On 28 Oct 2009 at 17:43, Christopher D. Green wrote: > More Brits than Americans now favor creationism in science classes... > http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/oct/25/teach-evolution-creationism-britons
For shame! And on Darwin's home ice too. Opinion among scientists seems to be uniformly against allowing any mention of creationism in the classroom. The understandable fear is that allowing creationism to be discussed will elevate it in the eyes of students to the status of an alternative scientific theory worthy of attention. In a worst-case scenario, it might allow creationist teachers the chance to promote creationism over evolution. But I think this misses an important opportunity. Students are likely to be confused because, on the one hand, they are told that science operates, not by decree, but by asking questions and examing the evidence dispassionately, and on the other, are told that what may appear to them as a credible alternative theory cannot be discussed in the classroom. Yes, science promotes free and open inquiry. No, you may not talk about intelligent design in the classroom. So creationism should be taught. But it should be taught in order to contrast it with evolution as a scientific theory, supported by evidence, capable of being disproved, subject to modification as new evidence is obtained, and leading to new knowledge and applications. Creationism as a religious belief can do none of these things. Students should be able to appreciate the difference, and where better to teach this than in the science classroom. In short, I think it is important to teach students not only why evolution is a scientific theory, but why intelligent design is not. This seems to be a distinctly minority position. But I notice that one person quoted in the Guardian article comes close to this position: "But Alison Ryan, policy adviser of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers Union, said that if a "good teacher handled the lesson", presenting creationism and intelligent design need not be problematic. "Science teachers could introduce creationism as a theory that some people hold, but that is not based on evidence." Much better, it seems to me, than saying "Creationism is not a scientific theory and we will not discuss it here. Try Sunday school". On a related note, as a member of the privileged group "Project Steve", I have now received my (free!) t-shirt from the National Center for Science Education ( www.ncseweb.org ). It says on the front "Over 1000 scientists named Steve agree" and it then lists them in tiny letters (I'm between Steven D. Black and Stephen Blackmore). At the bottom it advises "Teach Evolution!" More names on the back. At the bottom it says "In memoriam Stephen Jay Gould 1941-2002". It's very cool. Tom, Dick (and Jane), Harry, and all the Michaels on this list, I'm sorry, but you can't have one. Project Steve at http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve Stephen ----------------------------------------------------------------- Stephen L. Black, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology, Emeritus Bishop's University e-mail: [email protected] 2600 College St. Sherbrooke QC J1M 1Z7 Canada ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected])
