Harry’s Place

Norm also seems to be outraged at the outrage shown towards Michael Reiss, the erstwhile education director of the
the Royal Society.

True, Reiss seems to have been misquoted in some parts of the media but i would argue that the words he does say fully warrant the stern criticism that has been levelled at him.

Reiss says, “have a genuine discussion”; a genuine discussion about what, creationism, which creationism?

There are numerous creation theories throughout the many world cultures, are we to have a genuine discussion about them all, in science class, and what about astrology - that’s sort of scienty isn’t it so let’s have a genuine discussion about that too.

Many of the religious amongst us would enact laws to sanction anyone challenging their beliefs while all we’re asking is that they discuss these beliefs at the appropriate time.

Faith is, by definition, devoid of evidence therefore there is no point arguing it’s content as neither side can prove anything. What can be discussed is the act of faith itself; not the what but the why. The answer to the why is that individual faith is largely accidental and according to where you, and more importantly your parents, were born. OK you got me - we’ll discuss it in the geography lesson.

Tell you what, let’s make a deal. Introduce philosophy in ALL schools for ALL children and you may discuss creationism, and anything else you want, in those lessons. Lessons where kids are taught logic and how to think not what to think.

A comedienne in Italy is facing charges (maximum tariff 5 years in prison) for making fun of the pope.

I think Norm’s outrage is misdirected.

I did wonder why he had resigned. It seemed odd to me

Tactically, I think that it makes sense to take on creationists outside science classes. Creationism isn’t science. It is a mystical belief. It is not a subject fit for discussion in science classes, because it is an attack on science, not a discussion within science.

“Do we prefer that students who find Shakespeare boring are faced with a teacher who simply tells them to shut up and get back to act II scene iv of Henry V, or would a different approach produce better results, do you think?”

Not the same thing. I don’t think anyone’s proposing telling the kids to shut up. Just that, actually, we don’t do creationism and nonsense like that in school. I mean, it must be time-consuming enough trying to cram in all the good stuff without having ‘debates’ with some idiot who thinks his mam and dad’s stupid beliefs should be discussed in the classroom. It’s a school, not a feelgood centre.

I disagree. There is no place in education for superstition or fairy tales. If a child comes into school mouthing off fairy stories then the parents should be arrested for child abuse. And Reiss should have been out on his ear before now. What he proposed was utterly disgraceful. What next? Alchemy in Chemisty classes? Phlogiston? Astrology in Physics classes?

The problem here is the growing power of mentally-ill delusional idiots who think their fantasies should be treated as fact, and the fact that this government has time and time again mollycuddled and encouraged them.

I yearn for the day when all churches, synagogues, mosques and other manifestations of diseased and foolish minds are turned into something actually useful instead.

Reiss says, “have a genuine discussion”; a genuine discussion about what, creationism, which creationism?

Well, about the objections raised by the student would be a good start.

Tell you what, let’s make a deal. Introduce philosophy in ALL schools for ALL children and you may discuss creationism, and anything else you want, in those lessons.

You either think teachers are there to educate and nurture, or to read from text books and not much more. What you say about those of faith is true, but they exist in the classroom whether they question the science teacher or not.

Not only is it right that teachers explain to students why there is a flat contradiction between what evolutionary science has taught us and a belief that the planet is only 10,000 years old, but they have a duty to do so. You can’t have that conversation if students are either cowed into keeping their faith-based theories to themselves, or a discussion is off-limits in the event they are not.

So, as i wrote earlier, where do you stop. Where do you draw the line in order to get at least something done in the 40 minutes you have as a teacher.

What’s so bloody special about the christian story, i’m sure the native american creation story is a lot more interesting.

Not the same thing. I don’t think anyone’s proposing telling the kids to shut up. Just that, actually, we don’t do creationism and nonsense like that in school. I mean, it must be time-consuming enough trying to cram in all the good stuff without having ‘debates’ with some idiot who thinks his mam and dad’s stupid beliefs should be discussed in the classroom. It’s a school, not a feelgood centre.

Teaching by numbers.

“You can’t have that conversation if students are either cowed into keeping their faith-based theories to themselves, or a discussion is off-limits in the event they are not.”

Cowed? Well, okay - let’s open up the classroom to all manner of ‘theories’ then. Little Johnny’s parents think that black people are lazy criminals. Shall we discuss this with little Johnny, examine his parents’ ‘theory’ from every angle? We wouldn’t want little Johnny to be cowed, after all.

Come on. Of all the things Reiss could have talked about to do with education and, specifically, the teaching of science, he chose creationism. What a twat.

“Teaching by numbers.”

That’s not what I said - or would ever say. Play fair eh?

the rise of creationism, that is the rise of us even discussing an idea which we know is empirically false, is a direct result of cultural relativism. During my time in higher education I was taught that western ideas about medicine were just theories and that to dismiss ideas held by non-western people was to be “subjective”. I never had afro-mathematics but afro-centric history is an established “discipline” which Ive had to be “taught”. Christian creationism is the equivalent of white people crying “racism”. Having said that, the vast majority of creationists in the UK are Muslims - all the major Christian churches reject it outright.

Tactically, I think that it makes sense to take on creationists outside science classes. Creationism isn’t science. It is a mystical belief. It is not a subject fit for discussion in science classes, because it is an attack on science, not a discussion within science.

No-one is suggesting creationism be added to the curriculum. The issue is what to do when students raise the creationist objection to science’s explanation for how we got here.

Paul says no-one is, “proposing telling the kids to shut up” and you say, “it’s not fit for discussion”. What is this mystical in-between approach that I’m missing?

If I were 11 and sitting in my first science lesson and Jonny Snot’s questions about how God fits into the explanation of how we came to be was met with “this is not fit for discussion”, I think I’d be underwhelmed.

So if little Jimmy Snot asks “Where do the Teletubbies fit”? you’d spend valuable classroom time on that as well?

Science Lessions are for education of facts and realities, not for mythologies

So, as i wrote earlier, where do you stop

Where do you stop with what? Encourgaing children to ask questions? I mean, do you want all questioning children sent to the headmaster’s office, or only creationist students?

Well, okay - let’s open up the classroom to all manner of ‘theories’ then. Little Johnny’s parents think that black people are lazy criminals. Shall we discuss this with little Johnny, examine his parents’ ‘theory’ from every angle? We wouldn’t want little Johnny to be cowed, after all.

If little Johnny is being fed racist bilge at home, I can think of no better place for him to have these theories confronted than in the classrooom. Would you prefer Johnny kept schtumm and went home the same little racist he was when he arrived at 9am?

If I were 11 ….

You mean to tell me that you were never told to shut up when you were at school. Jonny Snot & Brownie Swot

“If I were 11 and sitting in my first science lesson and Jonny Snot’s questions about how God fits into the explanation of how we came to be was met with “this is not fit for discussion”, I think I’d be underwhelmed.”

But that’s something that teachers would have been well-equipped to deal with anyway. What we don’t need is some kind of directive telling teachers that they *must* have a proper, fair and balanced discussion about creationism. All that does is play right into the hands of these lunatics who will then think that it’s short step to actually getting their stupidity taught in schools.

Don’t you find it depressing that we have to engage with this nonsense again and again and again? Don’t you just wish they’d shut up and fuck off? I do. But idiots like Reiss keep waving them in.

“If little Johnny is being fed racist bilge at home, I can think of no better place for him to have these theories confronted than in the classrooom.”

Really? Right. And while the teacher is expending time and energy explaining to Little Johnny why his parents are utter morons and how wacism is bad and nasty, the other kids are doing what? Being taught by the classroom assistant? Stabbing each other?

It’s a school, not a feelgood centre.

Since when did encouraging students to ask questions, to think for themselves and to engage in the odd off-curriculum class discussion turn a school into a “feelgood centre”?

What you’d prefer reads like teaching by numbers to me, whether you meant that or not.

Really? Right. And while the teacher is expending time and energy explaining to Little Johnny why his parents are utter morons and how wacism is bad and nasty, the other kids are doing what? Being taught by the classroom assistant? Stabbing each other?

Maybe some of them are having their own racsit beliefs challenged at the same time? Maybe the others are having their pluralist and progressive beliefs affirmed?

Why are you so insistent that what might be a two-minute class discussion turns every school into Grange Hill?

I know many creationists. A number have PhDs, quite a few are UK University staff. None of them could be described as mentally ill, idiots or twats. Using terms of abuse does nothing to strenthen the argument in favour of evoltionary theory. Rather it damages it, because of that well known human characteristic, that when one’s argument is weak, one descends to personal abuse and insulting epithets. It is difficult to take any comment seriously that uses this sort of language.

Look, you can talk about anything you want, ID, fascism, SM. The point is why does this have to be tackled specifically by science teachers.

What we don’t need is some kind of directive telling teachers that they *must* have a proper, fair and balanced discussion about creationism.

When someone suggests that, be sure to let me know and I’ll be on your side of that argument. Reiss, of course, suggested no such thing.

“Since when did encouraging students to ask questions, to think for themselves and to engage in the odd off-curriculum class discussion turn a school into a “feelgood centre”?”

You’re reaching now, Brownie. You know what I meant. Not wanting to have a debate about creationism is not - however you state it - the same thing as discouraging kids to ask questions. Fucking hell, let’s encouarge them to ask questions about the (real) mysteries of the universe. Or why their bodies change. Or a million other more valid - and more worthwhile - questions than: “Miss, can we disscuss my belief - or, rather, my parents’ belief - that the world was created four thousand years ago by a big man in the sky. And by the way, miss, if we don’t discuss it I’ll get very upset. Thanks.”

The point is why does this have to be tackled specifically by science teachers.

No, the point is that these questions are more likely to be asked in a science lesson than in a French lesson.

“When someone suggests that, be sure to let me know and I’ll be on your side of that argument. Reiss, of course, suggested no such thing.”

In the position he’s in - and with the status he has - it was akin to suggesting that there should be some kind of directive. He’s not just some fella in the street.

“It is difficult to take any comment seriously that uses this sort of language.”

Diddums. Anybody who believes in creationism - regardless of how many PhDs they have - is, self-evidently, a twat.

But he did suggest a “have a genuine discussion”. Again why; which subjects are going to be allowed a genuine discussion and which not.

Can we talk about football now on this thread. Thought not.

the rise of creationism, that is the rise of us even discussing an idea which we know is empirically false, is a direct result of cultural relativism.

I think so too because it opens the door to all sorts of bizzare ideas and lays the groundwork for accepting nonsense as fact.

If creationism is to be discussed in science class, it should only be for purposes of showing it to be false.

The subject has to be addressed if it is to be disproved.

And I say that as someone who has certain sympathies for I.D., but only is as much as that I.D. conforms to KNOWN science fact.

I’m quite certain the earth is billions of years old, but I’m just not certain if creation is quite as random and as happenstance as it often appears.

I ’sense’ that there is an underlying intelligence that guides ( but does not determine) the shape of things.

Then again, it could just be the weed.

I think Michael Reiss’s comments were spot on; the science class is the perfect place to take on and demolish creationist beliefs when and where they raise their heads. The science teacher loftily declaring that “we will not discuss such things in a science class” plays right into the hands of those that claim that science is trying to stifle debate and silence opposition.

It may not change the mind of the creationist child, but the rest of the class will see a reasoned argument based on evidence countered only with “the bible(/Koran etc, etc…) says so”, and will hopefully think a bit more carefully about the issue for themselves. Any decent science teacher shouldn’t have too much trouble dismantling the creationist argument.

Not wanting to have a debate about creationism is not - however you state it - the same thing as discouraging kids to ask questions. Fucking hell, let’s encouarge them to ask questions about the (real) mysteries of the universe. Or why their bodies change. Or a million other more valid - and more worthwhile - questions

So are you going to pin a list of valid questions on the blackboard before the lesson starts? Yeah, I know, I’m being facetious but I can think of no easier way to discourgage questions from your students than to treat one of them, however absurd his or her question might be, with contempt.

Believe it or not, not all 11 year olds are as convinced by the supremacy of scienece’s explanation for our existence as we are. And not necessarily because they come from religious homes. THis is just more new “stuff” to them.

“It may not change the mind of the creationist child…”

But let’s encourage the science teacher to waste his time, and his other students’ time, having a go eh?

“Then again, it could just be the weed.”

hahaha

My tea’s ready. Can I suggest everyone reads what Reiss said and wrote and not simply the accounts of what he said and wrote?

Any decent science teacher shouldn’t have too much trouble dismantling the creationist argument.

Ah, but they won’t, ’cause that is going to tread on someone’s rights isn’t it.

Sorry jonny you’re wrong, your parents have been lying to you.

The Shakespeare example is poorly chosen. What approach should be followed with kids who go to school convinced that Shakespeare wrote in German because their parents told them so - and if you say differently you’re trying to corrupt them?

Other than referring them, and their families, to some sort of specialist, I mean.

I agree that Reiss (who is a decent and decicated man) has been railroaded by (I am guessing) elemments in the RWS who were against this appointment from the start.

But I also agree with those , even to oppose it. What possible debate is there with ‘because god/bible/koran says so’? How can a science teacher ‘engage’ with that?

I have somehow managed to garble my post above so much that I can’t even be arsed to correct it. Apologies.

“But I can think of no easier way to discourgage questions from your students than to treat one of them, however absurd his or her question might be, with contempt.”

Again. And please listen. Just because the teacher states that creationism isn’t going to be discussed in a SCIENCE classroom, doesn’t mean that that teacher is showing contempt. And it begs the question as to why you think the kid asking questions that come from a religious base should somehow be treated differently to, say, a kid who asks a Maths teacher whether Shakespeare’s sonnets were all written for a young boy. The Maths teacher wouldn’t be treating the kid with contempt if he said: “Sorry, this a Maths class and I teach Maths. Ask your English teacher.”

“Any decent science teacher shouldn’t have too much trouble dismantling the creationist argument.”

Of course, but it won’t do any good if the pupil rejects scientific arguments on principle.

I think you’re all giving 11-year-olds too much credit, if my school was anything to go by. i think bunsen burners are going to cause more discipline problems than the Scopes trial.
creationism in schools is a little red herring to give lefties something to get worked up about over schools, so they can forget about the fact that Labour’s educational reforms left about a quarter of children unable to spell creationism let alone believe in it. I’d rather they all came out followers of David Icke rather than illiterate members of the educational scrapheap that is the comprehensive system.

You’re right, we certainly don’t want them leaving school as IDiots

“I think you’re all giving 11-year-olds too much credit…”

What, that they might ask stupid and irrelevant questions?

““It may not change the mind of the creationist child…”

But let’s encourage the science teacher to waste his time, and his other students’ time, having a go eh?”

I think i put my own “but” in that sentence, and what’s to say this won’t be the first (and maybe last) time that some of the other children hear all the arguments (actual, as opposed to “creationists are twats” which has nothing to do with it) against creationism laid out in front of them, free from the usual polemics, from an authority figure who has previously imparted information which is demonstrably true.

I don’t see how this in any way legitimises creationism, other than in a “people used to believe the earth was the centre of the universe until we discovered x,y,z..” kind of way.

In general if people believe anti-scientific things, the scientific way of countering that is to present the evidence and school is the perfect place to do that (young impressionable minds).

“In general if people believe anti-scientific things, the scientific way of countering that is to present the evidence and school is the perfect place to do that (young impressionable minds).”

You do know how schools operate? They have lots of different lessons, covering all sorts of subjects. Some kids - some of the luckier ones - get taught science up to, ooh, at least two hours a week. Sometimes three. Which, of course, means there’s plenty of time to not only learn about all the marvels and mysteries of science, the history of science and engage in practical experiments - there’s oodles of time left over to discuss the merits, or unmerits, of creationism too. Because one of the main things about teaching science is spending time talking about something that, actually, is as far removed from science as it’s possible to get. Brilliant!

Oh, and for those who argue that a science classroom is the best place to demolish shit ‘theories’ like creationism - wouldn’t that be best done by simply teaching science (and evolution) really, really well? Shouldn’t that have been something Reiss should have proposed?

The Maths teacher wouldn’t be treating the kid with contempt if he said: “Sorry, this a Maths class and I teach Maths. Ask your English teacher.”

I’m sorry but that’s far too sensible an answer.

Try again, and this time make sure you accuse the RS and Richard Dawkins of forcing Reiss out.

my physics Teacher spent a bit of time (not too much mind) explaining how we can prove that the earth goes round the sun and not vice versa. All i am saying is that the same be done for the age of the earth, such a thing could be done in a physics (age of the solar system and how we know) biology (evolution) geography (rock strata) context.

“Because one of the main things about teaching science is spending time talking about something that, actually, is as far removed from science as it’s possible to get. Brilliant!”

doesn’t it rather touch on the founding principle of science: evidence against superstition, exactly the kind of thing it would be worthwhile discussing for 15-20 mins in a science class, any subsequent objections can then be dealt with by “we’ve discussed this already” allowing the teaching of science to continue and the sky not to fall down.

Do we prefer that students who find Shakespeare boring are faced with a teacher who simply tells them to shut up and get back to act II scene iv of Henry V, or would a different approach produce better results, do you think?

As Eugenio said, this is a poor analogy.

Not least because it’s not about whether the child is finding something ‘boring’ - it’s about whether the child believes something that is patently false - but also because I don’t think anyone is suggesting teachers tell children to ’shut up’.

I suppose the way a child raising creationist ideas in a science lesson should be dealt with bears an exact parallel to how a child raising the idea that the Holocaust didn’t happen in a history lesson should be dealt with.

Not ’shut up’.

But certainly no ‘discussion’.

“What, that they might ask stupid and irrelevant questions?”
I dont doubt that but I think the real issue is school discipline. my experience is of chaos, hence very little got taught of any science. a creationist troublemaker (and i dare say one will pop up with his family’s sinister lawyers in toe) will only cause trouble in the midst of chaos.

“doesn’t it rather touch on the founding principle of science: evidence against superstition, exactly the kind of thing it would be worthwhile discussing for 15-20 mins in a science class”

But that’s different to what’s being discussed, isn’t it? You can’t move the goalposts like that. We’re talking, very specifically, about a relatively modern phenomenon known as creationism that comes with a whole host of crackpots and crackpot theories that are designed to counter the uncomfortable (for them) truths of science. That is, this is not the same as science vs superstition and, as you say, the founding principles. To be blunt: this is a new evil we’re dealing with here and we should have absolutely no truck with it.

Of course, but it won’t do any good if the pupil rejects scientific arguments on principle.

I don’t believe those of us who have no problem with teachers engaging with creationist students have pupils who reject scientific arguments on principle in mind when we suggest such disucssions might do some good. They have the potential to do some good if a single child is given pause to reconsider - not all will be mini-Jerry Falwells (at least, not when they enter school). Some students who ask about creationism in class might not being doing so because either they or their parents are creationists, but because they’ve heard this word bandied around a bit and want to get their teacher’s take.

Mark T,

As I asked Paul and DT, perhaps you’d like to expand on this “not shut up” but “no disucssion” approach to fielding questions from the sutdents? Are you envisaging some sort of mime act?

Not least because it’s not about whether the child is finding something ‘boring’ - it’s about whether the child believes something that is patently false - but also because I don’t think anyone is suggesting teachers tell children to ’shut up’.

I think you are making a mistake to suggest the mere posing of a question by someone who might only be 11 years old is indicative of some form of creationist fundamentalism. Adolescents can believe in creationism in exactly the same way that they believe Shakespeare is boring i.e. they can be persuaded otherwise. As Reiss says, it’s a world view as much as anything. That doesn’t mean it can’t be shown to be demonstrably wrong. But if you don’t talk about it to some degree, I fail to see how you achieve that, or, even if you do achieve that, how you can persuade all your students that you’ve achieved that.

I suppose the way a child raising creationist ideas in a science lesson should be dealt with bears an exact parallel to how a child raising the idea that the Holocaust didn’t happen in a history lesson should be dealt with.

Not ’shut up’.

But certainly no ‘discussion’.

I can’t conceive how this could be more misguided. Do you equate “discussion” with “lend credence to”?

“As I asked Paul and DT, perhaps you’d like to expand on this “not shut up” but “no disucssion” approach to fielding questions from the sutdents? Are you envisaging some sort of mime act?”

Eh? I suspect you’re using that phrase ’shut up’ disingenuously - that is, suggesting that the people who don’t agree with you are just bullies or something. Which is, as I said earlier, not playing fair.

But anyway… not wanting to DISCUSS creationism is not the same thing as telling a kid to SHUT UP. There are ways of doing it that can be polite, thoughtful, mindful of the kid’s background and feelings etc. And please, don’t ask for an example. You know what I mean.

And anyway, Brownie - teachers don’t discuss all sorts of things every single day, for all sorts of reason. That doesn’t translate, by the way, as: ‘teachers tell kids to shut up every single day.” Or do you think it does?

“Adolescents can believe in creationism in exactly the same way that they believe Shakespeare is boring i.e. they can be persuaded otherwise.”

Yes, exactly. They could be persuaded, perhaps - as I said earlier - by some really good science teaching.

And to anticipate you - by ‘really good’ I mean just that - interesting, dynamic, exciting, involving etc. Not ‘teaching by numbers’.

But that won’t make it go away. In fact if creationism is as big a threat as you say then surely there is even more reason to meet its arguments head on.
If a young child is being taught about evolution or the big bang in science class and raises the question that it contradicts what he has been taught at home or in the church/mosque and is merely told “creationism can be discussed in your RE lesson” then he may go away thinking of science and religion as merely alternate and equally valid ways of explaining the world. Whereas if the teacher takes a few minutes to explain how science proves that creationism cannot be true then surely it is beneficial to the child in question and to preventing the spread of creationist beliefs in general.

I can’t conceive how this could be more misguided. Do you equate “discussion” with “lend credence to”?

Well obviously no.

But I do equate it with ‘wasting valuable time talking about nonsense’.

Should Faurisson’s ideas be discussed while children should be learning about the Holocaust?

“And anyway, Brownie - teachers don’t discuss all sorts of things every single day, for all sorts of reason”

that’s true. the problem is that once you start enacting laws defending people from religious hatred it puts teachers in a very difficult legal position.

Of course this creationist debate wont affect me as ill be sending my children to a Catholic school anyway.

You know what the worst thing about this is?

I bet Madeline Bunting will write an article about it.

A million trees will cry out in terror and be suddenly silenced.

P.

I think you are making a mistake to suggest the mere posing of a question by someone who might only be 11 years old is indicative of some form of creationist fundamentalism.

Eh? I don’t think I argued that at all. In fact I definitely didn’t.

As Reiss says, [creationism is] a world view as much as anything. That doesn’t mean it can’t be shown to be demonstrably wrong. But if you don’t talk about it to some degree, I fail to see how you achieve that, or, even if you do achieve that, how you can persuade all your students that you’ve achieved that.

How do you achieve it?

By teaching the theory of evolution in an accessible and exciting way.

Is that so hard?

“Whereas if the teacher takes a few minutes to explain how science proves that creationism cannot be true then surely it is beneficial to the child in question and to preventing the spread of creationist beliefs in general.”

What, you don’t think science teachers do this already? Of course they do. What they don’t need, however, is a suggestion from the likes of Reiss that ‘creationism’ (as in that new form of crackpotty belief) should be discussed or engaged with. It shouldn’t. BUt if a kid says something like “Didn’t God create the world?” then I would fully expect the teacher to put them right - in the right way. And that is not the same thing as having a discussion about ‘creationism’.

“See here for what Reiss actually believes. It seems clear to me that he is suggesting engagement with sutdents who harbour creationist beliefs, rather than writing them off as deluded God-botherers. A perfectly sensible position and hardly akin to proposing the teaching of creationism alongside evolutionary science, or at all.”

But she’s a gun toting redneck hick b&^ch with a mongrel baby!!!!!! Don’t you see! Don’t you see!!!!!!

Oh sorry, you’re talking about someone else.

Eh? I suspect you’re using that phrase ’shut up’ disingenuously - that is, suggesting that the people who don’t agree with you are just bullies or something. Which is, as I said earlier, not playing fair.

Paul, I used “shut up” in my post and commenters have countered that they don’t mean advocating teachers telling students asking creationist questions to “shut up”, but neither do they want a “discussion”. So I’m asking what they do want. Clear?

But anyway… not wanting to DISCUSS creationism is not the same thing as telling a kid to SHUT UP. There are ways of doing it that can be polite, thoughtful, mindful of the kid’s background and feelings etc. And please, don’t ask for an example. You know what I mean.

Is this a case of us agreeing violently, then? How different is this to Reiss’s suggestion that we engage with such students? Did you automatically assume he meant “go easy on the creationist line”? If not, then all we have here is a difference of emphasis.

Yes, exactly. They could be persuaded, perhaps - as I said earlier - by some really good science teaching.

Which could include, as you say immediately above, employing thoughtful, mindful and polite responses to children raising creationism in the class room. Again, how big a gulf do you think there is between you and Reiss on this?

Paul, I’m not saying your position on this thread has changed becuase you might have always thought what you’re saying now. But comapre your comments here to those at the head of the thread.

“But she’s a gun toting redneck hick b&^ch with a mongrel baby!!!!!! Don’t you see! Don’t you see!!!!!!

Oh sorry, you’re talking about someone else.”

Well, exactly….

And that is not the same thing as having a discussion about ‘creationism’.

Sorry, but it is. You’re going to really struggle to demonstrate how it is possible to expose the creationist fallacy when prompted by a student without “discussing” it.

Look at Reiss’s article. It begins with the question:

What should science teachers do when faced with students who are creationists?

This is not a call for proactive discussion of creationism for the sake of it, as if it were part of the syllabus.

Brownie: “Paul, I’m not saying your position on this thread has changed becuase you might have always thought what you’re saying now. But comapre your comments here to those at the head of the thread.”

Me right at the start:
“I mean, it must be time-consuming enough trying to cram in all the good stuff without having ‘debates’ with some idiot who thinks his mam and dad’s stupid beliefs should be discussed in the classroom.”

Me now:
“Yes, exactly. They could be persuaded, perhaps - as I said earlier - by some really good science teaching.”

And? It seems to me that I’m still saying we shouldn’t discuss ‘creationism’ in the classroom. That is - and I’ll say it again - ‘creationism’. Note that I didn’t say that teachers shouldn’t engage with kids when they ask questions such as: “But didn’t God create the universe, miss?” Because I thought, you see, that we were talking specifically about discussing ‘creationism’. And I assumed (as I later said) that science teachers would be answering those kinds of questions anyway - without having to discuss ‘creationism’, without being told to by the likes of Reiss. Is it because I didn’t use the word ‘creationism’ in the first quote that’s confusing you? That’s because I thought it didn’t need to be mentioned (until later, as it turned out), given that this whole thread was supposed to be about ‘creationism’ and the discussion of it in the classroom.

The word ‘idiot’ though - well, maybe that was out of order. He’s only a little kid….

Brownie, let’s say you’re a teacher showing how the age of the Earth has been established - geology, radiometric dating, that sort of thing - and one of your young pupils pipes up

“But my Daddy says the Earth is only 6000 years old.”

What kind of discussion do you envisage having with this child beyond

“Err… He’s wrong.”?

Well, exactly….

Well emphatically no. Palin voiced her support for creationism being part of the curriculm. She didn’t demand it, but she thought it would be dandy to to teach it alongside sciecne. Reiss has suggested nothing of the sort and conflation of the two positions is wilful disingenuousness and confirms my belief that there’s no room for subtlety in these types of discussion.

Are we discussing religion and science or religion and politics? Science and politics? The Evangelicals in the USA have been a potent force in elections since the days of Ronald Reagan and especially the Republican right or its “social conservative” wing. Their Creationists views are what is driving this clash forward. The position in the USA is entirely different to that of the UK. Here there are Creationists in evangelical churches but I do not see mainstream politicians falling over themselves to court their votes, which number in the low thousands rather than millions.

Reiss’s remarks were torn out of a context but I really do not feel sorry for him. I believe his comments were in reality about Islamic students and schools where fundamentalist thinking comes not from the Bible but the Qu’ran. He was trying, in ways not dissimilar to Archbishop Rowan, to send out a signal of reconciliation to Islam. I am glad he fell flat on his face. I see it as an imperative that science is not bastardised in this way. Or religion tested by science. They are very different.