Michael Reiss: "A Sinner in the Hands of an Angry God": Synopsis of a Play in Three Acts

If we go by the recent Michael Reiss drama, Brit Darwin fans seem to be going round the bend on hockey skates ...

Act One: Well-meaning Brit clergyman wants kids to know "Darwin loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life ... "

On September 11, 2008 Michael Reiss, a biologist, ordained minister in the Church of England, professor of science education at the Institute for Education, and director of science education employed by the Royal Society, wass quoted in an article in the Guardian by James Randerson as telling attendees at the British Association Festival of Science that,

Creationism and intelligent design should be taught in school science lessons, ...

The Rev Prof Michael Reiss, director of education at the Royal Society, said that excluding alternatives to scientific explanations for the origin of life and the universe from science lessons was counterproductive and would alienate some children from science altogether.

[ ... ]

Reiss said he used to be an "evangelist" for evolution in the classroom, but that the approach had backfired. "I realised that simply banging on about evolution and natural selection didn't lead some pupils to change their minds at all. Now I would be more content simply for them to understand it as one way of understanding the universe," he said.

(Here's the audio.)

So Reiss was definitely thumping the tub for Darwin. Let no one doubt this. In fact, he made tiresomely clear that he is totally sold on "evolution", and anyone who doubts has "worldview" problems:

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.

[ ... ]

Creationism can profitably be seen not as a simple misconception that careful science teaching can correct. Rather, a student who believes in creationism has a non-scientific way of seeing the world, and one very rarely changes one's world view as a result of a 50-minute lesson, however well taught.

So Reiss had apparently decided, from experience, that it is better to listen first, and encourage people to talk before offering a solution. That, of course, is standard modern practice in any kind of evangelism, whether for Darwin, drugs, Christianity, jihadism, or animal rights terrorism. For whatever reason, most people, offered a choice of

1. Think my way,

or

2. Go to hell,

- provided that no firearms are pointed directly at them - tend to respond, "Excuse me while I go check the weather news on the temperature down in hell. Back soon, ... uh, honest!"

So, as Reiss made clear, he was earnest about looking for a way to convert the non-materialist sinners to random, purposeless Darwinian evolution.

Ah, but in the most faithful hearts, a seed of doubt may be nourished ...

Act Two: The clergyman is himself accused of ... sin!

"Creationism call divides Royal Society," advised Robin McKie, science editor for the Guardian (Sunday September 14 2008). Indeed, Richard Roberts (British, Nobel 1993) and Harry Kroto (British, Nobel, 1996) were enraged ,and Roberts demanded that the Royal Society fire Reiss.

Roberts, winner of the 1993 Nobel Prize for Medicine for his work on gene-splicing, was equally angry. 'I think it is outrageous that this man is suggesting that creationism should be discussed in a science classroom. It is an incredible idea and I am drafting a letter to other Nobel laureates - which would be sent to the Royal Society - to ask that Reiss be made to stand down.'

'I warned the president of the Royal Society that his [Reiss] was a dangerous appointment a year ago. I did not realise just how dangerous it would turn out to be,' said Kroto, a Royal Society fellow, and winner of the 1996 Nobel Prize for Chemistry

Robin McKie reminds us that

The row over Reiss's remarks is the second recent controversy over the society's stance on religion. Fellows, including cancer expert and Nobel Prize winner Sir Paul Nurse, complained about the financial links that had been established between the society and the Templeton Foundation, a conservative US organisation that seeks to establish links between science and religion. The latter funded a lecture course at the society.

Anyone who thought that the Templeton people were about to tolerate any sort of intelligent design (let alone creationism) obviously doesn't know them - but that would include about 100 percent of McKie's readers, so it probably doesn't matter.

On September 15, sinner Reiss claimed, haplessly, in a letter to the Guardian, to have been misquoted.

He once again raised his tribe's war yell, that creationism has "no scientific validity."

Indeed, it is a yell he has practised to perfection. As The Great Beyond blog advises, he had said much the same thing in a 2006 Guardian interview with Zoe Corbyn ("Michael Reiss: How to convert a generation: The collective voice of scientists on the best way to teach their subjects is also a priest"):

But in the spring of 2007, he will launch a book with an American academic, Sandy Jones, on teaching science to students who come from creationist homes. "I am really interested in how you teach in a way that is true to science, but doesn't put many capable, sensitive young people off science for life, nor denigrate them," says Reiss. His answer is not to be overly defensive, but to encourage an analysis of the evidence. "I am not expecting every young person to change their mind just because of five or 10 hours of science teaching ... I love having intelligent 15-year-olds who will cheerfully argue their corner," he says.

But, following the Royal Society's line, Reiss stresses his opposition to the teaching of creationism in science classes (though teachers should be able to deal with it if it comes up in discussion). "There is a role for science teachers. Religious education teachers can't be expected to know about the evidence for and against evolution," he explains.

Yes, first and last, Rev. Reiss had been determined that the Good News of random and purposeless Darwinian evolution should be made available to children from creationist homes - and one of the ways to do that was to allow them to talk about what they in fact believed about the nature of life first.

But would that defense avail? Shooting the wounded is a religious duty, after all.

Act Three: The sinner meets Darwin's God!

No, that defense did not avail. Proper religious justice was promptly meted out to the wayward Reiss. As the BBC inimitably put it, "Creationism" biologist steps down.

He was criticised by other scientists - though misquoted as saying creationism should be "taught" in science classes.

The society said some of his comments had been "open to misinterpretation".

This had damaged its reputation.

But some offered to bury the ashes of Reiss's career decently:

Lord Robert Winston, professor of science and society at Imperial College London, said: "I fear that in this action the Royal Society may have only diminished itself.

"This is not a good day for the reputation of science or scientists.

Richard Dawkins offered the moral of the play:

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!"

Epilogue: And so now?

So the community sinner and scapegoat has been properly punished.

Meanwhile, brief thoughts:

1. Richard Dawkins has every right to be unhappy about this incident. For one thing, as he must realize, the clear winners are intelligent design and creationism. Kroto, Roberts, and their fans (with an earlier assist from Dawkins himself, incidentally) have now created a situation where students cannot learn about any weaknesses associated with intelligent design (or creationism). It is hard to see how that will help materialist atheists like him.

2. On the whole, I doubt that Reiss's suggestion was a good idea. Given the current commitment of the system to defending just about every swirl of hogwash advanced in Darwin's name, the big problem is that large numbers of intelligent students will respectfully dissent - and get away with it.

So the tribal elders had to act at once, of course.

(Heck, where can I find a reliable anthropologist to document these priceless dramas from primitive human groups before they ultimately disappear?)

See also:

- At Index on Censorship Warwick U sociologist calls the case "a source of grave concern to those interested in the future of academic freedom." Here's a podcast of his views.

- David Tyler, "Another call to counter the Forces of Ignorance":

It seems that every organisation connected with science has leaders who feel the need to make statements opposing intelligent design and creationism. Whilst most of these get no further than the press release, one has made it to the pages of Genome Biology. The author is Gregory Petsko, President of the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (ASBMB ). The first paragraph sets the tone: "the Discovery Institute, that bastion of ignorance, right-wing political ideology, and pseudo-scientific claptrap, the creationist movement has mounted yet another assault on science." The "assault on science" is considered to be partly propaganda and partly legislative. Leaders like Petsko appear to be afflicted with a form of schizophrenia: when writing as scientists, they are rational and moderate; but when confronted by ID or creationism, they erupt in a frenzy of wild assertions.

Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy:

Can we all just spell out together "U-S-E-F-U-L I-D-I-O-T-S" and have done with it?

At the blog + Science and Values*: ("Support for Michael Reiss from Unlikely Sources," November 15, 2008), we read,

It is noticeable that many creationists and intelligent design supporters have written in support of Michael Reiss, despite the fact that Reiss claims to be a theistic evolutionist. The latest is a piece in the November issue of Evangelical Times by David Tyler, in which he welcomes Reiss’s call for respectful dialogue in the classroom so that the views of those who hold to different worldviews can be recognised, respected and treated fairly. Reiss has argued that disrespecting those who have different worldviews only turns children away from science and is therefore counter-productive to providing good science education. Many creationists broadly agree with this assertion and therefore welcome calls for respect in the science classroom.

What is also noticeable about the events surrounding Michael Reiss is the lack of comment and support for him from organisations such as the Faraday Institute (FI) and Christians in Science (CiS). A word search on the CiS website for ‘Reiss’ reveals only one entry in an article [1] merely as a mention of Reiss’s book under ‘Further Reading.’ On the FI website no results for Reiss were found.

One may wonder why there is such silence from CiS and FI when Reiss (who is a theistic evolutionist who held an important position) was recently treated so unjustly at the hands of some Fellows of the Royal Society. ...

If you don't remember Reiss, see "Sinner in the Hands of an Angry God." He's that Brit cleric who got the boot from the Royal Society for suggesting that students should learn about ID and creationism before launching directly into the two-minute hate.

Look, "theistic evolutionist" - Denis Alexander-style - is a brief synonym for "useful idiot for materialist atheism." Like most useful idiocy, it is an answer to a problem that doesn't exist. The problem is supposed to be that the universe shows no evidence of design - but some people need that crutch. So how can they responsibly hold the belief in the absence of evidence?

The reality - which the most brief acquaintance with the popular science press will illustrate - is that the universe shows lots of evidence of design, and the big move on the part of atheist materialists is to explain it away when dealing with intelligent adults (and to institute the two-minute hate when dealing with children).

So Reiss the Nice was underbussed because, reckless idealist, he thought the theistic evolutionists' program was supposed to do something other than front atheistic materialism to foolish, pious Brits. And he tactlessly reveaeld that he thought so.

But just how many foolish, pious Brits are there? It sure wouldn't work so well here in Canada, where many of us are shaking off our chains.

*A group of theologians and scientists concerned about truth and values in science and society

The two-minute hate, in case you wondered:



Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy:

Intelligent design controversy and media: While I'm here, ...

The recent USA Today op-ed fantasy that Britain does not suffer from controversies over intelligent design (because "theistic evolution" has brought such harmony to Brit land) is an instructive example of just what’s wrong with legacy mainstream media in general. The problem for Mark I. Pinsky's "Science and Faith the British Way" was its timing: The puff piece ran just as the Michael Reiss affair was blowing through the independent blogs.

Synopsis: The Royal Society attracted attention across the globe by firing education director Michael Reiss. As of October 4, 9:00 am EST, the Google search "Michael Reiss" "Royal Society" turned up 71, 500 hits, and blogging on the subject abounds. And the people who drove Reiss from his job (the sinner in the hands of an angry god affair), have earned condemnation on both sides of the controversy over evolution and intelligent design. (Reiss, a Church of England clergyman, is a convinced Darwinist, and his sin was suggesting that terms like "creationism" and :"intelligent design" be spoken aloud in class in order to tell students that they are wrong and that Darwin is right. But the fact that he is a clergyman caused prominent scientists to question his right to hold the education director's post anyway, making their anti-traditional religion agenda pretty clear.)

Many Americans and Canadians found out about Reiss's sacking through blogs, and many lively public discussions ensued. But along come the editors and author at USA Today and make clear their assumption that North Americans know nothing about the world that’s not on prime time Boob Tube. So they publish a blog column that – in the context – would be outrageous if it were not so obviously and ridiculously false to the true situation in Britain.

Just being on the Internet does not transform legacy media into new media. The basic legacy media principle is that you have no access to information apart from what they tell you.

It is a three-stage process: 1. They talk. 2. You listen. 3. You believe.

Only one problem: It does snot work any more. This is not the early 19th century. North Americans do not wait six weeks to find out what is happening in London; we know as soon as Brits do. And we now have lots of independent sources of information. So legacy media - online or not - are spinning tales for a shrinking population, as their plummeting circulations show.

Those circulations are never coming back. And this little vignette is a window into one reason why.

The following stories address some recent developments in the intelligent design controversy in Britain:

How angry is the Brit God of Science? Pretty angry, it seems ...

So they actually need to explain this? Britain's Royal Society is considering casting out God ...

Intelligent design and popular culture: The BBC spin on British creationism

Will Brit “faith and science” heavyweights speak up after education director’s firing?

Failed Brit Darwinist Michael Reiss: "A Sinner in the Hands of an Angry God": Synopsis of a Play in Three Acts

Intelligent design and high culture: Philosopher says teaching students about intelligent design should be okay - with qualifications (Here in evil, backward North America, this atheist philosopher was not driven from the campus for his views.)

Darwinism and popular culture: The Anglican Church's non-apology to Darwin

Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy:

Michael Reiss (that Christian Darwinist clergyman who got dumped from the Royal Society) tries to explain his position

According to British physicist David Tyler, here "Michael Reiss revisits his worldview theme."

In his discussion of the nature of science, Reiss draws attention to the work of Robert Merton and Karl Popper. Whilst there is much of value here, he writes, "most historians and philosophers of science would argue that there is more to the nature of science". He considers the "seminal contributions" of Thomas Kuhn and the concept of scientific paradigms, plus the related analysis of research programs by Lakatos. More recently, science has become "more influenced by politics; it is more industrialized; and it is more bureaucratic." Then comes the conclusion: "The effect of these changes is to make the boundaries around the city of science a bit fuzzier. [. . .] Of course, if one accepts the contributions of the social study of science one finds these boundaries fuzzier still."

Whilst all this is helpful, it is not clear to me how this affects the subsequent argument of the paper. The paradigms affecting evolutionary biology are not analysed; nor the research programs of scientists involved with origins research. The fuzzy boundaries are not mentioned again. Reiss could have taken the opportunity to show the defenders of "scientific materialism" where they fit into the analysis - thereby constricting their comfort zone - but he does not. Later, he says that creationism "is not really a science in that its ultimate authority is scriptural and theological rather than the evidence obtained from the natural world". Creationists, of course, do not see any incompatibility between their ultimate authority and working with evidences from the natural world - but that is another discussion. If ultimate authority is an issue, what can be said of the many advocates of "scientific materialism"? What shall we make of Richard Lewontin's oft-quoted maxim: "Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."? Does this statement imply that Lewontinism 'is not really a science in that its ultimate authority is philosophical materialism rather than the evidence obtained from the natural world'?

My sense is, Reiss was just trying to be nice and helpful and serve Darwin faithfully - and he just didn't get the fact that the Darwin fans are past that now. They aim at power, and destroying him Reiss a minor way of demonstrating that.

See also: Michael Reiss: Sinner in the hands of an angry god.

Will Brit “faith and science” heavyweights speak up after education director’s firing?

A friend wrote this morning to ask a question: Why, after Michael Reiss was fired from his position as education director with the Royal Society in Britain, did we not hear from Brit “faith and science” heavyweights Alister McGrath and John Lennox.

Basically, Reiss was made to resign for suggesting that intelligent design and creationism should be raised in science classes so that students could be argued out of believing in either.

I wrote back to say: As for McGrath and Lennox, maybe they have already responded, and I just haven’t got the mail.

Also, their response path may be complicated by the fact that Reiss’s heretical suggestion is a bad teaching idea. If they understand clearly why it is a bad idea, they need to be careful how they support him.

Why is it a bad teaching strategy? Well first, Reiss wants students to explain their intelligent design or creationist viewpoint for the purpose of having the science teacher explain that it is wrong, wrong, wrong, and that there is no evidence of purpose or design in life forms.

Reiss’s strategy allows for no possibility that there is evidence against Darwinism. So Darwinism is to be treated as a Revealed Truth in which the science teacher proselytizes the erring student.

That is a common conversion strategy used in evangelical religions. The intended convert is encouraged to express his own thoughts, often in response to a question, in order to hear the Truth he is now asked to embrace.

Traditionally, science education isn’t supposed to be like that - but hey, that was then and this is now. Evangelical atheism is what taxpayers in Britain re now apparently funding. So the mere fact that Reiss’s approach is a strategy for indoctrination in evangelical atheism can be overlooked for our purposes.

The bigger problem is that it is not difficult nowadays to discover many reasons for disbelieving in Darwinism, even if these reasons are not permitted to soil the sacred pages of the science text or uttered aloud in a science classroom. So, following his strategy, conflict with unbelievers in the science classroom would dramatically escalate.

Still, I doubt that any of that is the reason Reiss was fired. First, two thirds of the ideas currently afloat in education are dumb, dumber, and dumberer. So if dumbness were a firing offence, half the education faculties in the Western world would just disappear. And most of the other half haven’t published recently.

Second, while Reiss’s idea would likely benefit intelligent design in the long run, it’s not likely that either he or the Royal Society crowd even recognize that fact. (Had he recognized it, he would certainly not have advanced the idea, because he is a devout and unquestioning Believer.)

Essentially, Reiss was made to resign for the offense of blasphemy. He wanted science students to hear sacrilegious words like “intelligent design” and “creationism,” for the specific purpose of enlightening them in the true doctrine of Darwinism.

But such blasphemies no man may utter in the sacred temple of the science schoolroom (= materialist indoctrination centre). So his protests that he is utterly sincere and that he meant only to help did not move his virtuous judges to pity.

It is common for primitive religions to offer devoted adherents as human sacrifices, and Darwinism certainly looks like a primitive religion, compared to ethical monotheism.

See also “Michael Reiss: Sinner in the hands of an angry God”

Note: Many thanks to a generous recent donor, and to all donors who help me keep this site going by clicking the PayPal button. Blogging is time-consuming, and your supports helps me blog instead of write test banks for textbooks or something.

Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy:

How angry is the Brit god of science? - pretty angry, it seems ...

Following up on the USA Today fantasy: All is well in Britain between faith and science ... scientists holler for Jesus in pulpits ...

In case anyone wonders how angry the angry god of British science is - against anyone who believes in the existence of another God - read on:

In "Blinded by a divine light" (Guardian, September 28, 2008), Harry Kroto, a 1996 Nobelist and part of a cabal who went after sinner Michael Reiss explained,

I do not have a particularly big problem with scientists who may have some personal mystical beliefs – for all I know the President of the Royal Society may be religious. However, I, and many of my Royal Society colleagues, do have a problem with an ordained minister as Director of Science Education – this is a totally different matter. An ordained minister must have accepted that there was a creator (presumably more intelligent than he is?) thus many of us (maybe 90% of FRSs) cannot see how such a person can pontificate on how to tackle this fundamentally unresolvable conflict at the science/religion interface. Reiss cannot have his religious cake in church and eat the scientific one in the classroom. This is where the intellectual integrity issue arises – and it is the crucial issue in the Reiss affair.

I have had numerous reasons over the years for thinking that "theistic evolutionists" like Michael Reiss are mostly the well-meaning useful idiots of a political church, Soviet-style, but his career ruin surely makes that clear.

Intellectual freedom as freedom from criticism or challenge ...

One question: When Brit cleric Michael Reiss, the sinner in the hands of an angry god, got the boot from his Royal Society job for accidental blasphemy against Darwin*, some expressed regret. I wonder how many of those same people would feel anything other than satisfaction at the fate of the Expelled scientists?

Few probably, because, as the Reiss affair demonstrates, it is no longer possible for Darwin's devotees to think about his theory in a rational way. Words uttered against it cannot be entertained in any context; however, one is still permitted to modestly regret the fate of accidental blasphemers like Reiss.

That attitude becomes characteristic, after a while, of people whose viewpoint none dare challenge. Intellectual freedom means, essentially, their freedom from criticism or challenge.

There was an interesting case of that very thing in Toronto recently - unrelated but instructive:

As Toronto broadcaster and columnist Michael Coren recounts, Heather Mallick, a "largely anonymous journalist, a legend in her own lunchtime",

... is now the subject of controversy because she called American Republicans "white trash," said Sarah Palin looked like a porn actress and made repugnant personal comments about the governor of Alaska's family. She did all this on the CBC website, paid for by public dollars. The content of the diatribe is less Oscar Wilde and more Oscar the Grouch, but it's become major news in the United States.

... None of this matters very much; what does matter is that once again the Canadian public is obliged to fund this nonsense. (Toronto Sun, 27th September 2008)

Mallick is, in her own humble way, a counterpart of the Brit toffs. She belongs to the unassailable, tax supported "arts" sector of society, just as they belong to the unassailable, tax supported "science"sector. Neither she nor they are accountable, as are ordinary mortals.

Now Mallick claimed the protection of "freedom of speech," which is quite fair except for one thing. As Coren goes on to tell us,

Beyond the abuse of public money, however, is hypocrisy. Last year I was approached by the editor of a newspaper called The Women's Post and asked if I would write a column for her, providing what publisher Sarah Thomson called "a conservative voice." She explained that she already had plenty of liberal writers but wanted some balance.**

One of those left-wing writers employed by The Women's Post was Mallick. When she heard about me being offered a column she became extraordinarily angry and threatened to resign. The good people at The Women's Post called the enraged journalist's bluff and it was goodbye to our control freak comrade. So when Mallick's defenders cry about unfettered expression and the right to offend they ought to know of whom they speak.

It is interesting to see a basic attitude represented in both arts and sciences. What Brit science needs right now is a Sarah Thomson. Guess they better hurry up with those adult human cloning experiments.

(*accidental blasphemy: Devoted Darwinist Reiss thought teachers should mention creationism and intelligent design expressly in order to indoctrinate students against them, but that means speaking Forbidden Words. It was accidental but it was still blasphemy.
**Ah, thereby a mystery is solved at last! - I had always wondered why Michael Coren, who is very much on the outs with Canada's left-lib media establishment, was allowed to write for Women's Post. Imagine, someone there has guts! )

So they actually need to explain this? Britain's Royal Society is considering casting out God ...

Zoë Corbyn reports (25 September 2008) that in the wake of he uproar over the firing of Michael Reiss:

All references to "God" would be removed from the founding charter of the Royal Society under an idea mooted by some of its senior figures, Times Higher Education understands.

The society has three charters, drafted between 1662 and 1669, that set out its aims and that are used today. The 1662 charter refers to fellows' "uprightness of character and piety". The 1669 document requires the society's president and deputies to take an oath "upon the holy Gospels of God" to faithfully execute matters of office.

Go here for more.

Related stories:

Intelligent design and popular culture: The BBC spin on British creationism

Will Brit “faith and science” heavyweights speak up after education director’s firing?

Failed Brit Darwinist Michael Reiss: "A Sinner in the Hands of an Angry God": Synopsis of a Play in Three Acts

One third of British teachers think ID or creationism okay

In The Daily Telegraph, Martin Beckford tells us "One in three teachers says teach creationism alongside evolution" (07 N0v 2008).

The poll found that 31 per cent of teachers agree that creationism or intelligent design – the theory that the universe shows signs of having been designed rather than evolving – should be given the same status as evolution in the classroom, including 18 per cent of science teachers.

Half of those questioned agreed that excluding the alternative to evolution would alienate religious pupils, and almost nine out of 10 believed they should be allowed to discuss creationism if pupils bring it up.

Mr Bethell said: "Although over half of teachers either disagreed or strongly disagreed with the idea that creationism should be given the same status as evolution, there is a significant minority who believe that it should be given equal weight.

"Nearly half of teachers also agreed with Professor Michael Reiss' sentiment that excluding alternative explanations to evolution is counter-productive and alienates pupils from science.

No surprise here, except, were I advising those teachers, I would tell them to keep quiet about their doubts for now. The people who fired Michael Reiss are perfectly capable of a purge, and indeed, a purge has already been threatened.

The elite Darwinist materialists will then - par for the course - replace experienced teachers with their stooges - signally free of either brains or guts, and likely to resolve evidence-based doubts by an orgy of compulsory communal Darwin worship.

Arthur Jones, chair of the British Association of Christian Teachers, writes to say,

If you want to watch what TeachersTV in the UK is producing for teachers and schools, promoting Darwin and attacking creationism and intelligent design, then go here.

It is dreadful, but it does illustrate a stark divide - scientists agitating for dogmatism and indoctrination and educationists and teachers feeling that discussion and argument are better.

I say it was dreadful because at no point does it explain what creationists or ID proponents actually believe, nor how they handle the evidence. Almost none of the 'evidence' mentioned in the programme discriminates between the positions. Adam Rutherford, the presenter, is, in relation to the issue he was addressing, plain ignorant (and that's being generous!)

However there are some good omens in the UK - growing instances of the atheists having to face the hard questions that their control of the UK media has hitherto enabled them to avoid (e.g. Justin Brierley's interview of Richard Dawkins after his last debate with John Lennox in Oxford on 21 October - you can listen to it on the Premier website here ).

Actually, Dawkins - who told Ben Stein that, given a choice, he is willing to believe space aliens created life rather than that God did - should long ago have been discredited as a public figure. The fact that he hasn't been tells you how bad things are in Britain.

So British teachers, read as much as you can about design and teach those alert students with whom you can safely share information to remain quiet about what they know for now. And wait for the signal.

See also: Can we all just spell out together "U-S-E-F-U-L I-D-I-O-T-S" and have done with it?

Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy:

Michael Reiss, you sinned against the wrong god

From the (Double) Standard Measurement Department in Britain (so much Brit news these days!), a Church of England clergyman has been ordered to remove

comments about gay people from his blog, remarks described by his diocese as "highly offensive".

The Rev Peter Mullen, who ministers in the City of London, said he had gay friends and the words were "satirical".

He suggested in his internet blog that homosexuals should have their backsides tattooed with the slogan: "Sodomy can seriously damage your health".

The gay rights group Outrage described the comments as "Neanderthal".

A Diocese of London spokeswoman said the remarks did not reflect its views.

No, I wouldn't think so.

If it was a joke, seems nobody "got" it. And Outrage is surely being unfair to the Neanderthals.

Anyway, friend Jane Harris Zsovan writes to say,

Oddly enough, he hasn't had to quit his job, while that the priest that suggested that ID should be taught has resigned from his position with the Royal Society.

Ah yes, that priest would be Michael Reiss, the sinner in the hands of an angry god.

Looks like the Darwin god casts a bigger hex right now than the gay god.

Look, I just report the news around here, okay?

Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy:

Retrospective: No, you needn’t to think there is design in the universe to get mugged by Darwinists - recall this ...

People who have seen the Expelled movie might go away thinking that only those who doubt Darwinism are persecuted. Then they most likely haven’t heard of Michael Reiss, the sinner in the hands of an angry god, the god being Darwinism.

He’d suggested teaching about creationism and intelligent design in school for the express purpose of stamping out any such idea, but was driven from his position by more pragmatic Darwinists than he is - much as Trotsky was killed by Lenin.

Anyway, here is his attempt to placate the angry god:

Evolution. 2009 Jul;63(7):1934-41. Epub 2009 Apr 13.

The relationship between evolutionary biology and religion.
Reiss MJ.

Institute of Education, University of London, London WC1H 0AL, UK. m.reiss@ioe.ac.uk

Abstract

Belief in creationism and intelligent design is widespread and gaining significance in a number of countries. This article examines the characteristics of science and of religions and the possible relationship between science and religion. I argue that creationism is sometimes best seen not as a misconception but as a worldview. In such instances, the most to which a science educator (whether in school, college or university) can normally aspire is to ensure that students with creationist beliefs understand the scientific position. In the short term, the scientific worldview is unlikely to supplant a creationist one for students who are firm creationists. We can help students to find their evolutionary biology courses interesting and intellectually challenging without their being threatening. Effective teaching in this area can help students not only learn about the theory of evolution but better appreciate the way science is done, the procedures by which scientific knowledge accumulates, the limitations of science, and the ways in which scientific knowledge differs from other forms of knowledge.

And here is David Tyler’s response.

Now that many people, not just ID folk, are beginning to actually question Darwinism openly and getting away with it so far, maybe the thugs will be occupied elsewhere and poor of Rev. Reiss can go back and preach the Darwin loves you gospel to kids in peace. I hope so because it is flamin’ awful what happened to him.

Intelligent design and high culture: Philosopher says teaching students about intelligent design should be okay

Okay with some qualifications, that is.

Philosopher Thomas Nagel of New York University is probably best known publicly for his 1974 essay, "What is it like to be a bat?" (He was writing against reductionism in thinking about animal minds.)

Now, in "Public Education and Intelligent Design" in Philosophy & Public Affairs (pp. 187-2005), Nagel, an atheist, stirs the pot again:

The political urge to defend science education against the threats of religious orthodoxy, understandable though it is, has resulted in a counterorthodoxy, supported by bad arguments, and a tendency to overstate the legitimate scientific claims of evolutionary theory.

You'd think Nagel was referring to the Michael Reiss affair, but he can't be, because the essay came out before Brit Reiss was forced to resign.

It would be unfortunate if the Establishment Clause made it unconstitutional to allude to these questions in a public school biology class, for that would mean that evolutionary theory cannot be taught in an intellectually responsible way.

Actually, if the Reiss affair in Britain or similar incidents in North America are any guide, teaching evolutionary theory" in an intellectually responsible way" is not in fact an education establishment goal. He reflects on the odd situation that arguments against design are considered quite legitimate but not arguments for it. Why is that?:

The contention seems to be that, although science can demonstrate the falsehood of the design hypothesis, no evidence against that demonstration can be regarded as scientific support for the hypothesis. Only the falsehood, and not the truth, of ID can count as a scientific claim.

This, he says, creates a dilemma:

The denier that ID is science faces the following dilemma. Either he admits that the intervention of such a designer is possible, or he does not. If he does not, he must explain why that belief is more scientific than the belief that a designer is possible. If on the other hand he believes that a designer is possible, then he can argue that the evidence is overwhelmingly against the actions of such a designer, but he cannot say that someone who offers evidence on the other side is doing something of a fundamentally different kind. All he can say about that person is that he is scientifically mistaken.

and

Critics take issue with the claims made by defenders of ID about what standard evolutionary mechanisms can accomplish, and argue that they depend on faulty assumptions. Whatever the merits, however, that is clearly a scientific disagreement, not a disagreement between science and something else. ... It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the two sides are in symmetrical positions. If one scientist is a theist and another an atheist, this is either a scientific or a nonscientific disagreement between them. If it is scientific (supposing this is possible), then their disagreement is scientific all the way down. If it is not a scientific disagreement, and if this difference in their nonscientific beliefs about the antecedent possibilities affects their rational interpretation of the same empirical evidence, I do not see how we can say that one is engaged in science and the other is not. Either both conclusions are rendered nonscientific by the influence of their nonscientific assumptions, or both are scientific in spite of those assumptions.

In the latter case, they have a scientific disagreement that cannot be settled by scientific reasoning alone. ...

So then with respect to discussing intelligent design in a classroom, he asks,

What would a biology course teach if it wanted to remain neutral on the question whether divine intervention in the process of life’s development was a possibility, while acknowledging that people disagree about whether it should be regarded as a possibility at all, or what probability should be assigned to it, and that there is at present no way to settle that disagreement scientifically? So far as I can see, the only way to make no assumptions of a religious nature would be to admit that the empirical evidence may suggest different conclusions depending on what religious belief one starts with, and that the evidence does not by itself settle which of those beliefs is correct, even though there are other religious beliefs, such as the literal truth of Genesis, that are easily refuted by the evidence. I do not see much hope that such an approach could be adopted, but it would combine intellectual responsibility with respect for the Establishment Clause.

This sounds a lot like "teach the controversy" to me.

Nagel makes clear at various points* that he thinks that the Darwin fans have oversold their theory. Which they have. All around me, "icons of evolution" are tumbling (another one just came down the other day) ....

Basically, in order to keep serious discussion of evidence for design from surfacing, the fans must imply to the public that vastly more evidence exists for the standard Darwinian view of the history of life than actually does exist - and all discussion of the quality of evidence must be suppressed. And for the very good reason that once we get rid of the bad or questionable evidence, there is only a little good evidence. Not enough to justify Expelling scientists who doubt.

Here is the article behind a paywall, but you may be able to read it through a library subscription. Here is lawyer Ed Sisson's view.

*For example, he writes,

My own situation is that of an atheist who, in spite of being an avid consumer of popular science, has for a long time been skeptical of the claims of traditional evolutionary theory to be the whole story about the history of life. ... Sophisticated members of the contemporary culture have been so thoroughly indoctrinated that they easily lose sight of the fact that evolutionary reductionism defies common sense. A theory that defies common sense can be true, but doubts about its truth should be suppressed only in the face of exceptionally strong evidence.

Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy:

2. Christian Darwinism is not in trouble? No? Want to put it to a real test?

Well, let’s start with the fact that Christians and theists in general are decreasingly respected as sources of information in a society whose science is so largely governed by atheist tax and donor burdens.

Look what happened to poor Michael Reiss, Church of England clergyman who was - heart and soul! - in favour of force feeding Darwinism to schoolkids, persuading them that they are merely hapless lumps of "evolution".

It would never have occurred to Reiss to question the system; he only wanted to '"help" - the usual social worker's wretched excuse for bad judgement and wrong action.

Reiss was driven out mainly because he was a clergyman. I bet he wouldn’t have been driven out if he were an atheist popularizer. In the shallow Brit culture today, he would have been lauded, except that his problem was that he really believed what others use only for gain - in power, prestige, or cash. And they are wiser than he was. That's what it is good for,not because it is true.

Atheists and theistic evolution fellow travellers think they can kid us all, because it is so easy to get politicians to holler and thump stupidly for Jesus at prayer breakfasts - as long as it never means anything. But clearly, for whatever reason, that is not working now in North America, where lots of people still have kids or grandkids, and we need to think about a real future, not a pretend one. But Christian Darwinism still attracts funds, as the BioLogos Institute attests.

You think I am being too harsh? Thomas Cudworth said much the same thing here. Okay, forget him, for now. Look at Giberson’s piece at the BioLogos site, a former home of Francis Collins, better known for being a capable genomics administrator than a clear thinker, who is now part of the United States' administration and avid supporter of human embryonic stem cell research.

Biologos is now a home, so far as I can see, for everyone who wants to persuade theists that the universe and/or life forms show no evidence of design (so, of course, human embryos can just be trashed, right? Just more stuff for the blender ...).

Real test: What credible real evidence is there that a deer-like creature turns into a whale by purely Darwinian means?* Fine with me if it is true, but how do we know it is, apart from the need to advance the claims of Darwinism by plumping up stuff that is largely speculation?

* And don't try to con us by claiming that Darwinism is the same thing as evolution. Increasing numbers of people just know better now.

Next segment: Why are we not all contented Darwinian cows?

Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy:

A handy, and pretty skeptical, guide to modern Brit theistic evolution

David Anderson's review of the Faraday Institute's Denis Alexander's book, Creation or Evolution: Do We have to Choose? (Monarch Books, Oxford, 2008):

If evangelicals take the contents of this book to heart, they will not only be endorsing a certain set of conclusions regarding origins; they will also be embracing a seriously erroneous approach to interpreting the word of God as a whole, and its relationship to other areas of knowledge. Such an approach, if carried out consistently, will ultimately damage the whole structure of Biblical revelation and the gospel itself - a road which I believe Dr. Alexander in this book has already travelled a long way down. I agree with Professor Andrew McIntosh, whose review in "Evangelical Times" published in September 2008 asserted as follows: "By writing this book, Alexander has placed himself on the side of liberal theologians and, in this reviewer’s opinion, has departed seriously from the evangelical faith."

Well, if so, that would be nothing new.

The main thing to see, regarding "theistic evolution" (Alexander's position) is that, by itself, it means nothing.

Intelligent design theorist Michael Behe is a theistic evolutionist insofar as he thinks that design can be coded into the world from the Big Bang, and that subsequent individual creation events are not necessary. That is a possible interpretation of the universe's history from a Christian perspective

But Behe is despised by many "theistic evolutionists" because they in fact support propositions that cannot be defended by orthodox Christians - for example, that God does not know what will happen, is imperfect and therefore evolving along with creation, is not responsible for the way things are, and so forth. Also,

The purpose of this 19-page chapter is to have some discussion of the "Intelligent Design" movement, associated with such names as Philip Johnson, Michael Behe and William Dembski. I got the feeling in reading it that DA felt obliged to include something about it, but was a bit tired (or just contemptuous) by this stage, and the chapter is a bit of a damp squib because it neither goes here nor there, but remains content with some rather general arguments and statements - except for some more detailed discussion of the bacterial flagellum. It's all a bit of a damp squib, because packed into these 19 pages DA wants to survey the history of the movement, its personalities, its claims, and then comprehensively refute them such that he can conclude that the whole thing's a waste of time. That's a book-length project in itself. There's no problem with brief discussions of these things that skim the surface, but in these days of avalanches of free articles available from the Internet, you need to do a bit more than the kind of surface-level chatty repeating of talking points that this chapter is mostly made up of. It's rather disappointing that so many of those talking points seem to have been cribbed from village atheist websites - we expect better, particularly from someone who spends a few pages opining on how proper scientific research is done. We even get a celebrity appearance of the Pennsylvania school board court case and "Judge Jones, a practising Lutheran and Republican appointed by President Bush", the claim that ID does not fall within the definition of science (though DA concedes that it is in principle falsifiable) and such gems of self-delusion as the claim (made earlier in the book in the context of creationists) that editors of science journals would be falling over themselves if anyone had any legitimate criticisms of Darwinism and would gladly make any scientist who had them an overnight star! Puh-lease.

The fact that I have yet to hear that Alexander said anything about the firing of Michael Reiss pretty much tells us what we need to know. Liberal churches are collapsing, so the real action is in getting evangelical churches to front the village atheists.

Darwinism and popular culture: Taking the fun out of fundamentalism - no hope for the one who does not accept ...

Here is - on display - an example of the fundamentalist streak in Darwin fans ( already clearly demonstrated in the Michael Reiss affair).

American Darwin fan Jerry Coyne, promoting Richard Dawkins's book, The Blind Watchmaker issues a fatwa in Nature:

If a presidential candidate doesn't accept evolution after reading this book, there is no hope.

I see. And what if an American fundamentalist leader had said:

If a presidential candidate doesn't accept Jesus as his personal savior after reading the New Testament, there is no hope.

Or perchance we hear from another quarter,

“If a presidential candidate doesn't accept Islam after reading the Koran, there is no hope.

Well then, I guess there is no hope for the free society because at any given time a huge number of people - in the hundreds of millions - express varying degrees of belief and disbelief in these and a great many other explanations of our origin and destiny.

You wouldn’t think a free society would be as popular as it is in that case … so many people trying to get in, and not many trying to get out ...

As a matter of fact, in the late 1980s, American constitutional lawyer Phillip E. Johnson did read Dawkins's Watchmaker. But he also read Michael Denton's Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. So he knew why Dawkins's (and Coyne's) large claims do not add up.

I guess there is no hope for him either then. Here is what I wrote about that in By Design or by Chance?:

Johnson did not begin to think seriously about design issues until 1987–1988, while on sabbatical in England. There he read Dawkins’s The Blind Watchmaker (1986) and Denton’s Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985).43 Denton argued, contra Dawkins, that Darwinism was simply not answering the questions that many scientists were asking about evolution. Unlike most writers on Darwinism, Denton did not soft-pedal the problems with Darwinism. He said:

"While most evolutionary biologists who have written recently about evolution concede that the problems are serious, nearly all take an ultimately conservative stand, believing that they can be explained away by making only minor adjustments to the Darwinian framework. In this book I have adopted the radical approach. By presenting a systematic critique of the current Darwinian model, ranging from paleontology to molecular biology, I have tried to show why I believe that the problems are too severe and too intractable to offer any hope of resolution in terms of the orthodox Darwinian framework, and that consequently the conservative view is no longer tenable."

... Johnson decided that Denton was either “very, very wrong, or very, very important.” But he did not make up his mind right away.

He did later though, after talking to a number of other straight-goods people. He became, of course, the "godfather" of the intelligent design community in the United States, with the publication of his own Darwin on Trial, loudly deplored by Darwin grantsmen and box wallahs ever since, around the world.

Note: Coyne also notes his own forthcoming work, Why Evolution Is True (Viking 2009).

Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy:

What completely ridiculous hell is this?

I've just discovered that my friend Richard Buggs is in some kind of trouble for having said what everyone obviously knows, that chimpanzees are NOT 98% human (and therefore humans are not 98% chimpanzee).

Guys, have you ever even considered dating a female chimp?

Yuh, thought so.

Common ancestry? Well, it's way easier to defend if we start with the fact that humans and chimps are NOT obviously all that similar. So starting with a lower (believable) figure would be a better way to begin than starting with a higher (unbelievable) figure.

That's all Buggs was trying to do. But, to keep the UK government-funded trolls at bay, Buggs clarified:

Given these statistics, it is factually incorrect to say that humans are 99% the same as chimpanzees. Yet, just last month, the Natural History Museum in London and the University of Chicago Press in the USA published a book entitled "99% Ape: How evolution adds up." This misleading title was doubtless chosen by a marketing guru rather than the editor, who is a reputable and distinguished scientist in plant evolutionary ecology (the field in which I did my doctoral research). Such promotion of the ”myth of 1%” to the public as evidence for evolution is probably why some non-scientists have suggested on the internet that my earlier article, dispelling this myth, is somehow a death-blow to evolution - it is not.

Look, I am totally sorry that my friend Buggs is pestered by these creepy trolls. Can anyone call the trolls off? Or is this going to end like another Michael Reiss "sinner in the hands of an angry God." story?

And DON'T try telling me that some supposed Christian Brit toff like Denis Alexander is going to, like, do something about it.

We know that if he cared, he would have done it already ...

Dammit, Brits, we've bailed you out of two World Wars. Don't force us to do it again. My Dad was one of the very few survivors of his Canadian air force unit.

It is overwhelmingly obvious that Darwinism and its attendant =isms are a bunch of crap. How many of your own must you feed to the shredders before you recognize that?

Hey, I'm a Canuck (really, honestly) and we're a-watchin'! And we don't see why you need us to tell you.. Maybe this is the day when you need us and all you get is awful silence.

Richard, in your last defence, if you are betrayed by all hands, come to Canada! Traditional Canadians are fighting back against the most worthless and disgusting mob you have ever imagined, who only want to plunder us and have no concern whether Canada even survives as a country.

But we ARE fighting back. And GOD is watching. So all, look out.

USA Today fantasy: All is well in Britain between faith and science ... scientists holler for Jesus in pulpits ...

Here's a textbook example of spin in the legacy media:

We are told on the USA Today blog that in Britain all is well in "faith and science" due to "theistic evolution":

While impossible to quantify, a surprising number of prominent British researchers at the pinnacle of their fields, with worldwide reputations in the physical and biological sciences, proclaim their evangelical Christian faith. And they are not perfunctory adherents, merely showing up for Sunday worship; they believe in acting on their beliefs. Some have taken up weekend pulpits.

Their roster includes Sir John Houghton, former head of the United Kingdom's Meteorological Office; Sir John Polkinghorne, a particle physicist, Anglican priest and author of numerous books on science and religion; Sir Brian Heap, a biologist; geologist Robert W. White and paleobiologist Simon Conway Morris. I asked these scientists the sources of their belief, and the answers they gave me were intriguing to someone who for years has been more immersed in the world of American evangelicals, where I frequently found that hostility toward science seemed to be the norm in public controversies. These Brits cited a disparate mixture of empirical scientific evidence and the veracity of Scripture for their Christianity, based equally on science and faith.

I have only two words to respond to this rubbish: Michael Reiss

(Yes, he’s the Church of England Darwin-booster who got dumped by the Royal Society merely because he thought that kids should be told words like “intelligent design” in order to explain why ID is wrong, wrong, wrong and Darwin is right, right, right. The very use of the word was fatal to his career.)

That’s the REAL state of things in Britain. And if that's good, aren't we all better off with bad?


Oh, and also the fact that Britain's Royal Society is considering casting God out of its charter.

Look, USA Today proves that you don't have to kill trees to be legacy media. You just have to inherit the spin.

Darwinism and popular culture: Only trolls would carry out Gallagher's orders, but for some reason he wants them carried out by gentlemen ...

What Makes Science 'Science'? Trainee teachers don't have a clue, and most scientists probably don't either. That's bad news.

So says James Williams, kvetching in The Scientist, 22(10) October 2008, Page 29:

As a science educator, I train science graduates to become science teachers. Over the past two years I've surveyed their understanding of key terminology and my findings reveal a serious problem. Graduates, from a range of science disciplines and from a variety of universities in Britain and around the world, have a poor grasp of the meaning of simple terms and are unable to provide appropriate definitions of key scientific terminology. So how can these hopeful young trainees possibly teach science to children so that they become scientifically literate? How will school-kids learn to distinguish the questions and problems that science can answer from those that science cannot and, more importantly, the difference between science and pseudoscience?

And in "Why the Philosophy of Science Matters" (The Scientist, October 2008), Richard Gallagher follows up, grousing:

You might expect that newly minted science graduates - who presumably think of themselves as scientists, and who I'd thought of as scientists - would have a well-developed sense of what science is. So it's pretty shocking to discover that a large proportion of them don't have a clue. At least that's the case in the UK, going on the evidence of our Opinion author James Williams ("What Makes Science 'Science'?"). He found that a sizeable proportion of science graduates entering teacher training couldn't define what is a scientific fact, law or hypothesis.

No, but why should that matter? Gallagher goes on to announce that the reason this ignorance is a problem is that the grads won't be able to properly diss "climate change deniers, GM modification scaremongers, or creationists."

In short, they are not as well qualified propagandists as they might be.

But Gallagher's and Williams's project doesn't require history and philosophy science. If they are studied only in order to improve one's skills in stamping out opposition to current dogmas, quite frankly, other methods - like the Royal society's exemplary firing of Christian Darwinist Michael Reiss, are vastly more effective.

And, while we are here, let us mention another method that Gallagher complains of:

One giveaway of how scientists think is to look at their everyday, informal interactions. Our Community website and numerous science blogging sites provide the opportunity to apraise this. Is the discussion logical, objective, disinterested, cautious? No! It turns out that scientists are as disdainful, vitriolic even, as everyone else, even in discussions about science.

Here's a recent examples from our site: "I absolutely do not accept the proposal above that an ignorant idiot serving up pious horsemanure should be coddled for his or her blithering idiot beliefs. Contempt is the only appropriate communication to such people...."

This is mild in comparison to the exchanges on other sites.

Ah yes, I well believe that. I no longer accept comments at any of my private blogs.

The reality is that the level of communication that Gallagher deplores is entirely appropriate to persons who assume that they possess, in science, the Means to Discover All Truths and are not bound by any traditional, usually religiously based conventions of courtesy.

Only trolls would carry out Gallagher's orders, but for some reason he wants them carried out by gentlemen.

Sorry, Gallagher, that's way out of your price range. You must begin by wanting truth for itself first, even if it does not confirm all your prejudices. Otherwise, stick with the trolls and don't bother educating them in history and philosophy of science.

Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy:

Very Weak Anthropic Principle: Is this the Principle going, going gone?

Friends tell me that British theistic evolutionist* Denis Alexander of the Faraday Institute spoke at Baylor University recently on the "Very Weak Anthropic Principle."

I've heard of the Anthropic Principle, which essentially means that the universe appears fine-tuned for intelligent life.

I've also heard of the Weak Anthropic Principle, namely,

The weak anthropic principle states that the ways that the universe might be observed to be is limited by the fact that observation requires the existence of observers. It is impossible to observe a universe that does not permit the existence of observers; only a universe that permits the existence of observers could be observed.

So what's the Very Weak Anthropic Principle, I wonder? The observers are a buzz of neurons that have evolved in such a way that they imagine that a self exists and is observing? Or?

Anyway, if neo-Darwinists take Dr. Alexander seriously, won't he get rolled no matter what he says - if it isn't strict materialist Darwinism? Anyone remember Michael Reiss?

I am not picking up much on the 'Net.

* God indeed dun it, but there is almost no evidence for that fact.

Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy: