Slashdot Log In
Royal Society and Creationism In Science Classes
Posted by
kdawson
on Sun Sep 14, 2008 02:45 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?"
Firehose: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)
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, 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
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
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)
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!!
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
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