BBC: Scientist/priest says teachers are scared to teach evolution
Professor Michael Reiss, scientist, priest and head of science at London’s Institute of Education, has written a new book aimed at encouraging teachers, who it seems are avoiding the teaching of evolution in schools for fear of the “controversy” and not wanting to dismiss creationist pupils’ beliefs out of hand.
This could leave pupils with gaps in their scientific knowledge, he says.
Prof Reiss says the rise of creationism is partly down to the large increase in Muslim pupils in UK schools.
He said: “The number of Muslim students has grown considerably in the last 10 to 20 years and a higher proportion of Muslim families do not accept evolutionary theory compared with Christian families.
“That’s one reason why it’s more of an issue in schools.”
The days have long gone when science teachers could ignore creationism when teaching about origins
said Reiss.
Reiss’s book, Teaching About Scientific Origins: Taking Account of Creationism, argues that there is an educational value in comparing creationist ideas with scientific theories like Darwin’s theory of evolution because they demonstrate how science, unlike religious beliefs, can be tested.
(BBC)
While I admire Reiss’s efforts to help get science where it belongs, I wonder if he also thinks that these other ideas should be considered in science lessons, so that they can be summarily dismissed also:
- the “stork” hypothesis of reproduction
- the “intelligent falling” hypothesis of gravity
- the “to test our faith” hypothesis of palaeontology
- the “pirates” hypothesis of global climate change
There’s just as much evidence for these as there are for creationism (i.e. none whatsoever).
October 5th, 2007 at 8:26 am
Intelligent falling? Ack, don’t be insane. It’s blatantly obvious only Sticky Ground theory can explain all the complexites of gravity.
October 5th, 2007 at 11:01 am
Heretic! Everybody knows (even if they say they don’t) that everything is pushed onto the earth’s surface by the great breath of the omnipresent silver space turtle.
October 5th, 2007 at 7:49 pm
Bah, I should have known you would pick up on this as well. I did a similar post to yours :-) (Self publicising time: http://www.whydontyou.org.uk/blog/2007/10/05/the-rise-of-creationism/ )
One of the things which I found odd about Reiss’ comments were the implications that Islamic families were to blame for the rise in creationist school kids. I cant for the life of me see how he works this out…
Also, one of the things which ticked me off about this is the idea that teachers are scared of debating with school kids. Is our education system really that bad now?
October 6th, 2007 at 9:52 pm
Here’s what someone should ask Reiss:
If everything is open for debate, under the vague rubric of “educational value,” why have teachers and schools at all? Why not just let kids roam the streets and pick up whatever ridiculous opinions they can? Then they could join whatever “debate” they chose without citizens incurring any public expense for education.
October 10th, 2007 at 6:34 am
I think you’re being unfair to Reiss (though you may still choose to disagree with his tactic). Catholicism has accepted the theory of evolution ever since Vatican II and shows no signs of changing its point of view on the subject. Reiss seems to want to include creationism not as the equivalent of the theory of evolution but as an example of a story about our origins which is not, by comparison precise or accurate. Where the creation story is a myth, evolution is demonstrated by scientific observation. One could find plenty of examples of this. It would make the creationist student upset, but would, in the long run, work to the betterment of scientific education. Or so I read him.
October 10th, 2007 at 7:10 am
@Joel: I have no idea if Reiss is catholic or not; to me it’s irrelevant, although I think I read him the same way; perhaps you misread me? My point is, why include creationism in biology, but not storkism in human biology or pirateism in world geography?
October 10th, 2007 at 8:03 pm
Because more people take creationism seriously than take the stork seriously.
October 12th, 2007 at 5:42 am
On the morning that this story was considered “news”, BBC radio 4 covered it on it’s hourly bulletins. At 6AM and 7AM the newsreader read “creationists believe the world is between six and ten thousand years old, the majority of scientists believe it is four and a half million years old.” I emailed them at ten past seven to point out that should be “billion” years old.
No one in the Today programme had noticed this error, because scientific knowledge is in very short supply in the BBC news department. I regard this as VERY ALARMING… (they emailed back to confirm that the mistake was to be corrected for the eight o’clock news)
Cheers!
Tom