The origin of speciousness
School science lessons are are not the place to teach children about creationism and 'intelligent design'.
Growing numbers of school kids (we are told) believe in creationism. That poses a problem for teachers presenting evolution as part of the science curriculum. So they should cover religious explanations of origins alongside Darwinism.
That was the argument put forward last week in a new book entitled Teaching About Scientific Origins. One of its editors Prof Michael Reiss, of the Institute of Education in London told the Guardian:
"The days have long gone when science teachers could ignore creationism when teaching about origins. While it is unlikely that they will help students who have a conflict between science and their religious beliefs to resolve the conflict, good science teaching can help them to manage it - and
to learn more science.
"By not dismissing their beliefs, we can ensure that these students learn what evolutionary theory really says, and give everyone the understanding to respect the views of others," he added.
Prof Reiss, who has a PhD in evolutionary biology and is also a Church of England priest, qualifies his position in the book:
"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."
This "anything goes" approach to school science will only serve to blur the boundary between evidence-based scientific knowledge and faith. At best it will provide an unwelcome distraction in an already tight curriculum. At worse it has the potential to confuse children as to what science is and what it is not.
To borrow an example from the evolutionary biologist and popular science author Prof Steve Jones, we don't ask science teachers to spend valuable teaching time explaining why the stork theory of human reproduction won't get you many marks in the exam. Nor do we ask them to go in detail through the case for the sun revolving around the earth. 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. There is too much fascinating science out there to waste time rehearsing discredited old ideas.
The job of a science teacher should be to present the evidence in favour of Darwin's beautiful theory.
The new guidelines from the government on teaching evolution state that alternatives to Darwinism such as creationism and intelligent design can come into discussions on the subject, but only to illustrate what does and does not constitute a scientific theory.In stating clearly that creationism and intelligent design "should not be taught as science" they are right on the money.
Prof Reiss is not saying that creationism is science, but his proposals seem to stem from the dangerous notion that religious views are beyond challenge. Education should be about allowing such views to be challenged.
No comments:
Post a Comment