DISCOVER Magazine. Science, Technology and The Future
Current Issue
Subscribe Today »
  • Renew
  • Give a Gift
  • Archives
  • Customer Service
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Newsletter
  • Health & Medicine
  • Mind & Brain
  • Technology
  • Space
  • Human Origins
  • Living World
  • Environment
  • Physics & Math
  • Video
  • Photos
  • Podcast
  • RSS
Discoblog
« Don’t Swat Them! Insectoid Pollinators are Worth $217 Billion
The Deep Sea is a Red Light District After All »

Darwin Tangles With Religion, Part II: Clergyman Defenestrated

darwinThe Charles Darwin news keeps on coming this week.

Yesterday we reported on the fracas at Britain’s Royal Society, where Nobel laureates threw a fit after the society’s education director, Michael Reiss, appeared to endorse science teachers discussing creationism. Reiss tried to say that he was misquoted, but it was too little, too late: Today he formally resigned.

If Reiss is honest that he was misrepresented, and he really meant that science teachers should be able to discuss (but not endorse) creationism with students who bring it up, then his departure is unfortunate. First, it’s more fodder for those peddling the nonsense that science is just like a religion because it persecutes dissenters. And second, Reiss is right: Teachers need to be able to talk to creationist students. Dismissing them as dumb or informed is no way to get students interested in science.

The other Darwin development across the pond was the statement by Anglican minister Malcolm Brown that the Church of England was wrong about Darwin and evolution all along, and owed him an apology. At a conference today, the Vatican announced that you shouldn’t expect anything similar from the pope. The Roman Catholic Church has accepted evolution as a valid scientific approach, they said in a statement. And because the church neither condemned Darwin nor banned his book, they say, they have nothing to apologize for.

Given that the old naturalist died in 1882, he’s probably not too worried about it.

Image: Wikimedia Commons

Share

September 16th, 2008 3:34 PM Tags: evolution
by Andrew Moseman in The Wide (& Strange) World of Animals | 4 comments | RSS feed | Trackback >

  • Steve F.

    Dear Andrew:

    For physicists who aren’t angry at worship, science is a bit like religion: cosmolology and particle physics are a search for basic truths underlying the universe (sometimes known as God).

    It is with the New Atheists where the analogy is relevant. There, dissenters who don’t believe properly – i.e., they don’t accept the New Atheist gospel – get condemned from the high pulpit. Believers in religion are, the New Atheist priests intone, ignoramuses who can’t reason and shouldn’t be allowed to teach their own children. This kind of vitriol leads to very real persecutions sooner or later.

    Steve F.

  • Dwayne

    Greetings,

    Here’s a new take on all of this that will amaze, it’s called “The Creationist Chimera of Accidental Evolution Lives on as The Centerpiece of Intelligent Design”:

    http://phoebekate.com/2008/09/14/randomness-creationism-and-intelligent-design

  • http://anthologyoi.com Aaron

    Steve,

    Science is not a religion by any stretch of the imagination. Science does look for basic truths, but they are not looking for a consciousness. Instead, science by definition asks the question “what if.” Not “what if” in the philosophical sense, but “What if I do this, then what?” and “Will I always get that answer?”

    Even on the cutting edge of string theory and particle physics, the question is still “what if,” scientists can’t make up experiments that use the whole universe, so they they just make it smaller or more theoretical. String theory is an example of the latter, we can’t manipulate the fabric of the universe, so the “what if” is all in formulae “what if there are 9 dimensions or 10.” In time, we will be able to experimentally prove the answer we get.

    The LHC is another good example: science can’t recreate the big bang, so the project is scaled down to see if the answers that the formulae gave for the “what if” are the same as the experiment.

    > It is with the New Atheists where the analogy is relevant.

    There is no “New Atheist” in the way you describe it. there is no gospel and there are no priests. There are not even facsimiles of the same. The so called new atheists are just normal people who have had it with people pushing religion at them, so they fight back.

    Some atheists would rather just nod their head and pretend to listen when someone spouts off about why their religion is correct, but others won’t allow a double standard because there is one.

  • http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/discoblog/2009/06/04/holy-crops-pope-backs-genetically-modified-foods/ Holy Crops! Pope Backs Genetically Modified Foods | Discoblog | Discover Magazine

    [...] Content: Discoblog: Vatican Science: Pope Blames Male Infertility on…the Pill Discoblog: Darwin Tangles With Religion, Part II: Clergyman Defenestrated Discoblog: Live from the Biggest Science Conference in the World: First GMOs, Now [...]





    • About the Blog

      Discoblog is DISCOVER's compendium of quirky, funny, and surprising science news from the edge of the known universe. It's written by Veronique Greenwood and Valerie Ross. Email tips and suggestions to vgreenwood [at] discovermagazine [dot] com.

      Discoblog also includes the daily feature NCBI ROFL, in which two prone-to-distraction grad students post real scientific articles with funny subjects. Email your tips to ncbirofl [at] gmail.com. Follow the ROFL feed here.

    • Twitter

      Follow @discovermag
    • Facebook

    • Twidget

      Add Tweets
    • Archives

      Archives

      • February 2012
      • January 2012
      • December 2011
      • November 2011
      • October 2011
      • September 2011
      • August 2011
      • July 2011
      • June 2011
      • May 2011
      • April 2011
      • March 2011
      • February 2011
      • January 2011
      • December 2010
      • November 2010
      • October 2010
      • September 2010
      • August 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
      • February 2007
      • January 2007
      • December 2006
      • November 2006
      • October 2006
      • September 2006


  • Kalmbach Publishing Co.

    Copyright © 2012, Kalmbach Publishing Co.

    Privacy - Terms - Reader Services - Subscribe Today - Advertise - About Us