Reverend scientist chopped
In the end, everything is political even science. And as politicians, scientists are often, well, very good scientists. My spirited defence was in vain. Rev Professor Michael Reiss’s remarks in favour of answering questions about creationism if asked about them in science class had been “open to misinterpretation”. This had damaged the Royal 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.” And then having fired him the Royal Society went on to back the position Reiss had expressed in the first place.
“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.” It added that the society “greatly appreciated the efforts of Prof Reiss..”
In the small branch of science known as rational thought, this ranks as sheer hypocrisy. If the Royal Society had said that any scientist who has any truck with even rebutting creationism in class should be censured, then they might have been justified. Harsh, an over-reaction maybe, even a restriction of speech, but justified intellectually, even though I believe it’s the wrong approach. All they have done is given status to creationists. It’s my fundamental belief that if you wish to refute a position, you should widen the public space for doing so, not narrow it to the point of confrontation. The case is strong enough on it own, force is not required. In politics, so in science or religion.
When I first picked up on this story I thought it was an interesting curio. Now I think it’s about personal injustice and intellectual panic. It shows that if we didn’t know it before, even Nobel prize winners can be prize fools. I’m glad Robert Winston agrees with me.
Again, we fail to answer the question boys. That is a “F” grade for GCSE Science!
Bill does not want to posit any objective, scientific testing apparatus for design as he wisely knows he will be left with some very awkward conclusions. So, he retreats to rehashing the old argument of “God of the gaps” i.e. that science will one day provide the answers if we just wait.
Firstly, Bill even if science could “design and create” what even you accept is the most complex computer on the planet ie human brain I win as you have had to use design and creative power to make it. Not only that but you will have used “something” to make “something.” What you are arguing for essentially however is that our brain has emerged from nothing by nothing and given enough time (add a few billion years to make the story sound better) will produce unguided by any personal rational being a more sophisticated computer than we have by IBM today. Not only this but this brain can be used to argue rationally and investigate scientifically despite coming from a non-rational source. Bill – if you can sell this with a straight face you are the greatest conman in history.
As for your point about quantum mechanics it is not true that they emerge from nothing. Theories that the universe is a quantum fluctuation must presuppose that there was something to fluctuate—their “quantum vacuum” is a lot of matter-antimatter potential—not “nothing.”
Am afraid Bill you have been reading Isaac Asimov too much. Better dust down that old A Level Physics textbook again.
Stephen Glover of the Daily Mail (no creationist) says very eloquently what I have been trying to say. I suggest a read:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1054492/STEPHEN-GLOVER-God-taxpayers-money-day-barmy-BBC-went-orbit.html
My God, is this thread still active? Hate to say I told you so but this is what you get when you try to argue with creationists. They duck, cheat and simply waste your time. I wonder if Sam is a Free Presbyterian and a DUPer. He and Poots would be hilarious on a comedy show.
Hi Bill,
Since you brought up the quantum argument you may be interested to know that the guy who taught me quantum at Queens (not that I understood too much of it) is an elder at a church I infrequently attend. And there are many others. Just shows you that you can be a scientist and believe in a god. They’re not mutually exclusive.
Which is why those who think they are (you Maggie!) can be called fundamentalist. They “believe” in evolution.
Congal
Me a fundamentalist? Didn’t you have dictionaries at Queens? Or are you simply talking out of your fundament?
Hi Congal
I too have good friends who are both of a scientific background and are religious. I have no real poblems with that. I wouldn’t begin to use science to argue poeple out of their faith. I believe they are distinct areas in peoples’ lives. They are clever enough to come to terms with areas such as evolution.
It does strike me as odd though that we have obviously intelligent people who seem to be happy to park their critical faculties in the driveway whenever something apparently contradicts their world view.
Hi Maggie,
“Strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles”. n. (big) Maggie ;0)
Bill,
Which cuts both ways?
Congal
Exactly. If scientists had adhered strictly to a ‘set of basic ideas or principles’ we’d be living like the Amish, believing in a flat earth and still dying from mild infections. Thankfully science is a moveable feast, unlike creationism which is doomed by dogma.
Hi Maggie,
Not allowing the mention of “god” in debates about the start of life/universe seems fundamentalist to me. Especially when you/Dawkins suggest evolution (the life part) explains it all when it does no such thing.
Sorry Congal
But evolution does explain it all. You might not like the theory and you might want to believe another one but evolution does explain it all. What you might be confusing this with is that there are gaps in the evolutionary record. This doesn’t mean that evolution can’t explain everything, just some of the bits haven’t been found to chart a full timeline for everything.
Don’t get caught in Sam’s cul-de-sac wgere he thinks that because we don’t have all jigsaw pieces then they don’t exist. We just haven’t found them.
I’m beginning to agree with Big M that this discussion is going nowhere – while we are using the same words we are speaking fundamentally diffeent languages.
There are scientific theories which explain everything from soup to nuts. They may be right or they might not. Science is busy conducting experiments to see which is right. Again, you may disagree with this and feel that your own beliefs provide the right answer and you are entitled to that. However, don’t confuse this with a view that science has no answers.
Has Maggie contributed anything of substance so far apart from ad hominen insults?
There are many fine female scientists but unfortunately Mad Maggie brings shame to her gender. She is clearly one of the tree hugging, free thinking types that 20 years ago lived in smelly tents at Greenham Common with her beard.
Maggie, dear – if you cannot construct your own joined up thinking then it would be better for you to stick to the knitting!
For your information (though goodness know why I bother), the “scientists” who discovered cures for mild infections and that the earth was actually round were creationists! Hey, but dont let the facts get in the way of a good Mad Maggie story…….
You are living in the privileges of an age with its scientific rationale and logic directly derived from the 6 centuries of the Protestant Reformation heritage. So please do not play the card that scientific naturalism rescued us from the dark days of obscurantist creationism.
Congal
Not allowing the mention of “god” in debates about the start of life/universe seems fundamentalist to me.
Really? It’s science, man. How would you feel if I were to mention Manitou and his contribution to the universal kick-start? Leave religion in the church or RE class.
Especially when you/Dawkins suggest evolution (the life part) explains it all when it does no such thing.
We do? When did he and I come to that conclusion? Stop putting words into my mouth.
Notmyopinion.
Nowhere does science or the theory of natural selection talk about “chance” in the way you described it. It is a common misconception to think that science argues things arose by chance.
Hi Bill,
I “believe” in the theory of evolution. However, there aren’t too many examples from the fossil record which you mention. The fossil record tends to show stasis within species with few in-betweens. For me the reason is that evolution happened in big jumps caused by outside factors – climate, magnetic reversal or whatever. Therefore, you don’t find many/any in-betweens as they were relatively small timescales. However, the jump from albeit complex amino acids to self-replicating organisms is not explained. Evolution does not explain it. This is where I have to disagree with Dawkins. To me, evolution happens when life exists. Not how it started. To put it another way, cars are evolving all the time. They get more powerful, more refined, better mpg, etc as we the public select those cars through purchase of successful cars. However, that does not explain the invention of the car.
Hi Maggie,
“Really? It’s science, man. How would you feel if I were to mention Manitou and his contribution to the universal kick-start? Leave religion in the church or RE class.”
The start of life/universe is not explained scientifically. So, how could it be? If I was an RE teacher I would not forbid any mention of Darwin or Dawkins.
“We do? When did he and I come to that conclusion? Stop putting words into my mouth.”
From a previous thread, when talking about Dawkins, you said…
“He does no such thing. He looks at the evidence for evolution and deduces that life started according to the theory.”
Please remember the words that came out of your mouth ;0)
Congal
Context is everything. Let’s look at that thread again.
You: He makes the leap from evolution to the start of life. A leap that requires faith.
Me: He does no such thing. He looks at the evidence for evolution and deduces that life started according to the theory. It’s no leap of faith. If a better explanation comes along, or if the theory is expanded/improved you can bet your rosary beads that Dawkins will embrace it. This is how science works.
Hi Maggie,
So you agree you did say it then ;0)
BTW, you summed up my view quite accurately. We’ll have to disagree on whether it’s a leap of faith or not.
“If a better explanation comes along, or if the theory is expanded/improved you can bet your rosary beads that Dawkins will embrace it. This is how science works.”
I’ve actually heard Dawkins come out with the same argument. It’s an idealised view of science though. In reality tho’ many a science goes to the grave clinging longingly to an “old” theory. For example, Fred Hoyle and the steady state universe. Or Global Warming.
There are many fine female scientists but unfortunately Mad Maggie brings shame to her gender. She is clearly one of the tree hugging, free thinking types that 20 years ago lived in smelly tents at Greenham Common with her beard.
Maggie, dear – if you cannot construct your own joined up thinking then it would be better for you to stick to the knitting!
Sam, you’re a sexist Neanderthal tosspot, there’s really no excuse for ever speaking to a woman in those terms. If a woman being able to outwit you in an argument terrifies you so much, I suggest you stay off the internet.
Congal
If you insist on nit-picking then all right. The facts are otherwise though. Dawkins proposes that life began from inanimate matter (see The Selfish Gene and passim). How this happened he cannot yet say but imagines that it accords with what we know of evolutionary processes.
Re Hoyle, sure there are exceptions that test the rule but by and large a scientist who clings to a theory that’s past its sell-by date won’t hold tenure for too long and will be slated in the peer-reviewed journals. And thank Odin for that I say.
TAFKABO
Thank you, my gallant champion! Mind you, I always find it best to simply ignore the Neanderthals. They did become extinct after all, wiped out by evolution :^)
Actually Congal I mostly agree with your post @ 04:43 PM.
Evolution explains evolution and that’s all it has ever claimed to explain. Having said that, there are various ideas floating around as to how it could have started. I’d even go so far as to suggest that we’re closer to being able to kick-start life ourselves, recreating conditions which could conceivably have occurred spontaneously.
It’s an exiting field of science.
Mags – I guess you could say that Richard Dawkins’ set of basic ideas or principles includes “There is no God” and “Religion is irrational” (not merely non-rational, but actively anti-rational). These are not scientific positions, but they are part of his basic philosophy – and a major preoccupation in his writings.
I don’t think I’m doing him the slightest injustice by comparing the way he articulates and defends those philosophical assumptions with the way a religious fundamentalist articulates his faith. Or the way a NRA member defends his right to bear assault rifles. Or the attitude of Mac fanboys or some free software zealots towards Windows. Well, maybe not quite as bad as the last lot.
But the point is there are many issues which can be and are argued in fundamentalist style.
TAFKABO: Nowhere does science or the theory of natural selection talk about “chance” in the way you described it. It is a common misconception to think that science argues things arose by chance.
I was attempting to reply to Sam’s “the Scientific Method also pre-supposes that the world is rational and can be observed objectively which poses the problem… how did such a system evolve from an irrational and unguided source“, by pointing out that how a system arose does not preclude its rational behaviour.
That said, if the “mechanisms” of evolution include mutation, habitat change, and natural selection, then in a very real sense the new forms of creature are coming about by chance in the first instance – even if there are then quite predictable selective forces that stop most of the modified forms dead in their tracks.
It’s a reasonable shorthand, in the context.
Or are you making a different point?
Hi Tafkabo,
“Evolution explains evolution and that’s all it has ever claimed to explain”
Do you not think Dawkins takes it a step further? Say, one step beyond. Now that’s Madness. Without trying to show my age…
Melanie Phillips makes an interesting observation concerning current creationism hysteria surrounding Prof. Reiss.
Richard Dawkins was quite willing to speak about creationism on an ITV show he made.
Gnome User
Oh he’ll speak about it all right and warn the unwary about it but he won’t engage a creationist ‘scientist’ in debate. He considers that it would be treating them on an equal footing to genuine scientists.