Science and Wonders

According to a report in Thursday's Guardian newspaper, Michael Reiss, the Royal Society's Director of Education has encouraged the idea that teachers should tackle the ideas of creationism in the classroom, alongside evolutionary teaching.

I find his comments extremely interesting. Reiss has a foot in both camps, he is both an ordained minister... and a Professor of biology. He is yet another example to us that science and faith do not have to be enemies. I especially find the background story to his statement intriguing. He used to teach evolution quite brutally, but has understood that respecting where people are at is an important aspect of helping them take on board new ideas. This is an attitude I think both believers and unbelievers... indeed all human beings need to take on board.

Diplomacy is not just required international politics, we need to be respectful of other people's personal sovereignty. You wouldn't walk into another country and tear apart it's political infrastructure just to make it look like yours. That is how wars, and violent insurgencies start. The best way to make people open to your arguments is to be virtuous towards them and to show them the merits of your position without directly assaulting their own.

The antithesis of this position is perhaps demonstrated by one of Reiss' critics, the physicist Dr John Fry. Fry responds in the same article by saying:

"Science lessons are not the appropriate place to discuss creationism, which is a world view in total denial of any form of scientific evidence"

and:

"Creationism doesn't challenge science, it denies it."

Fry has set up a straw man argument. He is making the fatal assumption that creationists all believe the world was made in six days. I have pointed out several times in this blog, that the document that provides the basis of that idea - The Bible, in it's original Hebrew does not restrict the Genesis account to a literal six day occurrence, nor does it require a belief that the Earth existed before the Sun.

I think some militant atheists are guilty of jumping on the Genesis account purely because it provides them with an easy and a lazy excuse to justify their position. If they can easily dismiss the idea of God, then they can stay in their comfortable, cosy shell and not have to face the challenge of differing views.

I changed my position on Creation because I was willing to listen to my opponents, reflect on their arguments and redefine my own beliefs and ideas based on my increased knowledge. Ironically it is about evolution. You find yourself faced with something that threatens your position... and you either adapt to move beyond and overcome it, or you concede defeat and are eliminated - survival of the fittest. I chose the former.

That said, I do in some ways agree that the science room may not be the best forum for this debate. While I do believe it is necessary to create a crucible where students can air their theories and philosophies on how we got here... perhaps it's best to create a separate subject or discussion group for this.

However I also fundamentally believe that it is not the remit of Science to peddle atheism. Science should be about understanding the mechanics, systems and wonders that enable our universe to operate and thrive in it's magnificence. The deeper philosophical truth of how those processes were put in place and who or what put them there, is a question for every individual to discover for themselves based on the things they learn scientifically, theologically, philosophically, spiritually and emotionally.

There must be balance and there must be freedom.

Spore is Coming

I'm eagerly anticipating the release of the video game, Spore:

Basically the game entails creating and nurturing a species from the cellular level as a microbe, and guiding it through it's development and evolution to a creature, a tribe, a civilisation and eventually a space faring race. I've already been busy at work creating a whole gallery of strange beings:

Visit Spore.com

I know what some people might be thinking - "Nick you are a Christian! Isn't this game a bit dodgy?"

Well the first thing I have to say in response to such a question is that... it is just a game.

However, the creators of Spore also went to great lengths not to offend/isolate customers who subscribe to religious belief. They felt that if they were going to be realistic about the development of civilisation, they had to include religion... because the fact is even if you are an atheist, you live in a world that has been shaped by civilisations who did believe in God/gods. They deliberately leave the question of who or what created the universe, open (although in essence, you play a godlike character in how you relate to your creation). It is true that the game relies on the mechanics of evolution... but given the nature of the game, that is necessary; besides, as I have mentioned before, there are several different ways to look at the Creation account, without having to strictly adhere to a literal six day theory.

Intriguingly, the only group of people who have taken real issue with the game, are not theists... but atheists. I should clarify that I am referring to militant atheists and not merely people who don't believe in God. Militant atheists are those people who cannot tolerate the idea of open religion of any form - it must be silenced and kept within the place of worship or home. They simply do not understand that by peddling their world view in this manner, they are nothing more than "pots calling the religious thinkers' kettles black". They need to learn that they have to tolerate people of faith, in the same way that religion has learned to tolerate them.

So when they make silly statements about removing religion from what is little more than a fun computer game... we do well to ignore them.

I'm just looking forward to September the 5th, when I can get my microbe going and see how long it takes me to get him exploring the Spore galaxy... interfering in the development of other people's species. I actually get the impression when you reach this level, you can interact with the species on another planet... so I'm guessing that means you can try and help other players develop... or have a go at wiping their fledgling tribes out with laser beams, or perhaps introducing a non-indigenous species which would wreak havoc with their delicate ecosystem; although both these ideas which seem a little harsh to me, I much prefer being the benevolent sort.

However, I'm quite sure that I won't be among the first to go interstellar. There is a highly morally dubious practice among some gamers, who pay people in poorer developing countries, a pittance to go online as their character and level up quickly. This is known in the gaming community as "gold-farming", and it is on the rise.

I'll just be happy to get out there... among the sea of stars, before someone comes along and toasts my cute bug eyed monster!

If you are out there, I'll look you up one day!