Creeds
Michael Reiss, a priest, a biologist and the Royal Society’s director of eduation, says he ‘feels’ that ‘creationism is best seen by science teachers not as a misconception but as a world view.’
But a world view can be a misconception, and often is. The two are not contradictory or mutually exclusive. That is in fact a problem with a lot of world views: they are based on misconceptions.
Other scientists, fortunately, disagree with Reiss.
Professor Reiss, a biologist, was speaking at the British Association’s Festival of Science in Liverpool. Other scientists were vociferous in their response, saying that creationism should remain entirely within the sphere of religious education. Professor Lewis Wolpert, of University College Medical School, said: “Creationism is based on faith and has nothing to do with science, and it should not be taught in science classes. It is based on religious beliefs and any discussion should be in religious studies.” Dr John Fry, a physicist at the University of Liverpool, said: “Science lessons are not the appropriate place to discuss creationism, which is a world view in total denial of any form of scientific evidence. Creationism doesn’t challenge science: it denies it!”
The Independent takes a ‘this side that side’ view, as if it were running for office.
Proponents of evolution believe species change by a process of random genetic mutations. They believe the world is 13-14 billion years old. Creationists, in contrast, believe that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, and that its existence is the result of one of the processes described in religious texts like the Bible.
It’s not a matter of each side ‘believing’ things in exactly the same sense, and shouldn’t be presented as such. One side has grounds for the ‘belief’ and the other side doesn’t, so it’s misleading to use the same word for both unless that is pointed out.
From the article:
“Professor Reiss, a Church of England clergyman, said: “Just because something lacks scientific support doesn’t seem to me a sufficient reason to omit it from a science lesson.””
-CM
CM, I wonder if he’d respond the same way if scientists starting to insist that theories without theological support ought to be included in philosophy of religion classes, Sunday schools, and so on. I doubt he would be so open-minded.
Recently, Pharygula linked to a story about a Florida high school teacher who tried to be sensitive to students who had been taught creationism at home and church. It showed him dancing around the issue, as something too hot to handle. Instead of helping young people think scientifically, it really ended lending credibility to creationist views (at least in the minds of the young people concerned). PZ Myers was quite scathing in his rebuke of the teacher.
It’s a bit like trying to accept Holocaust denial in history classes. ‘Dealing with it’ ends up legitimating it. Once you permit something false to be a pole (an accepted world view) in a discussion, the game is up. It’s not a sensitive way of getting people to see sense. It makes a nonsense of everything. Professor Reiss is an educator, but he’s also a priest. As an educator, he’s dead wrong. I needn’t point out which part of him is doing the pulling.
I did a post about the Florida teacher and then a follow-up.
It depends how much time is available. If Young Earth creationism, based on a literal acceptance of the Book of Genesis, were offered as an hypothesis for discussion on the origin of life, I doubt it would last 5 minutes in open free discussion in a modern biology class.
Genesis as a ‘parable’ or ‘metaphor’ is something else again: the goalposts can be shifted any which way by the creationists.
Free and open discussion is what authoritarian Christians have always understandably abhorred. Hence the persecution of Bruno and Galileo, and the historical hostility of institutionalised Christianity to the teaching of evolution anywhere, and their desire for private schools and to run their own courses of indoctrination on their own young people.
No one, except perhaps that reporter, thinks that the world is 13 billion years old. 4.5 is the usual approximation. 13 billion might do for the age of the universe, which is a tad bigger. A point lost on creationists, of course.
Of course you did, OB. I’m sorry. Brain full (or some such lame excuse).
I notice I even posted (several times) on your follow up. Oh my! It must be age related!
“It depends how much time is available. If Young Earth creationism, based on a literal acceptance of the Book of Genesis, were offered as an hypothesis for discussion on the origin of life, I doubt it would last 5 minutes in open free discussion in a modern biology class.
Genesis as a ‘parable’ or ‘metaphor’ is something else again: the goalposts can be shifted any which way by the creationists.”
Well, let’s not forget the meta-goalpost-shifting, in which Christians freely move between the “literal” and “metaphorical” interpretations depending on how the argument is going.
I thought perhaps the reporter meant ‘the world’ as ‘the cosmos’ rather than ‘the earth’ – or then again perhaps not. The whole paragraph is silly.
This ‘believe’ thing…there’s Sarah Palin telling the world what she ‘believes’ about climate change. Who cares what she ‘believes’?
Here is a quote from a letter written by Charles Darwin regarding a sermon preached by Dr. Pusey. There are several interesting aspects of the quote, chief among which is Darwin’s conviction that there was at the time virtual scientific unanimity (in 1878!) over evolution. It is simply astonishing that we are having this discussion now, over one hundred years later, when the scientific consensus is even stronger than it was then. Not surprising, perhaps, that it is a CofE clergyman who is muddying the waters, although the CofE website is going to publish a page supporting evolution, and opposing creationism (which, it is believed, rightly, has darkened the name of religion). Here’s the quote:
“Dr Pusey’s attack will be as powerless to retard by a day the belief in evolution as were the virulent attacks made by divines fifty years ago against Geology, & the still older ones of the Catholic church against Galileo, for the public is wise enough always to follow scientific men when they agree on any subject; & now there is almost complete unanimity amongst Biologists about Evolution, tho’ there is still considerable difference as to the means, such as how far natural selection has acted & how far external conditions, or whether there exists some mysterious innate tendency to perfectibility.” (Letter 11766 to HN Ridley)
It is interesting that, elsewhere in his letters, Darwin uses the term ‘intelligent design,’ (Letter 3154 to Sir John Herschel) with reference to Asa Gray’s ideas, which he elsewhere calls his (Asa Gray’s) ‘peculiar views’ ‘about variation being led along certain definite lines’ (which is how religion and evolution can be made consistent with one aother) would, in his view, ‘render natural selection quite superfluous.’ (Letter 10576 to J.D. Hooker)
Why should anyone think it helpful to stall the whole thing at this point?
It’s good to have those quotes, Eric. Darwin’s letters are obviously a gold-mine. To save me chasing it up, can you give a URL that takes us to the Darwin letters?
http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/
That should take you there, Allen.
Ooooooh, Allen, didn’t you know about the Darwin project? A gold mine indeed. I posted links in News when it inaugurated, a year or two ago. One of the marvels of the internet, thanks to Cambridge.
There is, in theory at least, a class in which creationism and ID might be discussed. But in practice — how many schools are offering courses in “How to Think About Weird Things”?
Reiss says in the original piece: “I do believe in taking seriously and respectfully the concerns of students who do not accept the theory of evolution”. Why should ignorance be treated “respectfully”? Should schools treat children’s illiteracy “respectfully”, and not compel them to learn to read?
Reiss says his view was misrepresented in the press reports:
“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.”
http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/7705
This “feel” and “believe” thing is total garbage. I thought it was harumphing Allan Bloom types that went on about that, but a friend, an ecologist, tells me that he was external examiner for some papers on ecology and besides the bad grammar it was all rhetoric and feeling – no analysis, no evidence.
No-one would take “feel” and “believe” from their dentist or even their plumber.
I blame the – well, someone or some organisation must be to blame.
The Times has published a puzzling letter from Reiss. He’s backtracking (I think), and now says that science teachers should be in “a position” to point out that Genesis (and, presumably the Koran) are inconsistent with the evidence. Reiss then muddles that by saying that “this position” (ie a different position, namely the position that science teachers should point out that Genesis and the Koran are wrong) is (UK) government policy. I wish.
Ophelia wrote:
“Ooooooh, Allen, didn’t you know about the Darwin project?”
How dare you insult me, Ophelia!
Seriously, yes I did of course know of the Darwin project, but I was feeling lazy and as Eric had apparently just quoted from the letters I thought I might as well ask him to give me the info.
Ah right. I of course didn’t mean ‘ooh how could you not know?’ but ‘ooooooh what a treat you have in store.’
Letter from Reiss in the Guardian today:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2008/sep/15/religion
He says:
“Your headline (Teach creationism, says top scientist, September 12) misrepresents the views of myself and the Royal Society. The society believes that if a young person raises the issue of creationism in a science class, a teacher should be in a position to examine why it does not stand up to scientific investigation. This does not put it on a par with evolution, which is recognised as the best explanation for the history of life on Earth from its beginnings and for the diversity of species.
Evolution is rightly taught as an essential part of biology and science courses in schools, colleges and universities across the world. Creationism, which has no scientific validity, can be discussed in a science class if it is raised by a pupil, but should in no way be seen as comparable to evolution or any other scientific theory which is backed up with evidence.”
Dan
Dan
Isn’t this is what is commonly called ‘damage control’? Even though there were elements of ‘deniability’ in his speech, from what I read of Reiss’s speech, this is not what he said, and referring to something as a ‘worldview’ does not suggest such a negative approach (as he now takes in his letter). Perhaps Reiss is trying to save his job. There have been calls for him to stand down. Sir Harry Kroto is quite explicit about this, and said that he said at the time of Reiss’s appointment, that there would be trouble, and now there is. For the good of the Royal Society, perhaps he should stand down. It would also let people know that the Royal Society is not ready to temporize with creationists.