Quote of the Week: Absurdity Week!!!

“Just because something lacks scientific support doesn’t seem to me a sufficient reason to omit it from a science lesson”
Quote by Times of India:Reverend Michael Reiss, Biologist and Director of Education at the Royal Society

Screw neutrality: what a MORON!!!Obviously, the issue here is creationism. I still can’t get over the quote, particularly who it represents: this is the f***ing ROYAL SOCIETY!!!

UPDATE: Ok, the full text makes him sound less crazy.

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.

(Emphasis mine) See? More than enough to count as sane. I will retract “moron”… and replace it with “WIMP!!!” The bulk of his argument is that we shouldn’t FORCE people to accept evolution. This, of course, is stupid on a whole bunch of levels, the simplest being that scientific truth is scientific truth, and there are no two “worldviews” (his words) about it.

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “Quote of the Week: Absurdity Week!!!

  1. Of course, a good scientific attitude means not accepting anything as scientific truth.
    Science owes a lot to Sir Karl Popper, who established the standard that if a theory is to be accepted as scientific, it must be falsifiable. That is, it should allow for the possibility of proving it wrong. Which means you allow for discussion, perhaps not of creationism and intelligent design, because those theories do not fit within the framework of ‘scientific’, but taking a theory, like evolution, or whatever it may be, as the one and only truth and discouraging debate about it also goes against the spirit of science.

  2. Funny how some things keep popping up. One day I’m reading kalafudra’s rants about the Popper School in Vienna (which I guess doesn’t actually have much to do with the man himself any more than MG Road has to do with mahatma Gandhi), the next day I’m mentioning The Black Swan and Fooled By Randomness in an unrelated post, and the day after that I’m recommending the same books for a view into the theory of falsification, and how even someone who thought Popper was just about the only truly meaningful western philosopher of his age thought he took it just a little bit too far.

    Hey, I agree with you, in principle: good science means you’re never sure, and all that. I’m not discouraging debate about it in the public forum. I’m not even saying a science teacher should throw out every student who says “but GOD created the world, it says so right here!”I AM saying that presenting it as a view in a textbook gives it a far greater degree of legitimacy than it deserves, no matter how much you argue after that. I’m saying a student who writes “but God…” etc in an EXAM paper should not get the marks for that question (the easy solution to THAT politically difficult decision is just not to ask it in the first place. I think most people already follow this obvious policy).

    Besides, come on, the evidence really IS in for this one. How long should you have to keep arguing about it?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s