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."
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.
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.
Re:Eh... (Score:2, Interesting)
Whether people like it or not, there ARE two major theories that both have evidence that can point to it, and plenty of credible scientists who think it happened that way. The only thing we know 100% is that we don't know 100%. The only reasonable thing to do, then, is to present both of these theories, give them equal time, and let the students draw their own conclusions about which one they're going to accept. I think this is the best way to make new discoveries, actually. If a young, bright, enterprising student is presented with two possible options, harmonizing on some points and conflicting in others, they may want to do more research, test things, and who knows? Maybe they will find the missing links in the fossil record, or maybe they'll find a giant fingerprint of God or something. Whereas if you just present one side and have the students remain ignorant about the other side, they will accept it complacently and not question things much further. That, obviously, would be a bane to discovery, and to progress.
It's spreading to Europe too? (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Creationism should be taught by the parents. (Score:3, Interesting)
I also know creationism happened. The thing that strikes me is that non-Christian accounts of creationism would be taken in also. It said Muslim, but why stop there. Why not throw in other man made religions too? There is no end to the number of ways that the universe can be created when you use man made religions. I mean having all sorts of different theories on reality through string theory is bad enough. When you throw the scientific method out the window, you're not left with something that should be taught in a science course.
Re:Misleading summary (Score:3, Interesting)
Knowing the way we functioned in school, though, this position may prove to be a hindrance. It only takes one or two trolls to turn every class into a creationsim debate.
But if what you quote is correct, why has it turned into such a heated issue? The last thing that should happen is science not discussing certain issues.
Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem here is that the people pushing this would quickly stir themselves into a froth over any honest discussion of these matters. This would quickly turn the class into an exercise in name-calling, pressure tactics, and outright threats, not unlike the talk show circuit, except probably even worse. It would end up becoming a denial of service attack upon the system.
Frankly, it probably should be discussed in the social classes, but if the public discourse that has already happened is any indication this would probably start something resembling a riot in many schools. I seriously doubt that the same society that has allowed this mess to escalate to this level would have the spine needed to put a stop to it.
Re:Creationisum == Stupid God (Score:2, Interesting)
Humans wrote the bible; God wrote the rocks.
Re:It's spreading to Europe too? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Creationism should be taught by the parents. (Score:4, Interesting)
I know general principals in evolution. The only thing I have against the word evolution being thrown around so much is that people use it for different things. For example last year the news was reporting,"Over fished species are showing signs of hyper evolution." They said this because weird genes are expressing themselves. They implied that when a species gets low on population that they evolve faster. As an arm chair scientist, I rather see this as the inbred effect that when there is less DNA in the gene pool that genes are expressed strongly for several reasons. I wouldn't call it evolution as much as gene loss or genetic erosion. I just think that the word evolution is overused.
That's exactly what evolution is. Evolution can be most evident when there are severe pressures on survival.
I'd liken it to "Driving". The individual processes inherent in the action are still called driving ( shifting, accelerating, braking, ect.. ), yet they are each unique in and of themselves.
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
Re:options C, D, and E (Score:4, Interesting)
and here's an example of option C) John Davidson, Natural Creation or Natural Selection [johndavidson.org]
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.
then there's another, call it option D) -- and it doesn't necessarily contracdict darwin, but is based on a non-kantian epistemology -- theory of knowledge implicit in Goethe's World Conception - revision in Darwinian conception of time [rsarchive.org]
it just seems that trying to even acknowledge the existence of any other stream of thought other than options a) judeo-creation myth and b) the darwinian version of evolution seems impossible with some people though.
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.
No Overlap? (Score:3, Interesting)
I've always thought that these ideas were nowhere neither as polar as they are usually presented.
I mean, if you accept the initial premise of an all powerful God, standing outside spacetime, then it's not so far a step to imagining a God who created the whole shebang in all its four dimensional glory, and then instantiated it at a point in time about six and a half thousand years ago.
Hey presto! Science works. Physics works. Evolution works. And God created it all, quite possibly in six days, albeit in some other frame of temporal reference. Job done. The scientist can carry on with what they do, and the creationists can carry on with their beliefs, and neither has to feel threatened by the other side's epistemology. Granted there's a bit of work needed to reconcile 200,000 years of biological human history with six thousand or so from biblical references - but then Darwinian evolution isn't entirely without flaw either. I don't see why it shouldn't be possible to reconcile the two.
Except that I don't think anyone's interested in a framework that lets both belief systems co-exist. I think this is about intellectual authority. The religious right would like to be the ones who control what we are and are not allowed to believe, just like in the good old days when they could burn inconvenient scientists and philosophers at the stake if need be. I don't think some of the science community do themselves any favours either, in their zeal to debunk anything that can't be measured, weighed or dissected.
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.
If not science classes, where? (Score:3, Interesting)
It isn't like most high schools offer informal logic or the history of scientific methodology as separate classes.
I don't have serious disagreement with the article. I think much of what he is saying speaks directly to the practice of pedagogy and is not promoting the creationist belief system per se. Maybe we are assuming that since he is an Anglican priest, he is being less than sincere in his objectivity?
Re:First (Score:1, Interesting)
I think GP is upset about the reaction - something that bothered me. Maybe it's because I don't live in America (hence, few(er) bible thumping nut-jobs), but isn't firing someone over merely making a suggestion a bit over-the-top? Shouldn't the scientific ideals (read: fair and empirical reasoning) encourage them to explain to this fellow why the Royal Society doesn't think that Creationism is appropriate to teach (ie. it's batshit insane)? For all we know, he may simply have been making the very same point you've been making ("some ideas are retarded, what if I taught creationism ha-ha-ha"), and someone (either him or a senior figure) took him a little too seriously.
Punishing people for their suggestions, opinions or comments seems a little draconian..[MODERATORS, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD^H^H^H IRONY, MOD ME DOWN].
Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes (Score:3, Interesting)
The absolutely huge difference between string/m theory and creationism that you don't seem to get, is that what limits research for the former is technology. The latter is simply unfalsifiable.
Second, many religions have a concept of a Creation.
What does that have to do with science?
This is from Richard Feynman:
I would like to add something that's not essential to the science, but something I kind of believe, which is that you should not fool the layman when you're talking as a scientist. I am not trying to tell you what to do about cheating on your wife, or fooling your girlfriend, or something like that, when you're not trying to be a scientist, but just trying to be an ordinary human being. We'll leave those problems up to you and your rabbi. I'm talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying, but bending over backwards to show how you are maybe wrong, that you ought to have when acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility as scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think to laymen.
Re:options C, D, and E (Score:3, Interesting)
So, I gotta ask... if you can figuratively throw out so much of the scripture as a misunderstanding, what says that doesn't extend to Jesus himself?
Re:options C, D, and E (Score:4, Interesting)
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 get what you're saying and appreciate you saying it, but I need to point this out: Genesis was the Hebrew record of creation before it was anything else. Jews do not see their scripture as a collection of prophecies which Jesus later fulfilled, it stands on its own and does not need justification.
(Raised Catholic, if it matters)
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
Re:C'Mon England (Score:3, Interesting)
You know, I was actually going to follow and read all the links you posted as an attempt to understand why creationists sometimes consider evolution and other sciences another form of religion, and then I intended to post a well-formed rebuttal. However, I couldn't get past your first link. I couldn't even finish reading it.
Basically, the contents of that page offended me. Not because I care what other people believe in, but because it was obvious that the people who wrote that piece are not actually that dumb, but are trying their best to mislead the less educated and that's just really dishonest. Examples:
However, because the majority of evolutionists are not Christians, I wish the reader to understand that the term "evolutionist" is used to mean those who believe that evolution -- in the sense of time, chance and struggle for survival--rather than the God of the Bible is responsible for life.
Citation needed for the whole "the majority of evolutionists are not Christians" part, but most importantly, evolution doesn't try to disprove God had a role in the creation of life. It simply cannot include God, because God is an unfalsifiable factor. Individual Christian scientists can and do believe that God directed evolution, but understand that this is a personal belief, and not a scientific theory (so they don't push for ID in classrooms either).
On the other hand, Adam and Eve being created 6,000 years ago with the rest of the Earth is a falsifiable claim, and there's plenty of evidence against it, so give up already. So far, that could be attributed to just an honest mistake, but here's where it gets dishonest:
On the last page, we read the following: "Even if all the evidence ended up supporting whichever scientific theories best fitted Genesis, this would only show how clever the old Hebrews were in their use of common sense, or how lucky. It does not need to be explained by unobservable God." These people who vehemently attack the creation ministry in saying we are a religious group are themselves a religions group. They have really said that even if all the evidence supported the book of Genesis they still would not believe it was an authoritative document. They are working from the premise that the Bible is not the Word of God, nor can it ever be. They believe, no matter what the evidence, that there is no God. These same people are most adamant that evolution is a fact.
That's not at all what they said. They said, "if all the evidence ended up supporting whichever scientific theories best fitted Genesis" and NOT, "if all the evidence supported Genesis." So, for example, if at some point in the Bible it is mentioned that God makes things fall, the theory of gravity "best fits" the statement that "things fall" by saying that objects with mass are attracted to one another. It does not require a God, but it does not serve to "disprove" God. Again, the reason why we need to keep religion separate from science is because nothing can disprove the hypothesis of an all-powerful being that can do whatever He wants and that makes it unscientific. By the same token, it means you people can stop feeling like we're out to get you. Nothing science ever says will disprove the existence of God, it can only disprove certain things like a 6,000 year-old Earth.
What pisses me off is that I didn't even read the full context of the original quote, and I could spot their mistake. I can only expect it would be even more obvious if I had read the full article. Here's another dishonest moment:
It does not take much effort to demonstrate that evolution is not science but religion. Science, of course, involved observation, using one or more of our five senses (taste, sight, smell, hearing, touch) to gain knowledge about the world and to be able to repeat the observations. Naturally, one can only observe what exists in the present. It is an easy task to understand t
Re:C'Mon England (Score:1, Interesting)
I say, if they want to teach creationism in science class, they MUST accept science/evolution being taught in Sunday School and mentioned during all eulogies that mention life, it's beginnings etc.
Fat chance. They're taught to....just believe, have faith, and never question.
Religions are for the sheepishly stupid and brain-washed. Look at how gullible and easily manipulated the Right is in the States. A bunch of lemmings masquerading as humans.
Nonsense (Score:4, Interesting)
And the reason that the mathematics is not evidence of the string hypothesis is that other hypotheses mathematically explain the same observations that the string hypothesis was created to explain almost as well, or even as well, as the string hypothesis does. For example, the MoND hypothesis arguably matches with prior math better than the string hypothesis does, since all it requires is a very slight (otherwise insignificant) adjustment of certain constants, whereas string hypothesis requires the addition of multitudes of dimensions and a great deal of other complexity.
Therefore, while the math for the string hypothesis might work out in a somewhat consistent manner, it is not "evidence" favoring the string hypothesis at all. On the contrary, if anything the mathematics favor other hypotheses such as MoND, which is approximately as consistent but much simpler. Admittedly, both hypotheses have some inconsistencies that researchers are trying to iron out.
In any case, in direct contradiction to your claim, it is clear that in order for ANY of these ideas to move from the level of hypothesis to the level of "theory", they require some kind of real-world testability. That may be forthcoming with the recent startup of the LHC; on the other hand it may not.
Ouch! Dammit, Occam! (Score:3, Interesting)
How about this: God made the creatures and the way he did it was via evolution.
So, basically, what you are saying is that we have these two possibilities based on the exact same amount of evidence:
1.) All living organisms came about via evolution.
2.) All living organisms came about via evolution because God did it that way.
As there is ZERO empirical evidence for the existence of any such entity, what, beyond your fragile ego, makes the second option more compelling? Now, I agree that absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence, but when faced with a complete lack of evidence, the only rational conclusion is to accept the null hypothesis until such a time when evidence is available and the hypothesis can be re-evaluated.
*sits back and enjoys his smoke*
Re:options C, D, and E (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem with your position is that your personal faith represents a comprehensive abandonment of everything that is substantively "Christian". You disagree with literal interpretations of the Bible, you don't believe any of the assertions it makes about the physical world, you view God metaphorically and non-anthropomorphically the way deists like Einstein and Spinoza viewed the notion - as a concept, not an entity - and you bandy about abstractions like "SPIRITUAL" and "the Word" that would certainly have gotten you killed for heresy or apostasy in prior centuries.
So I'm curious why you bother calling yourself a "Christ-follower" at all. Why not just be a deist or plain old agnostic who appreciates mysticism? One of Dennett's 'murkies' - people who love the mystery of faith, not the details. Then you wouldn't have to bother being annoyed by other Christians tarnishing a label you've chosen to share with them. Better to dump the label and be your own person, no?
Logical positivism (Score:3, Interesting)
I am a creationist, but the obvious problem with creation in a science context is that it is not testable. There are no experiments that can be done because it is not repeatable, and thanks to apparent age, there is no observable historic event. (Think about it - if the earth was created 6000 years ago in a 4 billion year old state, how old is it scientifically?)
Science is a world of logical positivism - "any statement that cannot in principal be verified is meaningless". Creationism is meaningless in that context because it cannot be verified. Intelligent design doesn't apply to the creation of the universe as a whole because it is a singular event. (It could apply to the creation of life or the earth - but requires experience with other worlds to have a better idea of just how special our world is.)
Now, where I diverge from your typical modernist is when they make logical positivism the end of the story. The problem is that the statement, "any statement that cannot in principal be verified is meaningless" is a statement that cannot be verified, and is therefore meaningless. When you try to make science the sole source of knowledge, you end up with meaninglessness: intelligence (literally "to choose between" i.e. free will) is an illusion, and all that.
And finally, intelligent design theory is *not* creationism in disguise. It is a general theory that is applied in many other fields. As a statistical analysis, it provides no absolute answers. But everyone should be familiar with the concepts, because they apply to forensics, archaeology, SETI, and many other other settings that need to distinguish (imperfectly) between intelligent and natural causes.
Re:It's spreading to Europe too? (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Logical positivism (Score:3, Interesting)
"(But strangely most Creationists attack the Big Bang with similar vitriol to their attacks on Darwin)."
That's because any 'real' christian (a christian that attempts to subscribe to what is actually said in the bible vs someones made up interpretation of it) cannot accept a billions of years old universe. The problem is modern Christians cherry pick what they believe and ignore in the bible itself. Therefore the allegorists as I like to call them are just the tail end of immature people unable to give up their silly heritage for deism, agnosticism or atheism.
For some reason people need some kind of structure to their social existence that secular world does not offer... i.e. community, etc.
The real secular world is a very harsh, individualistic and selfish place. So can we really blame people looking for community in turning to religion? One only has to look at the vitriol on Slashdot when someone offends another slashdotters cherished values or ideology and the vicious attacks start. The Religious impulse in human still exists, we just feed this impulse with science, ideology, or some other pursuit with which we identify.
Re:options C, D, and E (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:It's spreading to Europe too? (Score:3, Interesting)
It's mostly not Christian creationists - they remain a vanishingly small minority. It's Muslims - a substantial number of them do believe that rubbish.
I have no doubt that is true, though its truth is largely a consequence of the fact that old creationist beliefs in Muslim countries have not yet been subjected to the same cultural pressures as Western European ones have.
Respect for science and rational inquiry arose out of seeing firsthand what these things could *do*, and the respect for science was cultivated for centuries before Darwin. The rate of discovery was fast, but not fast enough that most people couldn't adjust.
(If evolution had been "unlucky" enough to have been discovered in the age of Copernicus or Newton, we could well have had a sufficiently large backlash from those who didn't like their worldviews shattered in many & myriad ways to end the Enlightenment altogether.)
In any case, while I have occasionally seen pamphlets, websites, or TV programs by Muslims endorsing creationist views as per the Qu'ran, I've not yet seen any attempt to seriously push for it in Western countries. In my experience, the militant creationist movement is associated exclusively with the American Christian religious right and their fellow-travellers.
I don't believe Reiss is seriously advocating teaching creationism, and I don't think he deserved to lose his job over this; now and then some well-meaning person tries to split the difference and "discuss the controversy" (it happened in Ontario in our last provincial election to the Conservative leader).
Frankly, though, this is one point on which am I quite happy to take a militant position. We don't give the Flat Earthers any free coverage in our classrooms, and I don't see why this ought to be any different.