Evolution, Religion and The Loss of Tolerance

Earlier this week the director of Education at the Royal Society made a remark that seemed to indicate he favored discussing Intelligent Design in biology classes, if the topic arose naturally in a class room discussion. He is both a biologist and a Church of England minister and he apparently felt that the right place to discuss the unscientific nature of Intelligent Design was in a science class room.

Almost immediately cries went up from all corners apparently misinterpreting his statement that he favored actually teaching intelligent design. Some of these cries were OK with "teaching" intelligent design in a religion class, but apparently even mentioning it in a science class room should be a firing offense. A few days ago these folks got their wish as the director has resigned his post as Director of Education.

I'm deeply disturbed by this news. "My side" in the ID/evolution debate has suddenly gone bonkers. Everyone in the science community agrees ID is not science. But apparently now there is a sub-group of the "science community" who seem to advocate "if you're not fighting ID our way then you're in favor of ID."  Actually I kinda hope the outcry was from stupid parents who spoke without thinking and that folks who actually read what Professor Reiss said understood what he meant. It seems to me to be a form of Sun Tsu's "keep your friends close and your enemies closer". If a student is on the fence over evolution and ID I would rather they get info from a science teacher to push them over to evolution's side and that may involve a contrast with ID. "You're wrong (ID) and we're not going to talk to you." does not seem like the science class room I know.

However, even if the outcry were from stupid parents, I'm still disturbed that the Royal Society let or asked to him resign. The way to battle stupid kneejerk reactions is to tell the folks making them to stop and think a minute. But by allowing Professor Riese to resign, the Royal Society is encouraging more of the same behavior.

And all this after the Church of England is supposed to give an apology to Charles Darwin.

Irony...

Ironically, every science teacher during my highschool career made it a goal to whisper "bullshit" under their breath after teaching the class anything about evolution.

Ironically, every science teacher during my highschool career made it a goal to whisper "bullshit" under their breath after teaching the class anything about evolution.

And where do you live?

Ironically, every science teacher during my highschool career made it a goal to whisper "bullshit" under their breath after teaching the class anything about evolution.

Ironically, every teacher I've ever had was a christian, and every science teacher I had strongly believed in evolution. For some reason being a christian doesn't have to make you retarded, but being retarded for some reason has to make you vocal.

What's most interesting about this debarkle is that the so called "new atheists" like Richard Dawkins have been defending Reiss (at least partially), which is a pretty good demonstration of how ridiculous many of the strawman attacks against them are.

Richard Dawkins wrote a pretty good response here;

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/dn14748-letter-richard-dawkins-on-the-royal-society-row.html?feedId=online-news_rss20

What's most interesting about this debarkle is that the so called "new atheists" like Richard Dawkins have been defending Reiss (at least partially), which is a pretty good demonstration of how ridiculous many of the strawman attacks against them are.

Richard Dawkins wrote a pretty good response here;

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/dn14748-letter-richard-dawkins-on-the-royal-society-row.html?feedId=online-news_rss20

Interesting article. I would say that I am not an accomodationist (to the extent I understand that term). Creationism is not science. However, I also believe that Michael Reiss merely advocated trying to convince would-be creationists of this in science class instead of outside it. Regardless of whether I'm reading professor Reiss's words correctly, I don't believe that being in favor of arguing against creationism in a science class necessarily means you're an accomodationist.

And in case it's not clear, the "loss of tolerance" part here is that if 2 camps who clearly share a common goal "accomodationists and "the rest of us"" as Dawkings puts it, adopt a scorched earth policy regarding each other then what chance is there for civilized discussions between groups who don't share a common goal?