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."

Comments

It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[dbolger]

I have no problem with students being shown the difference between science and "creationism". One is the very antithesis of the other. How can the average student be expected to argue against this nonsense if they don't understand what it is and why it is not science?

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[nawcom]

It should be taught in a way to show how it isn't science, and requires no evidence (it's belief based), and is specific to the judeochristian religion. Many other religions believe that the universe was created in a different way.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[TheLink]

From the link ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2008/sep/11/michael.reiss.creationism ), here's what he said:

"Creationism can profitably be seen not as a simple misconception that careful science teaching can correct. Rather, a student who believes in creationism has a non-scientific way of seeing the world, and one very rarely changes one's world view as a result of a 50-minute lesson, however well taught."

Seems very reasonable to me.

If you do things the wrong way, you can prove you are right, but teach nothing.

If you teach nothing, you do not have a science class.

The uproar over what he said appears to be rather unscientific.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[Drakonik]

We don't object to theories being taught, we object to things that aren't science being touted as science.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[Frenchman113]

String Theory is not based on *physical* evidence, but it is supported by *mathematical* evidence, as are pretty much all modern scientific theories.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes

[Sique]

First, many scientific theories are based on no evidence (string theory) and at this time we don't even know when they can be proven, if ever, but yet I'm sure many people can cite cases where universities are teaching string theory.

No scientific theory can be proven. We have always to expect new information or newly discovered facts to contradict scientific theories and finally to disprove them. And that's exactly the point. That makes a theory scientific.
And yes, there might be facts that contradict String Theory. We just don't know them yet.
And yes, there might be facts that contradict Evolution. If we ever find a halfly designed and then not finished model of a potential organism, which can not have lived this way, has no known predecessor and now known parallel, then we could hypothetize that a designer was at work (and didn't finish it).

Many theories are also based on assumptions that, given the human tendency to act holier-than-though, we think must be right or otherwise, God forbid, our theory might end up being wrong.

That was never a problem with a scientific theory. They often have proved to be wrong (then they got abandoned and replaced by other theories), or incomplete (then they have been extended) or being valid only for a very small subset of events (then they have been superseeded by a more general theory).
The daily work of a scientist is not to find more evidence for a well established theory. More evidence you need only for a hypothesis, a not-yet-theory. The daily work of a scientist is crashtesting theories. Hit it with extreme conditions, with imaginative setups, with an alternate hypothesis, with better measurement. If you can poke a hole in a well established theory, a scientific price is not far away. If you find yet another evidence for a well established theory, all you get is a yawn from your colleagues.

Creationism vs Evolution

[fluffykitty1234]

This is a great class to teach kids about what science is, and what the differences between scientific theories, and a non-scientific theory is.

For example, in science a theory is supposed to be able to make predictions: I throw the apple up, and gravity accelerates the apple back down etc. Have the kids then try to explain what predictive qualities Evolution has, and what predictive qualities Creationism has.

It could be a great teaching tool IMHO.

Embrace, and extinguish. ;)

You've just repeated your error.

[khasim]

The only reasonable thing to do, then, is to present both of these theories, give them equal time, and let the students draw their own conclusions about which one they're going to accept.

Again, a scientific theory has evidence to support it. It is falsifiable. It can be tested.

Yet you keep using the same word to describe evolution and Creationism.

It is that exact error that is the reason against teaching Creationism.

If I may expand upon that ...

[khasim]

The problem is, that if you're not prepared to have your beliefs shaken, you're not really fit for science.

Now imagine a class with 10 Creationist students in it.

All arguing their latest talking points with the teacher.

All demanding that books X, Y and Z be read to show the "facts" of Creationism.

All saying that authors A, B and C have "disproven" evolution.

All claiming that evolution is a religion.

Fuck that. Put Creationism in a World Religions class and just save the time and arguments. As can be seen from the comments here, even self described "nerds" have trouble understanding what science is (and is not). Why bother with the confusion and the arguments?

Re:First

[c6gunner]

What ever happened to letting the facts prove themselves?

Sure, why not. While we're at it, let's teach Holocaust denial in History class, and Ebonics in English lit. Also, we'll make sure to cover Alchemy in chemistry class, and our Geography teachers MUST give equal time to the idea that the world is flat!

I mean seriously, how DARE you people use logic and critical thinking when deciding what should be taught in school? Clearly we should teach every fantasy that's ever popped into anyones head - only that way can we ensure that nobodies feelings are hurt, and that all ideas get a fair hearing!

Re:Misleading summary

[WeirdJohn]

why should my kids be deprived of a real science education just because someone else indoctrinated their children with specious non-scientific beliefs?

if a kid raises creationist objections to evolutionary theory, the teacher should kindly say to him "that is religious mythology, not science," and end the discussion there. pseudoscience is pseudoscience, and there's no reason to make special allowances for discussing pseudoscience in a science class just because it's based on a popular religion.

As a teacher, I believe it is vital that we take the time to explain why creationism is not science, so that the students have a solid understanding of the issue to debate and defend their positions. Your approach is asking the students to accept your statement on faith, which will not help them learn science.

Re:First

[Sasayaki]

Wow. WTB mod points! The bottom line here is- science is evidence seeking a conclusion. Creationism is a conclusion seeking evidence. That is why it should not be taught in science classes.

Re:Creationism is an alternative to Science

[c6gunner]

I think the thing gp was describing was that alchemy wasn't taught as chemistry in chemistry class. It was taught as "here's what people though, and here's why we know it's wrong".

I would love to have this same level of discourse in biology classes with respect to creationism, but for one thing. Saying creationism is not scientific and not factually based will be construed by too many as an attack on their religion and you end up in a real mess.

Exactly - the reason we can teach about alchemy in chemistry class is because nobody takes alchemy seriously any more. Similarly, you can teach about pre-Galilean follies because nobody will take offense to it or try to argue that the sun spins around the earth.

Unfortunately, way too many people still cling to the idea that our world and all the species on it were created by some mystical being. So how exactly do teach the follies of creationism, when half your class still believes in it? It's not so much a question of education, as de-programming.

Your argument does not justify your conclusion.

[fugue]

Evidence has a place in science classes, but what should really be taught is the scientific method. Teach creationism in science classes, by all means! It is a fabulous example of a scientific theory that makes all possible predictions and is therefore scientific crap. Teach it, and teach why it is junk. Science class should be about teaching a thought process, not a bunch of facts.