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.
Gravity is just a theory, not a proven fact, but I still fall over...
-- oldthinkers unbellyfeel ingsoc
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.
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!?
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.
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.
What's your problem? She's a fucking nutcase, she has no business aspiring to a leadership position that requires clear thinking and a reality-based worldview. She should quit, no, be fired, from her aspirations. I'm not suggesting she be destroyed. Religion, on balance, is nothing.
I'm not sure about whether he should have resigned or not, but I found this quote from the Royal Society statement interesting (from the BBC article) :
Gravity is a fact, the Theory of gravity is the mechanism by which it works.
Evolution is a fact, Darwin's Theory of evolution is the mechanism by which it happens.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Sigh. Learn to fucking read.
The guy's original article essentially boils down to: "If students ask about creationism, science teachers should explain why it's bullshit."
What part of that do you disagree with?
Maybe not
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.
Alcohol is just a theory, not a proven fact, but I still fall over...
Anonymous Coward
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
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.
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."
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?
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.
... and it's fallacious. Make it seem like someone who advocates creationism or intelligent design is under attack and that person garners sympathy, but that doesn't make their point of view a valid scientific argument. It's perfectly fine and reasonable in the scientific community for someone to be religious and have religious beliefs. When you start saying that it's okay to pass religion off as a counter argument to science, well then the scientific community has the right to question your credentials as a scientist because you are committing a scientific error, just like if you said the earth is flat.
Galileo used reason and the scientific method to determine the earth and the planets revolve around the sun. Creationism and intelligent design fail the scientific method's process because they are not something that can be supported by impirical evidence. Under the rules of logic they are merely conjecture.
Intelligent design is a great thing to discuss in philosophy or theology class in a private institution that is not funded by public money. Governments and scientific institutions should not be in the business of teaching our children religious beliefs and passing them off as biology or physics. Next thing you know, there will be subtle shifts that the government wants us to start believing in a specific religion, to the exclusion of others.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
I 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.
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.
Clearly, you've never met a Missouri fundamentalist.
You are welcome on my lawn.
David Hume is philosophy. Kierkegaard is philosophy. Plato is philosophy.
Religion is not philosophy, it's superstition.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
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
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.
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
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 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
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.
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."
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?
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.