Creationism should be taught in UK schools

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2008-09-13 06:13am

According to an unfortunately well placed guy.

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.

Evolution

Creationists take a literal interpretation of the Bible's description of the origin of life and reject the Darwinian concept of evolution. Some Muslims also support creationist theories.

Prof Reiss, speaking at the British Association Festival of Science at the University of Liverpool, estimates that about one in 10 children is from a family which supports a creationist view rather than evolutionary.

He says that in his experience it is more effective to include discussion about creationism alongside scientific theories such as the Big Bang and evolution.

"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? 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'.

He also added a clarification on his position regarding creationism in schools.

"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 have referred to science teachers discussing creationism as a worldview'; this is not the same as lending it any scientific credibility."

Understanding the universe

Prof Reiss said that he had shifted his own views on how to respond to creationism.

"I realised that simply banging on about evolution and natural selection didn't lead some pupils to change their minds at all.

"Now I would be more content simply for them to understand it as one way of understanding the universe."

This was challenged by Simon Underdown, senior lecturer in the department of anthropology at Oxford Brookes University.

Creationism should be taught within the context of religion rather than science, said Dr Underdown.

"It is not something that fits within the mainstream of science."

With so much to be crammed into science lessons, it was not a worthwhile use of time to include lessons about creationism, he argued.

At least the article itself got a main argument against it in there.

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2008-09-13 06:14am

Also, I rather foolishly forgot the link:

BBC.

Bounty · Post by **Bounty** » 2008-09-13 06:35am

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.

It seems to me like he's advocating a change in tone more than a change in curriculum, but one that can be achieved far more easily outside science classes. If I understand him correctly, he's protesting against schools simply dismissing creationism outright, which is not as stupid as it sounds; there's merit in objectively studying creationism and the reasons for its existence in, say, a religious or social studies class. However, he takes it a step too far when he suggests sacrificing time from biology classes to explore what is not a scientific subject.

He's right that you'll reach more creationist children if you acknowledge their belief and discuss why it doesn't fit in with the scientific method instead of simply ignoring the issue, but the way he wants to handle it seems... naive. Underdown's got the better response here.

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2008-09-13 06:43am

I fully concur. Frankly, if an RE class detailed the creationist belief, the movement, what they say and why they say it like they do with other beliefs, it would be better for everyone. The creationists would have their beliefs on show, all the normal kids would learn to identify creationism and see how it is distinguished from science and so forth (lessons that will be important further down the line if any of them go into education law or whatever).

Frankly, the worst offenders for creationism-related bastardry are the evangelical and jewish faith schools, but while Gordon Brown is incredibly unpopular and everyone else is rather facile on the issue of faith schools (i.e. they get good marks, leave them be), I do not see any sort of biology educational enforcement in them any time soon.

Lusankya · Post by **Lusankya** » 2008-09-13 06:49am

A better way to help students understand what is and isn't a scientific theory would be to do a general overview of "what science is" as the first unit in a general science class. Then they can be shown some phoenomena and choose which theory sounds more scientific - the naturalistic one, or "magic man did it".

The problem with using something specific (say, creationism, or intelligent falling) as an example is that some students will have some kind of emotional investment in the 'theory'. Not to mention that it could confuse some of the less intelligent students, who might not understand the bit where the teacher says "creationism is NOT science."

wautd · Post by **wautd** » 2008-09-13 06:50am

I don't see the problem. By all means have the students shown the errors with creationism

wautd · Post by **wautd** » 2008-09-13 06:53am

Creationists take a literal interpretation of the Bible's description of the origin of life and reject the Darwinian concept of evolution. Some Muslims also support creationist theories.

Some muslims?

Christen creationists are actually a minority in the christian faith, never mind the fact that other world religions contain far more creationists

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2008-09-13 07:36am

wautd wrote:
Creationists take a literal interpretation of the Bible's description of the origin of life and reject the Darwinian concept of evolution. Some Muslims also support creationist theories.
Some muslims?
Christen creationists are actually a minority in the christian faith, never mind the fact that other world religions contain far more creationists

Actually, according to my last thread on faith schools in the UK, muslim faith schools actually do seem to teach less creationism than the christian and jewish faith schools, who are heavily influenced by America.

Vendetta · Post by **Vendetta** » 2008-09-13 08:58am

Lusankya wrote:A better way to help students understand what is and isn't a scientific theory would be to do a general overview of "what science is" as the first unit in a general science class. Then they can be shown some phoenomena and choose which theory sounds more scientific - the naturalistic one, or "magic man did it".

The problem with using something specific (say, creationism, or intelligent falling) as an example is that some students will have some kind of emotional investment in the 'theory'. Not to mention that it could confuse some of the less intelligent students, who might not understand the bit where the teacher says "creationism is NOT science."

He's not saying that teachers should use creationism as a specific example, but to give a reasoned response rather than a flat dismissal if a student asks questions about creationist myths

This isn't about introducing creationism to science classes, only about how to respond to it if it comes up.

Molyneux · Post by **Molyneux** » 2008-09-13 09:40am

Sounds fairly well-reasoned and valid to me...though it does strike me that all sides are going to be claiming victory if it does actually get instated as a policy.

Lusankya · Post by **Lusankya** » 2008-09-13 10:00am

Vendetta wrote: He's not saying that teachers should use creationism as a specific example, but to give a reasoned response rather than a flat dismissal if a student asks questions about creationist myths

This isn't about introducing creationism to science classes, only about how to respond to it if it comes up.

You're right. I misread it as him suggesting preemptively bringing it up.

Kanastrous · Post by **Kanastrous** » 2008-09-14 01:47pm

If the flavor of Creationist instruction was purely designed to undermine Creationism, ridicule it and kick out every conceivable prop used to support it, I could see that as having some value in the classroom.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2008-09-14 01:52pm

I think they should actually teach courses on the reasons why the scientific method is superior to the religious method. One of the biggest concerns I have about science is that millions of people in the western world accept the superiority of science but it's just a word to them: a name for a collection of experts whose methods and conclusions they don't understand. So all you have to do in order to undermine science is to say that you have a handful of scientists on your side, and people instantly think there must be some credibility to what you are saying.

If more people understood not just that science is superior, but WHY science is superior, a lot of religious arguments would lose most of their power. So many anti-scientific arguments rely on the same rhetorical tricks, which in turn rely on the fact that most people don't really have an idea why the scientific method is better than all previous methods. So they misrepresent it, or focus on one part of it while ignoring another key part, and nobody notices.

CaptainZoidberg · Post by **CaptainZoidberg** » 2008-09-14 02:16pm

I remember reading a physics textbook in High School that started off by saying that science is a way of knowing how things happen, and that religion is a way of knowing why things happen.

IMO, the best thing to do is to actually make students use the scientific method in science classes when dealing with abstract scenarios. As far as I remember, that wasn't really done.

Also English classes might benefit by offering classes where the Bible is taught as literature, without the curriculum taking any definitive stance on whether it's true or not.

Zac Naloen · Post by **Zac Naloen** » 2008-09-14 02:19pm

I remember reading a physics textbook in High School that started off by saying that science is a way of knowing how things happen, and that religion is a way of knowing why things happen.

I can't point out why exactly but something about that phrase has always caused me to cock an eyebrow at the person speaking it.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2008-09-14 02:23pm

CaptainZoidberg wrote:I remember reading a physics textbook in High School that started off by saying that science is a way of knowing how things happen, and that religion is a way of knowing why things happen.

What imbecile published this textbook?

IMO, the best thing to do is to actually make students use the scientific method in science classes when dealing with abstract scenarios. As far as I remember, that wasn't really done.

Wrong. If they're not taught why it's superior, they won't understand the justification for the method. We engineers like to say that technicians know how to do something, but not why. It's the same here: teaching students how to collect data and draw conclusions is not the same thing as teaching them why this method is superior to all others.

Also English classes might benefit by offering classes where the Bible is taught as literature, without the curriculum taking any definitive stance on whether it's true or not.

Any honest attempt to teach the Bible as literature would inevitably lead to the conclusion that it's among the worst-written literature ever produced.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2008-09-14 03:19pm

I must confess, I do get the impression most people who shun science's answers do so out of lack of understanding exactly how we derive such answers. It's not uncommon for me to come across people who say "Well that's THEIR opinion. I'll stick with mine" before they resort to all sorts of other red herrings. Debating those who deny climate change, for instance, feel the fact that some scientists dispute the exact details means the whole thing is a sham and scientists can NEVER change their minds, because that means they don't know what they're talking about.

As far as they're concerned, coming to different conclusions based on personal anecdotes or reading pseudoscience rubbish is just as valid as empiricism using the Bacon method.

ray245 · Post by **ray245** » 2008-09-15 01:01am

Darth Wong wrote:Any honest attempt to teach the Bible as literature would inevitably lead to the conclusion that it's among the worst-written literature ever produced.

But Mike...doesn't the bible have a major impact on literature as a whole in the modern world?

Masami von Weizegger · Post by **Masami von Weizegger** » 2008-09-15 01:08am

ray245 wrote:But Mike...doesn't the bible have a major impact on literature as a whole in the modern world?

That does not mean it's competently written.

JBG · Post by **JBG** » 2008-09-15 04:39am

Mr Wong wrote:

"I think they should actually teach courses on the reasons why the scientific method is superior to the religious method. One of the biggest concerns I have about science is that millions of people in the western world accept the superiority of science but it's just a word to them: a name for a collection of experts whose methods and conclusions they don't understand. So all you have to do in order to undermine science is to say that you have a handful of scientists on your side, and people instantly think there must be some credibility to what you are saying.

If more people understood not just that science is superior, but WHY science is superior, a lot of religious arguments would lose most of their power. So many anti-scientific arguments rely on the same rhetorical tricks, which in turn rely on the fact that most people don't really have an idea why the scientific method is better than all previous methods. So they misrepresent it, or focus on one part of it while ignoring another key part, and nobody notices."

and

"CaptainZoidberg wrote:
I remember reading a physics textbook in High School that started off by saying that science is a way of knowing how things happen, and that religion is a way of knowing why things happen.

What imbecile published this textbook?
Quote:
IMO, the best thing to do is to actually make students use the scientific method in science classes when dealing with abstract scenarios. As far as I remember, that wasn't really done.

Wrong. If they're not taught why it's superior, they won't understand the justification for the method. We engineers like to say that technicians know how to do something, but not why. It's the same here: teaching students how to collect data and draw conclusions is not the same thing as teaching them why this method is superior to all others.
Quote:
Also English classes might benefit by offering classes where the Bible is taught as literature, without the curriculum taking any definitive stance on whether it's true or not.

Any honest attempt to teach the Bible as literature would inevitably lead to the conclusion that it's among the worst-written literature ever produced."

I couldn't agree more. The scientific method is one of the greatest achievements of man to date in my view. The concept of falsifiability renders creationism unsuitable for mention in science classes. Leave it in religion or philosophy etc.

Bounty · Post by **Bounty** » 2008-09-15 04:44am

Masami von Weizegger wrote:
ray245 wrote:But Mike...doesn't the bible have a major impact on literature as a whole in the modern world?
That does not mean it's competently written.

The impact it has is less on literature and more on linguistics, and that's through the various translations, not the original text. The only people who have a vested interest in studying the literary aspects of the Bible are those who are studying the evolution of narrative in the region and time period the various books were written, not high schoolers.

Molyneux · Post by **Molyneux** » 2008-09-15 06:51am

Bounty wrote:
Masami von Weizegger wrote:
ray245 wrote:But Mike...doesn't the bible have a major impact on literature as a whole in the modern world?
That does not mean it's competently written.
The impact it has is less on literature and more on linguistics, and that's through the various translations, not the original text. The only people who have a vested interest in studying the literary aspects of the Bible are those who are studying the evolution of narrative in the region and time period the various books were written, not high schoolers.

Although even I have to admit that there are a few seriously memorable quotes in there. "Judge not lest ye be judged", "Let there be light", "I have been a stranger in a strange land", etc.

Bounty · Post by **Bounty** » 2008-09-15 06:55am

Although even I have to admit that there are a few seriously memorable quotes in there. "Judge not lest ye be judged", "Let there be light", "I have been a stranger in a strange land", etc.

Do you know these quotes because they were in the bible, or because other authors have adopted them in modern literature?

Pulp Hero · Post by **Pulp Hero** » 2008-09-15 09:00am

Bounty wrote:
Although even I have to admit that there are a few seriously memorable quotes in there. "Judge not lest ye be judged", "Let there be light", "I have been a stranger in a strange land", etc.
Do you know these quotes because they were in the bible, or because other authors have adopted them in modern literature?

But doesn't that example just prove that the Bible does indeed have a literary footprint. Something that has spawned the major religion of the Western world is going to get referenced in books now and again.

Twoyboy · Post by **Twoyboy** » 2008-09-15 11:11am

Pulp Hero wrote:
Bounty wrote:
Although even I have to admit that there are a few seriously memorable quotes in there. "Judge not lest ye be judged", "Let there be light", "I have been a stranger in a strange land", etc.
Do you know these quotes because they were in the bible, or because other authors have adopted them in modern literature?
But doesn't that example just prove that the Bible does indeed have a literary footprint. Something that has spawned the major religion of the Western world is going to get referenced in books now and again.

Doesn't mean it's worth studying though, any more than we should study the industrial revolution in literature class due to its effect on Dickens' writing. Stealing a few choice quotes to please the powers that be of your time is hardly a huge influence.

Like the industrial revolution, the only place the bible should be mentioned is in history class, and even then, only to highlight the effect it has had on events (crusades, inquisition, etc).

PS Speaking of Dickens, he shouldn't be taught in Lit either, that shit is just painful.