Director of Education at the Royal Society wants Creationism in Schools

[volatile]

Breaking news:

"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." - http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article4734767.ece

This is entirely at odds with the Royal Society's published stance on creationism, Royal Society statement on evolution, creationism and intelligent design, though the news media is presenting this as the official view of the Society, and claiming "that Professor Reiss’s views did represent that of its president, Lord Rees of Ludlow, and the society".

I can hardly believe it. How does someone who can say the words "Just because something lacks scientific support doesn’t seem to me a sufficient reason to omit it from a science lesson" in all seriousness not only be a Fellow of the Royal Society, but eminent enough to be its Director of Education!

 

[volatile]

No-one?

 

[Wildy]

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." - http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article4734767.ece

Well apart from his reasoning being wrong, it also sounds a little unfair doesn't it? He's calling for the UK education system to push the agenda of a minority of students. I'm wondering if this isn't one of those things that he said to be "PC" (or whatever the hell the acronym is in the UK nowadays).

This is entirely at odds with the Royal Society's published stance on creationism, Royal Society statement on evolution, creationism and intelligent design, though the news media is presenting this as the official view of the Society, and claiming "that Professor Reiss’s views did represent that of its president, Lord Rees of Ludlow, and the society".

I can hardly believe it. How does someone who can say the words "Just because something lacks scientific support doesn’t seem to me a sufficient reason to omit it from a science lesson" in all seriousness not only be a Fellow of the Royal Society, but eminent enough to be its Director of Education!

All I can say is that if you argue with creationists you will be pointing out that the Royal Society doesn't agree with Reiss, continuously, for the rest of your days arguing with creationists.

Ideally he should be reprimanded, or something like that. Unless he was stating this in his capacity of being the Director of Education for the RS, then there really isn't anything they can do.

 

[Seismosaurus]

As a UK science teacher, I can say that if they ever put creationism into our science lessons, I for one will simply use it as a model of the kind of thing that is not science, irregardless of what the curriculum has to say on the matter. And I know the rest of the department feel the same way.

 

[AgeGap]

As sure as Pi=3 it is a great idea to teach creationism in school.

 

[volatile]

Ideally he should be reprimanded, or something like that. Unless he was stating this in his capacity of being the Director of Education for the RS, then there really isn't anything they can do.

Well, that's the thing. It does seem to now be the official policy of the Society - "Professor Reiss’s views did represent that of its president, Lord Rees of Ludlow, and the society".

 

[volatile]

As a UK science teacher, I can say that if they ever put creationism into our science lessons, I for one will simply use it as a model of the kind of thing that is not science, irregardless of what the curriculum has to say on the matter. And I know the rest of the department feel the same way.

Do you know much about the situation in other schools? Dawkin's Genius of Darwin series was a rather uncomfortable peek on the kind of policy decisions some schools are making on their attitudes to creationism.

 

[Wildy]

Well, that's the thing. It does seem to now be the official policy of the Society - "Professor Reiss’s views did represent that of its president, Lord Rees of Ludlow, and the society".

By Jove you're right.

I added a "not" where I shouldn't have.

Now that is disturbing.

 

[AgeGap]

This register link shows why They want it discussed. (I think!) This was discussed on Radio 4 yesterday as I was driving into work. The creationists have a lot of answers to the scientists questions. They think that there is a young earth and fossils were created in the flood. They are a force to be reckoned with.

 

[H3LL]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/12/creationism_in_uk_schools/They are a force farce to be reckoned with.

You had a typo.

I agree.



.

 

[AgeGap]

I trust that the Royal Society know what they are doing.
@H3LL. I wish it was a farce. The creationist nut jobs remind me of truthers. They start off with a view point and then bend science and logic to fit. The creationists have God on their side though.

 

[Wildy]

@H3LL. I wish it was a farce. The creationist nut jobs remind me of truthers. They start off with a view point and then bend science and logic to fit. The creationists have God on their side though.

Actually I think that "truthers" are the CT form of creationists. You can argue with both and see the exact same arguments being used, except for different things.

 

[Seismosaurus]

Do you know much about the situation in other schools? Dawkin's Genius of Darwin series was a rather uncomfortable peek on the kind of policy decisions some schools are making on their attitudes to creationism.

Schools don't tend to have that much cross talk with one another, so I couldn't really say.

In a sense "teaching creationism" isn't a big deal, depending on how it's done. For instance whne you're getting onto big bang theory it's not unusual to start with an overview of historical models - Flat Earth on a turtle, Geocentric, Heliocentric, Milky Way as they whole universe versus Milky Way as just one of many galaxies, all that. It's not something you dwell on, more a "how our ideas have changed over time."

If it comes to it with creationism/ID, I'd do something similar. Use it as an example of how people are trying to redress and cling on to mythical thinking in a modern world. No way am I ever going to teach it as anything approaching a viable alternative to evolution, and no way am I ever going to pretend that there's any kind of scientific controversy over it.

 

[Nogbad]

To be fair, the Professor is not talking about teaching creationism he is talking about engaging those who object to evolution on creationist grounds.

He also said

"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 don't think this is a problem.

 

[ohms]

And away he goes....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7619670.stm

 

[volatile]

Wow. That's quite surprising given the public backing the Society seemed to have given him at the time of his remarks...

 

[MarkCorrigan]

irregardless

[Derail]AAARRRGGHH! NOT. A. WORD. [/Derail]

ETA: This goes to show you should read ALL sources before putting your foot in your mouth.

 

[SusanB-M1]

[Derail]AAARRRGGHH! NOT. A. WORD. [/Derail]

This post strongly supports your comment!

 

[Dr. Fascism]

You guys have got to be kidding me. "Skeptics?" Hah!

Here's the guy's own words. You should read them instead of taking other peoples' misinterpretations of them:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2008/sep/11/michael.reiss.creationism

The guy wasn't suggesting teaching creationism in the slightest. Are you so change-blind from seeing the REAL weirdos that you can't tell the people trying to make a sensible point?

Before you say, "ONLY COLD HARD SCIENCE IN THE SCIENCE CLASSROOM!" please, you don't even believe that. Many times, say, ethical considerations, such as the usage of animals in medical and other scientific testing, is discussed in classes as a necessity. Research involving human subjects has ethical considerations and those are taught, again, as a necessity.

Rev. Reiss (yes, a clergyman; that is potentially problematic, but that is not expressed here) merely stated that creationism is, to most students, part of a worldview and that merely teaching the facts about evolution is not going to shake them.

I'm going to go over some points of his.

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.

Sorry to say to some of you, but science education is not simply bludgeoning students with "facts", as method and understanding is more important than the actual results, as the scientific "facts" of today can be updated or changed given what we know tomorrow. He's not suggesting that evolution is wrong or that creationism is right, merely that, by raising up some of the objections to evolution, you can show why they are misguided:

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.

Now, let's look here:

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.

He's basically saying that not all students are going to come out understanding or accepting evolution no matter how well it's taught; do the best you can, hopefully they'll catch on to some of it. And that's true, you people of all should know how futile it seems to be to educate the credulous. At least, theoretically; I find these forums to have their own type of credulity as shown in this very topic.

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.

And he's damn right. His view isn't even accomodationist: he's viewing creationism as unscientific and not going to go away easily, and he's right. He's basically for bringing it up and showing why the damn thing is wrong, while being respectful to students.

And people call ME a militant atheist...

 

[Dr. Fascism]

To be fair, the Professor is not talking about teaching creationism he is talking about engaging those who object to evolution on creationist grounds.

He also said

"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 don't think this is a problem.

As usual here there's at least ONE voice of sanity. It's a shame everyone else, and particularly the scientific community and Royal Society, had such a knee-jerk reaction to language that even remotely sounds like endorsing creationism when, in context, it's not even close, that a man has to have his name dragged through the mud and vilified all for, frankly, expressing a good idea.