When Michael Reiss, an ordained Anglican priest, was forced to resign as director of education at the Royal Society in 2008, Sir Harry Kroto said that all religious people "fall at the first hurdle of the main requirement for honest scientific discussion because they accept unfounded dogma as having fundamental significance".This is a remarkably myopic viewpoint, given that Dr. Reiss only meant to discuss creationism in class so it could be shown to have no scientific merit. Nobody seemed to care about that. One gets the impression the science and religion have always been antagonists. Not so, says Mr. Reisz:
The Nobel laureate added that Professor Reiss, who came under pressure to quit after suggesting that creationism should be discussed in schools, "cannot have his religious cake in church and eat the scientific one in the classroom".
Far from being militant atheists, they "believed that the disinterested study of the structures of living things could offer independent support for the truth of the Christian religion, and refute atheism".This is something lost on both the new atheists and the YEC crowd—that science is what it is and cannot comment on the existence of God. Read the whole thing.
But such efforts could be effective only if they were "based on premises that the atheist would accept ... individuals might be motivated by religious considerations to ensure the religious neutrality of their scientific endeavours".
Now playing: The Alan Parsons Project - The Fall Of The House Of Usher - IV Pavane