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."
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 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.
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.
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.
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
wehat dio yoiui meaan fgins domnt woerk, yiou inswensatiove clode!
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
I AM A FISH!
I am the walrus.
That means you are dinner.
(And before some smart-ass tells me that walruses prefer mollusks, yeah, I know. Now stop trying to ruin my joke.)
(And before some smart-ass tells me that I did that all on my own, yeah, I know. Now stop trying to ruin my meta-joke.)
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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.