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.

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?”

The you should have read Reiss’s article, because it is specifcally about whether and how to engage with kids when they ask exactly this type of question. I’m sorry if you thought he was talking about something else, but that isn’t his fault or mine.

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

“Err… He’s wrong.”?

Mark, there’s a reason why teaching is considered a vocation and not just a ‘job’. The hope is that the role attracts the kind of people willing to go that bit futher than simply telling the kid he or his dad is ‘wrong’.

To answer directly, he could tell little Johnny to take a look at this picture of fossils in the big shiny book.

Mark, there’s a reason why teaching is considered a vocation and not just a ‘job’. The hope is that the role attracts the kind of people willing to go that bit futher than simply telling the kid he or his dad is ‘wrong’.

Well, precisely.

‘Going further’ simply means going back to teaching the actual science.

Which was what the teacher was doing anyway.

I don’t quite understand what you are arguing here.

The you should have read Reiss’s article, because it is specifcally about whether and how to engage with kids when they ask exactly this type of question.

No it wasn’t. It couldn’t have been. And I’ll tell you why – because Science teachers have been quite happily dealing with those sorts of innocent questions since the very first day God created Science teachers. What they haven’t been doing – until Reiss (and others) suggested they do it – is having discussions with kids about ‘creationism’ I.e. having discussions that engage with that modern, pernicious and ever-growing phenomenon known as… ‘creationism’.

There is room for subtlety in this discussion but you won’t see it. Reiss suggested ” a genuine discussion”, all i’m saying is NOT in the science lesson ’cause it’s not science.

I remember at Sunday school asking why there was no mention of dinosaurs in the Bible?

I was told it was not a subject for Sunday school and I should ask my teacher.

I knew I was onto something and I next tried my dinosaur line of inquiry (devastatingly delivered after the story of Noah and the flood I thought) out with Father Linden (I was a member of the church choir).

He told me it wasn’t an appropriate subject to discuss.

Undaunted, I kept up the pressure, assaulting various visiting priests, friars, trainees and assorted Nuns with various facts and figures and creatures revealed by archeology, demonstrating I held, evidence for evolution somehow entirely missed by the Bible.

Father Linden who had a big red veiny nose and often a very florrid face was known to have an erratic and occasionally foul temper finally lost it with me on the occasion of some visiting Franciscans.

One of them thought he would entertain the children by telling us tales of St George and the Dragon.

I primly asserted that as Dragons were mythical beasts for which there was no evidence that was unlikely, although possibly, it could have been a time travelling St George and a Tyrannosaurus Rex.

I was sent home. The vicar had words with my Grandmother. I was silenced.

If Reiss had have said “science teachers should engage with kids who ask questions about whether God created the universe”, everyone would have gone: “Well, duh.” And science teachers would have felt insulted.

But he didn’t do that, did he? In fact, his very first sentence was:”What should science teachers do when faced with students who are creationists?”

See the difference?

Smart kid, that Mettaculture.

“To answer directly, he could tell little Johnny to take a look at this picture of fossils in the big shiny book.” – Brownie.

Brownie writes well and I feel has thought about Reiss’s position carefully. However, it is not a great leap of imagination to sense what the problem might be if we look at his sentence in another light:

“To answer directly, he could tell little Rashid to take a look at this picture of fossils in the big shiny book.”

That I think would be a very different proposition.

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

Mark, again, you need to help me out. You don’t think the teacher should tell the kid to “shut up”, but neither do you want the matter “discussed” or “time wasted talking about it”.

So when the questions are asked:

“But how do we know 6 million died in the holocaust? I’ve heard there are no pictures of the gas chambers?”

“But didn’t God create the world in 7 days? The head reads from the bible in assembly every morning. Are you saying it’s all lies?”

give me some examples of how you want that NOT discussed and NOT talked about in ways that still stop short of simply telling the questioner to keep quiet. Really, I’m all ears.

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

You said:

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

The kid is asking a question. He might believe it himself, he might not. And it’s not “patently false” to him in his first science lesson, is it? Explaining to him why it is patently false is a good start, however. “Not dicussing” and “not wasting valuable time talking about it” is not.

give me some examples of how you want that NOT discussed and NOT talked about in ways that still stop short of simply telling the questioner to keep quiet. Really, I’m all ears.

Continue teaching the lesson about how scientists know the actual age of the Earth? Which can surely be done politely and in engaging manner?

There really is no need to continue maintaining that ‘not discussing’ a child’s notion that the Earth was made in an unfeasibly short space of time involves the teacher being rude or dismissive, as you keep insinuating.

Brownie, I think this debate could be advanced by you outlining what your response to the child who maintains that the Earth was made in 6000 years would be.

See the difference?

No, not really. Rather, yes, of coruse there’s a difference, but for purposes of this discussion and the discussion Reiss was trying to provoke, the difference is irrelevant. The question is whether and how we handle anti-scientific arguments from students in the classroom. Do we engage, or do we not. Whether the question is specifically about the age of the earth or the existence of a superior being isn’t really the issue.

Although I’ve just seen your last comment and I can now see this is very much the issue so far as you’re concenred. You believe Reiss’s article is an attempt to provide cover for the eventual teaching of creationism in the classroom. If you are right about this, then I am wrong. But I think Reiss is entitled to the benefit of the doubt based on currently available evidence.

‘Going further’ simply means going back to teaching the actual science.

Nope, that’s not ‘going further’. You either engage with the the student and his question or you do not. A response that simply tells the class to turn to page 17 of the GCSE biology standard text is not engaging with the question and won’t be recognised as such by the rest of the class.

Again, at what point do you draw the line, what are you not prepared to waste a lesson on. I’m paying, one way or another, for my son to learn science, I don’t want mumbo-jumbo being discussed, wasting his time.

There really is no need to continue maintaining that ‘not discussing’ a child’s notion that the Earth was made in an unfeasibly short space of time involves the teacher being rude or dismissive, as you keep insinuating.

Mark, I’ve insinuated no such thing. “Not discussing” and “not wasting valuable time talking about it” are YOUR words. I’ve asked repeatedly what you WOULD do and I’m only hearing what you wouldn’t do. Again, tell me how you handle a question from a kid who claims there are no pictures of the gas chambers, or that the bible is the wrod of God, in a non-discussionary, non-talking-about-it sort of way?

It’s clear to me that you and Paul would indeed “discuss” these arguments, it’s just that you don’t want to use the word “discuss”. I can only think this is because you imagine “discuss” lends credibility, when of course it does not. Oh yeah, and because that’s what Reiss advocated, too…..and you disagree with him, right?

“You believe Reiss’s article is an attempt to provide cover for the eventual teaching of creationism in the classroom.”

Actually, I don’t believe that. What I believe – as I’ve said – is that he wants science teachers to engage with students who are ‘creationists’. And I don’t think they should do that. That they should answer and field the normal questions you get from kids about Gods and whatnot, is a different matter, and is something they’ve probably been doing quite well up till now.

“It’s clear to me that you and Paul would indeed “discuss” these arguments, it’s just that you don’t want to use the word “discuss”. I can only think this is because you imagine “discuss” lends credibility, when of course it does not. Oh yeah, and because that’s what Reiss advocated, too…..and you disagree with him, right?”

Earlier, Brownie, you mentioned “wilful disingenuousness”. Pots and kettles – and I’m getting a bit fed up with it now. It’s like you don’t actually read what people (not just me) say.

To be honest in Britain the only ‘creationists’ that exist are Seventh Day Adventists and Muslims. I read in the paper that Mr Reiss is one of the people responsible for turnin gthe ‘Science’ curriculum into technology and the social history of science. It doesn’t surprise me that he wants to turn it into cultural studies.

“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?”

Absolutely. That is what education is all about: explaining why racism is wrong is a perfectly good subject for discussion at school. Or would you prefer to just scream at the kid: Shut up, you little fucker, or I’ll cane you? Yes, that would be a great sort of education, and terribly effective.

To those who claim that it’s a waste of time ‘discussing it because it’s mumbo-jumbo’: nonsense; discussing anything rationally is not a waste of time. It teaches kids to think. But clearly, some here think that schools should be about teaching by numbers, page 34 followed by 35, and woe betide teachers who challenge anything and shirk difficult issues.

“To be honest in Britain the only ‘creationists’ that exist are Seventh Day Adventists and Muslims.”

Oh, right, is that all? What are Muslims? Have we got any here in Britain?

OK, that cope-and-paste didn’t work: and fail to shirk difficult issues as prescribed in the manual.

NO: “Absolutely. That is what education is all about: explaining why racism is wrong is a perfectly good subject for discussion at school. Or would you prefer to just scream at the kid: Shut up, you little fucker, or I’ll cane you? Yes, that would be a great sort of education, and terribly effective.”

Chrsit, you’re on the ball aren’t you? The discussion you want happened about two hours ago – back up that way.

Chrsit = Christ. You get the idea…

“Actually, I don’t believe that. What I believe – as I’ve said – is that he wants science teachers to engage with students who are ‘creationists’. And I don’t think they should do that. That they should answer and field the normal questions you get from kids about Gods and whatnot, is a different matter”

It’s exactly the same thing: engaging = answering/fielding questions.

Well, I am sorry, Paul Sahib, Massah, for expressing my opinion. I won’t do it again.
Actually, I will, so fuck off.

“It’s exactly the same thing: engaging = answering/fielding questions.”

The difference I was alluding to (I thought quite plainly) was between ‘creationists’ and the normal sorts of questions that kids ask….

Anyway, are you going to go through this whole thread, picking at bits and pieces we went through ages ago?

Paul, I suggest you take a long look at this thread. You’ve been dabbling in snide and sark since pretty early on. I nearly called you on it a couple of times but I didn’t want yet another thread to descend into farce. So, you know, non-one’s perfect and all that.

It wasn’t clear to me earlier in the disucussion that you are keen to make a clear distinction between “creationism” and generic “questions about God”. I understand that now. I don’t think it’s necessarily as important to the disucssion as you do, but I accept that others might differ. I reckon our different interpretations of how crucial this distinction is and isn’t is mostly responsible for our mutual confusion about the exact positions we hold.

“Well, I am sorry, Paul Sahib, Massah, for expressing my opinion. I won’t do it again.
Actually, I will, so fuck off.”

There’s expressing your opinion – which I never said you couldn’t do – and there’s steaming in here like a loud-mouthed idiot when the fight is practically over. Something you seem to specialise in.

Brownie, how would you respond to the child that said the Earth is 6000 years old?

What discussion would you have with him or her?

“Paul, I suggest you take a long look at this thread. You’ve been dabbling in snide and sark since pretty early on. I nearly called you on it a couple of times but I didn’t want yet another thread to descend into farce.”

Right, tea time.

Paul

I don’t think that was the word that was used for me.

Quite a lot of kids (generally more boys than girls) seem to have an obsessive dinosaur phase.

It seems to be quite insulating against belief in the non-demonstrable. I never believed in Santa Claus either.

Of course maybe it was simply because I collected rubber dinosaurs and knew their names, I suppose i could have collected saints instead but that would have been weird.

“there’s steaming in here like a loud-mouthed idiot when the fight is practically over. Something you seem to specialise in”

What a dumb cunt you are. I expressed my opinion, perfectly reasonably, and just because you don’t like it I am a ‘loud-mouthed idiot’. You really are one sad loser and a complete moron.

I’ve asked repeatedly what you WOULD do and I’m only hearing what you wouldn’t do.

That’s a bit of a lie, because I have repeatedly said that the appropriate response is to teach the child the actual science, and the actual history.

This doesn’t mean telling the child to be quiet or to shut up.

Now, this is a discussion, but in a rather narrow sense – it involves the teaching of truth, flowing from what the child has raised.

It is not, repeat not, a discussion of the child’s ideas themselves, which is what Reiss appeared to be suggesting.

“The difference I was alluding to (I thought quite plainly) was between ‘creationists’ and the normal sorts of questions that kids ask….”

Asking about creationism is a perfectly normal question, though you don’t seem to have the mental apparatus to grasp that.

“Anyway, are you going to go through this whole thread, picking at bits and pieces we went through ages ago?”

I don’t need your permission to comment on those points I regard as interesting. This thread is not your personal property, and you are not in a position to decide when the subject is closed, you pompous fucker.

Undaunted, I kept up the pressure, assaulting various visiting priests, friars, trainees and assorted Nuns with various facts and figures and creatures revealed by archeology, demonstrating I held, evidence for evolution somehow entirely missed by the Bible.Mettaculture

Just what kind of Catholicism is this Otto?

Christ, in grade five I did a science project detailing the evolution of man starting waaay back with Ramapithicus and won first prize.

I’ve encountered biblical literalists who reject edvolution, but every last one of them were Protestant evangelicals, and rather marginal ones at that.

“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.”

When similar things happened in classes I was teaching, I asked the questioner if during a liturgy in church he would feel comfortable bringing up science to his pastor as a challenge to his “sermon”. I told him in university science classes we accept that the scientific method is the best way for understanding the world. You are being taught how to understand the world according to this perspective and this perspective is irrelevant or orthogonal to a religious one.

The problem with not discussing creationism or young earth theories in science class is that in the absense of other evidence, they are pretty “common sense” beliefs to hold. Many scientific beliefs are far fetched and not common sense in any way. Any child asking whether the world is actually 5000 years old should be answered in exactly the same way as a child questioning other strange things that science teaches, like if things really carry on moving forever until something stops them, or if that block of wood really is 99.99% empty space.

Brownie, how would you respond to the child that said the Earth is 6000 years old?

I’d first ask where the child learned such a thing. Assuming I received the expected response that s/he picked it up from the bible/parents, I’d give a quick 20 second definition of creationism for the benefit of the rest of the class, the majority of whom might never have heard the term previously. I’d then explain that in the last 200 years science has provided concrete proof that some of what the bible tells us about the origins of the world cannot be true. I’d say that the difference between the competing theories is that only one has evidence for the ideas it promotes. I’d then invite the student to stay for a few minutes after class to look at some pictures in a text book that showed fossils pre-dating the creationist day 1.

Me:I’ve asked repeatedly what you WOULD do and I’m only hearing what you wouldn’t do.

You:That’s a bit of a lie, because I have repeatedly said that the appropriate response is to teach the child the actual science, and the actual history.

Well, that depends. I’ve interpreted what you’ve said – that you wouldn’t “discuss” these issues or “waste valuable time talking about them” – as effectively skirting over the questions and just ploughing on with the lesson content as if the questions themselves had never been asked. And to be fair, I think that’s the logical conclusion of “wouldn’t discuss” and “wouldn’t waste valuable time talking about these things”. Hence my claim that you’re only telling me what you wouldn’t do.

I know you have previously mentioned “teaching the science”, but that’s a given anyway and it read as though you were suggesting teachers efffectively ignore the ‘God’ questions and carry on “teaching the science”, rather than engage with the questions by “teaching the science”. Again the subtlety.

This doesn’t mean telling the child to be quiet or to shut up.

Now, this is a discussion, but in a rather narrow sense – it involves the teaching of truth, flowing from what the child has raised.

Too right it is a “discussion”. If in the response the teacher references the question asked instead of making an abstract point, s/he is beginning a discussion whether you like it or not.

It is not, repeat not, a discussion of the child’s ideas themselves, which is what Reiss appeared to be suggesting.

Angels dancing on pinheads. It seems people are determined to believe Reiss meant something he didn’t come what may. You might genuinely believe there is more than a cigarette-paper between what you are saying would be okay and what Reiss is advocating, but I don’t see it myself.

If the child asks:

“What about X”

and the teacher’s response alludes to, references, or rebuts X, s/he is “discussing the child’s ideas”. Which is not to say that a 40-minute lesson is given over to 20-minutes equal time of creationist and Darwinian theory, only that the child is not treated as if s/he had never asked the questions in the first place.

I’m done.

What Michael Reiss proposed about ‘debating’ creationism in the science classes is not very different from Sarah Palin’s position on the same topic. I wonder whether the commenters here who are in favour of Reiss are the same bunch of people who support this ignoramus of a US VP candidate. I am also not sure what Norman Geras thinks about Sarah Palin. He has not written anything at all in his blog (unlike Kamm) about Sarah Palin. Does anyone know?

Anyways, I am totally, utterly shocked that a rationalist and humanist like Geras will buy Reiss’ argument. But kudos to the Royal Society, the most venerable and oldest of science institutions of the world, to get rid of Reiss who is most likely a CofE mole inserted into the UK education sector (much the same way the Jamat-e-Islami works to corrupt the education sector of Bangladesh) to advance the cause of the creationst/theocratic bigots.

What Michael Reiss proposed about ‘debating’ creationism in the science classes is not very different from Sarah Palin’s position on the same topic.

Well that conclusion would very much depend on how you define “very”.

It could be true, but only in the sense that the Pope is not very Catholic or bears are not very disposed to shitting in woods.

I thought I was done?

I am now.

Thanks Brownie for elaborating how you would explain to a school kid why the Bible is wrong about the earth’s age.

But how do you think a religious minded science teacher would answer the same question? What is going to stop him/her to take the side of the Biblical explanation or try some rather foolish (and devious) explanation such as the day-age theory of creation? Mind you that there are quite a lot of pious science teachers who are quite able to teach science well and at the same time may lead a devout life in a private capacity. Don’t you think the science curriculum will have to be modified so that the teachers know how to respond to this type of questions objectively?

If you agree with my last assertion, then allowing debate about creationism in the science class will automatically require modification of the science curriculum to include the creationism topic so that the teachers know the objective answer to these questions.

But the day creationism is included in the science curriculum in this way, have no doubt that the creationst/ID fools will jump up and down like prehistoric apes shouting that CREATIONISM IS NO LONGER A PSEUDO-SCIENCE AND THAT THE BIBLE/QURAN/GITA HAS DRIVEN THE FINAL NAIL IN THE COFFIN OF EVIL DARWINIAN THEORY OF EVOLUTION.

Looking forward to that auspicious day, Brownie?

I like mettaculture’s childhood time traveling T Rex dragon theory.

I always thought the great sea creatures and the serpent, etc, sounded pretty dinosaur-like. Yair Zakovich and Avigdor Shanan in their interesting book “That’s Not What the Good Book Says” (Hebrew), claim that the Bible, wishing to strengthen its monotheistic agenda, emphasizes the fact that the snake in the Garden of Eden is God’s creature in order to explain away popular myths of the era, myths that make out the snake as a god.

Brownie, I think you and I are wholly in agreement about how a science teacher should act.

I don’t think, however, you would agree with Reiss. Here is some of what he said -

>>>>>>>

Students who believe in creationism often believe in it, not because of a scientific misconception, but because they have a completely different way of understanding the world.

They literally have a different worldview.

And what I now see my job as an educator to do, is to help them to understand the scientific theory of evolution. And if teaching cosmology, the almost universally accepted scientific ideas that the universe is 13 or 14 billion years old, et cetera… but not to try and force it on them as the correct way of understanding the world, the universe.

Helping them to see it’s the almost universally accepted scientific way, and in this way I hope both to respect them as students, but actually ensure they learn more science than if they’re presented with science as if it’s going to trample over their beliefs.

>>>>>>>>

Now, I personally don’t think he should have gone for what he said.

But if he was proposing what you are arguing – namely that pupils who raise creationism in a classroom should be handled sensitively, and a discussion should ensue about why their ideas are wrong – he’s gone about it in a very cackhanded way.

His choice of words and emphasis makes it seem as if he wants science teachers to accept that creationism is a valid way of understanding the world.

Whether he intended that or not, I don’t know, but he’s paid a heavy price.

i.e. it’s not about whether a discussion should take place, it’s about how that discussion is being framed.

Oliver Kamm very good on Reiss:

http://timesonline.typepad.com/oliver_kamm/2008/09/creationism-and.html

If you look at the quote from the Department for Education on one of the links from Reiss’ article, what most of us would see as a reasonable position is already Government policy. Therefore the Prof/Rev Reiss is presumably after something more if he is pushing it in books, the Guardian and at conferences? Looks to me like more CofE sotto voce echoing of their more explict religious counterparts.

A spokesman for the Department for Children, Schools and Families said creationism should not be taught in science lessons.

“Guidance for schools and teachers, published today, makes it clear that creationism and intelligent design are not recognised scientific theories, and therefore must not be taught as fact in science classes,” he said.

“When questions about creationism and intelligent design come up in science lessons, it may provide the opportunity to explain or explore what makes a scientific theory. There is a real difference between teaching something and discussing something.

“It is important that young people learn about the world around them, and are aware of different beliefs. There is scope for discussions around different beliefs in RE, history and citizenship classes.”

Damn.

I just spent 15 minutes transcribing Reiss from the audio on the Guardian site.

Linking to Kamm’s post would have been easier!

Mark, okay fair enough. I see what you’re saying, although this is the clincher:

Helping them to see it’s the almost universally accepted scientific way, and in this way I hope both to respect them as students, but actually ensure they learn more science than if they’re presented with science as if it’s going to trample over their beliefs.

It’s clear to me that he’s talking about the best approach if the goal is actually to permeate the mind of the deluded child. If people take the view that the child is beyond rational persuasion and write them off as confirmed creationists for the rest of their puff, then I can see why the same people might think Reiss has got this wrong. But then he’s the expert on teaching.

Either way, you’re not going to convince me that headlines like this appearing in what I consider to be the best paper out there are anything other than a gross misrepresentation of Reiss’s views. Moreoever, it surely can’t be disputed that this sort of coverage played no small part in rendering his position untenable.

So what you call his “cackhanded way”, I’d describe as wilful distortion by those who, currently, allow no room for subtle arguments in this sphere of debate. The worst that can be said of Reiss is that he was naive to think his thoughts would be given a fair hearing.

Frankly, I’m repulsed.

Looks to me like more CofE sotto voce echoing of their more explict religious counterparts.

Tom, you are aware of what Reiss believes, aren’t you? I mean, so far as evolution of our species is concerned?

I’ll see your Kamm and raise you a Norm.

And Dawkins is not pleased, either:
==========================
(text of letter to the New Scientist)

The Reverend Michael Reiss, the Royal Society’s Director of Education, is in trouble because of his views on the teaching of creationism.

Although I disagree with him, what he actually said at the British Association is not obviously silly like creationism itself, nor is it a self-evidently inappropriate stance for the Royal Society to take.

Scientists divide into two camps over this issue: the accommodationists, who ‘respect’ creationists while disagreeing with them; and the rest of us, who see no reason to respect ignorance or stupidity.

The accommodationists include such godless luminaries as Eugenie Scott, whose National Center for Science Education is doing splendid work in fighting the creationist wingnuts in America. She and her fellow accommodationists bend over backwards to woo the relatively sensible minority among Christians, who accept evolution.

Get the bishops and theologians on the side of science — so the argument runs — and they’ll be valuable allies against the naive creationists (who probably include the majority of Christians and certainly almost all Muslims, by the way).

No politician could deny at least the superficial plausibility of this expedient, although it is disappointing how ineffective as allies the ’sensible’ minority of Christians turn out to be.

The official line of the US National Academy, the American equivalent of the Royal Society, is shamelessly accommodationist. They repeatedly plug the mantra that there is ‘no conflict’ between evolution and religion. Michael Reiss could argue that he is simply following the standard accommodationist line, and therefore doesn’t deserve the censure now being heaped upon him.

Unfortunately for him as a would-be spokesman for the Royal Society, Michael Reiss is also an ordained minister. To call for his resignation on those grounds, as several Nobel-prize-winning Fellows are now doing, comes a little too close to a witch-hunt for my squeamish taste.

Nevertheless — it’s regrettable but true — the fact that he is a priest undermines him as an effective spokesman for accommodationism: “Well, he would say that, wouldn’t he!”

If the Royal Society wanted to attack creationism with all fists flying, as I would hope, an ordained priest might make a politically effective spokesman, however much we might deplore his inconsistency.

This is the role that Kenneth Miller, not a priest but a devout Christian, plays in America, where he is arguably creationism’s most formidable critic. But if the Society really wants to promote the accommodationist line, a clergyman is the very last advocate they should choose.

Perhaps I was a little uncharitable to liken the appointment of a vicar as the Royal Society’s Education Director to a Monty Python sketch. Nevertheless, thoughts of Trojan Horses are now disturbing many Fellows, already concerned as they are by the signals the Society recently sent out through its flirtation with the infamous Templeton Foundation.

Accommodationism is playing politics, while teetering on the brink of scientific dishonesty. I’d rather not play that kind of politics at all but, if the Royal Society is going to go down that devious road, they should at least be shrewd about it. Perhaps, rather than resign his job with the Royal Society, Professor Reiss might consider resigning his Orders?

Richard Dawkins, Fellow of the Royal Society

Yes, Brownie, that Times headline is pretty disgraceful.

Likewise Call for creationism in science – which bears absolutely no relation to the content of the article.

I certainly wouldn’t dispute that the journalism has been pretty shoddy.

But the paragraph that you cite as the clincher was also the clincher for me, for a different reason – he emphasised, on the audio, the word ’scientific’, implying that science teachers should present ’science’ as simply one way of understanding the world.

That’s a pretty dangerous viewpoint to advance if you are the director of education for the Royal Society.

(As a side note, is there actually any evidence that presenting science in this fashion – i.e. as one ‘worldview’ amongst others – in science lessons does actually prevent kids being turned off science? He doesn’t cite any – and it would be pretty unscientific if he was advancing these views without any empirical support.)

“I’ll see your Kamm and raise you a Norm.”

Yes, I read Norm. Selective in his Reiss quotes on that one, isn’t he?

On this occasion I think I’ll take Kamm.

Brownie, that Norm article suggests, slightly misleadingly, that the most controversial thing that Reiss said was that creationism should be discussed in science lessons.

This is not the case. As Kamm argues

The problem was not that he had argued that pupils’ views about Creationism should be discussed. There is a place in science education for refuting misconceptions about science. The problem was with what Professor Reiss went on to say. Presenting Creationism as a “world-view” – presumably part of our society’s glorious cultural diversity, against which it is pointless to rail – rather than a demonstrable falsehood is exactly contrary to the spirit of scientific inquiry

And this is why he has gone (not that I think he should have done, because I agree with you that there has been something of a witch hunt going on here).

As a side note, is there actually any evidence that presenting science in this fashion – i.e. as one ‘worldview’ amongst others – in science lessons does actually prevent kids being turned off science?

Well, see Dawkins on what he calls “accomodationists”. He seems to think they are pretty effective debunkers of creationism, at least in the States.

Dawkins probably puts his finger on it when he suggests Reiss’s problem is that he is a priest – albeit a scientist, too – advocating accommodationism rather than ‘just a scientist’. No-one would infer what has been inferred about Reiss if it were ‘just a scientist’ making this argument. But people see the dog-collar and conclude: “We’ve got a live one here”.

My final comment: my take is that Reiss is saying there will be students who are receptive to the science and there are those who aren’t, and the best way of dealing with the latter is to engage and explain. You don’t have to dillute the science in so doing; accepting that creationism is a “world view” – which seems to be Kamm’s biggest beef – doesn’t preclude demonstrating in the classroom that it has no basis in fact or that there is no evidence to sustain this “world view”. It’s just a recognition that you can’t physically force everyone to accept the fundamentals of evolutionary science if they don’t want to. The most a teacher can do is teach. If the student insists on writing science essays that refute what we’ve learned in the last 200 years, give him/her an ‘F’.

Brownie,

Yes obviously I realise he is not a creationist himself.

However, given the the Education Department guidelines quoted in my post are more than a year old, it would appear that your interpretation of what he wants is already happening. Which begs the question why he was promoting this as the central issue in science education on behalf of the UK’s national academy of science?

My guess would be that being religious himself he identifies with other religious beleivers and thinks that the science education system should seek to accomodate their “world views”, in the same way as his Archbishop thinks the legal system should accomodate differing religious beleifs.

I think he’s wrong and that this is part of a pattern of people of a (”moderate”) religious background trying to to privelege religious views or expand the role of religion under the pretext of warding off the nasty fundamentalists.

Whether or not it is a sacking or resigning offence is between him and the Royal Society.

Alternatively, if he and the Archbishop are worried about being mis-interpreted perhaps they can express themselves more clearly in future. Plus if he wants to avoid controversy and misinterpretation he’d be wise not to post his articles on CIF (as he must surely have known).

My guess would be that being religious himself he identifies with other religious beleivers and thinks that the science education system should seek to accomodate their “world views”, in the same way as his Archbishop thinks the legal system should accomodate differing religious beleifs.

I think this comment validates Dawkins’ theory that Reiss’ biggest problem is the fact he’s ordained, in that some will be inclined to think the worst.

I never got too familiar with Rowan’s argument, but wasn’t he advocating giving some aspects of religious law the legal seal of approval? There’s a fundamental difference with what Reiss is advocating. The Reiss equivalent of Rowan on legal accommodation of religious law would see him calling for creationism to be on the science syllabus, something he is fiercely opposed to.

Reiss describes himself as a former “evangelical evolutionary scientist”. He’s passionate about making sure the science gets through. What he’s now saying, however, is that trying to table-thump the science into the heads of adolescent sceptics doesn’t work.

If the figures are right that approximately 1 in 10 children is from a creationist home, then most science classes include roughly 3 creationist children. If we’re satisfied that 27 out of 30 leave covinced that Darwin got it right, then I agree there’s no need to entertain Reiss’ theories about how we might turn that into 28, or 29.

But he’s produced no evidence whatsoever to back up either the 10% figure or that his approach (which btw is still unclear from his articles) will convert them. And in any case the guidelines already suggest that you don’t table thump the science.

My question remains why is the (former) head of education at Britain’s national acadamey of science raising this as a priority, when as far as I’ve noticed its never really been raised as a problem or issue in the UK (except by him)? I’ve got two kids at inner London multi-ethnic schools and went to one myself and have never heard it mentioned. It’s so far down the list of problems facing science education in the UK its laughable.

I’m more concerned that maybe 15 of your 30 understand the basic principles of scientific method than spending our time worrying whether the 3 “creationist” children have had their parents’ world views respected.

The origin of speciousness (October 09 2007 )

“Teaching about aspects of religion in science classes could potentially help students better understand the strengths and limitations of the ways in which science is undertaken, the nature of truth claims in science, and the importance of social contexts for science.

“I do not belong to the camp that argues that creationism is necessarily nonscientific … Furthermore I am not convinced that something being ‘nonscientific’ is sufficient to disqualify it from being considered in a science lesson. An understanding of (nonscientific) context often helps in learning the content of science.”
Teaching About Scientific Origins: Taking Account of Creationism (Studies in the Postmodern Theory of Education) 2007
by Leslie S. Jones, Michael J. Reiss

“The days have long gone when science teachers could ignore creationism when teaching about origins.”

Who knows what comes next.
The days have long gone when science teachers could ignore stork theory when teaching about human reproduction.

I’m reading the responses of the anti – creationists, and I’m stunned at the vehemence of their comments. Not to mention the ignorance. I mean, Paul, if you were educated to believe that the world was created 4000 years ago by a man in the sky, then quite frankly I’m not surprised you don’t believe in creation.

I believe in God; I believe God created the world; There is nothing in modern scientific theory that contradicts this.

In truth I think its the staunch believers in “the world always existed” or “there was a big bang-it just happened” who are the real fantasists.

I’m more concerned that maybe 15 of your 30 understand the basic principles of scientific method than spending our time worrying whether the 3 “creationist” children have had their parents’ world views respected.

Oh come on, that’s unfair. You can accuse Reiss of some things, but not caring whether children ‘get’ the science is not one of them. He has dedicated his professional life to preaching science’s gospel, if you excuse the metaphor. He’s passionate about this stuff and his passion would also explain why he’s constantly thinking of ways to reach children who might otherwise reject or be impermeable to the science. The teachers down the road in your inner-London school aren’t because, as you say, they’ve got a million other priorities.

And this is not primarily about ensuring the 3 creationist children in every class have “their parents’ world view respected”; it’s a suggestion of how we might demonstrate that creationism is just a world view and not the science its more vociferous adherents pretend.

This is the irony for me: you have people like Oliver K whose main objection to Reiss is that creationism is – in his opinion – afforded an unmerited “world view” tag, yet creationists themselves would be hugely resentful at such a label. Creationists don’t hide behind a “world view”. On the contrary, they present hokum ‘evidence’ and claim the science is on their side. Reiss’ approach is designed to pull that particular rug from under the feet of the creationist. The result being that when the class breaks up, the creationist is left with his ‘world view’ alone, it having been clearly demonstrated that, whatever else creationism is, it ‘aint science.

At best, we might persuade some children to reconsider their positions; at worst, we demonstrate that creationism is unscientific.

Everyone’s a winner.

There is nothing un-scientific about creationism. It is a far more logical position than any of the other possibilities.

Reiss was right to resign. Creationists will have rejoiced at his views as “the foot in the door” for their views. Don’t forget that creationism presents itself not as mythology but as pseudo-science. Go down Reiss’s route, and science teachers would find themselves “seriously considering” eugenics and all manner of dangerous nonsense.

The big problem here is the way in which the Government has actively promoted the role of religion in education at the very point in history it should have naturally faded away. Pews are packed by parents hoping to get little Jimmy into the church school. Schools are literally being handed over to groups of Fundie nutters. Postmodernism and cultural relativism taught in universities has undermined a whole generation’s ability to think.

Back in the nineteenth century when the belief n the creation story was considered sensible, to those people who objected that fossils prove the earth is older, the answer was ,’God planted them as a test of faith’. People holding ‘creationist’ views will have a seige mentality, so loguc is not going to sway them. We are told that there are even doctors, biologists etc who do not support the theory of evolution, si how do you expect a schoolcgild to weigh the arguments and come down in favour of science? It does need to be discussed but not in science lessons. One step forwards, two steps back at he moment.

Can someone please write a sensible non abusive comment explaining why creationism is so frowned upon? And how the world came to be in existence?

“Can someone please write a sensible non abusive comment explaining why creationism is so frowned upon?”

No. Shut up. This is a political blog, not a classroom. Ask your science teacher.

I’m reading the responses of the anti – creationists, and I’m stunned at the vehemence of their comments

Might I suggest you have a particularly low threshold for what constitutes vehemence?

In truth I think its the staunch believers in “the world always existed” or “there was a big bang-it just happened” who are the real fantasists.

Well, if they’re fantasists, what does that make you?

You accept the big bang hypothesis, and then you insert an unverifiable unknowable ‘creator’ to start the whole process. That, to my mind, makes you even more of a fantasist.

Brownie –

you make some good points. I think the difficulty was that these ‘worldviews’ were being presented as somehow equally valid in a science classroom.

I mean, the ‘creationist’ pupil might be more willing to listen to the teacher if the ideas he comes into the class with are being presented as just another way of looking at the world, and that science is simply another way of looking.

But surely the best way around this problem is to ensure that the science itself is being taught well and in an engaging way?

Surely the genius of the idea of evolution should speak for itself?

But Brownie, if creationism is a ‘world view’ then you cannot really put pressure on it because it is incommensurable with the scientific outlook. If Reiss believes this, his position starts to look wobbly ( why would he want teachers to engage with something he also thinks is immune to being rationally examined ? )

“Back in the nineteenth century when the belief n the creation story was considered sensible, to those people who objected that fossils prove the earth is older, the answer was ,’God planted them as a test of faith’.”

Creationism and biblical literalism were invented in the 19th century. before that no Jewish and Christian would have said it was literally true.

Paul and Mark T – very mature responses from both of you, especially you Paul. You go some way to proving my point by attacking me instead of responding to what I said.

To me, it smacks of political correctness.

GOD – bad, Creation – very bad; SCIENCE – good, Evolution – very good.

The only problem is that you are all sheep; none of you can articulate why you believe in evolution over creation.

“You go some way to proving my point by attacking me instead of responding to what I said.”

It’s just that what you said isn’t worth responding to. It really isn’t. If you were an 11-year-old child, then maybe I’d have a go. But you’re a grown up person (and obviously some kind of crackpot).

Paul and Mark T – very mature responses from both of you, especially you Paul. You go some way to proving my point by attacking me instead of responding to what I said.

Well, I have been perfectly civil with you. You won’t get very far insinuating that I being rude to you because I have no argument – because I wasn’t.

The only problem is that you are all sheep; none of you can articulate why you believe in evolution over creation.

Well, I can give you one quite simple reason.

There’s lots of evidence for evolution. And none for creation.

There is nothing un-scientific about creationism. It is a far more logical position than any of the other possibilities.

This is true if your starting assumptions include the existence of god. Suppose that you find a watch in the forest. If you know there is no watchmaker then the theory of evolution is a brilliant and compelling explanation for the presence of complexity without design. But suppose that you know a watchmaker exists then surely the simplest and most compelling explanation is that the watchmaker made the watch. Any other explanation, particularly one so improbable as evolution would seem to be preposterous and beside the point.

Thus for someone who knows, really knows, that god(s) exists (and there are many people who claim to know that god(s) exists) then some form of creationism follows as a rational deduction from the premises. It’s no point telling these people that creationism is unscientific because given the premise that god(s) exists creationism is scientific. If god(s) exists then evolution is almost certainly false, if not in every particular then surely in the grand claims of a undesigned nature.

I do not, personally, subscribe to this view as I see no evidence for the existence of a god.

“It’s just that what you said isn’t worth responding to. It really isn’t. If you were an 11-year-old child, then maybe I’d have a go. But you’re a grown up person (and obviously some kind of crackpot).”

Paul – you are pathetic. You say that I’m not worth responding to, i.e. you respond to me, but with another comment that doesn’t tackle the issue. You obviously have nothing worth saying on the matter, and should be ignored.

Mark T – I admit you were not rude to me although you did question my vehemence threshold. ;-)

Part of my point was that the evolutionists seem to be at least as closed minded in their views as the creationists. Personally I believe that there is a creator, AND that evolution has occured since creation.

To those who don’t believe in a creator, I’d be interested to read how you think the world came into being. How do you get something out of nothing? What preceded the world as we know it? Who flicked the ON switch?

Leib provides a perfect demonstration of my point!

There is nothing un-scientific about creationism. It is a far more logical position than any of the other possibilities.

This is true if your starting assumptions include the existence of god.

Surely if you are making unfounded ’starting assumptions’ then your methodology is, by default, unscientific?

If god(s) exists then evolution is almost certainly false

Not necessarily true. You could subscribe to the current CofE position which is that God provided the framework and mechanisms for evolution to start, and then stood back to watch evolution happen.

Sorry, html error. Try again!

There is nothing un-scientific about creationism. It is a far more logical position than any of the other possibilities.

This is true if your starting assumptions include the existence of god.

Surely if you are making unfounded ’starting assumptions’ then your methodology is, by default, unscientific?

If god(s) exists then evolution is almost certainly false

Not necessarily true. You could subscribe to the current CofE position which is that God provided the framework and mechanisms for evolution to start, and then stood back to watch evolution happen.

“This is true if your starting assumptions include the existence of god. Suppose that you find a watch in the forest. If you know there is no watchmaker then the theory of evolution is a brilliant and compelling explanation for the presence of complexity without design. But suppose that you know a watchmaker exists then surely the simplest and most compelling explanation is that the watchmaker made the watch. Any other explanation, particularly one so improbable as evolution would seem to be preposterous and beside the point.”

Thats an interesting analogy Stu. The mistake as I see it , is you can’t KNOW that there is no watchmaker, you can NOT KNOW if there is a watchmaker. With that as your starting position, it seems to me that the logical conclusion upon finding the watch is “I wonder who made this” and not “ooh look what created itself”.

Part of my point was that the evolutionists seem to be at least as closed minded in their views as the creationists. Personally I believe that there is a creator, AND that evolution has occured since creation.

Well, I think you are conflating two quite distinct ideas – namely, the origins of the universe, and evolution.

As I have pointed out just above, believing in a ‘creator’ of the universe does not compel you to believe in creationism. The creator could make the universe, and then evolution could take place inside the universe he created.

Raising the notion of whether the universe was created by a God or otherwise is really a complete red herring when we are discussing evolution vs. creationism.

We all make starting assumptions. Personally I am happy to not worry about what preceded big bang. It seems unknowable to me. Others prefer to assume a big beardy guy on a cloud, with a fistful of thunderbolts.

Evolution IS my watchmaker. I should put that on a t shirt…

We all make starting assumptions.

Well, regarding the origins of the universe, I would suggest that scientists don’t.

They say, ‘well, we don’t really know.’ Or ‘the best possible explanation at the moment is…’

Those aren’t assumptions.

That sort of thing.

Personally I believe that there is a creator, AND that evolution has occured since creation.

So basically, you have anthropomorphized big bang?

The mistake as I see it , is you can’t KNOW that there is no watchmaker, you can NOT KNOW if there is a watchmaker. With that as your starting position, it seems to me that the logical conclusion upon finding the watch is “I wonder who made this” and not “ooh look what created itself”.

Well, that makes you a creationist, doesn’t it?

Creationists will have rejoiced at his views as “the foot in the door” for their views.

I think you’ll find Creationists are rejoicing right now in the aftermath of Reiss’ forced resignation. Even Dawkins sees this.

But Brownie, if creationism is a ‘world view’ then you cannot really put pressure on it because it is incommensurable with the scientific outlook. If Reiss believes this, his position starts to look wobbly ( why would he want teachers to engage with something he also thinks is immune to being rationally examined ? )

The point is to render it a ‘world view’ and nothing else. The truth is there are some people who cannot be convicned the world is older than 10,000 years. The best you can do is demonstrate they have no scientific basis for believing what they do. You attack what you can attack i.e. their pseudo-science. This should be the ambition of science teachers in science classes – not to change ‘world views’.

There are probably two types of ‘creationist’ you encounter in the classroom:

1 – The kid who has never been exposed to the ‘real’ sciecne and believes what he believes almost as a default, albeit with encouragement from parents, church, whatever.
2 – The kid who is a product of his parents’ fundamentalism who will reject anything that appears to contradict this.

Reiss wants to reach the first. As for the second, he’s willing to concede defeat in any battle to change their ‘world view’, but without giving an inch on the science.

Sounds perfectly sensible to me.

The exchange between Mark T, Stu and Leib shows that you cannot really usefully debate creationism. People who defend evolution say ‘but that kind of explanation’ ( invoking a deity ) is not allowed and Leib and people like him say ‘but of course you can’. Question how does a science teacher respond to the fact that the creationist has a different conception of how explanations work ?

Brownie but the distinction between science and pseudo science is not something creationist buys into. The distinction is made from *within* the scientific outlook and that is precisely what the kid does not buy, so you cant invoke it.

People who defend evolution say ‘but that kind of explanation’ ( invoking a deity ) is not allowed and Leib and people like him say ‘but of course you can’. Question how does a science teacher respond to the fact that the creationist has a different conception of how explanations work ?

Well, I would respond by saying that scientists don’t (or rather shouldn’t) invoke explanations for which there is no evidence (and indeed never can be) and which are untestable and unfalsifiable.

If the child kept on maintaining that you can invoke God as an explanation, I wouldn’t really know how to proceed… Thankfully I’m not a teacher.

Since in the physical world, every article can be said to have a maker e.g. cars, watches, houses are all made or manufactured by someone, I think it follows that the world itself also has a maker. Since the evolutionists are claiming otherwise, I posit that the onus is on them to prove the non-existence of the worlds maker. Otherwise the usual rule holds true – you can’t get something from nothing.

Not necessarily true. You could subscribe to the current CofE position which is that God provided the framework and mechanisms for evolution to start, and then stood back to watch evolution happen.

This is what the overwhelming majority of Christians believe, however much atheists like to tar all religious people with the creationist brush. There aren’t many Vicars around who reject evolutionary science as we know it. That said, no cosmologist worth his salt currently pretends that we have a explanation for what kicked everything off. I’m not talking about big bangs, but rather what preceded and caused it. Right now, first-cause theory is just that – theory. That doesn’t mean anyone is compelled to give equal credence to any old theory about how it all got started, but when someone claims that there is currently no scientific contradiction of a belief in God as the supreme creator, that’s strictly true, unlike clearly falsifiable claims that the earth is only 10,000 years old, and that men and women have always looked the way we do now.

Who made God Leib?

“Since in the physical world, every article can be said to have a maker e.g. cars, watches, houses are all made or manufactured by someone, I think it follows that the world itself also has a maker.”

And this person wants a debate? You’re wasting your time, Mark and Stu.

Ah but thats the beauty of belief in God. By definition He/She is above/below/outside the usual rules.
Thats the only reason why this position makes more sense than the “it just came into being ” position.

That position is just sleight of hand.

Brownie : “The best you can do is demonstrate they have no scientific basis for believing what they do. ”

Again this cannot possibly work in a science class because a creationist has an issue about these foundational questions like that science gives us the truth and so on. All the teacher can do –in science class– is te question beggingly repeat stuff the student does not accept :

Teacher : here is a proof and that is not ,

Student : but I think that biblical account or invoking deities is warranted .

Teacher :No it is not , because only naturalistic explanations are legitimate.

Student : Sorry, can you explain why only naturalistic explanations are allowed ? This view about what kind of explanations are legit …is that a scientific principle ?

Note that a science teacher cannot possibly convince a hard bitten creationist that his view is superior without falling back on discussion of what evidence is and how explanation works which is very tricky and itself disputed territory. And then of course there is the Steve Fuller postmodern defence of ID…

the usual rule holds true – you can’t get something from nothing.

He/She is above/below/outside the usual rules

This is not a sustainable position. You have just anthropomorphized big bang, therefore there can be no link with the various “holy” books.

The exchange between Mark T, Stu and Leib shows that you cannot really usefully debate creationism.

Nope, I would say that it demonstrates you’ll never get agreement between a theist and an atheist. You can usefully debate creationism up to the point where you demonstrate it has no scientific basis. I agree that debate beyond this is likely fruitless.

On the other hand, a theist who accepts evolutionary science (i.e. the vast majority of theists) cannot be rebutted using scientific fat, as science doesn’t yet have any ‘facts’ about first-cause.

Nope, I would say that it demonstrates you’ll never get agreement between a theist and an atheist. You can usefully debate creationism up to the point where you demonstrate it has no scientific basis

Which is what we have done on this thread…

To paraphrase your own point:

Since the goddists are claiming otherwise, I posit that the onus is on them to prove the non-existence of god’s maker. Otherwise the usual rule holds true – you can’t get something from nothing.

zdenekv,

Your scenario has the teacher engaged in a theological discussion. I’m not advocating that and nor was Reiss. Certainly my understanding is that creationist theory does invoke science/psuedo-science, and this is its great weakness and where it should be attacked. And the sicence class is the perfect place to do this.

That the student may then come back with any bollocks is not disputed; but you’ve demonstrated to the rest of the class that whatever this kid believes, it ‘aint science.

Brownie : “Nope, I would say that it demonstrates you’ll never get agreement between a theist and an atheist. You can usefully debate creationism up to the point where you demonstrate it has no scientific basis”

Or –if the teacher is not careful–the teacher allows the creationist to show that science is “just one way of knowing the world and that creationism is another alternative and equally valid way of knowing stuff”. This is the outcome that is also fine for the creationist is it not ?

I’ve always thought that the best answer to creationists when they say how everything works perfectly and thus there must be a guiding intelligence, is that those organisms that didn’t became extinct. To say that creationism is an invention of the nineteenth century is formally true, but prior to that any explanation would have been uncritically religious. The scientific and intellectual parameters simply did not exist before then. Darwin’s theory was only able to be developed because of the rise of geology (linked to mining industries) where (I forget his name but he was responsible for developing geology)a counter-explanation of the existence of the (physical) earth and the long stretches of time involved in laying down rocks an changes became possible for the first time. Shouldn’t these creationists be against the Hadron Ollidor. That strikes right at the heart of their belief (unless they say that God caused the Big Bang in the first place…). By the way, I read somewhere that the basis for life is sugar. Apparently it was sugar molecules floating around in space that banded together and developed into the molecules that went on to become living. That would explain my younger daughter’s affinity to sweets, the sugary the better.

Or –if the teacher is not careful–the teacher allows the creationist to show that science is “just one way of knowing the world and that creationism is another alternative and equally valid way of knowing stuff”. This is the outcome that is also fine for the creationist is it not ?

Well no. The teacher – because s/he is a science teacher – will have demonstrated that whilst anyone is entitled to believe whatever they wish, there is such a thing as scientific fact and scientific fact contradicts creationist theory rather than supports it.

Again, I fully accept that the student may come back with the sort of stuff you allude to above, but then the teacher can say:

“Of course you’re entitled to your world view, but in sciene we don’t test world views. We test the facts. And you have none.”

In 200 years time (and probably much sooner), the theories most people on this thread regard as scientific fact will very likely be seen as superstitious nonsense too.

This whole discussion is absurd. What is the problem telling children, if they ask, that there is the biblical approach and there is the scientific evolutionary approach, or whatever you want to call it?

Children are quite capable of grasping complexity and contradictions in life, unless you coerce them into believing that there must always be one truth and one correct answer to any question or dilemma.

We know so little and most of the mysteries of the universe remain just that – mysteries, that we don’t understand and can’t fully explain.

Why are you so threatened by the idea that people may choose to believe things that you don’t? In India people believe in multiple deities, one of them blue and one of them with an elephant’s nose, for goodness sake. Why haven’t you been frothing at the mouth here about that? I’ll tell you why, because it’s none of your business, that’s why. Just as its none of anyones business ridiculing children or stifling their thought because they believe in the tooth fairy or that there are little green people living on a planet in a neighboring galaxy that regularly visit earth in flying saucers (something that very well could turn out to be true).

Just as creationism seems nonsensical to you, evolution can seem like a long shot as an explanation, to someone else with a critical, creative mind.

“This whole discussion is absurd. What is the problem telling children, if they ask, that there is the biblical approach and there is the scientific evolutionary approach, or whatever you want to call it?”

Because the ‘biblical approach’ is wrong and false. There aren’t two approaches – there is one approach. The ‘biblical approach’ isn’t worthy of consideration – especially not in a science class.

Brownie, if creationism is just a world view ( Michael Reiss position ) which cannot be tested –your own concession when you say ‘we test facts and you have none’– then the science teacher cannot show that creationist account is contradicted by the scientific account —-the two stories are incommensurable. You seem to want to say that creationism is both not testable and is testable ( because it can be contradicted by facts it can be tested for truth false hood ). Can you hold both ?

Just as creationism seems nonsensical to you, evolution can seem like a long shot as an explanation, to someone else with a critical, creative mind.

Well, to someone with a critical, creative mind who hasn’t thought for one second about evolution, or bothered to read about it.

“In 200 years time (and probably much sooner), the theories most people on this thread regard as scientific fact will very likely be seen as superstitious nonsense too.”

There is a immeasurable difference between believing in superstition and to make erroneous conclusions from scientific observations.

“School science lessons are for giving pupils a working knowledge of our current – but of course provisional – picture of how the world works, plus the evidence underpinning that.”
Prof Steve Jones

“Because the ‘biblical approach’ is wrong and false. There aren’t two approaches – there is one approach. The ‘biblical approach’ isn’t worthy of consideration – especially not in a science class.”

I Agree. Reiss and Brownie though seem to accept that there is no point in discussing it in science classes because it is just a ‘world view’ which cannot be usefully put under any sort of intellectual pressure and yet they both want to see it discussed in science classes ? What is going on ? This is a bit weird.

Science teachers should be more worried about getting children into their classes and making the subject interesting to them. Which it currently is not and has not been for a long time now.

Rather than excluding yet more curious minds with more turgid received opinions packaged as, ‘this is how things are’.

It should be noted that scientific knowledge has some practical applications of great worth but changes often and rapidly overtime. It is not a philosophical system nor is it a basis of living a good life, for example. Even the Idiot-Dawkins has finally admitted that one.

The principle that there is a Creator is taken as read in Science it is only how it all works together that has us still stumped. Lucky really as humanity is a very long way from being ready for that kind of thing. Clearly.

There are also many approaches to the Bible or any of the other Sacred texts if you care to look at any of the major world religions they react to and influenced by non-religious thought constantly. This works the other way too hence the popularity of some ‘Biblical’ concepts with Theoretical Physicists and Cosmologists, for example.

Brownie, if creationism is just a world view ( Michael Reiss position ) which cannot be tested –your own concession when you say ‘we test facts and you have none’– then the science teacher cannot show that creationist account is contradicted by the scientific account —-the two stories are incommensurable. You seem to want to say that creationism is both not testable and is testable ( because it can be contradicted by facts it can be tested for truth false hood ). Can you hold both ?

Okay, so my understanding is that Creationists are not content to be regarded as just a.n.other group with views that others might find wacky. A Christian who accepts evolution as fact doesn’t pretend that he has ‘facts’ that validate his belief in God. He’ll talk about faith and try to explain that this faith does not contradict scientific fact as we know it and that the two can happily coexist. Creationists absolutely do contest scientific fact (I know ‘Creationist’ covers many bases, but I think we mostly agree what we’re discussing when we use the term). They hold that the earth is much younger than we know it is, that humans have always looked the way we do now, that dinosaurs didn’t really exist, that the book of Genesis is the literal truth, etc… Using science, you can demonstrate that this is excrement. No-one is claiming that the sort of discussion Reiss is envisaging will render the die-hard creationist mute, but you can expose Creationism’s fallacious science in the classroom. In fact, we must. That the creationist will maintain what they will can be met with a response that science classes are not the place to test humankind’s potential for denial.

The truth is that no approach is likely to rid the committed creationist of his/her beliefs, but science shouldn’t give two hoots about that. What we can and should do is limit the creationist’s scope for peddling myths about equally valid scientific theories of the origin of our species and the world we inhabit. Forget the creationist student for a second and his/her ‘world view’ – there are 30 other kids in the class who have just seen the pseudo-science underpinnning Creationism exposed for the sham it is. How can this not be a good thing?

Everyone is generously overestimating not only the didactic powers of most teachers but also the absorptive powers of most pupils.

The best policy is for parents to debrief children every day when they get home from school and then re-upload the information properly at source. And this policy is not only to be applied to schoolchildren.

Creationism, dinosaurs, you’ll be lucky if anything at all is properly taught in the majority of schools these days.

A deeply confused Imshin says: “In 200 years time (and probably much sooner), the theories most people on this thread regard as scientific fact will very likely be seen as superstitious nonsense too.”

Not so. You are falling for the fallacy (commonly held by non-scientists) that because our scientific theories are never formally proven with a capital P, they are all equally likely to be disproven, or worst they are just arbitrary social constructs. Of course scientific theories right at the cutting edge are necessarily tentative. But they rest on a huge – and crucially – an interlocking set of more basic theories that are so well established that their overthrow is inconceivable. In 200 years time, chemists will still be learning about the atomic theory of matter, and explaining why this disproves homeopathy; physicists will still be using the laws of thermodynamics and explaining why they rule out perpetual motion machines and biologists will still be studying evolution and explaining to anyone who wants to listen why creationism is crap.

“We know so little and most of the mysteries of the universe remain just that – mysteries, that we don’t understand and can’t fully explain.”

That’s another red herring. Of course there are lots of things we don’t understand – that’s one of the things that make science interesting. But actually we do know quite a bit, and you can’t just blithely ignore what we do know.

Pretty soon it will probably end up in the “Palinistas” position where “both sides” is discussed as “scientific” options in an unsettled disagreement.

That fellow Reiss seems hellbent getting creationism in to the classroom one way or the other.

How to convert a generation – 2006
Reiss describes the new courses as a “significant shift” away from the traditional aim of school science – to prepare candidates for A-levels. … “It is trying both to provide a genuine education in science for the majority who will not study it after the age of 16, and to be an exciting and challenging basis for those who, we hope, will study after the age of 16.”
…
Reiss also says the new courses increase creationism’s presence in the science classroom. “I think all the new GCSE science courses open up the possibilities for discussions about socio-scientific issues, including creationism,”

This fellow Reiss appear to engage in a lot of muddled talk, very open ended so it’s difficult to nail down what he really mean.

What’s the underlying aim, dumbing down of the masses that are no longer needed as a educational potential? One come to think of the Hitchens brothers position, that seemed to be sort of religion is needed to keep the masses obeisant and in check so they don run amok in unmoral activities, if “we” believe is irrelevant. As someone said “the opium …”

It’s quite remarkable how the “palinistas” have advanced their positions over the last 2 to 3 decades. The word of wisdom from people like John Adams or Russell’s “why I’m not a Christian” seems to faster and faster fade away in a distant historic obscurity.

I’m not knowledgeable of curriculums of religious culture and ethics but I doubt that the they include a serious scientific approach to the validity of sources to holy scriptures. Do they inform the pupils like Hitchens put it “that monotheistic religion[s] is a plagiarism of a plagiarism of a hearsay of a hearsay, of an illusion of an illusion, extending all the way back to a fabrication of a few nonevents.” That should of course be the right thing to do so children can make a informed decision on such important matters.

If so of course the ill-arranged set of plagiarisms that is Islam have to be excluded, if you don’t want schools bombed and teachers killed.

Brownie : “No-one is claiming that the sort of discussion Reiss is envisaging will render the die-hard creationist mute, but you can expose Creationism’s fallacious science in the classroom. In fact, we must. ”

Well there seems to be some difference between your view and Reiss’ view because the sort of discussion he is envisaging will not do any “exposing” of falsehoods because he thinks that creationism is not a misconception about how things are ( it is not in the game of making claims that can be true or false ). As I said it is not obvious how one takes a critical stance towards a position which is incapable of being false.

Note though that Michael Reiss now has the additional problem : if creationism cannot be false ( follows from his take on its content ) it follows that it cannot be true either ! But this is weird because it seems like 1) a complete misunderstanding of creationism which would never take itself to be a kind of fiction incapable of describing the real world. 2) I am not entirely sure what is going on but my hunch is that he has been influenced by Kuhn’s work ( not surprising because Kuhn is absolutely everywhere ) who provides just the right kind of tools for defending creationism against science. Unfortunately the highly unstable position that this gives rise to ( relativism for starters ) is hard to defend and maybe he is right to keep this in the background.

It seems like the more one unpacks Reiss view the more weird it becomes.

Imshin

Of course actual fossils were often unearthed in the ancient world and the largest number seemed to be from China.

Dragon’s eggs were a rare item from Cathay (actual dinosaur eggs it appears).

Then again at the British museum I have seen vegetable lambs of Tartary, mermaids (fish and monkeys stuck together) and Sea Bishops.

Sea Bishops were known to come ashore in England and give the odd sermon.

They were actually skate pressed and pushed into a Bishop’s mitre shape.

BTW my church was very high Anglican (and the vicar was called father and reputed to be more Catholic than the Pope) and they never actually insisted on the facts of creation, it was simply an unwritten rule that accepted a division of truth between the secular scientific sphere and that of religion.

Maybe Christianity was still confident enough then (there was a lot of it about where I grew up including in school) not to feel challenged by science.

I think the point was to have a dual consciousness and not accept the bible as literally, but spiritually true, and so it was not appropriate for smart alec brats like me reared on Star Trek to give them a hard time.

Of course I thought I was terribly clever and was convinced I had proof when told that Cain slew Able and was exiled later returning with a wife!

As he was the only remaining son of Adam and Eve I wanted to know where he had got the wife from.

Was she an alien, I asked?

I do think it must cause all kinds of mental disorder actually trying to hold that scripture is literally true.

Deeply confused, yes, Tony. But most people are like me. And that’s why you guys are so threatened by us ignorant illogical tooth fairy believers – WE HAVE THE VOTE! And it’s worth exactly the same as your vote!

Lucky for you, I cast my vote in Israel.

Mettaculture, re Cain’s wife, my little one came up with that one in second grade too – her teacher told me with beaming eyes (’Such clever questions she asks’. It was a secular school so not seen as a problem). I believe there’s a Midrash (interpretation) that says Adam and Eve had daughters that aren’t mentioned (Yossi?). So she wasn’t an alien. It was just a bit of early incest.

BTW, Tony, I enjoyed your comments answering mine very much, even in my sorry confused state. Thank you.

“What is the problem telling children, if they ask, that there is the biblical approach and there is the scientific evolutionary approach, or whatever you want to call it?”

It frightens insecure people.

Not sure if it’s folkloric or Biblical, but I’ve always understood that prior to God creating humans, the world was populated by a race of giants. Eve was actually Adam’s second wife, his first was a giantess known as Lilith. This is interesting as it echoes Greek creation myths concerning the Titans.

It’s not in Genesis, at any rate: acc. to Genesis, the race of giants (if that’s what they were supposed to be – nefilim in Hebrew) came much later.
Lilith is a later myth, IIRC: Rabbinical rather than Biblical.

“Science teachers should be more worried about getting children into their classes and making the subject interesting to them. Which it currently is not and has not been for a long time now”

Breathtaking generalisation. There are plenty of science teachers who are very good at making the subject(s) interesting.

“Since in the physical world, every article can be said to have a maker e.g. cars, watches, houses are all made or manufactured by someone, I think it follows that the world itself also has a maker”

Define ‘I think’.
Your silly argument rests on the absurd notion that ‘every article in the physical world’ was made by humans (you extrapolate from cars and watches to stones and trees).
Try again.