Creationism in science classrooms (an argument for)

This thread is being tugged in two different directions. There's the topic of the opening post, which asks if and how non-scientific ideas should be addressed, and then there's the claim that creationism is real science that is being systematically excluded. I don't think the latter issue is on-topic.Concerning this from the opening post: I was at the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto last week and overheard a conversation between one of the volunteers and a patron. The volunteer was explaining potassium/argon dating, and then uranium/lead dating, and the patron asked if there wasn't some way that radioactive decay could be accelerated, clearly a creationist question. The volunteer replied that he wasn't aware of any and the conversation ended, but this exchange illustrates how easily simple scientific exchanges can shift onto pseudoscientific issues, and this can happen in the classroom as easily as anywhere else.It seems like it would be awkward to just refuse to address or acknowledge creationist challenges when they come up, and I hope most science teachers don't do that, but they shouldn't allow are detailed presentation or discussion of creationist positions, either. As Modulous suggests, these are opportunities to explain the evidence and rational for scientific positions.This is because it is science that we teach in science class. Science attempts to understand the natural world and is constantly checked against reality, and it just isn't possible for invalid scientific models to survive. New models that are superior to old ones cannot be denied their place in the sun. If creationists have better scientific theories than traditional science then they will produce better results and quickly out-compete existing theories. There's no way to prevent this from happening.That creationist theories have convinced less than 1% of scientists and less than 0.1% of biologists is because their theories are not accurate representations of reality. When creationists start producing theories that out-compete and replace current ones, then those theories will be the ones that get taught in science class.---Percy

I think you're addressing the wrong topic. This thread isn't about alleged evolutionist censorship of creationist views, but about whether well known views that are considered unscientific should be addressed in science class.--Percy

Maybe we could stop replying to messages that don't address the topic?--Percy

Hi Johnfolton,Could you please stop posting to this thread unless you have something to say about the topic? I think you know how to propose new topics. Thanks.--Percy

This seems to me the most important point. I feel pretty much the same way. Regarding Cavediver's proposal in Message 16, since I'm not familiar with the British system I can't say if my lack of enthusiasm for it is due to differences between the two systems or is more fundamental, but his seems like a full course on the history, philosophy and current status of creationism. As an elective course I think it would be a great idea, but as a required part of the science curriculum I think it would take an unjustifiably disproportionate amount of the total time available.--Percy

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

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