Are the halls of science as intolerant as the Houses of the Holy?

[Mr. Peabody]

I apologize for the lame Led Zeppelin reference, but I read an interesting article the other day -


The Times
September 12, 2008
Leading scientist urges teaching of creationism in schools

(Ian Nicholson/PA)
The education director at the Royal Society says science teachers should treat creationism as legitimate
Lewis Smith, Science Reporter and Alexandra Frean, Education Editor
School Gate: What our children should learn about the Big Bang

Creationism should be taught in science classes as a legitimate point of view, according to the Royal Society, putting the august science body on a collision course with the Government.

The Rev Michael Reiss, a biologist and its director of education, said it was self-defeating to dismiss as wrong or misguided the 10 per cent of pupils who believed in the literal account of God creating the Universe and all living things as related in the Bible or Koran. It would be better, he said, to treat creationism as a world view.
Link to rest of article (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article4734767.ece?print=yes&randnum=1221539677440)


I don't know whether I agree with him, but that's not really the point. There is an update to Rev. Reiss's story -


The Times
September 17, 2008
Royal Society's Michael Reiss resigns over creationism row

The resignation of Michael Reiss has divided scientists
Lewis Smith and Mark Henderson
The Royal Society’s embattled director of education resigned last night, days after causing uproar among scientists by appearing to endorse the teaching of creationism.

Michael Reiss, a biologist and ordained Church of England clergyman, agreed to step down from his position with the national academy of science after its officers decided that his comments had damaged its reputation.

His resignation comes after a campaign by senior Royal Society Fellows who were angered by Professor Reiss’s suggestion that science teachers should treat creationist beliefs “not as a misconception but as a world view”.

Again, I don't know if I agree with the good Reverend, but I don't think his opinion was so outrageous that he had to be removed from his position in the Royal Society. Also, what does it say about these institutions that they have become so close-minded and doctrinal? In a sense, they've become similar to the very institutions that the Enlightenment was supposed to have liberated us from.

[baseline bum]

Creationism isn't science. I'm not saying to censor the teaching of creationism, but it should not be taught in science classes as it has absolutely no scientific merit. If creationism is taught as a hypothesis in a religion or history/cultures class, fine, it's something that cannot be ignored in that context. However, accepting truth based on faith lies completely opposite to the scientific method. I agree that anyone with an idea as stupid as teaching creationism in science classes has no business designing science curriculums.

[Wild Cobra]

Creationism isn't science.
Only because most scientists take an atheist view to religion. Religion is dismissed, therefore it can not be accepted by any atheists as a theory. There are plenty of hypothesis to support intelligent design as a theory. World history and archeological records make it as valid of a theory as things like global warming and the big bang. In fact, it explains things that evolution cannot.

From wiki: Theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory):


Science

In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by rigorous observations in the natural world, or by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive, logical, and testable. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections, inclusion in a yet wider theory, or succession. Commonly, many more specific hypotheses may be logically bound together by just one or two theories. As a rule for use of the term, theories tend to deal with much broader sets of universals than do hypotheses, which ordinarily deal with much more specific sets of phenomena or specific applications of a theory.

Of several competing theories, one theory may be superior to another in terms of its approximation of reality. Scientific tests of the quality of a theory include its conformity to known facts and its ability to generate hypotheses with outcomes that would predict further testable facts.

Intelligent design meets the criteria unless you dismiss religion as myth.

[Mr. Peabody]

Intelligent design meets the criteria unless you dismiss religion as myth.

How do you test intelligent design as a theory? How is it verifiable? And more importantly, is it falsifiable?

[baseline bum]

Explain to me the rigorous observations or experimental data that supports the idea of some god creating everything in its present state, or even just creating the universe. Religion isn't myth. The texts such as the Bible and Qur'an that define each religion are collections of myths.

[ploto]

When I took world history, our teacher started the year saying the world had to start somehow. She took one day to discuss the basic beliefs of evolution and creationism, as they are the two most widely held views. Interestingly, she only had one parent who rasied a huge stink- and it was a mom who complained that she should not be mentioning evolution!

[Mr. Peabody]

It wasn't my intent for this thread to develop into an evolution v. creationism/intelligent design thread. My only point was to illustrate that the very institutions that were supposed to free us from uncompromising dogma have themselves become intolerant and close-minded.

I mean, the guy lost his position for giving his opinion that creationism should be taught, not as science, but as a world view to account for the differing views that would inevitably arise in the class room during a discussion of evolution.

Again, I don't agree with him. I don't feel that creationism should be discussed in science class. However, I don't think his opinion was so outlandish that he necessarily had to be removed from his position.


Teachers need to accommodate the differing world views of students from Jewish, Christian or Muslim backgrounds – which means openly discussing creationism and intelligent design as alternatives to evolutionary theory

What should science teachers do when faced with students who are creationists? Definitions of creationism vary, but about 10% of people in the UK believe that the Earth is only some 10,000 years old, that it came into existence as described in the early parts of the Bible or the Qur'an and that the most evolution has done is to split species into closely related species.

At the same time, the overwhelming majority of biologists consider evolution to be the central concept in biological sciences, providing a conceptual framework that unifies every aspect of the life sciences into a single coherent discipline. Equally, the overwhelming majority of scientists believe that the universe is of the order of about 13 to 14 billion years old.

Evolution and cosmology are understood by many to be a religious issue because they can be seen to contradict the accounts of origins of life and the universe described in the Jewish, Christian and Muslim Scriptures. The issue seems like an ongoing dispute that has science and religion battling to support the credibility of their explanations.

I feel that creationism is best seen by science teachers not as a misconception but as a world view. The implication of this is that the most a science teacher can normally hope to achieve is to ensure that students with creationist beliefs understand the scientific position. In the short term, this scientific world view is unlikely to supplant a creationist one.
. . . .

Just because something lacks scientific support doesn't seem to me a sufficient reason to omit it from a science lesson. When I was taught physics at school, and taught it extremely well in my view, what I remember finding so exciting was that we could discuss almost anything providing we were prepared to defend our thinking in a way that admitted objective evidence and logical argument.

So when teaching evolution, there is much to be said for allowing students to raise any doubts they have (hardly a revolutionary idea in science teaching) and doing one's best to have a genuine discussion. The word 'genuine' doesn't mean that creationism or intelligent design deserve equal time.

However, in certain classes, depending on the comfort of the teacher in dealing with such issues and the make-up of the student body, it can be appropriate to deal with the issue. If questions or issues about creationism and intelligent design arise during science lessons they can be used to illustrate a number of aspects of how science works.

Having said that, I don't believe that such teaching is easy. Some students get very heated; others remain silent even if they disagree profoundly with what is said.

I do believe in taking seriously and respectfully the concerns of students who do not accept the theory of evolution, while still introducing them to it. While it is unlikely that this will help students who have a conflict between science and their religious beliefs to resolve the conflict, good science teaching can help students to manage it - and to learn more science.

[PixelPusher]

The problem with most science classes, particularly in elementary schools, is that the science classes teach "what we know so far", but rarely teach scientific methodology. As long as science classes are just about filling young minds with a collection of facts and findings, creationists will try and compete on those grounds, seeing it as nothing but a competition to inject their worldviews.

[boutons_]

"to treat creationism as a world view."nothing wrong with that. Creationism, quite close to cretinism, remains excluded from science as being irrational and unverifiable, like many world views." very institutions that were supposed to free us from uncompromising dogma have themselves become intolerant and close-minded."
bullshit. science is system of rules. Adhere to the rules, and you get to play. Make up fairy tale shit like creationism, and you remain outside of the scientific "worldview", but nothing wrong with making up your own worldview.Give me a call when creationism plays by scientific rules.
When you try to force your creationist worldview into the scientific worldview, expect strong resistance.

Science has created our world. Creationism has created nothing except a politicized pulpit for self-aggrandizing creationist-mongers.

[Mr. Peabody]

very institutions that were supposed to free us from uncompromising dogma have themselves become intolerant and close-minded."
bullshit. science is system of rules. Adhere to the rules, and you get to play. Make up fairy tale shit like creationism, and you remain outside of the scientific "worldview", but nothing wrong with making up your own worldview.

Again, I think you are missing the point. He's not advocating for creationism to be taught as science. His point is that teachers should not be so quick to dismiss creationism as wrong or a misconception, in a sense, calling out those students who believe in it. He is calling for creationism to be acknowledged as a world view, which it is. Why are we so afraid of discussing these issues?

Interestingly enough, Richard Dawkins feels the Royal Society went too far -


The Reverend Michael Reiss, the Royal Society's Director of Education, is in trouble because of his views on the teaching of creationism.

Although I disagree with him, what he actually said at the British Association is not obviously silly like creationism itself, nor is it a self-evidently inappropriate stance for the Royal Society to take.

Scientists divide into two camps over this issue: the accommodationists, who 'respect' creationists while disagreeing with them; and the rest of us, who see no reason to respect ignorance or stupidity.

The accommodationists include such godless luminaries as Eugenie Scott, whose National Center for Science Education is doing splendid work in fighting the creationist wingnuts in America. She and her fellow accommodationists bend over backwards to woo the relatively sensible minority among Christians, who accept evolution.

Get the bishops and theologians on the side of science – so the argument runs – and they'll be valuable allies against the naive creationists (who probably include the majority of Christians and certainly almost all Muslims, by the way).

No politician could deny at least the superficial plausibility of this expedient, although it is disappointing how ineffective as allies the 'sensible' minority of Christians turn out to be.

The official line of the US National Academy, the American equivalent of the Royal Society, is shamelessly accommodationist. They repeatedly plug the mantra that there is 'no conflict' between evolution and religion. Michael Reiss could argue that he is simply following the standard accommodationist line, and therefore doesn't deserve the censure now being heaped upon him.

Unfortunately for him as a would-be spokesman for the Royal Society, Michael Reiss is also an ordained minister. To call for his resignation on those grounds, as several Nobel-prize-winning Fellows are now doing, comes a little too close to a witch-hunt for my squeamish taste.

Nevertheless – it's regrettable but true – the fact that he is a priest undermines him as an effective spokesman for accommodationism: "Well, he would say that, wouldn't he!"

If the Royal Society wanted to attack creationism with all fists flying, as I would hope, an ordained priest might make a politically effective spokesman, however much we might deplore his inconsistency.

This is the role that Kenneth Miller, not a priest but a devout Christian, plays in America, where he is arguably creationism's most formidable critic. But if the Society really wants to promote the accommodationist line, a clergyman is the very last advocate they should choose.

Perhaps I was a little uncharitable to liken the appointment of a vicar as the Royal Society's Education Director to a Monty Python sketch. Nevertheless, thoughts of Trojan Horses are now disturbing many Fellows, already concerned as they are by the signals the Society recently sent out through its flirtation with the infamous Templeton Foundation.

Accommodationism is playing politics, while teetering on the brink of scientific dishonesty. I'd rather not play that kind of politics at all but, if the Royal Society is going to go down that devious road, they should at least be shrewd about it. Perhaps, rather than resign his job with the Royal Society, Professor Reiss might consider resigning his Orders?

[101A]

Only because most scientists take an atheist view to religion.

"Many" would be more appropriate.

With a wife who has been a research biochemist (Ph.D. TAMU - 1995); her mentor sung in a Presbyterian choir, and their were several Christian denominations represented there; here is PA - large state University; I know from conversation that a third of the dept. (20 profs.) regularly attend church; I can assume more than that "believe", but don't attend.

Now, most of these people aren't bible thumpers or Jesus freaks, but they don't hide their Christianity, either.

Now, the stereotype that they are "liberal" is absolutely true.

[101A]

BTW. Peabody. Good Thread.

Global Warming is also, IMO being treated with an uncompromising eye.

Didn't somebody want to bring charges up against any meteorologist who spoke out against it?

Scary stuff.

[DarrinS]

Global Warming is a religion, but nobody seems to question it -- call it FAITH.


What's worse -- having irrational religious beliefs or irration "scientific" beliefs?


Weren't the abolitionists motivated by their religious convictions? Crazy religious freaks! How dare they have a moral compass!

[johnsmith]

I think it's funny how mad atheists get all the time......................what the fuck are you worried about?

[Oh, Gee!!]

great post, john. very informative.

[shelshor]

Its not just creationists vs evolutionists, or global warming: is it or isn't it. A few years I saw 2 physics profs at UC-Berkeley get in a fist fight in the faculty parking lot over what the implications of the recent discovery of pulsars meant to the argument between the Big Bang Theorists and the Steady State Theorists
We were all amused until one of them tried to hit the other one with his slide rule

[101A]

Its not just creationists vs evolutionists, or global warming: is it or isn't it. A few years I saw 2 physics profs at UC-Berkeley get in a fist fight in the faculty parking lot over what the implications of the recent discovery of pulsars meant to the argument between the Big Bang Theorists and the Steady State Theorists
We were all amused until one of them tried to hit the other one with his slide rule

Phsycists?

"Fist Fight"

Hard to believe.

You sure their palms weren't open, heads back, slapping aimlessly at one another?

[Viva Las Espuelas]

..........We were all amused until one of them tried to hit the other one with his slide rulewell if obamessiah says it's ok to fight then i guess it's ok.

[baseline bum]

If it isn't science, it has no basis being taught in science classes, plain and simple. I don't know how much more clear it can be than that. Teaching a world view in science class means you're wasting time that should be used teaching science.

[The Reckoning]

ive seen some of the textbooks that "teach" creationism. it introduces it as a theory and not a fact usually along the lines of "some speculate that the universe was created by a higher intelligence"...and it barely mentions it along with the big bang. its not like they have entire chapters or courses devoted to creationism.

[The Reckoning]

Its not just creationists vs evolutionists, or global warming: is it or isn't it. A few years I saw 2 physics profs at UC-Berkeley get in a fist fight in the faculty parking lot over what the implications of the recent discovery of pulsars meant to the argument between the Big Bang Theorists and the Steady State Theorists
We were all amused until one of them tried to hit the other one with his slide rule


:lol that reminds me of a video that my politics prof showed us today
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_-Eigd7RbU

[boutons_]

"its not like they have entire chapters or courses devoted to creationism."

step by step, the mofo's creep their junk into public schools. just wait ...

[johnsmith]

great post, john. very informative.

I know you don't want me to go and quote nearly every single one of the last 50 posts you've made because they're nearly all garbage.

[Oh, Gee!!]

you wanna take the pepsi challenge, johnny boy?

[Wild Cobra]

Creationism, as Intelligent Design is something many scientists don't believe should be categorized as 'theory.' Using the same criteria, many other things shouldn't either.

For those who study multiple religions, they will all agree that most have the many of the same stories, including, the creation. They vary a little, but there is historical writings on the subject that cannot be denied. The Sumerians have the creation of mankind story that can be directly translated to mankind being genetically altered from the life forms found here to suit their needs as more intelligent slaves.

As for observation and reasoning... We now understand genetic engineering. We see marvels on the earth that are unexplainable except for sciences lost to us, or help by a higher power. I am not going to take the time to make a comprehensive list This forum gets to be too much these days for me to read all the threads as it is now.

With the billions of stars out there, few people today believe we are alone in the universe. There are still many things unexplained, but the Gods of the Earth may simply be visitors from elsewhere, or an advanced race before us that died. They could have mastered genetic engineering far beyond our understanding, and modified the earth. Evolution has missing links. Without finding cause for the several missing links in nature, evolution is not a credible theory alone. Those of us who have taken the time to understand religion a bit deeper, and the sciences, see that these two theories actually work hand-in-hand as they are both incomplete by themselves.

Notice that I try to leave 'the creation' out of this. Religious writings are too vague on the subject to a higher power manipulating the matter of the solar system. This could be terra-forming, or simply a story. I think we all agree the real debate is Intelligent Design and Evolution. The Creation should be classed as a hypothesis in my view.

I like the joke where Moses asks God about the creation. God tells Moses about the Big Bang, the cooling of matter, formation of the solar systems, etc. etc. He goes on to explain the first simple life on earth and evolution. He goes on to how he and his race helped mankind though disasters, and how their strife pitted tribes of mankind against each other as a game. After he finishes, Moses says to God.... My Lord... They will never believe that. God then tells Moses, then tell them something they will believe.

[The Reckoning]

i think its a really good point. but i couldnt help it...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrTrzsIxcXs

[baseline bum]

For those who study multiple religions, they will all agree that most have the many of the same stories, including, the creation. They vary a little, but there is historical writings on the subject that cannot be denied. The Sumerians have the creation of mankind story that can be directly translated to mankind being genetically altered from the life forms found here to suit their needs as more intelligent slaves.


There's also lots of historical writings about Zeus living on Mount Olympus, Moses being a 900 year-old man, the Loch Ness monster, and so on, but stories not supported by physical evidence can easily be cons and cannot be trusted.


As for observation and reasoning... We now understand genetic engineering. We see marvels on the earth that are unexplainable except for sciences lost to us, or help by a higher power. I am not going to take the time to make a comprehensive list This forum gets to be too much these days for me to read all the threads as it is now.

You probably should make a list if you're going to go out on a limb and say only the existence of some set of gods can explain complexity in nature.

Why is complexity in nature proof of God? Is it the second law argument? The argument that it's mathematically unlikely for molecules to randomly order themselves in complex structures that support life?


With the billions of stars out there, few people today believe we are alone in the universe. There are still many things unexplained, but the Gods of the Earth may simply be visitors from elsewhere, or an advanced race before us that died. They could have mastered genetic engineering far beyond our understanding, and modified the earth. Evolution has missing links. Without finding cause for the several missing links in nature, evolution is not a credible theory alone. Those of us who have taken the time to understand religion a bit deeper, and the sciences, see that these two theories actually work hand-in-hand as they are both incomplete by themselves.

This is laughable that conjectures with no supporting evidence that are completely inconsistent with a testable and consistent theory should be allowed equal standing in a class that is supposed to teach skepticism.


Notice that I try to leave 'the creation' out of this. Religious writings are too vague on the subject to a higher power manipulating the matter of the solar system. This could be terra-forming, or simply a story. I think we all agree the real debate is Intelligent Design and Evolution. The Creation should be classed as a hypothesis in my view.

This kills me when people want to officially leave their god out of intelligent design. Intelligent design is painted with such a broad brush that it could be anything. Maybe our god is gravity. Maybe natural selection is the unknown power. Basically, an unknown explanation gets labeled the intelligent designer. Hooray, we've given a name and a face to the idea of I don't know.

[The Reckoning]

its called agnosticism

[Mr. Peabody]

This kills me when people want to officially leave their god out of intelligent design. Intelligent design is painted with such a broad brush that it could be anything. Maybe our god is gravity. Maybe natural selection is the unknown power. Basically, an unknown explanation gets labeled the intelligent designer. Hooray, we've given a name and a face to the idea of I don't know.
:toast

[BradLohaus]

I think it's funny that people on either side get so worked up over high school biology in public schools - it's almost like they actually think it matters.

I took 2 years of high school biology. I learned about this stuff from the JV volleyball coach and the OC for the football team... like millions of other high school students.

I'll say this: it's been about a decade, and I'm still pretty good at paper football.

[Mr. Peabody]

I think it's funny that people on either side get so worked up over high school biology in public schools - it's almost like they actually think it matters.

I took 2 years of high school biology. I learned about this stuff from the JV volleyball coach and the OC for the football team... like millions of other high school students.

I'll say this: it's been about a decade, and I'm still pretty good at paper football.

Yeah, we had the JV football coach. He taught straight from the book and it seemed as if he was learning it as we were learning it. He also wasn't very good at handling questions if the answer wasn't in a chapter we'd covered.

[baseline bum]

I think it's funny that people on either side get so worked up over high school biology in public schools - it's almost like they actually think it matters.

I took 2 years of high school biology. I learned about this stuff from the JV volleyball coach and the OC for the football team... like millions of other high school students.

I'll say this: it's been about a decade, and I'm still pretty good at paper football.

The reason to get worked up over it is that we need to be producing good engineers to fix Detroit, to ensure a strong national defense against the looming threat of China, to develop alternative energy sources so we're not making our enemies rich, and so on. Trying to dumb scientific education down with instruction that runs contrary to the skepticism one should be learning in his biology class is unforgivable. Anti-intellectualism is not something we should be teaching impressionable high school freshmen when we have such a need for qualified minds to get this back into being a producer instead of such a service economy. Praying sure isn't going to get us back to being competitive in automobiles, electronics, energy, etc.