Slashdot Mirror
Royal Society and Creationism In Science Classes
An anonymous reader writes "The Reverend Professor Michael Reiss, a biologist and Anglican priest, is the education director for the Royal Society, the venerable British science institution. He recently called for creationism to be discussed in science classes, not just in religion or philosophy classes. Science journals reacted with a world of 'WTF' and the Royal Society backpedaled furiously. Now Nobel laureates are gathering to get him fired: 'The thing the Royal Society does not appreciate is the true nature of the forces arrayed against it and the Enlightenment for which the Royal Society should be the last champion.' The blogs, of course, are loving it."
The summary here is absurdly slanted. Reiss didn't advocate discussing creationism in science classes; he wrote that, if students bring up creationism, science teachers ought to be in a position to explain why creationism isn't a scientific alternative to evolution, rather than simply refusing to discuss the issue at all. Quote:
"If questions or issues about creationism and intelligent design arise during science lessons they can be used to illustrate a number of aspects of how science works."
That's an eminently sensible position.
And if you really want to count Creationism as a theory, even though it requires the lack of evidence in order to follow it..
Whether people like it or not, there ARE two major theories that both have evidence that can point to it
There are not 2 major theories; there are more than 200 major theories! You don't understand what you are talking about. If you really want to limit how humans were created (from dirt and a rib and a finger from a supernatural man no less) then you are one ignorant person.
Dr. Reiss has been repeatedly taken out of context with his comments. The media has consistently misinterpreted what he said to mean that he supports the teaching of creationism in science classes. In fact what Dr. Reiss said was that if a student asks about creationism, the teacher should be prepared to explain to that student why creationism is not science, something that I think most level-headed people would agree with. To reiterate, Dr. Reiss did NOT say that creationism should be in any way be endorsed in science classes, only that the student should be made aware of WHY it is not science.
I think you're right. His actual words are really quite reasonable - to paraphrase - teachers of science (and particular of evolution and related subjects) need to be able to deal with persons of the Creationist persuasion in some sort of functional manner. His recommendation is that the science teacher gently try to reinforce that the Creationist viewpoint isn't a scientific one and then goes on to the realization that this is not likely to change the world view of the afflicted individual.
Really, nothing more, nothing less. I think it speaks worlds for how touchy a subject this is. The base issue is that the dis separate "world views" -- scientific or essentially non scientific -- drive politics, social mores, economics, foreign and domestic policy, schooling and many other important issues. Neither side wants the other to 'win'. Getting along peaceably is tough.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
On a related note:
Church of England to apologise for rejecting evolution
As moderate religion steps away from fundamentalism, our scientists (if only through media slant) get closer to it!
Think of the children!!
No, that is exactly what the good reverend had in mind. To quote from interview given here, he says:
"Creationism is not science, and it should not be given equal time in science lessons, and it shouldn't be presented by science teachers as a scientifically valid alternative. But as a teacher, I'm comfortable when dealing in science lessons with what students bring to the lesson even if it isn't good science. So I would want to acknowledge without in any way ridiculing the student.... I want to acknowledge that for the student that is how they understand the world, and I can respect them for that, but I want to make it very clear that's not the way the overwhelming majority of scientists understand the world, and we have very good evidence-based reasons as to why scientists understand the world they do, and then nothing would delight me more than to get into the scientific evidence for evolution or the history of the universe."
Why again are his comments a matter of controversy?
A theory is testable, Creationism is provably not (see Pascal's wager, or Pearl's Causality). Be careful when you use the word "Theory".
Read his original article. He's not suggesting creationism be taught as science, or even as non-science. He's suggesting that, when students raise objections to evolutionary theory, even objections based on a creationist foundation, that those objections be discussed in a scientific context. He's also suggesting that, rather than try to "change students' minds", science teachers focus on simply presenting the standard scientific view of cosmology. That seems perfectly reasonable.
Evolution is not taught as a religion. Its just that religious people are so blinkered that they can only see it that way. Its taught as an established fact, with a great deal of corroborating evidence.
Look, if you could prove to me that some bearded dude came along with a bag'o'miracles(tm) and created the world and all the little creatures in one day, I'd accept it. I wouldn't 'believe' it, in the same way I don't 'believe' in rivers or tree's. They exist, I see them, end of problem.
You can't prove it though, because the very basis of religion is the concept of belief without requiring proof.
A learning experience is one of those things that say, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' - D. Adams
The platypus a) works b) is thus finished c) has wellknown predecessors (mammal-like reptils).
You contradict yourself.
The facts HAVE supported evolution so far. We've witnessed microevolution in animal populations in our own lifetimes, and evidence suggests that macroevolution does indeed take place, which also fits mathematical models as well as... well, common sense. Survival of the fittest, natural selection, works with almost all of the data we have.
The issue about teaching creationism is that the science class room should be about giving students the verifiable facts which we have. The notion of "Letting the children decide" is absurd. They don't have the foundation in logical reasoning yet, nor do they have the resources to verify claims from both sides. Not to mention that facts are not subjective. If we took a vote on which is true, natural selection, or creationism, regardless of how we voted or what we think, that does not change the facts, and that does not change which is, in fact, true.
Creationism is not a "dissenting opinion" as they would have you believe. Creationism is anti-science. Instead of trying to prove their theory right, they try to prove that evolution is wrong, thinking that if they could, it MUST mean creationism is correct. But this is simply not how science works.
Facts do not prove themselves in a classroom, they prove themselves in peer reviewed journals, with copious amounts of data, and logical reasoning. If the Creationism/Intelligent Design movements had ANY of those criteria, then we could have a discussion of its merits. But since it does not, the point is moot, and trying to force it into classrooms, on impressionable students, who have not yet fully understood how science works is simply an underhanded gimmick, and does a disservice to both the scientific community as well as the education system.
When your knee has stopped jerking you might notice that Michael Reiss has nowhere suggested that creationism or ID should be taught in science classes. The RA specifically states that he does not believe that discussion of them in science would legitimise them. He also says that "when teaching evolution, there is much to be said for allowing students to raise any doubts they have (hardly a revolutionary idea in science teaching) and doing one's best to have a genuine discussion. The word 'genuine' doesn't mean that creationism or intelligent design deserve equal time."
In other words, if there are creationists in the class, Reiss says that the teacher should be allow discussion of the subject so the pupil can learn why science rejects creationism, rather than the pupil simply being presented with yet another competing dogma just on another adult's say-so. He is for critical thinking; it is those who are trying to silence him who are trying to stifle critical thinking.
Put it this way: If a kid puts his hand up in class and says that the universe was created in six days, should the teacher just say "No, you're wrong" or "Science says that's wrong because...". It's the latter that Reiss is pushing for, and that is so unthinkable to his opponents.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
One more thing... Science is not Logical Positivism. Science can be interwoven successfully with Theism, and General Relativity is a great example of this.
The basic derivation of Relativity is very Kantian is approach as it starts from some basic assumed logical truths from with a testable theory is derived. In fact this is how many of the great theories of physics start... they start with a priori truths rather than from empirical data. The empirical data is needed to test ideas, not to generate them.
Oh, and by the way, The Big Bang theory is based on Genesis and was formulated by a Priest as a way to give physics a "moment of creation" that was previously lacking in the steady-state notions of the Universe. (But strangely most Creationists attack the Big Bang with similar vitriol to their attacks on Darwin).
There are 10 types of people in this world, those who can count in binary and those who can't.