I agree with Michael Reiss that we should challenge creationists head-on by debunking their claims in science class. When students bring up bogus objections to evolution we should make sure they understand why they are wrong. It's all part and parcel of teaching critical thinking—the main objective in education [see The Royal Society and Teaching Creationism].
Some people disagree. They think that even mentioning these bogus objections in class lends credence to creationism. This is what I call the Ostrich Approach to teaching.
The New Humanist has an article on the controversy [Creationism in schools row rumbles on]. Here's the issue as they see it.
The issue of creationism in class is a difficult one. Critics such as Kroto, Roberts and Dawkins are understandably wary of religious ideas being allowed anywhere near school science labs, especially at a time when creationist organisations and proponents of Intelligent Design are stepping up efforts to shoehorn their ideas into science curricula. But if we take Reiss at his word (and if you read the blog posted on the Guardian last week, it's clear he wasn't suggesting creationism should be taught), then wasn't he just pointing out that the classroom should be a forum for free and open debate, and teachers must be ready to enter discussion with their pupils, and put them right when the views they bring from home clearly contradict the overwhelming evidence for evolution? Isn't this part of the aim of education?PZ Myers has weighed in against Reiss [Michael Reiss's big mistake]. According to PZ ...
Michael Reiss, the director of education, is pushing this idea with a noble and reasonable intent: he thinks it is the only way to reach some students who will shut off learning if their religious biases are challenged. Unfortunately, he's also suggesting that non-science/anti-science concepts should be specified as a course objective in science classes, he's buying into common creationist propaganda ploy, and he's asking for unwarranted deference for wrong ideas held for unscientific reasons by students. He argues for respecting misplaced concerns.I don't agree with PZ. I think he misunderstands what Michael Reiss is advocating and, furthermore, I think he's projecting an American perspective on to teaching in the UK.
The New Humanist website is running a poll on the question. The poll asks for your views on Michael Reiss' opinion. The choices are:
- Outrageous – creationism has no place in schools and he should be removed from his post
- Irresponsible – no one wants to stifle debate, but his comments risk encouraging the encroachment of creationism into schools
- Misunderstood – his sensible comments on free debate were misrepresented by hysterical media
- Brave – In a scientific community hostile to religion, he has made a stand for open debate
16 comments :
I think you're right. Unless one addresses students' pre-understanding (especially when it is a pre-misunderstanding), much of the evidence educators present to them will simply not get through. And if our aim is to educate, then we may indeed have to help them unlearn some things they already think they know, before we can help them learn.
Well said Larry. I find this whole thing surreal. The way in which Reiss' remarks have been interpreted, as a way of letting creationism in the door, is bizarre.
Creationism is already in the door, in the minds of some of the students; and if the subject comes up it should be addressed in the science class... mindful of the fact that we are dealing with school kids.
I think you make a valid point, but I'm not an optimist. It's great if teachers restrict their comments to explaining what science is, and why creationism isn't science. But what happens when Teacher X decides to begin presenting the 'evidence' for intelligent design as though it neatly refutes evolution? As far I understand, every court battle won on the side of reason has achieved victory by demonstrating that Intelligent Design is a religious phenomenon, which has no place in the classroom. If that church/state separation is removed, no matter how noble the intentions, what basis will the ACLU, for example have for prosecuting a teacher who decides to falsely present the evidence for evolution?
Ultimately, I agree that this is somewhat a 'head in the sand' way of reasoning, and it would be much better to address these ideas in a forum of free inquiry. However, I'm unconvinced that this will actually be a forum for free inquiry. Regardless, perhaps the best way to see if it works is to try - but then we've gotta be REALLY careful about laying the groundwork such that it doesn't set a precedent for creationist-teachers to simply present their 'evidence'.
I don't really understand.
Reiss says, "So when teaching evolution, there is much to be said for allowing students to raise any doubts they have... and doing one's best to have a genuine discussion."
Reiss is correct: This is hardly a revolutionary idea, and certainly Myers endorses the concept: "I'm also happy to answer any questions that students may bring up, which often involve creationist misconceptions."
What's puzzling, though, is that Reiss "feel[s] that creationism is best seen by science teachers not as a misconception but as a world view."
I think a lot of people, myself included, are reacting specifically to this bit of metaphysical mumbo-jumbo. Creationism is a misconception, and that's precisely how teachers such as Myers treat it. The idea that creationism a "world-view" -- as opposed to a misconception --- doesn't make any sense regarding science teaching.
I don't think anyone says that if a student raises a question about creationism, that any teacher -- kindergarten or college -- should simply say, "We just don't talk about that here."
The debate is not about whether we should answer creationist questions, but about how. The only advice that Reiss offers is -- astonishingly --- to not treat them as "misguided"; the rest of the article is pure fluff.
Hi Larry,
a few days before the buzz over Reiss I was advocating in my blog the teaching of the creationist approach of the meaning of life the universe and the rest of it, to be compared with a rational, scientific approach, as necessary.
But I would not trust ordained priests when it comes to define what 'creationism' is, and among them come the Rev. Michael Reiss. He may want to use teaching against YECs and IDiots to get credit for his support of science, while using the backdoor to introduce his Creator.
Very much like the Templeton Foundation and his champion Ken Miller fought against the Discovery Institute, but still remain in the creationists' team, with their creator a little bit behind the horizon of the Big Bang or of Quantum Mechanics.
Callan Bentley over at NOVA Geoblog has an excellent post on the issue of how a student's preconceived (but erroneous) notions of how the world works can be a significant obstacle to learning.
In that post there is a link to a 20 minute video called "A Private Universe", which illustrates the issue (by questioning Harvard grads and faculty about basic science facts; its kind of an Ivy League version of "Are you Smarter than a Fifth Grader", and they don't do too well)
Callan Bentley post "Minds of our own"
I found the presentation makes a pretty compelling case for addressing these preconcieved notions straight up.
A balanced view in my opinion. Approximating the 'ID' view as a series of challenges as to why evolution can't happen (that is, neglecting the positive but far less scientifically tractable God/Intelligence aspect), then successful engagement of these negative challenges could act as a frizzen of research. Polemical engagement of aspects of ID that have cognitive content, (if only negative content) could help strengthen evolutionary theory in the long run.
Denying ID theorists any polemical space by snubbing them completely does come over as less a scientific strategy than a social strategy with the aim of ensuring that ID theorists stay at the bottom of the social pecking order by using that old technique of not dignifying their work with a response.
Robin Hanson, over at Overcoming Bias, made the following statement, which helps to frame the issue: “What I can't endorse is the paternalism of teaching an elite academic norm that intelligence design, ghosts, UFOs, etc. are too silly to even consider, in order to correct a public biased to think these options excessively likely.”
Rephrasing that statement into a question: “Is it paternalistic to treat ID, UFO, ghosts, etc as too silly to even consider, when the public is biased to think that these things are real?” Might we do better to address such erroneous beliefs about the natural world directly, rather than expect the students to ponder them in light of what they *are* taught, with the risk that they either never put 2 and 2 together, or (worse) later reject the sound material they were taught?
The more I ponder the issue, the more I think it would be a good thing to address ID, and things like astrology, UFO, etc. in the science classroon. As Larry said in another thread, far better that the scientists be the ones that lead the discussion.
I'm entirely with Larry on this one. This is not about teaching creationism as if it were sound science. Reiss made no such suggestion. This is about free debate and science being unafraid to confront religious objections from students openly. Treating those questions with respect does not mean you cannot say that science has found no evidence for them and that is why they are not part of the science curriculum. I also voted for option 3 in the New Humanist poll.
Directly from the Royal Society's website:
Professor Reiss has issued the following clarification. "Some of my comments about the teaching of creationism have been misinterpreted as suggesting that creationism should be taught in science classes. Creationism has no scientific basis. However, when young people ask questions about creationism in science classes, teachers need to be able to explain to them why evolution and the Big Bang are scientific theories but they should also take the time to explain how science works and why creationism has no scientific basis. I have referred to science teachers discussing creationism as a worldview'; this is not the same as lending it any scientific credibility."
To hear more from the horse's mouth go now and listen to Reiss
here.
Reiss has resigned:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7619670.stm
Shame
I'm an American expat living in London now for six years and I've noticed something rather interesting: when times get tough, the British don't fight, they resign. If Bill Clinton had been British PM, he'd have resigned (or been forced to, and not by an impeachment but by political pressure from his own party) when the Monica scandal emerged.
Times were tough for Reiss, no doubt, and, being British, he resigned. But ultimately, as I said in my previous comment, he was on 'our' side, and yet unlike many evolution proselytizers he had a nuanced understanding of what really happens in (British) classrooms and churches and therefore an awareness of the opposition that I doubt whoever they pick as his replacement will have.
I agree and we voted the same way. Heavily outnumbered by the knee-jerk crowd unfortunately. I put the Royal Society's clarification to the hysteria on PZ's comments list but it vanished in the murk.
I lecture in scientific thinking/zoology at a British university and I think Reiss was spot on and wholly reasonable. I think the response of the Royal Soc has been very damaging as they represent the face of British scientists and they are making us look like bigots.
I have surveyed my students. About 2% of them are young Earth creationists (a far lower proportion than in the USA) with a bigger proportion of old Earth creationists. But these are not dumb students when tested their critical thinking skills are the same as their evolution believing cohorts (to my surprise). So we cannot hold our heads in the sand on this issue.
Surely discussing creationism and why it is not science is precisely what should be taught in science classes.
As someone who will be spending a week after next week teaching freshman about creationist arguments, I agree that exposing students to the debate is a useful tool. There are two problems, though.
Reiss offered a similar plan, but with a decidedly conciliatory flavor. Creationism is simply wrong, and going into it with the idea that you aren't going to confront it, that you're going to treat it as simply a "worldview", is not going to address the issue. Reiss was very wobbly on that point. Maybe he's saying the same thing, but it's terribly murky.
The other problem is an American one. Too many American public high school teachers would see this not as an opportunity to teach the weaknesses of creationism, but as a chance to teach creationism, period. And I fear that there are many British teachers who would see a call to be nice to creationism as an opportunity to expand the inroads of pseudoscience there.
PZ says,
Creationism is simply wrong, and going into it with the idea that you aren't going to confront it, that you're going to treat it as simply a "worldview", is not going to address the issue. Reiss was very wobbly on that point. Maybe he's saying the same thing, but it's terribly murky.
Adaptationism is a worldview. We confront it in class to show why it's wrong.
What's your point?
Post a Comment