predilection to believing absurdities, you are automatically disqualified from being a scientist."
Ah, I now see I was wrong, because it's obvious from this quote that you are in charge of science by dint of having the power to say who can and cannot be a scientist.
I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
All possible stuff and their opposite.
So somewhere out there is a man called Bush W George, an intelligent and respected man, who is opposed to war and cares deeply about the environment.
Of course with all things being opposite Bush W George lost the election to the warmongering, environment destroying imbecile Gore Al, so the anti-matter universe is not really all that different too our own in the end.
What if Tetris was invented by Nazis?
...spread the gospel of the flying spaghetti monster to our next generation of pirates?
"If there was any evidence whatsoever for there being a god, this would be a valid point. However, as there is none, it is not."
Hence the fact that the Higgs Boson has been nicknamed the "God Particle" for it's stubborn insistence on having no evidence for existing despite it being necessary for the Standard Model.
I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
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.
They're modding you down because you obviously didn't RTFA.
Ordained clergy have no place in a scientific organization.
I would say that the above sentence is true in every respect.
Wrong. Confucius is religion. Lao Tzu is religion. Preaching ethics and/or living a life of mystical resignation doesn't, on it's own, make for philosophy. Philosophy is, at the very least, argumentative: it doesn't hold any truths as just obvious.
Now, it's possible to say that Confucius, Lau Tzu, and Jesus Christ all represent philosophers, but this use of 'philosophy' is in a much looser sense. But, in this loose sense of the term 'philosophy' it is no longer incompatible with religion.
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?
Usually saying "Your religious beliefs are bullshit" is counterproductive to teaching.
This is true; however the main problem is that 'faith' is counterproductive to learning.
First, I assume you understand what hyperbole means and how it is being used in the post you're responding to as a rhetorical device. He doesn't literally want to call people's religious beliefs bullshit.
But, if the weight of the evidence shoes that a certain religious belief is false, or most probably false, then it isn't doing students any favor to hide that evidence.
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
True enough. I stand corrected.
Control is an illusion, order our comforting lie. From chaos, through chaos, into chaos we fly
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.
Are you replying to the right post, because that doesn't seem to have anything to do with what I said? I was pointing out that it's entirely possible to be both a Christian and a great scientist. Do you dispute that? If not, then you don't need to reply. If you do dispute it, you'll need to explain what your last post has to do with the issue, because I see no connection.
Who's arguing for a "God of the Gaps"? Certainly no Christian scientist that I know. The God of the Bible most definitely is not the God of the Gaps and such an idea hasn't been taken seriously in theological circles for a long time. And again, what does it have to do with what I posted? Or are you just throwing up strawman arguments because you have no genuine case to make?
Insightful?
Good grief, have you even read what Prof Reiss said? The exact words were:
In other words, science teachers should respectfully explain what science is, and is not, all about.
Hardly looks sackable in context, does it?
Is crushing a suspect's child's testicles illegal?
John Yoo: "No, [if] the President thinks he needs to do that."
I don't follow the bit about the teaching of alternatives in science as promoting closed-mindedness, though.
Teaching about alternative scientific theories in science isn't a problem (although my teachers at school said they stuck to the accepted theory because they didn't want to muddy the waters for the students who were struggling with the material, but I digress), teaching an alternative to science, in science class is a problem.
Scientific enquiry is about figuring out which idea is right based on evidence; an alternative to science by definition ignores or dilutes evidence based reasoning (because the alternative didn't, it would be simply another branch of science). The rejection of evidence based reasoning would be the closed-mindedness in question.
.evom ton seod gis eht
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.
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.
By misquoted, it's meant that the media reported he supported teaching creationism. Where does he say this in the Guardian article? Or if that's not what you mean, what is it about his point of view that makes you think it's right for him to resign?
Now sure, I can see the viewpoint that perhaps it's better not to mention creationism at all, but when all sides are in agreement that creationism is not science, and we should be trying to get pupils to accept evolution, I don't see why this means he needs to resign simply over a difference in opinion in how to tackle the problem of creationism?
And yes, I have been following this issue on other forums and blogs too.
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
I'm a Christian. Let me be one of the first Christians in this thread to say that Creationism (or its hideous offshoot Intelligent Design) should not be taught in science class. The teachers do have too much to do to get bogged down in debates.
That's a good start.
There are a couple of conditions though.
Why? Should that be done every time a broadly accepted theory is discussed or only where there are religious opinions that claim different?
When I was in school, I don't remember the teachers making a pause after each theory to say that this was the best theory so far. Should it be different for the theory of evolution or do you want this to be explained for electricity and cooking classes as well?
I'm not American so I don't know what is taught in the US literature classes. I agree with you on that one. Christianity should not be ignored or take a back seat.
... Just don't let the mind of any kid who isn't fortunate enough to go to Sunday School get his or her mind broadened to include Christianity. That would be a violation of church and state, for heaven's sake.
Yes it is. If you do it to expose children to your religious beliefs then school is not the place.
And before you lump me in with the crowd who says the earth was created a few thousand years ago, I would go on record that you won't find that anywhere in the Bible. I've argued the subject recently and won't repeat myself here.
The problem with the Bible is that you'll use it to support your claims when it's convenient. Sometimes it's what the preacher said, sometimes the Pope or some other authority. In my opinion, saying that the Bible says "such and such is true" to support your faith cannot be considered serious unless you are willing to defend the whole of it.
Evolution as theory..: I happen to like science a lot - got straight A's - it was neat. But the thing about evolution is that you can't conduct an experiment to prove it. You can show species adaptation to an environment. You can show from fossil records that horses have changed sizes from the past to today. You can show lots of things. But you can't show total evolution from one critter to another significantly more advanced critter. You also can't show, via the fossil record, that evolution from one species to a completely different thing occurred. It may or may not have happened, but it wasn't directly observed by anyone present today. People are just proposing their theories based on what they think the fossil record says because they won't accept any other way to explain what they see. I think the disclaimer should be made any time there isn't a directly observable result that can be reproduced today. Not every country is going to have a super-collider and I'm willing to accept research going on elsewhere in the world as sufficient to not require the claim for every theory expressed. But evolution requires way too much faith to accept without qualifications.
I don't feel that school is the place for religious beliefs to be taught. They should be taught in a religious setting or at home by the family. However, the reality in U.S. public education is that you hear of the religious beliefs of the American Indian, you are exposed to each of the major faiths (mostly as cultural events as peoples but always with some religious information as well) and you are exposed to all of the Greek mythology with their gods, et cetera along with their creation stories. This is called literature.
Yet Christianity can't be discussed. If they are going to allow some, they should allow all, equally. The trouble is there is never enough time to allow all, because there are so many around the world. So I'd be fine with none. That may not be uniform across the entire country, but it was what I experienced.
I don't have a problem with my kids being exposed to other religions. It is good to be aware of what is out there in the world. It helps to understand where other people are coming from. But when, at the same time, they are told that they can't even invite someone to a church Christmas program during recess because we can't have anyone talking about God I get frustrated. That's the dichotomy Christians face all around the country today. Can't offend anyone by mentioning anything about God at school, but better know the right answers about Zeus to pass your English literature exam. It is all right to expose kids to other people's religious beliefs. Just not the majority belief. It's ridiculous!
The Bible stands by itself. I do defend the whole of it. I am not a Greek or Hebrew scholar, so I have to take it based on a translation I can read, and there are times that some parts are hurt by the translation process. Some parts aren't particularly popular today, but overall I try to understand it myself with the help of any study aids I find useful. I also don't claim that the preservation process was 100% successful. The Hebrew writing system had lots of jots and tittles that sometimes were lost but which changed numbers slightly so there are places that the best translation from the surviving bits of manuscript give slightly different results in different places. What the preacher, Pope, or anyone else says is fine if it appears to line up with what the Bible says. Otherwise, I ignore it. There are parts of prophecy that I don't fully understand and that was true for those who heard prophecies that have already come about. It is easy to look back and say - well that was clearly what was meant there because it all links together now that the prophecy is fulfilled. Looking forward isn't always so easy. There is also a lot of figurative language in prophecy where the prophet tried to explain what he was seeing as best he could using the words he knew. If we were to see the same things today, we might explain them diff
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.
That's not my point. My point is philosophy is where the teleological argument comes from and a myriad of others. But now one man says we should answer Creationists with facts from science and the Scientists hate philosophy SO much that even mention of something that is one degree away from a philosophical principle makes them go coo coo for coco puffs and force the guy to quit.
Nice try, but I don't buy it.
The reasons why creationism is not science apply equally to each of the "thousand different other creation myths" for a start.
Plus, since this is the UK we're talking about, and I happen to have gone to school in the UK, I can say that even at the Roman Catholic high school that I attended, barely anyone (can't think of one to be honest) in my year gave a shred of credence to creationism.
I'm not religious at all, but R.E. was one of my favourite classes, and we discussed many aspects of many faiths.
Probably only liked it so much because the teacher was kick ass cool, but hey.
... the whole point of science is to try and explain things on the basis of available evidence rather than just taking someones' word for it (which is essentially what "faith" means)
Your words, not those of Prof. Reiss, I take it. And a common theme among the disciples of Dawkins. But that is not essentially what faith means, and I don't see how someone who says so can even have begun to engage with religious thought in any significant way.
Your words, not those of Prof. Reiss, I take it. And a common theme among the disciples of Dawkins. But that is not essentially what faith means, and I don't see how someone who says so can even have begun to engage with religious thought in any significant way.
I did say I was paraphrasing ;)
Faith: Mental acceptance of and confidence in a claim as truth without proof supporting the claim.
How exactly is that radically different from "taking someone's word for it"?
You may interpret "faith in God" to imply that one believes in the bible and strives to follow the ideas expressed in it, but I'm talking about the word "faith", not "what having faith in a particular religious belief further implies".
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.
Amen!
Wait...
Huh?
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!
So somewhere out there is a man called Bush W George, an intelligent and respected man, who is opposed to war and cares deeply about the environment.
Of course with all things being opposite Bush W George lost the election to the warmongering, environment destroying imbecile Gore Al, so the anti-matter universe is not really all that different too our own in the end.
"Intelligent... opposed to war... cares deeply about the environment" vs. "warmongering, environment[-]destroying imbecile"???
Whoa, we're not thinking in stereotypes here or anything, are we?
Which just goes to prove that even people smart enough to see through the lies of "Intelligent Design" can still be idiots when it comes to critical thinking skills.
In times of universal deceit, telling the truth gets you modded -1 Troll
Obviously not a philosopher......you forget that as for explaining everything out of nothing there is no theory. No one has ever said that there was nothing before the Big Bang because it would be philosophically preposterous. There was always some force that acted on another force. Where on earth (or in heaven) did these forces come from. If there was nothing then there was no energy. And if there was energy before the Big Bang then it would have to be eternal and self-sustaining to not need another theory to explain it. Eternal and self sustaining sounds a lot like a monotheistic God to me.
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.
Hey, it's not my fault that Bush is walking semi-talking stereotype.
What if Tetris was invented by Nazis?
Ok - there is no scientific elite (I guess Nobel prize winners might be the "elite" but what they say is not taken as gospel), nor hierarchy - its a distributed system, that operates on consensus. There is no central system or "high scientists" that define what science is currently "accepted".
There's no scientific pope, no. There are, however, scientists in highly influential positions. There are those who influence which papers get published in their prestigious journals or conferences. There are those who make policy decisions regarding research in leading institutions. And the whole field is fraught with politics: if you hold a position of responsibility in science and make a public remark that might be construed as sympathetic to creationists (even if it isn't, actually), people will be howling for your resignation within hours. That's what I'm talking about when I speak of the scientific elite. I don't even mean "clever scientists" -- I mean people of influence in scientific circles, regardless of how that influence is achieved.
Oh, and "consensus, my arse." Consensus is de facto after the fact. If you manage to get a particular theory taught to the exclusion of others, or if you get to decide which research programme will be funded, you can be pretty sure that consensus will follow. We have consensus among scientists that evolution is a fact because everyone who thinks otherwise has been branded a non-scientist, even to the extent that saying something about creationism that isn't sufficiently harsh can be a career-limiting move.
I am not sure how what I have said in post above made you think that it resembles the Chinese government!
In short, the Chinese government is happy to allow ideas like capitalism, freedom of speech, and democracy only to the extent that they are compatible with the existing governmental regime, and that pretty much guts the concepts. You're happy to allow open discussion of matters in science class to the extent that it fits within the framework of currently acceptable scientific practice. Neither you nor the Chinese government will allow the kind of talk that leads to revolution. For China, the present style of government is government, and everything else is anti-government. (Actually, I'm probably being unfair when I single out China here. Think about it.) For you, the present style of science is science, and everything else is non-science or anti-science. China allows freedom of speech so long as it's pro-government, and you're happy with discussion in the science class so long as it's pro-science. One must not challenge the status quo in either case.
proof, n. A demonstration that a conclusion is implied by certain premises and axioms.
Scientific enquiry is about figuring out which idea is right based on evidence; an alternative to science by definition ignores or dilutes evidence based reasoning (because the alternative didn't, it would be simply another branch of science). The rejection of evidence based reasoning would be the closed-mindedness in question.
The argument over whether the Earth moves or not was conducted on both sides by evidence-based reasoning. Galileo was opposed not only by the church, but also by the scientists of his day. Science had well-established and accepted reasons for concluding that the Earth did not move, based in physical evidence. If there's a Galileo around today, we almost certainly think of him as a crank -- we probably call him a "flat-earther" for his ridiculous views, although he's probably invented something useful.
My point is that even a creationist can use evidence-based reasoning, but you would simply reject his interpretation of the evidence in the same way that Copernicanism was rejected for so long. There was evidence, and there was reasoning, but it was considered inferior by the mainstream. Then there was a political watershed (what Kuhn calls a "paradigm shift"), and the motion of the Earth became the popular view. The shoe is now officially on the other foot, and anyone who presents the old arguments against the movement of the Earth is considered to hold an unscientific view, regardless of the empirical and rational content.
Summary: science is not simply evidence-based reasoning, because there's plenty of evidence-based reasoning not tolerated by modern science. (There's also quite a bit of science not based on evidence (e.g. "thought experiments"), but that's a different story.)
proof, n. A demonstration that a conclusion is implied by certain premises and axioms.
Well I have to disagree, scientists and researchers who have tenure are free to do or say as they will. They don't have to subscribe to the consensus, and science in replete with stories of scientists who have been ignored or chose to research something that contradicts the mainstream, and emerging victorious after completing a persuasive study. They were right to be ignored at the start (extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - comparable to inertia) and right to be recognised after that have compiled enough evidence.
As for peer reviewed papers, on 90% of journals the people who do peer review are those who were accepted the previous edition. There isn't a constant group of people that could act as some sort of cabal. The people who make policy decisions are usually not (unfortunately) scientists - they are politicians, businessmen or bureaucrats and their behaviour is governed by different rules.
I suspect that this whole questioning of the science world is a result of your disagreement with the consensus surrounding evolution. It angers me that you have such an ego that you would rather believe the whole world wrong than that you are misinformed.
Control is an illusion, order our comforting lie. From chaos, through chaos, into chaos we fly
Well I have to disagree, scientists and researchers who have tenure are free to do or say as they will. They don't have to subscribe to the consensus, and science in replete with stories of scientists who have been ignored or chose to research something that contradicts the mainstream, and emerging victorious after completing a persuasive study.
You have such an optimistic view of the process. In order to qualify for tenure (where it exists), one must have a significant degree of academic success as measured by publications, citations, and successful grant applications, so those who obtain tenure do so by having largely told the scientific world what it wants to hear. Some have the patience to achieve tenure before they pursue their crackpot ideas, and some even succeed in having their ideas accepted, but the process can hardly be said to encourage radical thinking. Naturally radical thinkers are, to use the evolutionary term, at a significant selective disadvantage.
Some of the great names in science have only been recognised as such posthumously: Mendel springs first to mind; Copernicus follows. God only knows how many great thinkers we have lost because their work was obscure at the time and then forgotten completely.
As for peer reviewed papers, on 90% of journals the people who do peer review are those who were accepted the previous edition.
Thus promoting "groupthink". It's not a cabal, no, but it is quite resilient to ideas outside the mainstream even so. If you want to get a paper published, look at the kinds of papers that have been accepted in the past and produce something like that.
I suspect that this whole questioning of the science world is a result of your disagreement with the consensus surrounding evolution.
And I suspect that your rosy view of science indicates that you really like the status quo, but that's irrelevant. Rational discourse demands that I focus on the actual content of your argument, not your motives for holding the position in the first place (cf. Bulverism).
proof, n. A demonstration that a conclusion is implied by certain premises and axioms.
I don't think there is much more to say. While you say I have an optimistic view of the process, I say you have a pessimistic view of the process.
How would you make it better?
Any system that you design will have to have some sort of positive weight being placed on ideas that are supported by other accepted ideas, and conversely negative weight on ideas that are contrary to accepted view. This is true of almost any system you can think of as it is the most efficient way of making progress. Yes there is a loss on occasion of some good ideas that are too radical for its time, but that is offset by the fact that incrementally it is reached in due time.
So in no way is the system broken, over time it has been finely tuned to get the best outcome.
Control is an illusion, order our comforting lie. From chaos, through chaos, into chaos we fly
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.
How would you make it better?
I promote Feyerabend's "scientific anarchy".
Yes there is a loss on occasion of some good ideas that are too radical for its time, but that is offset by the fact that incrementally it is reached in due time.
That is an enormous, sweeping claim. Go write a book to defend that point of view. Be sure to address the issues already identified by Feyerabend in Against Method, since it offers a ready-made counter-argument.
proof, n. A demonstration that a conclusion is implied by certain premises and axioms.
So you're saying that as a practical matter, even evidence-based reasoning is rejected if it's unpopular? That's true, and I'm acquainted with Kuhn, although it's been a few years. The change from geocentric to heliocentric cosmology is very interesting but it was a change from old science to new science, with plenty of politicking and shennanigans thrown in.
I suppose you're talking about the scientific establishment, where I'm talking about the scientific ideal the establishment tries to live up to (I admit I was being sloppy by over-simplifying science as being merely evidence-based reasoning).
What were we talking about again? Teaching alternative theories in science class. Some statements:
I think that would work out fine as a module in a school science curriculum rather than a university philosphy course where I learned it.
---------------------
Now that polite discussion is out of the way; ...but you would simply reject [a creationist's] interpretation of the evidence in the same way that Copernicanism was rejected for so long.
Thanks for pigeonholing me, I won't feel bad about returning the favour.
let's talk about these creationists and their hypothetical evidence based reasoning. Straight up: do you believe that creationism is a valid alternative to evolution, or are you just playing around? I claim that creationism (specifically the modern YEC movement) is unscientific, is not evidence based, is thinly veiled Christian literalist dogma and has no place being taught in schools except as an example of the opposite of a good idea. Disagree with that?
A creationist could argue from evidence in a scientific manner, and should be listened to if they do. I'm sure old earth creationists can work productively and even brilliantly in most scientific fields - but how would they make an evidence-based argument about creationism? The qualities of good scientific theories, parsimony and predictive power, are cast aside; the usual evidence is 'The Bible' (appeal to privileged authority) and above all it is unfalsifiable. If you've studied Kuhn rather than a reading potted summary that shouldn't be incomprehensible jargon, but I suspect there's been an essay passed around in creationist circles which mentions Kuhn and paradigm shifts without actually going into messy details, like how religious beliefs utterly fail as scientific theories.
I'm very sorry if I've mistaken you for a creationist when you're not - my anti-creationism rant is on a hair trigger these days. Kuhn is very interesting, and I'm quite fascinated by the practicalities of doing good science in the face of politics, grants, popularity contests and marketing. I'm quite offended that his work is misrepresented by some creationists as an attack on the objectivity of science rather than an investigation into how scientists choose between plausibly competing scientific theories.
As a matter of interest, what evidence-based reasoning is not tolerated by modern science and what do you mean by 'not tolerated' (was this just an allusion to creationism)? I know there are subjects such as cold fusion where there might be potential but the theory is currently out of favour because of lack of results/scientific misconduct. This seems reasonable to me on the grounds that 1. other more promising leads are being followed 2. if any actual results arise I expect the mainstream science to eagerly adopt the theory.
.evom ton seod gis eht
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
advocates treating science as an ideology alongside others such as religion, magic and mythology, and considers the dominance of science in society authoritarian and unjustified
When he is sick, he can go to a shaman, or a priest (after all they are just equal ideologies). I will go to a doctor.
If you truly think that treating religion, mysticism and magic on the same level as science is a good idea then go to an Islamic country, or parts of Africa and see how life is there compared to here. We have got where we are because we have identified reason being better than faith and "mysticism".
Control is an illusion, order our comforting lie. From chaos, through chaos, into chaos we fly
I suppose you're talking about the scientific establishment, where I'm talking about the scientific ideal the establishment tries to live up to.
I'm a follower of Feyerabend's philosophy of science. I view the "scientific establishment" as a political force that primarily uses the "scientific ideal" as a means to exclude undesirables (creationists being a case in point) rather than a thing that they actively try to live up to. As Feyerabend points out in his book, Against Method, anyone who takes any formal scientific ideal seriously will wind up opposing scientific revolutions. Good science is not supplanted by better science: it is supplanted by different science. The old school firmly opposes the new because it sees the new as inferior, lacking the maturity and explanatory power of the old. Feyerabend's rule for science is "anything goes".
What were we talking about again? Teaching alternative theories in science class.
Sort of. The part of your message to which I responded was more about the distinction between science and non-science. You were saying that science is evidence-based reasoning (an oversimplification, and I'll let it slide since you recognise it as such -- some don't), but that things which weren't scientific shouldn't be taught in science. I think this is still where we have a point of disagreement, since I'm not going to lightly accept any such distinction. I say that science is the study of nature, not a method of studying nature.
I tend to disagree with these. "Pseudoscience" is a term used by the current scientific mainstream as a simple term of disparagement for methods other than their own. It promotes closed-mindedness with regards to method. What would be better is to show how different discoveries in science have required different methods and different kinds of reasoning. Also, show that scientific progress does not rest purely on the merits of the ideas themselves, but also on the rhetorical ability of the idea's promoter. Galileo was a case in point.
This is probably too advanced a study for school, but it would be appropriate for anyone taking a science degree. However, nothing of the sort is taught anywhere that I know of. This comes as no surprise: the way that science is taught in school promotes "one true method" scientific thinking (in addition to giving a basic grounding in some current theories), and so people take it for granted that "science" involves a certain conduct, rather than being a field of study amenable to many methods. We definitely need to change the way we teach science at the school level in order to counteract this, and I think that change must necessarily offend the scientific mainstream, since it won't be sufficiently disparaging of "pseudoscience". Beyond that, I don't have detailed suggestions at this time.
Straight up: do you believe that creationism is a valid alternative to evolution, or are you just playing around?
It should be pretty clear by now that I do consider it a valid alternative. This should be clear on the basis that I am extremely liberal in what I will accept as "scientific". That's not to say that I have equal admiration for all scientific practice: far from it. I'm just opposed to the kind of ostracism that's being practised in scientific circles -- the whole "you have no place in my field, for you are not methodically acceptable" thing.
I claim that creationism (specifically the modern YEC movement) is unscientific, is not evidence based, is thinly veiled Christian literalist dogma and has n
proof, n. A demonstration that a conclusion is implied by certain premises and axioms.
First, I make a distinction between science and culture. When teaching culture, and I consider literature to be a part of it, then it makes sense to teach some aspects of Christianity and other religious belief. In science classes, there's no reason to do so. If there are laws that say you can't mention Christianity in an English literature class, I don't believe there are, then that's wrong.
I'd like to add that I'm not American so I can only judge the school system there from what I read and hear from others.
Second, about the Bible. You can't be serious. Just look here and explain some of these inconsistencies.
There's a lot there and I don't intend to wade through it all. If there are one or two items that particularly bother you, point them out and I may take a crack at an answer.
You see, I've seen God's hand at work in the lives of people I know well. My wife had been to the doctor for a health problem that she had. It was visible. The doctor had verified the problem and directed her to a specialist. Before she went to the specialist, she went up and was prayed for and God healed her instantly. I know that she wasn't faking the illness just so I could write about it here. It was real, and her healing was real. The results were directly visible. Another person at the church was wheelchair bound for years and was prayed for and healed and walked away. I don't claim to know God's timing in why some prayers take longer than others to be answered, but once you've seen God's miraculous power work - and know that it was real - then all the silly jabs at inconsistencies in the Bible become really quite irrelevant. As I said in my last comment - the Bible does have a few inconsistencies due to mistranslation or fragmentation of the original texts. That is acknowledged. But in its main purpose, it is completely consistent. If you've never been in a setting where you see God move in a miraculous ways, then I can understand why you prefer to look with skepticism at the whole thing. Once you've seen God at work, it resets you heart.
Did you ever wonder why there are never any lawsuits about the other religions being taught in school? Why don't atheists go after school systems that teach about the Greek gods or about Hinduism or Islam? Satan isn't worried about those religions because the power of God isn't present in them. He doesn't fear when others are led astray to religions he controls. But Christianity is actively opposed because he hates it when people draw close to the living God.
I repeat - if you've never seen the hand of God work, it is easy to look at the few minor inconsistencies and reject everything. But when you do that, you are rejecting the basic message that the Bible is there to proclaim. God exists. Christ came to provide a sacrifice for sin. Everyone is a sinner and needs to accept that sacrifice for eternal life. The gift of salvation is free, but must be accepted. God is holy and sin separates you from God. Accepting the blood of Jesus as your sacrifice for sin is the only thing that is acceptable to God to have an eternal relationship with Him.
Miracles and healings aren't done to make our lives better - although that is a nice side benefit. They are done to show that God is still working in His people today. I know that there are a lot of places where the church isn't very effective today. That is true both in the U.S. and around the world. But there are also places in each country where God is working miracles and moving in mighty ways. I can't compel anyone to go check them out, and I can assure you that there are a small number of staged events that are not real. But the genuine thing is happening as well. Seek God and He'll make himself real enough to you that your doubts will be erased forever.
Best wishes