Slashdot Log In
Royal Society and Creationism In Science Classes
Posted by
kdawson
on Sun Sep 14, 2008 01:45 PM
from the less-than-intelligently-designed-proposal dept.
from the less-than-intelligently-designed-proposal dept.
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."
Related Stories
[+]
Ask Slashdot: How Do You Interview A Sysadmin Candidate? 476 comments
benedict writes: "The article No Shortage of Programmers? sparked a really interesting thread about how to interview programmers. Being a systems administrator, I am curious about the Slashdot community's collective wisdom on how to interview sysadmins. I have come up with a few questions of my own to prime the pump. 'What is tcpdump? What is it good for?' 'How about truss/ktrace/strace? What are they good for?' 'What's the largest number of machines you've maintained? What have you done to make it easier on yourself (e.g. what types of automation, file distribution, etc.)' 'Do you use source code control? What for?' I would also present a couple of 'hypothetical' situations from my own experience and ask how people would approach them. How about you: what kinds of questions would you ask, what situations would you describe, what kinds of answers would you look for?"
Submission: Royal Society and Creationism in science classes by Anonymous Coward
[+]
Royal Society "Creationist" Resigns 658 comments
Chris_Keene writes in to let us know that the Prof. Michael Reiss, who recently caused a storm with comments about teaching creationism in schools, has resigned from his post as director of education at the Royal Society in the UK. This news coincides with word out of the Anglican church that it is ready to apologize to Charles Darwin, 150 years after it poured scorn on his theory of evolution by natural selection. "The Church of England will concede in a statement that it was over-defensive and over-emotional in dismissing Darwin's ideas. It will call 'anti-evolutionary fervor' an 'indictment' on the Church."
[+]
Science: Nobel Prize For Medicine Awarded, Physics Soon To Follow 135 comments
Nobel Prize season is here again, and the first award for Physiology or Medicine was split between two virologists who discovered HIV and one who demonstrated that a virus causes cervical cancer. Coming soon is the announcement for Physics. Look to the right for a chance to pit your selection wit against the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences with a poll for which scientific achievement deserves the prize. Front runners, according to Reuters, are; Andre Geim and Kostya Novoselov, discovers of graphene, Vera Rubin, provider of the best evidence yet of dark matter, and Roger Penrose and Dan Shechtman, discoverers of Penrose tilings and quasicrystals.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
It /should/ be discussed in science classes (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
I agree. Creationism and other pseudoscience should be discussed in science classes. I doubt that's quite what the good reverend had in mind though.
Parent
Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes (Score:5, Insightful)
String Theory is not based on *physical* evidence, but it is supported by *mathematical* evidence, as are pretty much all modern scientific theories.
Parent
Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes (Score:5, Informative)
The platypus a) works b) is thus finished c) has wellknown predecessors (mammal-like reptils).
Parent
Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes (Score:5, Funny)
The key point to take home though is that there is no confirmed proof of string theory at the present time but it is still being taught much like evolution for that matter.
String theory is not taught in any class I ever took. It's not taught in anything but advanced physics courses because it's beyond the capability of the vast majority of educators to understand. I would wager that you don't know the first thing about string theory and probably lack the proper math skill to even evaluate it objectively. Reading a watered-down pop-science book on the topic one time DOESN'T count as any expertise whatsoever. Being Stephen Hawking does.
So lets compare what an evolution class discussion might look like compared to a creationism class discussion. We'll start with the evolution class:
=====
TEACHER: Class, we have finished learning the rise of the four legged terrestrial animals in the context of global climate changes a billion years ago. Any questions?
STUDENT: Yes, how do we know about the climate changes?
TEACHER: Good question. We know because we have rock samples that we can date to an accuracy of 50 million years and can compare isotopic abundance of key elements in those rocks we know to have formed in the last million years. Differences in the isotopic profiles between the two rock samples suggest rapid significant changes in the atmosphere that were likely to allow for the colonizing land by amphibian like animals. Rock samples about two billion years old suggest that earth's atmosphere before that time would have been too harsh to allow terrestrial colonization by any animal more advanced than an insect.
=====
Now for the creationism class.
=====
PRIEST: So now you have learned that god made the creatures. Any questions?
STUDENT: Could we also explain that diversity of the creatures could come about through natural variation and selection based on adaptive advantage?
PRIEST: God made the creatures.
STUDENT: But there is a geological record consistent with a diversification mechanism based on natural selection. How do we account for this geological record.
PRIEST: God made the rocks and god made different creatures.
STUDENT: Why would god deliberately make this geological record that could go a long way towards explaining biological diversity?
PRIEST: Don't question god. You are going to hell.
=====
Parent
Re:options C, D, and E (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Re:options C, D, and E (Score:5, Interesting)
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
Parent
Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes (Score:5, Insightful)
From the link ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2008/sep/11/michael.reiss.creationism [guardian.co.uk] ), 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.
Parent
Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is, that if you're not prepared to have your beliefs shaken, you're not really fit for science. Maybe it should be prefixed with a 'shake-your-belief' class, in which you do all sorts of little experiments like trying to see colour in the semi-dark, do simple maths in base-9, explain the mating behaviour of seahorses, and compare the height and circumference of a drinking glass (just things off the top of my head that could confuse a fourteen year old).
Parent
If I may expand upon that ... (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Parent
Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes (Score:5, Informative)
No, that is exactly what the good reverend had in mind. To quote from interview given here [guardian.co.uk], 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?
Parent
Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes (Score:5, Interesting)
It should probably be discussed in any section on the history of biology as an example of an inferior theory that was replaced by a superior one.
Parent
Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes (Score:5, Insightful)
Lamarckism was a perfectly logical and convincing theory to explain evolution; it turned out to be wrong, but there's nothing inherently unscientific about it in a pre-Mendelian world.
Parent
Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes (Score:5, Insightful)
Using that yardstick, you have to teach about the Flying Spaghetti Monster in science classes too, so you can argue against this nonsense.
Students learn how to identify and dismiss bullshit by being taught the scientific method [wikipedia.org] . It works on any bullshit.
Parent
Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes (Score:5, Insightful)
We don't object to theories being taught, we object to things that aren't science being touted as science.
Parent
Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes (Score:5, Insightful)
UM, I think you neglected to mention that Evolution is also just a theory at this point.
Theory of Relativity.
Atom Theory.
Electromagnetic Theory.
Theory of Gravity.
Yeah, let's remove all "just theories" from science class. You have a pop-quiz asking them how to spell 'science', and then you send them home with nothing else to teach. Brilliant!
Yeah, you might want to mention that part when you advocate suppressing alternative beliefs in the classroom...
Excuse me, but we don't teach Swedish in English class.
We teach English in English class, and we teach Science in Science class.
And in Science class teachers should not be teaching "beliefs". They should be teaching accurate overview of the various fields of science as understood and practiced by professionals in those fields. And the indisputable FACT is that Evolution is the one and only understanding and practice of the field of biology by 100%(*) of professional biologists. "Welcome kids, this is biology class. The one and only scientific understanding and practice of biology among professional biologists is evolution and some other things I'll get to later. Here is what evolution says and he's how it works and here let me show you this shitload of evidence that convinced all of those scientists that evolution was valid and accurate. You don't have to believe in evolution any more than you have to believe in atoms, but you do need to understand the material and you do need to pass the tests."
It wouldn't matter if Atom Theory were wrong and atoms don't exist. A Chemistry class must teach an accurate overview of Chemistry as understood and practiced by professional Chemists. Even if atom theory is wrong and atoms don't exist, it is impossible to understand the modern field of chemistry without knowing atom theory. Even if atom theory is wrong and atoms don't exist, it is impossible to enter and practice modern Chemistry unless one understands atom theory. Even if atom theory is wrong and atoms don't exist, it is impossible to do good science proving atom theory is wrong unless one first understands atom theory.
So even if you have the ignorant notion that evolution is wrong, it doesn't matter. The absolutely indisputable fact is that among 100%(*) of professional biologists evolution is the one and only modern scientific understanding and practice of biology.
(*)Footnote: Rounded to the nearest full percentage point 100% of biologists accept evolution, rounded to the nearest full percentage point 100% of chemists accept atoms, rounded to the nearest full percentage point 100% of astronomers accept the fusion-powered-sun. Just because one-in-a-couple-hundred people-witha-a-degree is a crackpot does not mean we teach the Electric Universe electric-powered-sun crapola in highschool science class.
-
Parent
Misleading summary (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Misleading summary (Score:5, Funny)
I am just as disgusted by the militant atheist blathering on about Science proves there is no God as I am the religious fundy trying to pass of creationism as Science.
Now, I must admit I haven't read any atheists more militant than Dawkins, so I might be out of my depth, but I haven't ever encountered the stance that "science proves there are no gods".
As a linguist, I can readily assert that gods do in fact exist. So do elves, gnomes, unicorns and honest politicians. Now, outside language, that's a wholly diferent and highly debatable matter (do note that I never put trolls on the list, as we have the whole of the internet to actually prove their existence).
Parent
Re:Misleading summary (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Creationism vs Evolution (Score:5, Insightful)
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. ;)
Yeah, stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yeah, stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Worse. Go read _everything_ he said here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2008/sep/11/michael.reiss.creationism [guardian.co.uk]
I think he actually deserves an apology. It's amazing the reaction he got.
What next, are they going to burn down churches because of what he said? Just because someone happens to mention creationism in the same breath as science classes?
They're starting to behave like religious nutters too.
Parent
Re:Yeah, stupid (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent
tooth fairy, santa, and easter bunny ... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:tooth fairy, santa, and easter bunny ... (Score:5, Funny)
"Reality-based thinking is vastly overrated and certainly won't prepare children for a career in the City or in government." ; )
Parent
Discussion != Endorsement (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Reasonable (Score:5, Informative)
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.
CoE apologises! (Score:5, Informative)
Church of England to apologise for rejecting evolution [telegraph.co.uk]
As moderate religion steps away from fundamentalism, our scientists (if only through media slant) get closer to it!
Think of the children!!
reiss was taken completely out of context (Score:5, Informative)
You are using "theory" incorrectly. (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Parent
Re:You are using "theory" incorrectly. (Score:5, Interesting)
I always found the idea of swearing on the Bible to be very amusing.
-- Matthew 5:34-37
-- James 5:12
Parent
You've just repeated your error. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:Eh... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent
Re:Creationisum == Stupid God (Score:5, Insightful)
The root of it all is that these American "evangelicals" aren't what the rest of the world uses "evangilcal" to mean. It's just a word the've taken to replace "literalist". These are literalists, plain and simple. Why don't they call themselves that? Because literalism is frowned upon by most of mainstream Christianity.
Parent
Re:It's spreading to Europe too? (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:C'Mon England (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent
Re:First (Score:5, Insightful)
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!
Parent
Re:First (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:First (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent
Your argument does not justify your conclusion. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:First (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
The Earth is a Swiss cheese! (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Parent
Re:First (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Re:Creationism is an alternative to Science (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:Logical positivism (Score:5, Informative)
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).
Parent
Re:First (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:First (Score:5, Funny)
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!
Parent
Re:First (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent