Churchman creates creationism controversy - September 12, 2008
UPDATED - SEE BELOW FOR STATEMENT FROM REISS
As Scientific American put it recently – to the rage of the Discovery Institute – “If it's September, it's time for creationism in schools. That's how some would like it, anyway.”
And so it came to pass after Michael Reiss came out in favour of allowing discussion of creationism in UK science classes. Reiss is director of education at the Royal Society. He is also a minister with the Church of England.
In a speech to the British Association Festival of Science he says:
My central argument of this article is that creationism is best seen by a science teacher not as a misconception but as a worldview.
...
So 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. However, in certain classes, depending on the comfort of the teacher in dealing with such issues and the make up of the student body, it can be appropriate to deal with the issue.
These arguments from Reiss are actually not hugely surprising. His article ‘Should science educators deal with the science/religion issue?’ in this month’s edition of Studies in Science Education states, “I conclude that there are increasing arguments in favour of science educators teaching about the science/religion issue.”
And his speech is actually not that different to the position he was setting out in 2006 in an interview with the Guardian:
"I am really interested in how you teach in a way that is true to science, but doesn't put many capable, sensitive young people off science for life, nor denigrate them," says Reiss.
...following the Royal Society's line, Reiss stresses his opposition to the teaching of creationism in science classes (though teachers should be able to deal with it if it comes up in discussion). "There is a role for science teachers. Religious education teachers can't be expected to know about the evidence for and against evolution," he explains.
Given the number of journalists at the BA festival though (basically all the science correspondents who weren’t at the LHC), Reiss’s comments were always going to be big news.
Most incensed is the Times, which declares in its lead editorial slot:
Were Professor Weiss to have argued merely that schools should show respect for religious belief, his remarks would be correct and unexceptionable. And were he alone, his views might be counted an idiosyncracy. It is in arguing that creationism has a place in science lessons that the professor has made his error. And unfortunately he is not alone.
...
Children should be taught about faith, and it is to be hoped they will learn respect for it. But in science classes? Please teach science.
The Guardian reports the story thus: “Creationism and intelligent design should be taught in school science lessons, according to a leading expert in science education.”
It quotes biologist Lewis Wolpert as saying, “Creationism is based on faith and has nothing to do with science, and it should not be taught in science classes. There is no evidence for a creator, and creationism explains nothing.”
The Financial Times quotes physicist John Fry: “Science lessons are not the appropriate place to discuss creationism, which is a world view in total denial of any form of scientific evidence.”
I’m going on the transcript rather than the speech but this seems to be a misinterpretation of what Reiss is actually saying. Reiss is not arguing for the teaching of intelligent design in science classes a la Palin. He’s saying that when students raise their views you should be willing to discuss them.
Putting intelligent design on school curriculums would be a disaster. But saying to someone ‘you’re wrong, and here’s the evidence’ doesn’t seem like a bad idea to me.
UPDATE - The Royal Society has issued the following statement:
No change in Society position on creationismThe Royal Society is opposed to creationism being taught as science. Some media reports have misrepresented the views of Professor Michael Reiss, Director of Education at the Society expressed in a speech yesterday.
Professor Reiss has issued the following clarification. "Some of my comments about the teaching of creationism have been misinterpreted as suggesting that creationism should be taught in science classes. Creationism has no scientific basis. However, 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. I have referred to science teachers discussing creationism as a worldview'; this is not the same as lending it any scientific credibility."
The society remains committed to the teaching of evolution as the best explanation for the history of life on earth. This position was highlighted in the Interacademy Panel statement on the teaching of evolution issued in June 2006.
Comments
I'm of the opinion that science education should also look at the scientific method, not just the scientific fact.
maybe a comparison of the differences between evolution and creationism might be beneficial in clarifying what is science and what is definitely not.
Posted by: Graham Hopgood | September 12, 2008 12:43 PM
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/reality.png
Posted by: Uncle Al | September 12, 2008 04:07 PM
Daniel, your last line isn't all that different from Discovery Institute's science education policy. (see http://www.discovery.org/a/3164)
You say: "Putting intelligent design on school curriculums would be a disaster. But saying to someone ‘you’re wrong, and here’s the evidence’ doesn’t seem like a bad idea to me."
We say: "As a matter of public policy, Discovery Institute opposes any effort require the teaching of intelligent design by school districts or state boards of education. Attempts to mandate teaching about intelligent design only politicize the theory and will hinder fair and open discussion of the merits of the theory among scholars and within the scientific community. Furthermore, most teachers at the present time do not know enough about intelligent design to teach about it accurately and objectively.
Instead of mandating intelligent design, Discovery Institute seeks to increase the coverage of evolution in textbooks. It believes that evolution should be fully and completely presented to students, and they should learn more about evolutionary theory, including its unresolved issues. In other words, evolution should be taught as a scientific theory that is open to critical scrutiny, not as a sacred dogma that can't be questioned."
Leaving aside the issue of intelligent design, if a biology student can understand the evidence that supports Darwinian evolution, they can certainly understand the evidence that raises questions or challenges it.
Instead of teaching students that creationism is wrong, teachers should teach more about evolution.
Posted by: Robert Crowther | September 12, 2008 07:51 PM
The catch is the magic word "worldview", which indicates something to treat with respect.
A present for you all.
Posted by: David Gerard | September 13, 2008 09:16 AM
Perhaps it would of value to teach children Comparative Mythology (in Humanities classes, not Science ones). Genesis may then be seen as just one fantasy amongst many. And to take 6 days to create a Universe... a truly all powerful deity would do it in a split second - oh she did, 13.7mya.
Posted by: Mike Walsh | September 13, 2008 08:41 PM
Science and religion – Friends or Foes?
There may be a way to build a bridge between them.
Many religions have something in common: They see nothing between god and the human species. Some people tried to fill this gap and told us about Cherubims and Seraphims.
Could human thinking be used to fill that gap?
This is what I started: http://www.BetterThanThinking.com
I welcome any comment.
Posted by: Sixela | September 15, 2008 11:08 PM
It brought this image to mind.
Posted by: David Gerard | September 16, 2008 12:16 PM
It is not surprising that a British religious zealot would skulk in the backwaters of theological thinking. Michael Reiss undoubtedly is unaware of the brilliant message of Pope John Paul II from over 12 years ago, when Rome drew the line in the sand in the battle between Caesar and Christ. JP the second fully accepted the tenets of evolution in his 1996 message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP961022.HTM
The line Pope John Paul II drew in the sand demarkating the realm of religion and the realm of science did not quarrel with Darwin, Dobzhansky, and Mayr. Instead, he said basically that the Church's business lies not in Man's Body, but his Soul. He quoted Pius XII, animas enim a Deo immediate creari catholica fides non retimere iubet, paraphrased as "if the origin of the human body comes through living matter which existed previously, the spiritual soul is created directly by God." This is a complete acceptance of evolution, Mr. Reiss!
But then again, The Church of England has a long history of spurious battles with Rome, some about theology, but mostly about political dominion. For Anglicans, Dominus illuminatio mea always comes with fine print.
Posted by: Anton-Scott Goustin | September 16, 2008 06:26 PM
Reiss has now resigned over the resulting uproar. Not, mind you, that he supported creationism. He wanted it discussed so students could have their doubts about evolution addressed. But this appears to be intolerable.
Let's talk intellectual sins here. There are plenty to go around. Creationists notoriously ignore evidence for the age of the earth and the universe, and for intermediate forms, and ignore the issue of how their position could be tested if it is to be accepted as a scientific theory.
Creationists also accuse evolutionists of being dogmatic mind-police. And they are absolutely correct, as the Reiss affair shows.
Posted by: Earl Wajenberg | September 17, 2008 02:47 PM
Not so fast Intelligent Designers. A new accusation has been leveled that demonstrates your claims about randomness in the universe are unscriptural!:
http://phoebekate.com/2008/09/14/randomness-creationism-and-intelligent-design
It's called: "The Creationist Chimera of Accidental Evolution Lives On As the Centerpiece of Intelligent Design."
Sure don't want my kids learning stuff that's unscriptural.
Posted by: Dwayne | September 17, 2008 05:30 PM