Royal Society and Creationism In Science Classes 892
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."
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:It /should/ be discussed in science classes (Score:3, Informative)
Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes (Score:2, Informative)
Yes. I remember learning LaMarckism and other ancient views (that many "teach the controversy" people seem to think is what evolution claims), and why it is utterly false and not science.
Of course you can't disprove creationism. I claim that God created all the fossils and other evidence to plant doubt and tempt us. How can you prove me wrong? You cannot. This simple lack of falsifiability is why creationism is not, and never will be, science.
Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes (Score:1, Informative)
And while they are at it, they can point out that the Roman Catholic Church (the one started by Peter the Apostle) is 100% OK with and supports the theory of evolution and the rest of those "christians" are simply ignorant cave-dwelling idiots.
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.
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.
Entertainment And Truth at the same time (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.youtube.com/patcondell [youtube.com]
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.
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!!
Re:You are using "theory" incorrectly. (Score:4, Informative)
That's patently absurd.
If your theory is that the earth is flat, and I provide evidence to the contrary and then submit the hypothesis that the earth is, in fact, shaped like a torus, that does not mean that my hypothesis has any more validity than it did 20 seconds before I submitted evidence to the contrary to your theory. My hypothesis is just as crap as yours.
In this case, we're talking about "here is a tested hypothesis that is true in most cases but has a few holes here and there", vs. "here is something we just came up with because we so DESPERATELY want to believe we weren't the result of billions of years of trial and error, and that god REALLY does love us, so very, very much".
(I know, some people just want to posit the idea that some creature somewhere out yonder created some spores that got pulled into Earth's atmosphere and life started that way - that's fine. I can deal with that. But it still dodges the question of how that other life form was created. Somewhere out there, some shit went down, and I'd much rather entertain hypothesis that are able to be tested and verified than some bright shiny bobbles and jangly keys, thanks.)
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?
Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Creationism vs Evolution (Score:3, Informative)
> what evolution predicts can't be proven because it is conveniently impossible for us to be around long enough to see any new species develop.
Speciation has been observed [talkorigins.org].
The principle of evolution is not only a theory, which withstood the test of time, but one, which has been proven to work in other fields [wikipedia.org].
reiss was taken completely out of context (Score:5, Informative)
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.
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).
Science converges, religion doesn't (Score:3, Informative)
There were several different scientific opinions on the origin of the universe, but when the cosmic microwave background radiation [wikipedia.org] was discovered in the 1960s, scientists agreed that the "big bang" hypothesis is the most likely.
That's why science is an absolute truth, which ultimately will prevail over personal opinions and beliefs. Science is based on experimental facts, to which logical reasoning is applied. You can believe as much as you wish on a "steady state" cosmology, for instance, but anyone with a microwave antenna and a spectrum analyzer will prove you wrong.
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.
Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes (Score:3, Informative)
That's actually exactly what he's claiming he meant, however.
From one of the articles:
In a statement Reiss has also clarified his comments. "When young people ask questions about creationism in science classes, teachers need to be able to explain to them why evolution and the Big Bang are scientific theories but they should also take the time to explain how science works and why creationism has no scientific basis."
It may be backtracking, but it still makes sense to me.
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.
You guys do it wrong (Score:3, Informative)
They didn't "back-pedal" (Score:2, Informative)
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).
Re:Proof Earth 6000 Years Old (Score:4, Informative)
If you are lucky enough to live in a northern climate you will see, if you go to an open field, that in the spring once the snow starts to melt there will be an acumulated layer of dirt on the top of the snow. This is dust that has dropped out of the air during the winter. Now if you are even further north, say the Greenland Ice Cap, the snow will never really melt away. So year after year you will have layering in the ice cap, in the same manner as you have tree rings. One layer of dust per year.
Now if say today we were to go down 28 layers (28 years) we would find dust from Mount St. Helens. Go down another 87 layers and you will find dust from the Krakatoa erruption, another 1816 layers and we get to Mount Vesuvius which errupted in AD67.
So we have gone down almost 2000 layers and it equals about 2000 years. Now if the world were only here since 4004 BC then there should be only 4071 layers more in the ice cap. Instead we find that there are over 100000 layers to go.
Now we have seen and can prove that since 67 AD we have one layer per year so if we have over 100000 layers the earth must have been around for at least 100000 years in order to creat those layers.
String theory is perfectly testable (Score:3, Informative)
Joe Bloggs is getting entirely the wrong idea about String Theory, owing to the misunderstood statement that "we can't test it".
String Theory is perfectly testable. It's just not testable by us RIGHT NOW, at the energy levels we can currently generate. (Although the LHC might provide some very early hints in that area.) In due course though, we'll be testing it alright, fully, and having a good laugh if it's way off target, or dishing out Nobel Prizes if it matches scientific observations.
This contrasts markedly with alleged "explanations" such as done by religion, which are not testable ever, even if we live a billion years.
Re:First (Score:4, Informative)
Again, who is "questioning the very basic premise of Science" (whatever that is, and I'm interested that Science now gets a capital letter like God does). I think it's perfectly fair to acknowledge the benefits of the scientific method whilst still asking whether science can necessarily answer all of the questions that are of concern to us? Note that I say "asking", I don't say "claiming blindly that it can't (or, for that matter, can). When science ceases to allow questions, it ceases to be science.
Who has contributed more to the progress of society? Well, a lot of historians of science reckon that science developed out of religion; specifically that the Judeo-Christian religion taught that the universe is ordered, and so people started looking for that order. Those who thought the universe chaotic didn't bother looking because they didn't expect there to be anything to find. And, of course, religious institutions have traditionally been major sponsers of science. On that reckonning, religion can claim that it has contributed everything of its own and everything of science, so it's a clear winner. Too many people look at a view of history that has been heavily filtered by 19th century anti-clericalism.
Oh, and on the past abuses in the name of religion -- have you read Sam Harris' "The End of Faith"? He advocates initiating an apocalypse because the destruction of humanity is better than allowing religious people to continue to exist. It's an interesting book, that comes with a ringing endorsement from Richard Dawkins. Fundamentalist extremism, anybody? It's not just the religious who will kill and die for their ideologies.
Re:If I may expand upon that ... (Score:4, Informative)
Oh, really? I think we should teach the controversy. A couple of days ago in my evolution class we learned about creationism - it was probably the single most interesting class ever.
We got to look at and talk about the Wedge Document [antievolution.org] (see also Wikipedia's writeup [wikipedia.org]). This stuff is amazing. Their political and social motives are like something beyond the 9/11 conspiracy theorists wildest wet dreams.
So let me ask the creationists here: Do you really want any of this stuff to come up in a science class? Really?
Re:First (Score:3, Informative)
OK, here you go. From talkorigins.org [talkorigins.org]:
A similar event appears to have happened with dogs relatively recently. Sticker's sarcoma, or canine transmissible venereal tumor, is caused by an organism genetically independent from its hosts but derived from a wolf or dog tumor (Zimmer 2006; Murgia et al. 2006).
Many other examples there, too.
Professor Michael Reiss has quit (Score:2, Informative)