|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 09/29/2008 : 02:38:42
|
But of course, we already knew that. The editorial in the Guardian and various letters, such as that from the Bishop of Lincoln, contain a significant amount of self-righteous criticism of the Royal Society's decision to ask the Rev Michael Reiss to resign from his position as Director of Science Education. It is clear that there is almost total ignorance about the real issues involved and a truly pathetic understanding of science – the culture that created the modern world – from anaesthetics and penicillin to jet engines and the internet. Of course "The origin of the universe and living organisms" is a perfectly respectable question for the science lesson (perhaps the most exciting and fundamental one), as long as someone with intellectual integrity is there to answer it. There is a major problem however for the religious person, scientist or otherwise, in answering this question and it involves, first and foremost, intellectual integrity.
Let me clarify the fundamental philosophical issue: the scientific mindset. Science is based solely on doubt-based, disinterested examination of the natural and physical world. It is entirely independent of personal belief. There is a very important, fundamental concomitant – that is to accept absolutely nothing whatsoever, for which there is no evidence, as having any fundamental validity. A lemma: one can of course have an infinite number of questions but only those questions that can be formulated in such a way that they can be subjected to detailed disinterested examination, and when so subjected reveal unequivocally and ubiquitously accepted data, may be significant.
|
I've been reading, in an admittedly lackadaisical way, of the Rev. Reiss' problems with the Royal Society; mainly weeping & wailing & rending of raiment from such as AiG, UD, CMI, et al. of the ilk. A body'd think that they'd lost a body part, likely a favorite one. Well, I'm exaggerating a tad there, but the thought holds up.
This is a pretty good sum-up.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
Edited by - filthy on 09/29/2008 02:44:31
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 09/29/2008 : 03:35:22 [Permalink]
|
Have you read the original column Reiss' wrote? I merely ask because my experience up to now is that most people who comment on Reiss' resignation have not. Reading Kroto's opinion makes me think he did not either.
I am going to be very brief on this, as I haven't got much time now. Rev Reiss is not a creationist, unless you now want to relabel all theistic evolutionists as creationists. His opinion article in the Guardian nowhere even hinted at teaching creationism. The Royal Society was way to quick to ask for Reiss' resignation and it is a disgrace that they did not stand by him.
I find Kroto's position that a reverend cannot be an educator for the Royal Society inconsistent, if he does not also want to ban every single religious person from that position. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
 |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 09/29/2008 : 04:41:25 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by tomk80
Have you read the original column Reiss' wrote? I merely ask because my experience up to now is that most people who comment on Reiss' resignation have not. Reading Kroto's opinion makes me think he did not either.
I am going to be very brief on this, as I haven't got much time now. Rev Reiss is not a creationist, unless you now want to relabel all theistic evolutionists as creationists. His opinion article in the Guardian nowhere even hinted at teaching creationism. The Royal Society was way to quick to ask for Reiss' resignation and it is a disgrace that they did not stand by him.
I find Kroto's position that a reverend cannot be an educator for the Royal Society inconsistent, if he does not also want to ban every single religious person from that position.
|
I admit that I have not. There is so much creationist bullshit around that it's impossible to glim it all. Gotta link?
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 09/29/2008 : 06:21:27 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthyI admit that I have not. There is so much creationist bullshit around that it's impossible to glim it all. Gotta link?
|
But ouf course.
And yet again, Reiss is not a creationist and nor is his article espousing the teaching of creationism, equal time or any of the crap.
This whole episode annoys me to the bone. "Our side" is doing the exact same thing here that the ID-creationist side does with so much fervor, namely taken rumour and quote mining for truth, instead of looking at the actual facts. On top of that, it has given the Expelled crowd a nice witch hunt to twist, distort and lie about. And we've given it all too willingly. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 09/29/2008 : 06:48:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by tomk80
Originally posted by filthyI admit that I have not. There is so much creationist bullshit around that it's impossible to glim it all. Gotta link?
|
But ouf course.
And yet again, Reiss is not a creationist and nor is his article espousing the teaching of creationism, equal time or any of the crap.
This whole episode annoys me to the bone. "Our side" is doing the exact same thing here that the ID-creationist side does with so much fervor, namely taken rumour and quote mining for truth, instead of looking at the actual facts. On top of that, it has given the Expelled crowd a nice witch hunt to twist, distort and lie about. And we've given it all too willingly.
|
Thanks! I'll check it out a little later and get back.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 09/29/2008 : 07:05:30 [Permalink]
|
| Further comment. The article has been placed on richarddawkins.net. Perhaps it is just me, but a number of the comments along the line "Reiss is religious and therefore a creationist per definition and therefore bad scientist/ bad science teacher" strikes me as shortsighted and boneheaded. Shall we know write letters to Ken Millers' university to ask for his dismissal too? |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
astropin
SFN Regular
USA
970 Posts |
Posted - 09/29/2008 : 09:40:29 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by tomk80
Further comment. The article has been placed on richarddawkins.net. Perhaps it is just me, but a number of the comments along the line "Reiss is religious and therefore a creationist per definition and therefore bad scientist/ bad science teacher" strikes me as shortsighted and boneheaded. Shall we know write letters to Ken Millers' university to ask for his dismissal too?
|
I agree 100% that being religious does not necessarily make one a bad scientist......but how do they manage the relentless conflicts? |
I would rather face a cold reality than delude myself with comforting fantasies.
You are free to believe what you want to believe and I am free to ridicule you for it.
Atheism:
The result of an unbiased and rational search for the truth.
Infinitus est numerus stultorum |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 09/29/2008 : 10:03:29 [Permalink]
|
I agree, Reiss' punishment does not seem to fit the crime at all, if crime indeed it was. However, I think that the main thrust of Kroto's article holds up; creationism has no place in the science classroom, and until some empirical evidence in it's favor comes to light, should stay out. We went through all that in Kitzmiller. It was fun. 
Science for science class, church for blind faith, and ne'er the twain shall meet, eh?
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 09/29/2008 : 10:48:42 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
I agree, Reiss' punishment does not seem to fit the crime at all, if crime indeed it was. However, I think that the main thrust of Kroto's article holds up; creationism has no place in the science classroom, and until some empirical evidence in it's favor comes to light, should stay out. We went through all that in Kitzmiller. It was fun. |
But that is only part of what Kroto says. His second part is that Reiss cannot be a director of science education because he is a minister. Meanwhile he alsostates that he would not have a problem with someone having some personal mystical belief and being a member/employee of the Royal Society. I find his reasoning behind the last two paragraphs contradictory at best, although absent is (IMO) probably a better description.
Science for science class, church for blind faith, and ne'er the twain shall meet, eh?
|
In fantasy land, yes. Meanwhile in the real world, kids are raised by creationist parents. That means that they will bring this into the classroom one way or the other and we have to address that. The question on how to do that has yet to be resolved, as far as I can see. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 09/29/2008 : 10:55:39 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by astropin
I agree 100% that being religious does not necessarily make one a bad scientist......but how do they manage the relentless conflicts?
|
What do you mean with that?
Theists I know manage it fairly simple: accept their "God hypothesis" as untestable and then go be a scientist and draw up testable hypotheses for the theories they are testing.
I may not find it consistent that they do not apply the same scientific rigor to God as they do to everything else, but neither do I see any reason to have them fired or dismissed because they are not consistent in every aspect of their philosophy.
To take this to the position Reiss had, if they are good Directors of Science Education and do not promote the teaching of ID-Creationism or any other form of pseudo-science, and especially if they admit that their views are not scientific, I do not care one bit that they have a different job where they preach to fellow believers.
edited for language |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
| Edited by - tomk80 on 09/29/2008 11:53:15 |
|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 09/29/2008 : 11:18:15 [Permalink]
|
Indeed; many great scientists; including many great evolutionary scientists were theists.
|
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Creationists should not teach science!
