Creationism in science classrooms (an argument for)

Dyslexia is not a good comparison, as its root causes are physical, and there's no known cure, so education is about recognising it and finding ways around it.A better comparison would be kids who are heavily indoctrinated with some kind of political ideology which could interfere with their understanding of subjects such as history or economics. This is rarely as important, because the beliefs are not usually held with the same degree of emotional attachment (heaven and hell aren't at stake!) but it's a similar thing.Another one can be kids who are heavily indoctrinated with racism in their homes, and who arrive at school with weird misconceptions about some of their classmates.In these cases, the problem is the parents and society as a whole, and it is not in the capabilities of school science teachers to solve it. Sure, an advice package on how to deal with a problem might be an idea, the kind of thing they might have to deal with kids who are racist, but that's all.The Reverend Whatshisname in your O.P. is part of the problem. Although his particular interpretation of religion may not conflict with science, he will be a supporter of the general idea of religious indoctrination, and the silly bugger should be told that that is the root cause of the problem. What is required is not laws, but a change in culture that recognises that any heavy indoctrination with political ideology or religion is a form of child abuse.So, this isn't a problem that can be solved instantly, but it doesn't require a major cultural shift in this country, because the overwhelming majority of parents will agree with my point about heavy indoctrination. If the children who have been abused suffer, then the abusers should be loudly blamed, and that includes people like the clergyman in your O.P., who involve themselves in education while supporting the principle of psychological child abuse.Some of your teaching suggestions are fine, but they should take place in the religious education/philosophy class, something I think should be given more importance. And all the major creation beliefs should be taught to all kids in that class, meaning that in this country, far more kids will get an exposure to the Genesis story than are now at home/church, so the Christians can hardly complain. Religion has had and is having an enormous influence on the world, and should, combined with philosophy, be considered a subject as important as geography, for example.It's here that I would like to see kids actively encouraged to have the kind of evo/creo debates we have here, as well as theist/atheist/agnostic debates.I've heard that religious conflict is now being included in some R. E. courses, and so it should be!

If you don't understand the posts you're replying to, please keep out of the conversation. If, by "chucking the whole enterprise" you mean stopping posting your inane ramblings on these threads, I think it would be a very good idea.

Science is the study of the universe based on observation and evidence. Reality is not a question of what people like and dislike. Truth does not adjust itself to your tastes.And why shouldn't inane posts be described as "inane"? If you don't want your feelings hurt, you could just stop making them!

Education is no longer their business? Religious beliefs that do not conflict with observed reality are not their business, but blatant misconceptions are. Reiss suggests that creationism should be seen as a world view, rather than a misconception. It is a "world view", but a misconceived one. If creationism is brought up by kids, a teacher could certainly explain that there is nothing in science that contradicts the idea that a god created the universe, because that's true, but beyond that creationism and I.D. would only come in to history of science (where they should be included). That may not be so different from what you're suggesting.But what I would recommend here in the U.K. is a course which is there to discuss such issues openly, the religion/philosophy class, so that the science teacher, faced with a persistent creationist child, can say "bring up the subject in your R. E. class". I'm actually entirely in favour of full discussion of EvC in U.K. schools, and a special place for it, along with discussion of any ideas the kids can think of, and more! But not in science classes.Reiss may not be a crackpot, but he is dubious.Would he spend time on the flat earth in geography if 10% of kids came from a flat earth believing background, or on astrology when teaching astronomy (and 10% probably do have parents who take their star signs seriously)?

Dubious because he's a religious person trying to extend the influence of religion into the science classes.I would be surprised if he's eyeing Dawkins' chair, and so would Charles Symonyi I imagine!I don't think that the 90% should be slowed down by the 10% in science classes in any way, and that the battle is really a long term one outside the science classes, and it's the battle against the heavy indoctrination of children with mumbo jumbo.The Reverend Reiss might be a good example of how liberal religion can inadvertently protect and promote fundamentalism.I've just this minute read a few of the comments on that Guardian page you linked to, and my description of Reiss as dubious is fairly mild compared to some of the reactions there!{Added by edit} Wow, not to mention reactions elsewhere!

quote:

---

Two Nobel prize winners - Sir Harry Kroto and Sir Richard Roberts - have demanded that the Royal Society sack its education director, Professor Michael Reiss. The call, backed by other senior Royal Society fellows, follows Reiss's controversial claim last week that creationism be taught in schools' science classes.

​

Reiss, an ordained Church of England minister, has since alleged he was misquoted. Nevertheless, several Royal Society fellows say his religious views make him an inappropriate choice for the post.

​

'I warned the president of the Royal Society that his [Reiss] was a dangerous appointment a year ago. I did not realise just how dangerous it would turn out to be,' said Kroto, a Royal Society fellow, and winner of the 1996 Nobel Prize for Chemistry.

​

Roberts, winner of the 1993 Nobel Prize for Medicine for his work on gene-splicing, was equally angry. 'I think it is outrageous that this man is suggesting that creationism should be discussed in a science classroom. It is an incredible idea and I am drafting a letter to other Nobel laureates - which would be sent to the Royal Society - to ask that Reiss be made to stand down.'

​

Zoologist Richard Dawkins, a Royal Society fellow, said: 'A clergyman in charge of education for the country's leading scientific organisation - it's a Monty Python sketch.'

---

That last one's predictable! From hereEdited by bluegenes, : marked addition

He'd be dead weird, taking you literally. Guessing at what you actually mean, science is already a-theistic, so it's difficult for atheism to intrude on itself. From long experience, I can tell you that rarely if ever will you meet a "Reverend" for whom religion is not by far the most important thing in life. There's a big difference between informed guesses and irrational prejudices. My guess is that, whether his behaviour is conscious or subconscious, the Reverend differs from both of us in that he does not want the children of fundy parents to lose their faith in God. It would be much more important to him that they remain theists than anything to do with learning science. So, hence the reason for delicacy. The object, you must understand, is that they learn science without losing the most important thing in the world, their faith in God, preferably the Christian version.Quite a bit of the learning of science, for them and the other 90%, could be sacrificed for this all important point.I'll admit to speculative guessing here, but you don't become a Reverend without being very serious about religion, which is why I'm emphasising it, and calling him Reverend rather than his full title. I admit prejudice, but not irrational prejudice.However, let's do some research as you say. He won't be obviously pushy about his religion, otherwise he wouldn't have got his present post.Most of what you say about creationism in science classes seems to be about teaching the history of science, and I'd always assumed that creationism and Paley's I.D. were already included in that. It's how Dawkins' teaches it, as you know, the intelligent watchmaker becoming a blind one. Anything more than that, for me, goes on the religious education course.

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.

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.