Creationism in science classrooms (an argument for)

Understood - but I specifically asked about scientific core concepts in the science class. Why only core scientific concepts and not core concepts that are related to science? It wouldn't be odd to see a chemistry lesson in which a science teacher attempts to explain some of the political problems associated with carbon emissions or global warming. Or a physics teacher might discuss some of the public ramifications surrounding nuclear waste disposal.In biology, such things as cloning and genetic modifications have social implications that are discussed.If a physics teacher were to discuss heliocentrism it would seem perfectly natural to discuss the resistance from the church and a simple account of the Galileo incident.But, perhaps because everybody has become hyper-sensitive to creationism's sneaky tactics or maybe out of fear of legal action...the idea of even mentioning creationism in any context is immediately suspect; it has become something of a taboo, it would seem. We may disagree on our perceptions, but we agree on the need for caution and weighing things carefully. I think it also wise that we take heed of this advice too, "The policy of being too cautious is the greatest risk of all." -- Jawaharlal Nehru Entirely. I enjoy barking, but I'd rather not be doing it up the wrong tree.

You all seem to be divorced from any social context by the scientific method. You seem to have no idea about how your ideas will play out in a classroom, or society at large, because that doesn't figure in the scientific method. You all seem to have no consideration for the decision of the invidual, or parents, or society about what to teach. You all don't seem to acknowledge the integrity of a person to decide what does and what doesn't go in their mind. Therefore for England I suggest to light the 10 pound Darwin notes, and to burn down the schools with them.

So you would go along with the fact that if parents wanted the schools to teach that Hitler was benevelant, or that Stalin was godly, or that the earth was made of chocolate you would agree because the parents want that? (Sounds utterly stupid doesn't it?) The point is that parents or the individual doesn't necessarily know what is right or correct. Science is only science do to the scientific method otherwise it is nothing but blind faith.Edited by bluescat48, : typos (my tping s#%ks

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Sure I would support the right of parentmembers of the blonde hair blue eyes appreciation society to teach their children as they see fit. Also to do this with shared money of society at large, on the basis of equal money per child. Since the rights too choose are guaranteed it would not promote nazism. Anything is better then being forced.

So then it matters not whether what is taught is true or not as long as the parents can get their children indoctrinated in what ever matter they choose.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Holy cow, he had to resign over this? Seems pretty harsh!

You couldn't have wished for a more timely incident for this thread, and I'm surprised no one else has replied because it deserves examination and discussion. Here's your link again: Royal Society's Michael Reiss resigns over creationism rowThe portion of Reiss's speech to the British Association for the Advancement of Science that caused the upset was described this way in the article: But this was just one tiny part of a longer speech, and it would help to put it in context, but I can't seem to find a link to the whole speech. The article does go on to quote a little more: But while poking around the web for the speech I found that Richard Dawkins and PZ Meyers have already chimed in:

• Dawkins: Creationism call divides Royal Society
  ​
• Meyers: Royal Society statement regarding Professor Michael Reiss

I suggest reading what they have to say, but in essence they disagree with Reiss's forced resignation because his suggestion of constructive engagement is already a widely accepted strategy, one that Dawkins and Meyers don't happen to agree with, but that they openly concede is widely accepted.--Percy

You may have missed it, it was rather stealthy, but I posted a link earlier in the thread to Reiss' original statement. Starting with the phrase you highlight, and continuing it for context:

quote:

---

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.

---

From Michael Reiss: How to convert a generation

quote:

---

“An increasing percentage of children in the UK come from families that do not accept the scientific version of the history of the universe and the evolution of species. What are we to do with those children?” he 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 that one really wants them to learn.

​

“I think a better way forward is to say to them, ’Look, I simply want to present you with the scientific understanding of the history of the universe and how animals and plants and other organisms evolved.” Discussing Creationism in a respectful way made it less likely that children would ignore science or detach from it, he said.

​

He added that he felt children would not be marked down for expressing creationist opinions in science exams: “As far as I’m aware examinations in science don’t penalise students for giving their personal opinions.”

---

Yeah, I've already read it - worth hearing their opinions. But obligatory tongue in cheek wrist slap alert. Ready? OK, it's Myers

Okay, now I'm really confused. Two things. First, you give two lengthy quotes from Reiss's speech and in between them say, "From Michael Reiss: How to convert a generation", but neither quote comes from that webpage. Anyway, thanks for the additional quotes, but though I used phrases from them for a Google search I still couldn't find a webpage with his speech. I know you say you posted it in the thread somewhere, but this thread is up to a hundred posts now.Second, I don't follow you here: What's Myers? Whose wrist is getting slapped? Whose tongue is in their cheek? Inquiring minds want to know! Anyway, all I was getting at was that it surprises me there weren't more detailed responses to your post about the resignation.--Percy

Ok, I did totally forget one cite and gave a completely different one than I meant to for the other, I was posting at work and I ended up having to actually do some work and submitted a little prematurely. Apologies for the confusion.The first quote is from Science lessons should tackle creationism and intelligent design and the second quote is from UK educator: Teach creationism. You can also hear him talk on the subject here. Whose Myers?
PZ Myers.
Not PZ Meyers
Your wrist, my tongue. It's a common misspelling of his name, it crops up a lot on the blog where he posts hatemail. Yeah, his words/actions don't seem to have damaged the reputation of the Royal Society, but the media's headlines have...but he's the only one capable of doing anything about that. It's fairly perverted.

I'm sure Reiss is well intentioned, but let me explain why I emphasised the fact that he is the Reverend Reiss in earlier posts.Considering the 10% of kids he identifies as being from a YEC background, we could broadly describe three possible eventual results of their exposure to science education in relation to their religions.(1) They accept the science, and adjust their religions to a version that accommodates it.(2) They accept the science, and lose all religious beliefs.(3) They reject all science that conflicts with their beliefs, and remain YECs.From the point of view of practical science education, the first two are equally desirable.Where I suggest that a Reverend who is a supporter of science education would differ is that (1) would be his preferred result, (3) second, and (2) third.The reason I suggest this is that one doesn't become a Reverend without being seriously religious, and without considering belief in God to be about the most important thing in the world. So, it could be that his motives are slightly dubious, but not in the sense of actually wanting to bring his God into the science class in the way that creationists do. His first worry must surely be that the clash of cultures will produce more non-believers from the YEC kids, and therefore an increasingly Godless society.In other words, he would believe it to be worth spending a lot of time in delicately changing the mindset of the kids, but, horror of horrors, not too far!The situation here is very different from that in the U.S. because of the relatively low proportion of kids from serious creationist families. However, that will be patchy, because of the high rate amongst families which have arrived in this country over the last few decades from far more superstitious cultures, so some schools will have a creationist percentage way over the national average.I think the best thing to do is to leave a lot of leeway to individual teachers, so long as guidelines ensure that practical teaching doesn't suffer.The best way of recognising the problem might be slightly extending teaching which includes easy to understand evidence of the age of the earth, things that can actually be counted like lake varves and ice cores. I'd certainly want varves that contain organic matter that can be neatly cross checked with carbon dating thoroughly explained.

Thats what liberals are good at, rationalizing towards an optimum. In this case the optimum is science education. But you forget that homo sapiens sapiens, have other purposes in life besides yer optimum. Now go making optimums for the environment, for driving safety, for drug use, for parental care, and generally tear people apart trying to fullfill the optimums. There is still no light in this thread, to fundamentally acknowledge students integrity of mind over the scientific method, which worthless method hasnt even established the free will of the students is real.

I know what you are saying, but never underestimate the power of cognitive dissonance and compartmentalization. Double think is very much real. It is possible for a person to think that both science teaching AND belief in God are the most important things without feeling any contradiction.Given he is but a lowly priest when it comes to God related matters, but was the Director of Education at the Royal society and is Professor of Science Education at the Institute of Education amongst other science education related accolades, qualifications and experience would lend me to believe that in practice science education is his life's work even if philosophically speaking he would say that devotion to baby Jesus was more important.That said, I'm sure the Jesus love may seep across from time to time, colouring this or that. For the most part, I think his desire to better science education is genuine and that his science education glasses are only slightly tinted with the blood of Christ.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Undoubtedly, double think is real. However, that still means problems with my 2nd possibility, and would then put it equal with the 3rd, rather than equal first, where the pure, uncontaminated interest of science education would put it.A school science teacher attempting to promote 2 over three would also have the wrong priority and should be censured, as there's certainly no evidence that compatible theism interferes directly with science understanding. As I said, I'm sure he's well intentioned. I'm only making an educated guess at the tinting, and I don't know enough about him personally to assess the degree of it. His Church, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the John Polkinghornes of this world are certainly not anti-science, and he's probably in that mold. My maternal grandfather was a Reverend in that church, was born in the 19th century, yet had no problems with Darwinism or other science that I can remember.To tell you the truth, whether or not we have a future increase in creationism in this country will probably depend more on future immigration policies than on science teaching, the pattern of economic migration in the world being generally from highly religious societies to secular ones. That fact's not much of an advertisement for religion, of course.

This article was in the NYT section of the Observer today. Seemed very relevant to this discussion.New York TimesABE: Firstly apologies to Admin Nosy (see his post below)It is my view that the teacher in this article is a good example of a teacher who is very able to deal with the difficulties of this topic in a classroom. I think this is exactly the sort of thing Reiss had in mind and that it was therefore unfair the way that this panned out for him.However I know that I would have not been nearly so competent if faced with this situation when I was a 23 year old newly qualified science teacher. Faced with a student bearing a copy of "10 things to ask about evolution" I would very probably have been caught totally unawares. Nor do I think most science teachers would relish this situation.
In most cases science teachers are members of the communities in which they teach both by residence and, in many cases, upbringing. Many may have some sympathy with the prevalent views of that community whether they fully agree with them or not.I don't think it is fair to inflict the position of evolutionary advocate on science teachers such that they are forced to become the focal point for the ongoing dispute between religion and science within their communities.The problem of faith based anti science feelings are problems for the whole of society not solely for individual science teachers. In practical terms allowing this subject into the classroom to any great extent, no matter how the noble the intentions may be, will detract from the teaching of science. Make it clear what is science and what is not with reasoned argument and then get on with teaching that which is.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.