Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Education Science

Royal Society and Creationism In Science Classes 892

Posted by kdawson
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Royal Society and Creationism In Science Classes

Comments Filter:
  • by dbolger (161340) on Sunday September 14, 2008 @02:49PM (#24999931) Homepage

    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?

    • by ceoyoyo (59147) on Sunday September 14, 2008 @02:52PM (#24999949)

      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.

      • by nawcom (941663) on Sunday September 14, 2008 @03:00PM (#25000015) Homepage
        It should be taught in a way to show how it isn't science, and requires no evidence (it's belief based), and is specific to the judeochristian religion. Many other religions believe that the universe was created in a different way.
        • by johnrpenner (40054) on Sunday September 14, 2008 @03:45PM (#25000493) Homepage

          > Many other religions believe that the universe was created in a different way.

          i have always found it a poor choice between ONLY a) science (of the darwinian we came from frogs), or b) creationism (we came out of nowhere, with no proof, and you jus gotta believe).

          why is there never any discussion of option c) d) or even something like e) the occult evolution of the cosmos [rsarchive.org]?

          no doubt, not many would choose option e) -- which both the creationists and scientists would think is just nuts -- but insofar as the number of possible theories examined, out of the many theories, it always only comes down to just two - ludicrous creationism, or ape science - other options aren't ever discussed, when there are other options. why are we caught in this polarity between the two ideas that have no overlaps in venn diagram...? :-P

          • by johnrpenner (40054) on Sunday September 14, 2008 @03:58PM (#25000629) Homepage

            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.

            • by dada21 (163177) <adam.dada@gmail.com> on Sunday September 14, 2008 @04:17PM (#25000807) Homepage Journal

              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.

              • by atraintocry (1183485) on Sunday September 14, 2008 @05:28PM (#25001543)

                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)

              • by bendodge (998616) <bendodge.bsgprogrammers@com> on Sunday September 14, 2008 @06:08PM (#25002005) Homepage Journal

                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: (Score:3, Interesting)

                by Bombula (670389)

                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

          • No Overlap? (Score:3, Interesting)

            by NickFortune (613926)

            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

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by OeLeWaPpErKe (412765)

          Exactly people should be confronted, as early as possible with both right AND wrong thoughts, and the evidence supporting them.

          Of course, anybody can make a politic like this look bad by saying "look he's asking for creationism to be taught alongside evolution !". Of course ! How else do you suggest we teach children the difference.

          Something like creationism is what a literal interpretation of the bible would yield. Distribute the first chapter of genesis, have students read it. Demand the children argue fo

        • Many other religions believe that the universe was created in a different way.

          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 m

      • by TheLink (130905) on Sunday September 14, 2008 @03:06PM (#25000089) Journal

        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.

        • by bytesex (112972) on Sunday September 14, 2008 @03:31PM (#25000339) Homepage

          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).

          • by khasim (1285) <brandioch.conner@gmail.com> on Sunday September 14, 2008 @03:35PM (#25000387)

            The problem is, that if you're not prepared to have your beliefs shaken, you're not really fit for science.

            Now imagine a class with 10 Creationist students in it.

            All arguing their latest talking points with the teacher.

            All demanding that books X, Y and Z be read to show the "facts" of Creationism.

            All saying that authors A, B and C have "disproven" evolution.

            All claiming that evolution is a religion.

            Fuck that. Put Creationism in a World Religions class and just save the time and arguments. As can be seen from the comments here, even self described "nerds" have trouble understanding what science is (and is not). Why bother with the confusion and the arguments?

      • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 14, 2008 @03:52PM (#25000573)

        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: (Score:3, Informative)

        by centuren (106470)

        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.

    • 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.

    • by arth1 (260657) on Sunday September 14, 2008 @03:07PM (#25000097) Homepage Journal

      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?

      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.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by mea37 (1201159)

        You know, the whole FSM thing is funny, but when it becomes the knee-jerk reaction to every discussion about creationism, it gets old fast.

        The reason it makes sense to discuss the differences between scientific reasoning vs. creationist belief is that there is a significant, vocal population of people who earnestly believe that creationism is not only true, but just as valid in a scientific context as evolution.

        By that yardstick, it does not make sense to worry about showing why FSM isn't science -- because

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Heather D (1279828)

      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

  • C'Mon England (Score:3, Insightful)

    by religious freak (1005821) on Sunday September 14, 2008 @02:51PM (#24999943)
    I thought you were better than this. This is one American import I hope you don't accept.

    Creationism is not science. Period.
  • Misleading summary (Score:5, Informative)

    by Homburg (213427) on Sunday September 14, 2008 @02:53PM (#24999963) Homepage

    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: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by cp.tar (871488)

      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.

  • by fluffykitty1234 (1005053) on Sunday September 14, 2008 @02:53PM (#24999967)

    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. ;)

  • by arthurpaliden (939626) on Sunday September 14, 2008 @02:55PM (#24999983)
    Creationisum is an insult to the glory of God. How dare people say that God, being all knowing and all powerful, could not design and impliment a dynamic system but had to settle for a simple static one.
    • by MicktheMech (697533) on Sunday September 14, 2008 @03:03PM (#25000049) Homepage
      This is essentially my position. By saying God couldn't have created life through an evolutionary mechanism is essentially placing limitations on His power. Something we Christians generally don't do. It's very sad that a very vocal group mostly localised in the U.S. (and to a lesser extent Canada) have been creating this image of Christians being irrational zealots.

      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.
  • Yeah, stupid (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DurendalMac (736637) on Sunday September 14, 2008 @03:00PM (#25000013)
    But people are trying to get him fired over it? That's bullshit. The guy can hold his opinion, and as long as he sticks to the curriculum without creationism, why get him fired over his goddamned opinion? These Nobel laureates aren't the ones being taught in his class and have very little to do with him, but they'll gang up anyway. The theist/antitheist sword cuts both ways. Both sides are capable of being intolerant assholes, and this is just more proof.
    • Re:Yeah, stupid (Score:5, Insightful)

      by TheLink (130905) on Sunday September 14, 2008 @03:11PM (#25000137) Journal

      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.

      • Re:Yeah, stupid (Score:5, Informative)

        by ColdWetDog (752185) * on Sunday September 14, 2008 @03:39PM (#25000427) Homepage

        I think he actually deserves an apology. It's amazing the reaction he got.

        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.

  • by josepha48 (13953) on Sunday September 14, 2008 @03:01PM (#25000023) Journal
    .. to be taught in science classes next year.
  • by hkz (1266066) on Sunday September 14, 2008 @03:02PM (#25000039)

    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.

    • by meringuoid (568297) on Sunday September 14, 2008 @03:24PM (#25000257)
      It's mostly not Christian creationists - they remain a vanishingly small minority. It's Muslims - a substantial number of them do believe that rubbish. We're developing a population sector which believes in the literal truth of its holy book, and I suppose the Royal Society doesn't want to get firebombed for insulting the Prophet by suggesting that Adam and Eve never existed and so the Koran is a lie and Mohammed a fraud...
  • by CrazyJim1 (809850) on Sunday September 14, 2008 @03:03PM (#25000055) Journal
    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.

    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.
    • 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.

  • by LaminatorX (410794) <sabotage@@@praecantator...com> on Sunday September 14, 2008 @03:07PM (#25000099) Homepage

    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)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 14, 2008 @03:22PM (#25000241)

    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.

  • Burn the heretic! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by John Jorsett (171560) on Sunday September 14, 2008 @03:27PM (#25000295)

    I think creationism is nonsensical, but the reaction over this is reminiscent of the Inquisition. Calling for firing someone for voicing a heterodox opinion is getting uncomfortably close to a modern-day auto da fe.

  • by uassholes (1179143) on Sunday September 14, 2008 @03:34PM (#25000377)
    Funny stuff and painfully true standup comedy about trogladytes living among us who still believe in ancient primitive superstition (religion):

    http://www.youtube.com/patcondell [youtube.com]

  • CoE apologises! (Score:5, Informative)

    by Simmeh (1320813) on Sunday September 14, 2008 @03:43PM (#25000475)
    On a related note:
    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!!
  • by buddyglass (925859) on Sunday September 14, 2008 @04:03PM (#25000685)
    Read his original article. He's not suggesting creationism be taught as science, or even as non-science. He's suggesting that, when students raise objections to evolutionary theory, even objections based on a creationist foundation, that those objections be discussed in a scientific context. He's also suggesting that, rather than try to "change students' minds", science teachers focus on simply presenting the standard scientific view of cosmology. That seems perfectly reasonable.
  • by smchris (464899) on Sunday September 14, 2008 @05:01PM (#25001241)

    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?

  • You guys do it wrong (Score:3, Informative)

    by 4D6963 (933028) on Sunday September 14, 2008 @07:20PM (#25002821)
    America, watch and learn. That's how ludicrous we find theories that you find worthy of debate, in our decently educated countries. The content of the debate isn't as relevant about your poor education system as is the fact that the debate itself could even survive and thrive rather than get instantly shot down and laughed off.

"Any excuse will serve a tyrant." -- Aesop

Working...