Reiss Resigns
Professor Michael Reiss has resigned from the position of director of education at the Royal Society[1]. He was thrust into controversy after he endorsed the discussion of creationism in the science classroom in the UK. He later insisted he wasn’t endorsing creationism lessons, but rather the issue of students raising religious questions:
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 agree with his decision to resign, because what he said above is not the kind of thing a secular nation needs, especially coming from a director of education. Let’s reword a few things to make an example:
Alchemy has no scientific basis. However, when young people ask questions about alchemy in science classes, teachers need to be able to explain to them why atoms and the chemical bond are scientific theories but they should also take the time to explain how science works and why alchemy has no scientific basis.
Same paragraph, just addressing a different subject of science. Should we expect chemistry teachers to answer questions on alchemy and show why it has no scientific basis? No. Should we expect physics teachers to answer questions on astrology and show why it has no scientific basis? No.
If I put my hand up in a biology classroom and said “what about creationism”, I would expect the only response to be “creationism is not science and has no scientific basis…now, look at genomes…”. This would be a perfectly suitable way of dealing with it, although preferably the teacher would respond “shut up and pay attention”. Mentioning creationism is a science classroom is akin to writing “The Earth Is Flat” in big letters on the white board. It is disruptive, and behaviour expected of indivduals who want to divert the attention of their fellow students.
So, I agree with Mr Reiss on the principle that if the subject is brought up, it should be commented on and dismissed. What I do not agree with is his opinion that “they should also take the time to explain how science works and why creationism has no scientific basis“. Creationism shouldn’t be given more than 10 seconds in a science classroom. If it is mentioned for more than that amount of time, students might get the impression that it is actually a worthwhile subject to talk about, instead of learning how evolution works, and all the evidence for that.
The best way to ensure students do not get pulled in by creationism is to provide them with the evidence for evolution. Once the students understand the theory of evolution and how it is supported, you could put them in front of a creationist preacher for 24 hours straight and they would laugh and shake their heads.
Coincidently, this little issue has given me a bit more hope in an otherwise failing country. Our economy might be going downhill, we might be led by a lunatic who is looking ever more like a totalitarian dictator[2][3], but if we can keep science as science, I count that as a win.
Michael Reiss is now working as the director of science for the Institute of Education, which deals with posgraduate studies of education. At least he isn’t anywhere near children’s education anymore.
Contact Adrian Hayter
My Facebook
My Atheist Nexus Page
My Twitter
My Reddit
My Atheist Spot
My FriendFeed
My Technorati
Atheist Forums
Loading ...
And furthermore, look at the damage that being open to “discussing creationism” is doing to the US education. Teachers are actually bullied by their own students.
That’s insane. Creationism receives focus because it’s culturally relevant. If alchemy was culturally relevant, I’d expect the same.
The aim of teaching science should be not only to teach the specific details of a field, but to teach the purpose and practice and the application to the real world. Of COURSE your science professors should be able to teach the students how to discriminate between true and false science, rather than expecting them to take it on faith. One of the very fundamentals of science is being able to disprove a false belief.
I’d also expect them to be able to show why astrology is not a science.
What a small-minded failure it is encourage his resignation simply because he wants the teachers to be able and prepared to tackle the kinds of questions students would ask where they see science engaging their personal lives. It smells of a petty vindictiveness to religion, rather than a true desire to see children educated.
Culturally relevant or not, it has no place in science. Teachers are already prepared to tackle such questions, because they can simply say “That is not science”. Mr Reiss was advocating a more detailed explanation of Creationism, which is not needed.
Well Reiss has become an example that people are not prepared to tackle such things – he himself has just been shouted out of the “classroom” for his views.