Michael Reiss Resigns, thank god!

 Posted by on September 16, 2008  Add comments
Sep 162008
 

Last updated on November 20th, 2015

‘Creationism’ biologist quits job

Professor has quit as director of education at the following the controversy over his recent comments on creationism.

Thank !  – is all can say, and that’s coming from a !

All any of us humans should seek when trying to decide why, how, when and what we’re doing in this place, in this state of being (which we call ‘Alive’), is a for serious in combination with theories.

That’s all ever wanted to do and it’s something we should ALL live by.  He said;

“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong”

Feynman is saying that any theory should be testable by experiment to prove it’s validity, and that anyone should be able to do the test to either conform or deny it’s truth.

Furthermore, (as an adjunct to the quote above), he stated that if a theory was wrong – was always wrong, no matter who said it, no matter how many true theories they’d had previously and no matter what the status of the person and the heights of kudos they’d attained.

Now the bible has a at the front.  It should be testable with the same rules – and frankly, if you test the theory, it’s pants.  It fails on all counts.  It’s just an untestable theory, not fact at all.

Michael Reiss, for all his Phd qualifications, should have done this, and clearly didn’t, and doesn’t really belong in the organisation as his beliefs are completely at odds with the aims of the Society.

It’s a shame it’s taken this long to wheedle him out as he’s been in the job for years, but false prophets from their own mouths are condemned.

I feel I’m in good company after reading this from Richard Dawkins.

Enhanced by Zemanta

  2 Responses to “Michael Reiss Resigns, thank god!”

  1. I have found this blog to be laughable, and from a proclaimed Buddhist shameful. Firstly if what you said was actually true, which it isn’t, your argument against Reiss and creationism is ridiculous. Although you seem to attack creationism as a theory you seem to completely miss a million points surrounding the subject. I presume from this you are just another victim of the media. Reiss suggested discussing creationism because it is theory conflicting with evolution, and yes evolution is obviously the more viable theory which he states, but Reiss was not asking to present creationism as a true, just as a view that is in the world. Or do you just believe we should ignore strong religious beliefs, as a religious person surely not? So if we are not to discuss the friction between science and religion in science classes where should we? Religion classes? But surely this is not fair then on religion as an academic study in your view? I think people of your view are so unrealistic to believe in no cross curriculum activity. Things are not black and white, people have religion, and to ignore it is to fuel segregation and ignorance. AND in fact there is actually little friction between science and religion if you actually did your research. It is people like you who repeat sensationalised headlines that helps fuel the media’s campaign to put a wedge between secular and religious people. Read your facts before blurting out ignorantly.

    • Thanks AmyLou, four years late.

      What you appear to be doing is trawling the web on a damage limitation exercise coupled to recent events regarding the god squad in the UK, but correct me if I’m wrong.  I note the Wikipedia article on Reiss uses some of your wordage.

      You haven’t actually read my words at all, have you?

      I could go through your single-paragraphed-close-spaced response word by word, but I’ll just ask you to clarify some of your points, like when you said;

      Firstly if what you said was actually true, which it isn’t, your argument against Reiss and creationism is ridiculous.

      Here, you give no justification for your “not true” or “ridiculous” statements.  Not a single example.  Just a sentence, designed to inflame.  A bit like the creation myth in the bible, we are supposed to accept your statement, verbatim and without question.  You could have said “the sun is pink” or something.  Without explanation and testable proof, it holds the same weight, which is zero

      I’d also be interested to hear your version of the…

      million points surrounding the subject

      …which I’ve completely missed.  Really?  Where?  I’m not talking “round the subject”.  I’m talking directly about the subject and the subject is one man not doing his job properly, coupled to the reason behind his junking.  So I’m taking about two subjects.

      To clarify, creation propagandists use every opportunity to justify their un-testable position.  This is the key reason why Reiss had to go – any positive spin on the creationist myth puts it in a better light.  In other words, he didn’t do his job right.

      Consider what would happen if the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, said that all christians, both men and women should be circumcised, men should have three wives, their wives should wear veils at all times, they should worship the queen as god’s representative on Earth and that they should fight to the death in a holy jihad?   Obviously, Williams would be sacked because he’s not doing his job properly.  And so it was with Reiss.  His pronouncements didn’t fit in with his employer’s ethos.

      One of The God Squad, on his free Platform, speaks.Furthermore, the creation story (I hate this -ism bit, you’ll be calling it an -ology next, giving it far too much credence it deserves) still has plenty airing in RI/RK which are still part of the national curriculum if my memory serves me right.

      We still have unelected bishops in key seats of power, so really, I think they’ve got enough platforms to pontificate, don’t you?  For true equality, there should be members of every religious sect in the UK stuffed into the unelected house, don’t you think?

      A man in his position, (like justice), doesn’t just have to say the right things, he must also be seen to be saying the right things.  Why?  Because of the power and influence that such a position entails.

      Your argument (the little that you provide) is completely bogus.  The little references I can find on the web (you provide none, I note) still give his view of what he said, after the event, which means it’s not his words but the words as the Royal Society heard them and which have been reported in the media.  Like all politicians, he could be doing a “miss-speak”, but I doubt it.  This original article from 2006 still shows him pushing the same biblical creation myth alongside (which means equal relevance in my book) standard science in education.  How much of a miss-speak do you want?  That was 2006, he got pushed in 2008 and here you are in 2012 doing a belated apologist exercise via proof-less belittlement.  I suggest your comment has an awful lot to do with the last arch-bishop’s current soap box blabbing on homosexuals and christianity, eh?

      So you, (not me), you provide the coverage of what he actually said and I might revise what I have said.

      Until then, as one of the finest (if not the finest) minds of the 20th century said;

      “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong”

      For your question of where you asked;

      So if we are not to discuss the friction between science and religion in science classes where should we? Religion classes?

      My answer is neither.  You’re seeking to innocently provoke again, aren’t you?  You are comparing chalk and cheese.

      This is obviously a matter for philosophical debate and since this topic doesn’t appear much in the standard curriculum I suggest Media Studies would be a good forum, especially since you brought up my referral to “the media” in your comment.  (As another aside, from where is one supposed to get information from a self-publicisist other than via the media – duh?)

      The debate could also be discussed in English Language or Literature with the English teacher comparing and contrasting ideas from the biblical (and other religious) myths and the various theories that scientists and natural philosophers have proposed and discarded through the ages along with the experimental proofs.  They could also discuss how some experiments with as-then unexplainable results have actually led to our current theories to explain life and existence.  They could explain and discuss how this whole is founded on logic, physics and mathematics.

      Or maybe that’s just too hard.

      I’d also be interested in what your opinion of what a Buddhist should be, what they should believe, who they should trust, how they should live their lives and how they should act in private and public.

      Further Reading:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Reiss

      https://www.theguardian.com/education/2006/nov/28/academicexperts.highereducationprofile

      https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-15226421

      https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2011/09/scientists_call_on_government.html

      https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12661477

      https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-12176333

      https://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/newsenglish/witn/2006/11/061127_intelligent.shtml

      http://news.yahoo.com/u-fundamentalists-taliban-tomorrow-201900279.html

      https://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/people/rowanwilliams_1.shtml

      https://www.indcatholicnews.com/news.php?viewStory=19852

 Leave a Reply

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

(required)

(required)

© 1977, Strangely Perfect.