Call for creationism in science

[TechBear_Seattle]

Don't jump to any conclusions until you've read the linked article. :hi:

Call for creationism in science

Creationism should be discussed in school science lessons, rather than excluded, says the director of education at the Royal Society.

Professor Michael Reiss says that if pupils have strongly-held beliefs about creationism these should be explored.

Rather than dismissing creationism as a "misconception", he says it should be seen as a cultural "world view".

Teachers should take the time to explain why creationism had no scientific basis, Prof Reiss said.

He stressed that the topic should not be taught as science.

This was more valuable than simply "banging on" about evolution, he said.

Prof Reiss, a biologist and Church of England minister, said he now believed it was more effective to engage with pupils' ideas about creationism, rather than to obstruct discussion with those who do not accept the scientific version of the evolution of species.

The article continues at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/7612152.stm

[mrreowwr_kittty]

1. I have no problem with that.

Creation should be taught, along with other religious narratives, as part of classes on theology. I think it would be very valuable for students to learn about the history of world religions and how they have shaped politics and events. Just don't teach it as science, because it's not.

[dmallind]

2. And in the UK he's probably right

The difference being that they do not have a huge and powerful lobby who insist that it is science, insist that it control their legislation of human rights and freedoms and so on.

In such a society there is nothing to be lost in saying "some of you think an invisible sky fairy eished the world into existence and that's fine as a world view as long as you know it's only faith, but here's why it's not science....."

In ours giving even that much room for the camel's nose in the last remaining tent not swimming in camel dung is too much.

Here religion rules everything BUT public education, so being able to hold off that one besieged refuge should be a priority.

[Tikki]

3. If my state where to institute creationism during the Science curriculum...

I would make sure my grandson had an opt out opportunity...

After-all, some school districts offer an opt out for parents who don't want
their children to learn about the human body at school.

Tikki

[ladjf]

4. Creationism is only a religious "notion". There is no "body of

knowledge" with regard to Creationism. There is no way to make of substantial curriculum out of a notion. It could be mentioned in some class, describing it as a religious idea about Cosmology.

[Caria]

5. With good science teachers, this could be great

There are some fairly easy experiments they could do they will demonstrate evolution in a week.

They could also teach the difference between scientific theory and pseudoscientific sophistry.

[JustFiveMoreMinutes]

6. So when is 'Science' going to be discussed in 'Church'?

Seriously.

I doubt ANY middle/high school discussion of Evolution has ever been done without some discussion of Creationism, especially in the Bible Belt. Discussion is always fine. It's the forcing of 'standards' that are to be taught and tested equally that is the problem.

However, JUST WHEN do you think any FUNDAMENTALIST organization is going to discuss the scientific method and critical thinking alongside faith?

I vote NEVER.

[FiveGoodMen]

8. They discuss it all the time.

How they hate it.

How they want to do away with it.

[ColbertWatcher]

13. Yes, as they enjoy their purified holy water and satanic electrical lights, etc. n/t

[TZ]

7. Sounds rational

But could be disruptive by those in the classroom who could take it as an opportunity to give their "point of view" as Sarah Palin would maintain.

[muriel_volestrangler]

9. 'Creationism' biologist quits job

Professor Michael Reiss has quit as director of education at the Royal Society following the controversy over his recent comments on creationism.

Last week Prof Reiss - a Church of England minister - said creationism should be discussed in science lessons if pupils raised the issue.

He was criticised by other scientists - though misquoted as saying creationism should be "taught" in science classes.

The society said some of his comments had been "open to misinterpretation".

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

[TechBear_Seattle]

10. It is a shame that he resigned

We desperately need more teachers who are willing to engage students and explain the difference between science and theology.

[muriel_volestrangler]

11. He seemed a bit of a defeatist, to me

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.
...
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.
...
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

The thing is, creationism isn't about "objective evidence and logical argument". And because of that, I wonder if you can stick to those while still "taking seriously and respectfully" the creationist viewpoint, in a science lesson. Reiss's position seems to be "you can't convince the creationists, all you can do is tell them what you think yourself".

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

12. A teacher has a limited number of minutes available for each unit

To waste a single minute in a science class discussing creationism is a disservice to the students who are there to learn. If a student were to come in and say, "I propose we do this scientific experiment to test the theory of creationism," it might be worthy of consideration. But it's impossible for them to do that, so all they do is to regurgitate faulty logic (or no logic at all), unproven facts (or no facts at all), or just out and out lies to confuse the other students (which doesn't take a lot) and more importantly, to eat up time that should be spent teaching the science of evolution, all the while claiming "academic freedom." It's the same thing the Repug talking heads do on television. They just keep talking and yelling and interrupting and using up as much time as possible so the other side of the issue can't be heard.

Creationism is mythology. "Intelligent design" is, "I'm just too lazy (or stupid) to do the hard work necessary to understand how the universe works."

What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history.” What are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts! -- from "The Notebooks of Lazarus Long" (Time Enough For Love, by Robert Heinlein)

[anigbrowl]

16. I'm fine with responding to student questions about it

It's a perfect opportunity for discussing the scientific method, concepts of hypothesis, evidence and provability and so on. This is how it got discussed in my (european) schools growing up and it worked just fine, with no negative impact on our science learning.

[sakabatou]

14. Could be taught as an example of how science REALLY works and understand the world

[Thor_MN]

15. Should be taught as a comparitive study along with other creation myths

Does not belong in a science class as there is no scientific basis for it. Finding ancient sites mentioned in the bible are as close as they can get. Did I mention that I'm mere months from finding the ancient whaling port of Nantucket, thereby proving the existence of a mighty white whale?