Teachers need to accommodate the differing world views of students from Jewish, Christian or Muslim backgrounds – which means openly discussing creationism and intelligent design as alternatives to evolutionary theory

Photograph: Frank Baron

Link to this audio

What should science teachers do when faced with students who are creationists? Definitions of creationism vary, but about 10% of people in the UK believe that the Earth is only some 10,000 years old, that it came into existence as described in the early parts of the Bible or the Qur’an and that the most evolution has done is to split species into closely related species.

At the same time, the overwhelming majority of biologists consider evolution to be the central concept in biological sciences, providing a conceptual framework that unifies every aspect of the life sciences into a single coherent discipline. Equally, the overwhelming majority of scientists believe that the universe is of the order of about 13 to 14 billion years old.

Evolution and cosmology are understood by many to be a religious issue because they can be seen to contradict the accounts of origins of life and the universe described in the Jewish, Christian and Muslim Scriptures. The issue seems like an ongoing dispute that has science and religion battling to support the credibility of their explanations.

I feel that creationism is best seen by science teachers not as a misconception but as a world view. The implication of this is that the most a science teacher can normally hope to achieve is to ensure that students with creationist beliefs understand the scientific position. In the short term, this scientific world view is unlikely to supplant a creationist one.

So how might one teach evolution in science lessons, say to 14 to 16-year-olds? Many scientists, and some science educators, fear that consideration of creationism or intelligent design in a science classroom legitimises them.

For example, the excellent book Science, Evolution, and Creationism published by the US National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine, asserts: “The ideas offered by intelligent design creationists are not the products of scientific reasoning. Discussing these ideas in science classes would not be appropriate given their lack of scientific support.”

I agree with the first sentence but disagree with the second. Just because something lacks scientific support doesn’t seem to me a sufficient reason to omit it from a science lesson. When I was taught physics at school, and taught it extremely well in my view, what I remember finding so exciting was that we could discuss almost anything providing we were prepared to defend our thinking in a way that admitted objective evidence and logical argument.

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. 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.

Having said that, I don’t believe that such teaching is easy. Some students get very heated; others remain silent even if they disagree profoundly with what is said.

I do believe in taking seriously and respectfully the concerns of students who do not accept the theory of evolution, while still introducing them to it. While it is unlikely that this will help students who have a conflict between science and their religious beliefs to resolve the conflict, good science teaching can help students to manage it – and to learn more science.

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.

Michael Reiss is professor of science education at the Institute of Education, University of London, and director of education at the Royal Society

The latest disgrace to come from that quarter is the forced departure of Michael Reiss, the Royal Society’s Director of Education. The reason? Reiss, a thorough-going evolutionist, had dared to suggest that objections against evolution should be dealt with in the classroom, if the matter was raised by the students themselves. He said

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

Worthy though this is, Reiss has been drummed out by pressure and bullying from prominent atheists such as Richard Dawkins. Reiss, you see, also happens to be an ordained minister, so he should not be permitted to sit in the cathedral of atheism, the Royal Society. Dawkins had had him under suspicion since his appointment, and now was the time to plunge the knife. Dawkins stated that having an ordained man in a position of responsibility in the Royal Society was like something out of a Monty Python sketch. Reiss, he said, should either resign his position in the church, or resign his position in the Royal Society. Of course, neither of these positions are logical arguments, they are just the usual cheap rhetorical propagandist tricks we have come to expect of Dawkins. He is, accordingly, a disgrace to science.

Bigoted atheism is taking over the Royal Society and it is sowing the seeds of the Society’s destruction. It has become the enemy of true scientific endeavour. Scientists will increasingly see the Society as having departed from the course of true, honest science, and more widely it is already being seen to have tarnished itself. For example, Melanie Phillips, under the title Secular Inquisition at the Royal Society in The Spectator writes

Totalitarian atheism has taken another scalp. Michael Reiss, The Royal Society’s embattled director of Education, has been forced out – for daring to suggest that children should be taught to discuss alternative views and subject them to the scrutiny of empirical reasoning…Far from Reiss damaging the reputation of the Royal Society, it has now done this to itself. Appalling.

George Pitcher, under the title This Society has lost its grip on reason, writes in The Daily Telegraph

He had let a chink of creationism in, you see, and the new secular scientific establishment decided he was an enemy of the state. A pusillanimous Royal Society duly condemned him. Because even to acknowledge the existence of creationism is to encourage decadence. In a neo-Stalinist way, creationism must be air-brushed from the picture of the world that our children see, so toxic is it to scientific truth…The demi-god of atheism, Richard Dawkins, weighed in to say that he would wish to see the Royal Society “attack creationism with all fists flying”…Where did this intolerance come from?..Like all fundamentalism, scientific bigotry, I suspect, springs from insecurity…But in pandering to them, the Royal Society has abandoned its core ethos and should be thoroughly ashamed of itself.

Robert Matthews, under the title Royal Society or Rotten Society?, writes in The First Post

The zealots’ point-man was Richard ‘Mad Mullah’ Dawkins…But the real heavies are known only to seasoned observers of scientific fundamentalism: Sir Richard Roberts, Sir Harry Kroto and Sir John Sulston, Nobel Prize winners all.

Fundamentalism is spreading across science, with zealots ready to attack anyone who dares question the accepted teaching…It’s treatment of Reiss suggests that when it comes to words of dissent, the attitude of the Royal Society is closer to that of a madrassa than a learned body.

True science cannot flourish in this suffocating, fundamentalist bigotedness and intolerance. It’s high time the President of the Royal Society, Martin Rees, resigned, because this behaviour is bringing the Society into disrepute. He and Dawkins, recipients of the Michael Faraday Prize (awarded for excellence in communicating science), should now distance themselves from that award: how dare the Royal Society use Michael Faraday’s name! Faraday, one of this country’s finest scientists and communicators of science, was a deeply religious man, an evangelical, a Calvinist, a preacher, and an ordained presbyter. As Prof. Colin Russell FRSC has recently noted, in his paper Science and Faith in the Life of Michael Faraday, Faraday was

a person of deep religious faith, whose science was practised within a Christian world-view that shaped his attitudes and practices, a world-view which in some cases impinged more directly upon his scientific theories…In his synthesis of science and Christianity, in his strong confidence in the authority of Scripture, and in his simple faith in Christ, Faraday was typical of a great many gifted scientists, both before and since. For them and for him, the task of scientific exploration was not only exciting and satisfying. In a very real sense it was a Christian vocation.

Were Faraday in the Royal Society today, he doubtless would be drummed out by the present atheistic stormtroopers. Thankfully, Faraday’s position and reputation will remain secure when the likes of Dawkins and Rees have been consigned to mere footnotes in history.

PZ Myers writes the well known blog Pharyngula

here (where this one will be on top). There you will find all the letters written by Richard Dawkins and Sir Richard Roberts, and my comments on both the articles that Reiss wrote that started his downfall and analysis of his resignation.

Mind you in hindsight we should have seen Lord Rees, President of the Royal Society and Reiss being in this situation over creationism. Not just because an ordained clergyman given the role of protecting science education in the classroom would be called into doubt, but the anagram of Professor Michael Reiss:

‘ism clash poor Rees fires

PZ Myers made this comment on Reiss:

Dawkins and I are both often slandered as being relatively uninterested in promoting good science education, preferring to fight the culture war against religion (a claim that ignores the fact that we may feel strongly that the only way to achieve a lasting investment in understanding science is by reducing the pernicious influence of religion) — we are told that we think atheism more important than science. Let us ask, though, if these brave paladins of Jesus-compatible science would be willing to set aside their religion to better endorse science…and I think we all know what the answer would be.

That feeling made Reiss’ position untenable because “unfortunately his words got all tangled in the appearance of an unwarranted accommodation to creationism.”

Once again perception of reality rather than the actual empirical observation triumphs in the murky world of society politics – rational minds are not immune to gossip or personality clashes even if they are Nobel Laureates. While the next candidate may well have no conflict between advocating science and holy orders, the issue over which Reiss was brought down was one close to my heart. That in a science classroom science teachers have the right to teach the science that challenges a students declaration of religious belief about the natural world.

Hopefully that challenge will still be taken up, as the Royal Society advocates, and in case you are new to the blog I go into more detail in my blog here on Reiss resigns. Though that can be found as the third blog in the category section of Michael Reiss.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, didn’t want creationism/ID taught science classes.  Reiss wasn’t asking for it to be taught, merely discussed. But to discuss it properly  requires a set of bigger questions to be asked such as  What is Science?

Evolution vs. Creation is definitely a minority sport.  I’ve always found it fascinating: but there has always been a tug between nailing it again and moving on: the feeling that the time could be better spent on other more important things.

Is it an intriguing debate but does it really matter to society as a whole? Try to imagine a world without Darwin’s theory (well it is in fact in a way because so few people have any idea what it is…) and the subsequent science which underpins it like genetics and the discovery of DNA.  Would it make life any better?  Apart from undermining an existing paradigm, God,  what from knowing that life is a continuum and that one species derives from another  do we get out of it? Or what about no evolutionary theory but a lot known, from Mendel’s peas onwards, about genetics.  At least genetics has had a obvious practical effect. And I would suggest the simplest starting point for arguing the case for evolution. We cannot deny we breed and pass on our genes. Recombination at gametogenesis, all that stuff.  The simple observation that you and I represent a continuous line of successful breeding – not a single break in the transfer of genes – since the first man (even if you don’t want to go back and further) is pretty impressive.

If the science teacher was to venture into this minefield in class its seems a  wise strategy, first, for the doubting student to be asked what it is particularly about evolution he or she doesn’t believe or is unhappy about – the old working from the known to the unknown, which is the cornerstone of teaching. It might be confusion or lack of understanding over origins of life and the origin of species.

It is clear where a big problem lies in the classroom: the student going home to tell parent science teacher was proselytizing for evolutionary theory.

The last post was provoked by Reiss’s suggestion that creationism might be discussed in science lessons and because i have encountered a few students who were prepared to say they didn’t believe in evolution.  They were probably Jehovah’s Witnesses. Possibly Muslims. I can’t remember what I told them. Probably because it was revision time in Year 12, only a few weeks before exams, that if they wanted to pass the exam they’d have to know the facts!

Having read a bit more from the web, it is clear that the biology teacher has to be prepared well for the question, even though it won’t come up very often in British classrooms.  For example: the fundamentalist Christian approach is different in places from the Witnesses, and both might well be different from any Muslim objections:  so lump them all under anti-evolution won’t do if you don’t want to upset someone unnecessarily.

The title of that post hints at my typically British attitude: biology  teacher has quick chat with the unbelievers and moves swiftly on.  In practice, there is no time in a hectic teaching schedule to idly stand around discussing this subject, which if teased out to its fuzzy horizons would encompass everything from what truth is, what science is,  religion,  theology, the philosophy of belief, history, sociology, politics, Uncle Tom Cobley ‘n All.

In the States, the problem of the resurgence of creationism/ID has been seen by the American science teaching profession as a serious threat for some time. How seriously they take the anti-science movement can be seen from the existence of books like Defending Evolution in the Classroom by Brian J and Susan Alters, published in 2001(of which there are a few pages in GoogleBook including the complete forward by the late Stephen Jay Gould.) Then there is: Case Teaching Notes for “Equal Time for Intelligent Design?  An Intimate Debate Case” (with undergraduates in mind) by Clyde Freeman Herreid, Department of Biological Sciences, University at Buffalo, State University of New York. Note the  mention of the fallacy of “false dichotomy”. SEE wiki:false dilemma,  Black-or-White Fallacy.  Also useful portion of GoogleBook, Evolution Vs. Creationism by Eugenie Carol Scott, published in 2005 and a website “Creation “Science” Debunked by Lenny Flank, which deals with every aspect.

This short paper does not do the detail but has some interesting points: Why Creation ‘Science’ Must Be Kept Out of the Classroom.

Creation “Science” Debunked a website by Lenny Flack ( “This website has one very clear objective in mind — to present a history of creation “science” and its latest reincarnation as Intelligent Design “theory”, and to lay bare the political and social roots of this movement.”)

Modern Creationists is a post in a website called Bad Archaeology Keith Fitzpatrick-Matthews and James Doese.

There is another way to tackle this: What is going on amongst UK intellectuals on evolution vs. creationism?  We know what Dawkins, Dennett and co think. Anything else?  New Humanist covers the argument which ensured from A C Grayling’s review of Sam Fullers’ book, Dissent over Descent.

Sam Fuller was a witness at the Dover trial. Right at the bottom it tells us he is author of book called The Intelligent Person’s Guide to Intelligent Design Theory.

Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne (Guardian 1 September 2005), One Side can be Wrong, in arguing that creationism has no place in science classes, also adds that there is plenty of debate within evolution, which they outline.

There is a link to 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

(Theobald, Douglas L. “29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent.” The Talk.Origins Archive. Vers. 2.83. 2004. 12 Jan, 200)

Reading that Intelligent Design Comes to Blighty ( Or, rather came in 2006. ) I begin to think I might be totally out of touch. You can take any of those links at the bottom of the page and get a  pretty good idea of what had been going on in the last year or so.  Wiki:Truth in Science

Truth in Science looks superficially like a science site.  The About page doesn’t give too much away. Though the Paul Johnson quote in the top left panel does rather give it away:

The truth is that once you embark on Darwinian nihilism there is no resting place. If there is no point in life, everything in the end has to go — duty, laws, arts, letters, society — and you are left with nothing, except ‘proceeding’.

Paul Johnson (The Spectator, 23 April 2005)

Surely all this is at the root of what education is about? For  intelligent !6+ students to get their heads around how  Andrew MacIntosh {2} can be a  serious chemical engineer, while at the same time being a Young Earth Creationist.  I’m think along the lines of  incommensurability of values.

I’m also seeing that the latest upsurge of venom from the UK scientific community against anti-evolutionism has its roots in the  pressure brought to bear by organisations like Truth in Science.  So, in essence, in a mini version of what has been going on in the U.S. for years is beginning in the UK.  Not a lot of people know that.  Not a lot of people really know what evolution is either. A failure of the education system?  The surveys such as the one done by the BBC show a surprising  large number choosing ID.  Perhaps this is because they know little if nothing about evolutionary theory except the slogans of the anti-evolutionists. Is there such a thing as a priming of (for) ignorance?

]]> http://homoeconomicusnet.wordpress.com/2008/09/17/letter-richard-dawkins-about-reiss-creationism-controversy/ Wed, 17 Sep 2008 10:45:00 +0000 John Sargeant http://homoeconomicusnet.wordpress.com/2008/09/17/letter-richard-dawkins-about-reiss-creationism-controversy/ The letter to the New Scientist was sent before Reiss resigned. It is refreshing that Dawkins has a cooler head then the Nobel Laureates that were after blood:

Before Michael Reiss stepped down as director of education for the Royal Society, Dawkins sent New Scientist his thoughts on the creationism row that blew up last week

The Reverend Michael Reiss, the Royal Society’s Director of Education, is in trouble because of his views on the teaching of creationism.

Although I disagree with him, what he actually said at the British Association is not obviously silly like creationism itself, nor is it a self-evidently inappropriate stance for the Royal Society to take.

Scientists divide into two camps over this issue: the accommodationists, who ‘respect’ creationists while disagreeing with them; and the rest of us, who see no reason to respect ignorance or stupidity.

The accommodationists include such godless luminaries as Eugenie Scott, whose National Center for Science Education is doing splendid work in fighting the creationist wingnuts in America. She and her fellow accommodationists bend over backwards to woo the relatively sensible minority among Christians, who accept evolution.

Get the bishops and theologians on the side of science – so the argument runs – and they’ll be valuable allies against the naive creationists (who probably include the majority of Christians and certainly almost all Muslims, by the way).

No politician could deny at least the superficial plausibility of this expedient, although it is disappointing how ineffective as allies the ‘sensible’ minority of Christians turn out to be.

The official line of the US National Academy, the American equivalent of the Royal Society, is shamelessly accommodationist. They repeatedly plug the mantra that there is ‘no conflict’ between evolution and religion. Michael Reiss could argue that he is simply following the standard accommodationist line, and therefore doesn’t deserve the censure now being heaped upon him.

Unfortunately for him as a would-be spokesman for the Royal Society, Michael Reiss is also an ordained minister. To call for his resignation on those grounds, as several Nobel-prize-winning Fellows are now doing, comes a little too close to a witch-hunt for my squeamish taste.

Nevertheless – it’s regrettable but true – the fact that he is a priest undermines him as an effective spokesman for accommodationism: “Well, he would say that, wouldn’t he!”

If the Royal Society wanted to attack creationism with all fists flying, as I would hope, an ordained priest might make a politically effective spokesman, however much we might deplore his inconsistency.

This is the role that Kenneth Miller, not a priest but a devout Christian, plays in America, where he is arguably creationism’s most formidable critic. But if the Society really wants to promote the accommodationist line, a clergyman is the very last advocate they should choose.

Perhaps I was a little uncharitable to liken the appointment of a vicar as the Royal Society’s Education Director to a Monty Python sketch. Nevertheless, thoughts of Trojan Horses are now disturbing many Fellows, already concerned as they are by the signals the Society recently sent out through its flirtation with the infamous Templeton Foundation.

Accommodationism is playing politics, while teetering on the brink of scientific dishonesty. I’d rather not play that kind of politics at all but, if the Royal Society is going to go down that devious road, they should at least be shrewd about it. Perhaps, rather than resign his job with the Royal Society, Professor Reiss might consider resigning his Orders?

Richard Dawkins, Fellow of the Royal Society

My own take on the matter is in the previous blog.

Some of Professor Michael Reiss’s recent comments, on the issue of creationism in schools, while speaking as the Royal Society’s Director of Education, were open to misinterpretation. While it was not his intention, this has led to damage to the Society’s reputation. As a result, Professor Reiss and the Royal Society have agreed that, in the best interests of the Society, he will step down immediately as Director of Education a part time post he held on secondment. He is to return, full time, to his position as Professor of Science Education at the Institute of Education.

The Royal Society’s position is that creationism has no scientific basis and should not be part of the science curriculum. However, if a young person raises creationism in a science class, teachers should be in a position to explain why evolution is a sound scientific theory and why creationism is not, in any way, scientific.

The Royal Society greatly appreciates Professor Reiss’s efforts in furthering the Society’s work in the important field of science education over the past two years. The Society wishes him well for the future.

It seems that what did for him was the suggestion by some that creationism should not even have science used to discredit it; it should be dismissed. That if a student believed that science was wrong about the age of the world or evolution, that a science teacher should not respond. It is almost like creationism should be treated as the elephant in the science classroom. Science teachers do not deal with a misleading world view, and students go out the classroom thinking that the science of man is wrong compared to the glory of god, and continue to ride the elephant that has no substance. The hope it seems is that the excrement of the elephant will not be shown to the class to infect them with a delusion.

The argument boils down to quarantine creationism (no mention even by students) or inoculation (which risks that it is mentioned, but controlled by the teacher). The problem is that we do not trust that science teachers will teach the science – rather that they will consider creationism an acceptable alternative view, or by talking about it somehow make the criticism scientifically relevant. As if scientific ignorance born of religion is a genie that needs to be kept in the bottle for fear that it will make creationist’s wishes come true.

Outside the scientific community creationism is considered a world view that is acceptable. Whether good or bad science is less important then it being considered a religious belief, shielding the ignorance and by not wanting science teachers to correct the bad science giving further cover. The science classroom seems to be the best place to dispel such ignorance of the world we live in.

What I am calling for is a Bill Bryson teacher of biology class. Reiss is right that this is a tall order for teachers; someone that can make science interesting and explain how we know things, as much as what we know. When a student challenges science (on whatever) they can go into the science. The teacher has to stick to the science, not their personal views.

Why some think this amounts to teaching creationism is absurd. Atheist blogger makes the point:

So, I agree with Mr Reiss on the principle that if the subject is brought up, it should be commented on and dismissed. What I do not agree with is his opinion that “they should also take the time to explain how science works and why creationism has no scientific basis“. Creationism shouldn’t be given more than 10 seconds in a science classroom. If it is mentioned for more than that amount of time, students might get the impression that it is actually a worthwhile subject to talk about, instead of learning how evolution works, and all the evidence for that.

The student already thinks it is a worthwhile subject to talk about. Are we really concerned that a creationist student having their belief system mentioned and corrected with science will have unleashed a meme to infect their other classmates? This is not about saying teach the controversy (there is not one in science) or give it equal time (like we would not with alchemy or astrology).

The issue is one I relate to as a student of the Jehovah’s Witnesses when at school. Education is important in the instruction – that of god’s word and the teachings as explained by the Watchtower and Bible Tract Society. Evolution was wrong and creationism right. I even learned how to argue with Darwinists with scripture and bad science – cushioned with faith that the world was in the hands of the evil one and that science teachers and peers were pawns in the end game of Armageddon.

So it would have been great if my science teachers could have shown me just how wrong the bad science was. Yes I wanted to bring it up, because I felt it was misleading. I would have liked nothing better then to talk to my teacher after class. Their is an arrogance in ministry work that as an instrument of god you can change people’s lives and save them. As you can imagine, teachers would not discuss these things with me because that was not the domain of science to correct religious views.

Lord Winston made the comment:

“I fear that the Royal Society may have only diminished itself. This individual was arguing that we should engage with and address public misconceptions about science — something that the Royal Society should applaud.”

That is my fear too. Yet if we are prepared to allow misconceptions about what Reiss was arguing for then maybe for the sake of creationism not being challenged we will allow children to have their misconceptions about the world go unchallenged in the education system. Which will mean that evolution is not taught in a way that steps on sensibilities too much. That the scientific method and how that validates such things as evolution and the age of the world will not have time on the curriculum.

The enlightenment was about stressing the use of reason as the best way to find the truth about ourselves and the world around us. Kant’s buss word for this was ‘Sapere aude’ (‘dare to know’). Roy Porter observed on those intellectual bandits that were part of the movement:

They shared a general commitment to criticizing the injustices and exposing inefficiencies of the ancien régime; to emancipating mankind, through knowledge, education and science, from the chains of ignorance and error, superstition, theological dogma, and the dead hand of the clergy.

Perhaps a fear of religion in the science classroom is making us forget that education is the primary reason why students go to school. We can continue to allow teachers to teach things, the students to believe something different – and because of our fear not allow the student’s belief given to them by their parents to go uncriticized and their ignorance by which they reject what they are taught unchallenged.

Reiss, suggesting after 20 years this approach has not worked in making evolution understood by a generation of religious students, wanted an engaged approach with them – one that the followers of the enlightenment would have understood only too well. Yet rather than listen to whether such a different way may improve the science education and reduce the ignorance of school leavers, we have effectively said business as normal.

That though is the problem with science education in this country. Dawkins in his latest programme was critical of the science teachers of a school for thinking that creationist world views were acceptable and out of bounds for being challenged in the science classroom. Yet while Dawkins’ intentions are well known (his letter on Reiss can be found here), Reiss was already under suspicion that he wanted to promote religious views on science as an alternative. He was misrepresented in what he said, and people’s fears about him were realized based on the media reports rather than his actual article (which is covered in the first link of this blog but can be found here as well). If he was not ordained maybe he could have survived this.

I hope this incident will not cause religious secularists to duck and cover in the debate. Instead we are by the looks of things heading for a polarization of views. This may well be the best way – science should win over crack pot views of science. The problem though is that we may end up with an education that fails to enlighten students and give them the means to work things out for themselves, because their assumptions are not challenged. Reiss’ contribution was ignored based on the assumptions about his motives and the spin on what he was claimed to have said – in this we on the secular side seem guilty of hearing what we wanted to hear, and to think that a religious man being against creationism in the science classroom was not possible.

That though is exactly want the fundies want. By all means they would like creationism taught alongside evolution. But the next best thing is for the one in ten children of fundamentalist parents not to have their belief challenged. We seem to be promoting a stalemate, a situation that does not improve education, and creates a cold war of ideas. At the ice caps of the polarized views, people assume that the religious cannot take science seriously, and the other that evolution leads to wickedness and damnation. If we cannot challenge ignorance over science in the classroom then be prepared for new adults to be ignorant about the world in which we live.

The looser will be the children we fail to educate.

It seems to me that he didn’t suggest that creationism should be taught as science. He was, rather, talking of the difficulties of communicating science to pupils who already, for whatever reason, believed in the creationist myth. This is what he actually said:

My experience after having tried to teach biology for 20 years is if one simply gives the impression that such children are wrong, then they are not likely to learn much about the science.

I realised that simply banging on about evolution and natural selection didn’t lead some pupils to change their ind at all. Just because something lacks scientific support doesn’t seem to me sufficient reason to omit it from the science lesson… 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.

If a pupil were to raise the issue of creationism in science class, surely far better to meet that head-on, to face down such nonsense with scientific analysis and process?

I recently met a class of primary school pupils from my constituency at the Glasgow Science Centre’s planetarium and agreed to answer questions from them. Most were really interested in astronomy and science, but one asked “Did men really land on the moon?”

By answering the question in full, by taking it as a serious query and giving reasons why the conspiracy theories are all rubbish, was I indulging such theories? I don’t think so. And I see nothing wrong in respecting students’ beliefs on creationism while exposing them in a positive way as anti-scientific. What better place to do so than in a classroom?

“The Royal Society’s position is that creationism has no scientific basis and should not be part of the science curriculum However, if a young person raises creationism in a science class, teachers should be in a position to explain why evolution is a sound scientific theory and why creationism is not, in any way, scientific.”

Richard Dawkins surprisingly defends Reiss, arguing that Reiss was merely trying to show creationists respect while still disagreeing with them. Though I guess I belong to the same camp as Dawkins in that we don’t think creationists deserve our respect. Of course, the creationists took no time before exploiting this incident to promote their propaganda.

Apparently mildly insulting The Pope in song warrants death threats now – Protestant pastor Clemens Bittlinger is also a musician and well, his latest song didn’t go over too well with The Pope so now he needs armed protection to avoid the Catholic fatwa against him. I guess Islam and Catholicism aren’t that different after all. So what did he say that warrants these death threats? According to the Telegraph:

The song’s title is ‘Oh man, Benedikt, a walk with the Pope’, and asks “two or three questions because there’s a lot I don’t understand”.

“Why do you revile other Christians?” its lyrics ask. “Why are you openly looking for a fight, saying: Yours is not a church…. You ban condoms, even for the poor of this world. So you encourage the spread of AIDS even if you do not like it. Meanwhile you abandon limbo for babies who haven’t been baptised. Did you seriously believe that the Lord had something like that in the first place?”

Did McCain actually call planetarium spending foolish?

Knowing vs. Believing

Is the 4 Minute Exercise Machine a waste of time, space, money . . . and anything else you can think of? – It’s hard to believe that a product bought by Tom Cruise and John Travolta wouldn’t work. [rolling eyes]

The Case For “The Case For . . .” Books – Funny satire mocking Christian apologist Lee Strobel and his infinite number of books he’s written with titles beginning with “The Case For . .. “

Dr. House and Atheism

The serious harm caused by arguably the most peaceful religion in the world – A 17-year-old Jainist girl starved herself for 34 days straight. Remarkably, she survived. What’s also remarkable is how fantastically stupid she, her parents, and the entire Jainist community was for allowing this insanity to occur in the first place.

Greta Christina’s Top 10 Reasons for not believing in god part 2

Does the Brain Electrical Oscillations Signature test know when you’re lying?

AND NOW FOR A MOMENT OF SCIENCE:

How Memories Are Made, And Recalled – “For the first time, scientists at UCLA and the Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel have recorded individual brain cells in the act of calling up a memory, thus revealing where in the brain a specific memory is stored and how the brain is able to recreate it.”

Oldest Living Lineage Of Ants Found In Amazon – “A new species of blind, subterranean, predatory ant discovered in the Amazon rainforest by University of Texas at Austin evolutionary biologist Christian Rabeling is likely a descendant of the very first ants to evolve . . . Ants evolved over 120 million years ago from wasp ancestors. They probably evolved quickly into many different lineages, with ants specializing to lives in the soil, leaf-litter or trees, or becoming generalists.”

I hope that Reiss can confound his critics and show that he is active in promoting science and not intelligent design in the classroom. If he cannot make that clear the voice of discontent will cause friction. At the moment it looks like a witch hunt rather than evidence that he is ineffective and not doing his job.

Is it possible that Sir Richard has not read Reiss’ actual articles? Hopefully with the clarification by Reiss Sir [Richard] Roberts may realise that the whole issue is based on a spinning of what Reiss actually said. But I agree that unless Reiss shows himself to be a godsend (like Ken Miller is for evolution) to science education then the critics will have something to go on.

But criticism of Reiss should be based on his actions, and not speculation or misunderstanding of what he has done.

by Sir Richard Roberts

The funny thing is that it’s not actually what he was saying. He considers creationism to be primarily a worldview issue, not a scientific one, and that no amount of scientific arguing is going to make a student budge on their worldview, because they’re on very different mental/emotional planes. He was simply asking for teachers to be willing for the students to discuss it in class and challenge evolution if they wanted to, and to try and help them learn the science despite their religious beliefs.

Now, this subject has a soft spot in my heart, because I studied creationism pretty avidly in my teens. I actually took a course on it in high school (ah, the perks of being schooled at home). My amateur opinion on the matter is that none of the evidence which is claimed to be pointing towards evolution is impossible to explain with a young-earth creationist model. I also think the theory of evolution has some significant holes in it, and that very few people would actually believe it if it wasn’t the only atheistic answer for the origins of the universe. I’m going to steal a quote Stuart Greaves said just the other day: “Doctors practice medicine, and scientists have theories, but God knows the facts.” There certainly isn’t any evidence that hopelessly destroys the idea of a lovingly (and recently!) created earth, and I’m going to take the Bible at its word for what it said happened. I’d rather be naively mistaken regarding the truth than cynically doubting it.

At any rate, as a young-earth creationist, I definitely agree with Reiss on one point. Creationism is not science.

I would, however, like to add to his point: Creationism is not science, but then again, neither is evolution.

The scientific method demands that the things it examines be able to be witnessed, tested, and repeated. When looking at the origins of the universe, we’re talking about unique events that took place at least thousands (young-earth creation) or at most billions (evolution) of years ago. Nobody but the Godhead was there to see it. There is no way to make it happen again, because 1) people are not powerful enough to create like God did, and 2) it’s impossible to “make” evolution happen, because by definition it must be directed by random chance and natural selection, not intelligent interference. Creationists cannot scientifically prove that six or seven thousand years ago, God said, “Let there be light.” Evolutionists cannot scientifically prove that some billions of years ago, a super-dense blob of matter said “KABOOM.” It is beyond the scope of human observation and testing, and hence, is not within the bounds of true science to determine.

All that anyone does when they look at this argument is consider the evidence and interpret it through a very thick lens of their own worldview. It becomes an issue of faith either way. If you have faith that God is real, you will interpret the evidence to point towards Him as the Author of creation. If you have faith that there is no such thing as God, or that if there is, He most certainly didn’t create the world, you will arrive at a theory which leans on random acts of nature to produce everything you see. Both stances are an issue of worldview, and in my opinion, neither should be presented in biology class as being scientifically verified. They should be presented as what they are — faith-based views of the origins of the earth. Either creationism should get the same loophole as evolution to be classified as science, or evolution should be judged as being just as exclusively faith-based speculation as creation is always ridiculed to be.

At one level, I’m a bit baffled by the violent reaction of biologists to Reiss’s article. If students are allowed to continue in their religious beliefs of the origin of the world, what is really at stake? It’s not as if our ideas of what did or did not happen billions of years ago are going to stint scientific progress today. Medicine, technology, and innovative inventions can still come forth even if some quirky group of people teach their children that the world came into existence when it hatched from an egg left by a gigantic Easter bunny. Nothing that is currently relevant to us would be affected. What is so important about being right about where it all started? Why is it enough to fire a man for merely suggesting that creationism be gently addressed as unscientific, as opposed to being openly ridiculed by the teacher, in science class?

At another level, this reaction is not so surprising. After all, the thing that’s so important is that if there is a Being who did what He said He did in Genesis 1-2, that validates Him as God. That validates His word as truth and therefore says a great deal about how we should live in response. If creationism is validated, then it greatly infringes upon the worldview of atheistic academia. The nations are raging against God, and secular scientists are already pioneering the way for people to rise up to cast off His cords (Ps 2). This is not just a matter of correct or incorrect theories. This is a matter of having to reckon with God.

P.S. Speaking of such things, Ben Stein’s documentary Expelled gives an interesting perspective on this heated argument. If you haven’t seen it, and enjoy looking at the study of origins, it might be interesting to you. It’s not so much of a proof of creation or a denial of evolution, but simply takes a look at the lopsidedness in the scientific community when considering “intelligent design” against the overwhelmingly popular darwinian theory of evolution.

Click the photo where Reiss talks about animal ethics using theology and science (scroll down)

A debate rages in the Royal Society over the continual appointment of Michael Reiss, who in an article mentioned that creationist views of students should be discussed in the classroom. Nobel Laureates Sir Harry Kroto and Sir Richard Roberts have written to the President of the Society to dismiss him.

Reiss in an article wrote:

Just because something lacks scientific support doesn’t seem to me a sufficient reason to omit it from a science lesson. When I was taught physics at school, and taught it extremely well in my view, what I remember finding so exciting was that we could discuss almost anything providing we were prepared to defend our thinking in a way that admitted objective evidence and logical argument.

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.

The question is was he suggesting that in the Science classroom teachers challenge student doubts about how old the world is and the validity of evolution (which he claims) or that creationism should be taught as an alternative so that the scientific viewpoint could be considered as a different world view (which the Nobel Laureates rightly oppose). The problem is saying another world view makes it sound like an equal alternative.

If Reiss was suggesting that the discussion should be student led, with the teacher showing the validity of the scientific method then this would be a good thing. One that I would have benefited from at school seeing as I was brought up to believe that evolution was wrong on a scientific basis – if we could have discussed the science behind evolution and why we know the world is billions rather than thousands of years old would have been brilliant.

Reiss clarified his remarks this way at the Royal Society website saying:

“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.”

I have just posted that clarification on the Dawkins website. It seems too many people were making judgments about him being sacked based on second hand comments of what he said, rather than reading his original article.

Came across this article from the Telegraph today.

“Creationism should be taught in science classes as a legitimate point of view, according to the Royal Society, putting the august science body on a collision course with the Government.

The Rev Michael Reiss, a biologist and its director of education, said it was self-defeating to dismiss as wrong or misguided the 10 per cent of pupils who believed in the literal account of God creating the Universe and all living things as related in the Bible or Koran. It would be better, he said, to treat creationism as a world view.

His comments put him at odds with fellow scientists as well as the Government. Former Fellows of the Royal Society include Charles Darwin, who first proposed the theory of evolution.”

To read more click here

The Rev Professor Michael Reiss, director of education at the Royal Society, believes banning creationism from the classroom is likely to backfire with children who hold sincere beliefs.

He wants teachers to be open to discussing creationist ideas. Some creationists reject the concept of evolution and suggest that the Earth is only 10,000 years old.

At the same time they should endeavour to explain scientific theories such as natural selection and the Big Bang.

Prof Reiss admitted he used to be “evangelical” about spreading the word of evolution when he taught biology in schools.

But he added: “I realised that simply banging on about evolution and natural selection didn’t lead some pupils to change their minds at all. Now I would be more content simply for them to understand it as one way of understanding the universe.”

Speaking at the British Association Festival of Science at the University of Liverpool, he said it was better for science teachers not to see creationism as a “misconception” but as a “world view”.

Around 10% of British schoolchildren come from families with sincere creationist beliefs, said Prof Reiss, an ordained Church of England minister. In the US, the proportion of creationist schoolchildren was 40%.

Many of these children came from Muslim backgrounds or families with fundamental Christian views. Teachers in science lessons ought to be willing to talk about creationism if students brought the subject up, said Prof Reiss.

At the same time as making clear creationism is not accepted by the scientific community, they should convey a message of respect that does not “denigrate or ridicule” the children’s beliefs.

Although the United States has never had a territorial empire along the lines of the British Empire, its cultural influence extends throughout the world.  And what American does today, Britain does tomorrow.
 
It  was only a matter of time before someone decided it would be a good idea to import the teachings of creationism into British schools.  With the nomination of Sarah Palin as the Republican vice presidential candidate, creationism is back in the spotlight.

Today, the call has come from the Reverend Professor Michael Reiss, director of education at the Royal Society and an ordained Church of England minister, to include creationism in science lessons alongside scientific theories such as evolution and the Big Bang.
 
Speaking at the British Association Festival of Science at the University of Liverpool, Prof. Reiss said that teachers in science lessons should be willing to talk about creationism if students brought the subject up.  At the same time as making it clear that creationism is not accepted in the scientific community, the teachers should convey a message of respect that does not “denigrate or ridicule” the children’s beliefs.
 
Prof. Reiss cites 10 percent of British schoolchildren come from families with creationist beliefs.  In the United States, the figure is 40 percent.
 
The scientific community has reacted angrily.  Prof. Lewis Wolpert, a developmental biologist at University College London, said: “Creationism is based on faith and has nothing to do with science and should not be taught in science classes.  There is no evidence for a creator and creationism explains nothing. It should be taught in religious studies lessons.”
 
Dr. John Fry, a physicist at the University of Liverpool, said: “Creationism is a world view in total denial of any form of scientific evidence.”  He said that challenging evolution scientifically was appropriate in science classes.  But he added: “Creationism doesn’t challenge science, it denies it.”
 
Prof. Reiss agrees that creationism and intelligent design are not scientific theories but said that did not automatically exclude them from science lessons.
 
Prof. John Bryant, professor emeritus of cell and molecular biology at the University of Exeter agrees that alternative viewpoints should be discussed in science classes, if the students are mature enough and time permits.
 
“However, I think we should not present creationism or intelligent design as having the same status as evolution,” he added.
 
Prof. Richard Dawkins, the Charles Simony professor of the public understanding of science at the University of Oxford,  has argued there is no evidence of God’s existence and recently claimed that devout Muslims were importing creationist “mythology” into the UK, with politically correct teachers afraid of challenging it.
 
Prof. Reiss said: “I don’t think Richard Dawkins would probably be at the moment an ideal teacher for teaching classrooms where a high proportion of the children come from families that hold creationism beliefs.
 
“Sometimes, some science teachers think that because creationism and intelligent design are scientifically invalid, it means anybody holding them is being a bit stupid.  That is something I would not want to convey.”
 
In the United States,  according to a paper by Berkman, Pacheco and Plutzer, scientists view intelligent design as a “hoax” at best, “faith” at worst; in neither case do they have any place in a science curriculum.  The National Academy of Science calls evolution the “central concept of biology.”
 
Three respected national organizations – the National Research Council, National Science Teachers Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science — have provided model high school curriculum guidelines with evolution as a unifying theme.
 
In that paper, a 2007 survey of U.S. high school teachers revealed that 25 percent of teachers devote one to two classroom hours to the teaching of creationism or intelligent design.  Of those 25 percent, nearly half presented it as a valid scientific theory and nearly the same number agreed that they emphasize that many reputable scientists view these as valid alternatives to Darwinian Theory.
 
Of the teachers who devoted time to creationism challenge its legitimacy or to emphasize it has no place in the science classroom, 32 percent agreed that they emphasize that almost all scientists reject it as a valid account of the origin of the species and 40 percent agreed they acknowledge it as a valid religious perspective but one that is inappropriate for a science class.
 
I remember once speaking to my dentist back in Texas about intelligent design.  He smiled and said:  “When you have a cold and your sinuses are all blocked up, how intelligent a design is that?”  That says it all.

[Based on reports in The Guardian and The Daily Telegraph.]

The changes are designed to make the science curriculum for 11-14-year-olds more flexible and include cuts to the amount of detail which is specified.

But an alliance of organisations including the Royal Society and the Institute of Physics warned that teachers do not have enough time to get to grips with the new system, which is due to come into force next year.

Science teachers are already under pressure, having to cope with numerous changes to the way their subject is taught, according to the group, called Score.

From September this year, many science teachers will be teaching the second year of new GCSE courses, as well as preparing to introduce GCSEs in the separate sciences and new A-level courses from September 2008.

Professor Michael Reiss, director of education at the Royal Society, said on behalf of Score: “It’s vital more young people are interested and enthused about studying the sciences. It is therefore alarming that changes at such an important time for young people – their first taste of secondary school – are being rushed along on the wave of reform without any piloting.”

Score includes the Association for Science Education, Biosciences Federation, Institute of Biology, Institute of Physics, Royal Society, Royal Society of Chemistry and the Science Council.

A DfES spokesman rejected the claim that the reforms were being rushed. He said: “The changes are not being rushed in – far from it.

“Our work is the result of extensive consultation with industry, academics and Royal Society themselves and have widespread support. Teachers are not being asked to tear up lesson plans and start again from September 2008.

“The Key Stage 3 (11 to 14-year-olds) changes will be phased in over three years and will be supported by a full package of guidance and support to teachers of science and all other teachers starting in September.”