- Comparative religion (3)
- Culture & society (75)
- History (28)
- Notable Quotes (18)
- Personal story (13)
- Politics (32)
- Science and faith (114)
- Uncategorized (44)
- January 24, 2012: Evolution in Excel
- January 11, 2012: Steno's Applied Science
- January 9, 2012: "Love" in the Bible and Qur'an
- November 6, 2011: The Problem with My Spouse
- October 23, 2011: Mind Brain Controversy
- August 26, 2011: How Old Is The Earth?
- July 31, 2011: The Problem with Embracing All Religions
- July 8, 2011: Why do you call God your father?
- June 1, 2011: About Being Basically Good
- May 1, 2011: Lizards and the Law
Blogroll
Chat
- January 2012
- November 2011
- October 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
As easy as 1-2-3
If anyone has had doubts that there is persecution for
scientists who happen to think evolution deserves competition, consider the
following series of articles.
First, Professor Michael Reiss, Director of Education for England’s Royal
Society, is bold enough to suggest that maybe we (scientists) should allow other
views of origin to be considered besides evolution, simply calling them other
world views instead of religious views. He even gets it right that Creationism
is different from Intelligent Design, even though the article title glosses over
this. Notice also in the article that he is referred to as "Rev" Michael Reiss,
even though the article is about science, and he is recognized as a scientist in
his own right.
Within days of the news release on his position, an MP
(Member of Parliament–obviously qualified to address scientific issues), is "horrified"
at the idea, and the Royal Society is "called to account" for the position Reiss
has taken. Having personally been "called to account" for not unquestioningly
indorsing evolution, I can imagine how much accounting and full consideration of
both sides was done in the 24 hours between the "calling to account" and Reiss’
forced resignation. Notice in this last article that the process is actually
a campaign, not an investigation. There is no argument allowed against
evolution, regardless of evidence. The questioning of evolution’s pedestal, not
the toppling of it, is "horrifying." And by all means, let’s be sure the
picture of Professor Reiss is one with his clerical collar. This process does
not convince me that the science classrooms of the world are being protected
from all religiously-held views.