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."
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?
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.
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. ;)
Creationisum is an insult to the glory of God. How dare people say that God, being all knowing and all powerful, could not design and impliment a dynamic system but had to settle for a simple static one.
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
Because then you would be perpetuating the error you just made.
A "theory" in science has evidence to support it.
Where is the evidence to support Creationism?
But people are trying to get him fired over it? That's bullshit. The guy can hold his opinion, and as long as he sticks to the curriculum without creationism, why get him fired over his goddamned opinion? These Nobel laureates aren't the ones being taught in his class and have very little to do with him, but they'll gang up anyway. The theist/antitheist sword cuts both ways. Both sides are capable of being intolerant assholes, and this is just more proof.
.. to be taught in science classes next year.
Only 'flamers' flame!
Does slashdot hate my posts?
It's a bit worrying that the creationist movement is starting to raise its head in Europe as well. It's not that it's new, it's that previously only US creationists were bold, loud and revered enough to take science on headfirst and actually win. It used to be that we west-Europeans, including the creationists, took it as self-evident that creationist beliefs were just that, beliefs, and hence confined to the private sphere. But from the looks of it, our fundies are getting audacious and trying to manufacture the same kind of "controversy" here. Meh, did these people not learn about the Enlightenment? Do they not care? I guess that's why we cannot have nice things.
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.
The columns seem reasonable. Creationism should not be taught in science class as science, but it certainly is part of the context in which the theory evolution came about. One could hardly teach about Copernicus without mentioning Heliocentrism, or Pasteur without Spontaneous Generation.
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.
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?
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!!
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.
"Reality-based thinking is vastly overrated and certainly won't prepare children for a career in the City or in government." ; )
"Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
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
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!
What ever happened to letting the facts prove themselves?
Yes, the facts are that the Flying Spaghetti Monster, who does not wish himself to be seen, created everything, including mountains and midgets. People who argue it was another imaginary force are fooling themselves. The FSM theory should also be taught in science class because it is a dissenting opinion. The people who argue against FSM theory make me doubt creationism. Creationists are the same guys who imprisoned Copernicus for arguing that the earth orbited the sun. FSM theory is consistent with heliocentricity, which we all know is correct now. Only creationists would doubt the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and they should be ashamed of themselves for not seeing why the FSM is the only true creator!
Just callin' it like I see it.
i'm not saying his work is necessarily scientific (although he graduated cambridge with honours in biological sciences) -- but he interprets his science through the lens of buddhistic thought instead of judeo-christian creation myths. -- in doing so, he presents a radically different explanation of the fossil record which not only fits the with the facts, but also accords fully with indian philosophy.
I'm a Christ-follower, and a deep studier of Scripture, and I firmly disavow any belief or support of Creationism in whole or in most parts. When one studies how the ancient Israelites translated Genesis, one can not even begin to understand how modern Evangelicals and other groups of the mass deluded would even begin to believe it was written as an explanation of anything except for what Scripture was meant to do: open the doorway to why Jesus had to do what He did when He did it, and that's that.
For me, the biggest difficult I face living amongst Christians is their inability to discern what they believe in and why. Example: most Christians would hold the Bible up in the air and call it "the Word of God." The problem is that the Bible is NOT the Word of God. Read Scripture, one sees this thing called the Word, and it is not written or spoken. In fact, this Word is a person/part of God/God who would come to human form as Jesus, the Messiah/Savior of the Ancient Israelites. Holy Scripture is NOT the Word. So when God through Scripture tells one to stick to the Word, most of the deluded Christians believe they must stick to Scripture as fact and as literal, when in fact this is completely the wrong way to go about life. Even Jesus Himself bemoans His own Apostles when they try to force Scripture into the physical realm: "My Kingdom is not of this world," He said.
So as one Christian to the many others who are reading this: stop with this sola scriptura nonsense. It's not Scriptural, and has nothing to do with how one lives today. Genesis was about God's SPIRITUAL Creation, not about the physical world. Revelation was about God's SPIRITUAL Convenant with the Ancient Israelites being fulfilled about 2000 years ago (1938 years ago, how I read it), not about some future physical destruction of the physical. God's Kingdom is not of this world, Christians. So stop trying to force it here, when there's no need to. It only pisses off the non-Christians, and makes all your good actions fruitless since they're countermanded by your misuse of Scripture to try to change the physical world.
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.
Check out my sci-fi book "Lacuna" at http://goo.gl/MVxX8
I have one word to say to your response sir: "AMEN!"
No, let's teach that the world is like a Swiss cheese: round, flat, AND hollow, all at the same time! That way nobody's feeling will be hurt.
This post is not insightful. Gravity and electricity can be demonstrated to any idiot, within seconds, and explained.
Evolution requires a little more thought and a little more time. This leaves it at the mercy of idiots who refuse to see this evidence as it takes too long - hence "It's UNPROVABLE!!"
Scientists are facing a fight with this one, and the creationists (who are plainly, outright WRONG) seem to be better funded. It is wholly right that the education director for the Royal Society be fired for such outlandish claims.
IAAST (I am a science teacher) and I would quit if I had to teach creationsim and frankly I expose them for the lunatics that they are whenever that 'view' is asked about in my classes.
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.
Actually, in my school, Alchemy *was* discussed in chemistry class and although Ebonics wasn't talked about in English, Pigeon English was. WRT alchemy, it was mentioned it was a precursor to chemistry, and although some ideas were sound and are still in use today, other ideas, like converting base metals into gold weren't (at least not with chemical reactions). Areas related to it, such as mercury poisoning, were also discussed. WRT Pigeon English, it was mentioned that it was a language invented by merchants who had better things to do than learn full blown English but still needed to communicate with English merchants. Do kids in the US not have a broad education in the natural sciences and liberal arts?
Back when I was in school, the boundaries between classes seemed hazy....the history of science in math class....philosophy in history class, archeology in geology class, mechanical engineering in biology class, architecture in classics class. While teaching this way isn't "efficient", every subject seemed to connect to every other subject so that knowledge was a unified whole with various facets and various perspectives.
It seems that classes these days focus more on "efficiency" or "playing it safe political correctness". Pity. No wonder post-modernism has become so wide spread. When things are not taught to fit together, no wonder people think it seems like a mixed up world.
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.
It's not a question of punishment. The problem here is that this individual occupies an extremely important position in a major scientific organization. It'd be akin to the head of PETA saying "You know, I see nothing wrong with torturing puppies and then eating them for breakfast". Sure, he's entitled to speak freely, but we're also entitled to question his qualification to hold that position.
With that said, it seems his actual statement may have been misrepresented. Based on his correction, I certainly wouldn't be in favor of firing him. It seems that the whole uproar might have been a wee bit of an overreaction.
I'm a Christ-follower, and a deep studier of Scripture, and I firmly disavow any belief or support of Creationism in whole or in most parts. When one studies how the ancient Israelites translated Genesis, one can not even begin to understand how modern Evangelicals and other groups of the mass deluded would even begin to believe it was written as an explanation of anything except for what Scripture was meant to do: open the doorway to why Jesus had to do what He did when He did it, and that's that.
I hate to break it to you, but the ancient Israelites didn't translate Genesis.
And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.
According to 1 Corinthians 15:45-46, Christ was the "last Adam", who is a "quickening spirit". (Through your deep study, you should know that "quickening" in 17th-century English means "making alive".) The first Adam was made a living soul, and according to verse 46 was "of the earth". This quite plainly shows that Adam was a real man (living soul) with a real body (of the earth).
Example: most Christians would hold the Bible up in the air and call it "the Word of God." The problem is that the Bible is NOT the Word of God. Read Scripture, one sees this thing called the Word, and it is not written or spoken. In fact, this Word is a person/part of God/God who would come to human form as Jesus, the Messiah/Savior of the Ancient Israelites. Holy Scripture is NOT the Word. So when God through Scripture tells one to stick to the Word, most of the deluded Christians believe they must stick to Scripture as fact and as literal, when in fact this is completely the wrong way to go about life.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. -John 1:1-2
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: -2 Timothy 3:16
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. -2 Peter 1:21
You are correct in saying that Jesus is the Word, but you miss the point. Scripture is the Word. If you deny the literal inspiration of the Scriptures, then your faith is in vain. You are left with nothing to believe in but whatever you yourself make up.
Even Jesus Himself bemoans His own Apostles when they try to force Scripture into the physical realm: "My Kingdom is not of this world," He said.
Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews? Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me? Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done? Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence. Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.
-John 18:33-37
Jesus is NOT "bemoaning" his apostles. His apostles aren't even in the picture. Jesus is saying that if he had come to be an earthly king, then his servants would use force to overthrow the Roman empire (what the chief priests accused him of plotting). But that isn't why Jesus came into this world.
So as one Christian to the many others who are reading this: stop wi
The government can't save you.
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?
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.
"The biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place."
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.
Correct. For those screaming about how closed-minded discussing ID or creationism is they are themselves being closed-minded and not getting the point.
Step 1: Put down The God Delusion.
Step 2: Think for yourself. Mr Dawkins is terribly clever, yes, but you too have a brain. And being clever does not make him right about everything.
Step 3. Read Reiss' article. It won't hurt. You might even learn something.