1. Christian review of the Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing

Comment #253906 by Foggy29 on September 25, 2008 at 2:52 am

But oddly, Dawkins the crusading atheist is nowhere in sight in this volume. Not one of the selections is a rant against belief in God or a snide exposition of the superiority of the scientific way of knowing. None of the selections bash creationism or intelligent design. And, if the choice of the selections was guided by some more subtle agenda intended to undermine religion, the strategy was lost on me.

All the books written by RD, including TGD, are rational, measured and certainly NOT crusading or 'snide', so why Karl Giberson is surprised that a book edited by RD is the same is beyond me. Simply pointing out the truth is none of those things and nor is it ranting (apart from possibly the humorous character assessment of God in TGD). By its very nature, The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing undermines faith in an omniscient and omnipotent deity, ALL the selection 'bash creationism or intelligent design' if this guy can't see that then good on him, we can consider it a Trojan Horse and we're in!

2. Royal Society's Michael Reiss resigns over creationism row

Comment #248900 by Foggy29 on September 17, 2008 at 6:03 am

Doh! Apologies Angels On A Pinhead et al, I've mentally merged all the Guardian articles in my eagerness.
I still stand by my objection to the statement though.

3. Royal Society's Michael Reiss resigns over creationism row

Comment #248888 by Foggy29 on September 17, 2008 at 5:38 am

Counter with the 'No ignorance allowed' defence.

4. Royal Society's Michael Reiss resigns over creationism row

Comment #248875 by Foggy29 on September 17, 2008 at 5:08 am

I address this to all those here who think that Michael Reiss has been treated badly. My first inclination too was to be charitable and go along with the 'misquoted', 'witch hunt' defence, after all, who of a reasoned and rational persuasion can argue against educating a child about the joys of science versus the ignorance of creationism? However, on reading his statement in its entirety there are far more objectionable sentiments than the one making all the headlines e.g.

"I do not belong to the camp that argues that creationism is necessarily nonscientific...
Furthermore I am not convinced that something being 'nonscientific' is sufficient to disqualify it from being considered in a science lesson. An understanding of (nonscientific) context often helps in learning the content of science."

The first sentence is breathtaking in its naivety and a totally unreasoned argument, which can only make sense in the context of his faith. The last two sentences are fine, as long as you mean things like the ethics of nuclear proliferation or the denial of global warming etc, such debates come under the heading of the Philosophy of Science (if only!) in a social context, but to lump these sentences with the first, so that creationism/religion appear 'scientific' in any way shape or form, is plain ignorant.

You can dress it up however you wish; the bottom line is that Rev Prof Reiss was advocating special consideration for untestable religious belief alongside science, in his capacity as the Director of Education for the Royal Society.

Scientific and intellectual dishonesty is bad at the best of times, but totally unacceptable in the context of children's education. Do we want children equating irrational belief with rigorous and testable science? What about those in the class (whom I suspect will be a silent majority in most UK schools, though sadly not all) that do not subscribe to the creationist's 'world view'?

As mentioned numerous times elsewhere on this site, what creation myths do you discuss? Do you then have to consider astrology when teaching about planetary motion? etc, etc, etc.

Here's a radical thought, how about using a Science class to discuss some Science!

Wedge! Wedge! Wedge! thin end thereof.

Unfortunately Rev Prof Reiss now has more time to devote to his day job.

Edit

Apologies for incorrect referencing of above quotation and there's me a rational 'accurate' scientist.

See comment 248892 by Angels On a Pinhead
and mine at 248900.

5. Science lessons should tackle creationism and intelligent design

Comment #246324 by Foggy29 on September 12, 2008 at 7:19 am

As pointed out in the discussions yesterday, this dingbat is REV Prof Dingbat.

Here's a profile http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2006/nov/28/academicexperts.highereducationprofile

Critical thinking capacity thoroughly removed at birth I fear, but scarily he's a government adviser. Clearly, trying to juggle the demands of evolutionary biology and his imaginary friend have made him pop a fuse. I really am concerned for the future of UK science education, more and more of the undergraduate and post graduate students I have to deal with are completely unable to think critically. This is typical of the increasing lack of scientific rigour I have to deal with daily and will only serve to legitamise the views of the myth lovers.

6. Honest Mistakes or Willful Mendacity

Comment #68497 by Foggy29 on September 7, 2007 at 10:09 am

Apologies if this has been mentioned already, but having listened to Mr Cornwell's misrepresentations yesterday, I think it's worth pointing out an extract from John Humphrys forthcoming book, printed in The Sunday Times, 2nd September 2007.
(http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2367028.ece)
On hearing about this book, I initially thought that he might be on the track to 'enlightenment'. Unfortunately, Mr Humphry's comments in the article regarding "atheists like Dawkins", and his earlier appearance on the Richard and Judy show (I had the misfortune to catch the interview when I was on holiday recently, but can't remember which day), also appear to be an exercise in misrepresentation. Therefore, I expect that any representations made to The Today program on RD's behalf are unlikely to succeed. For people who are are unaware of him, Mr John Humphrys is one of The Today program's main presenters and pretty much has the status of national institution, though he was thankfully absent for the RD/Cornwell fiasco.