Teaching Philosophy

Really? The organization that awarded Darwin the Copley medal in 1864 (albeit, famously *not* for the Origin, at least, that is what General Sabine claimed. Huxley had a different view) now thinks that creationism should be taught in schools?

Well, this story: Leading scientist urges teaching of creationism in schools in the Times makes that claim. Actually, the story glosses over a number of details. The teaser claims that the claim was made ‘according to the royal society’, but if you read further, the claim was made by Rev Michael Reiss, who is the current director of education. The society could confirm that “Professor Reiss’s views did represent that of its president, Lord Rees of Ludlow, and the society”, but there is no mention of a resolution being passed by the membership or any such general consensus.

Moreover, the article hasn’t clearly distinguished between teaching creationism as a scientific theory (whatever that may mean) and teaching it merely “as a world view.” After all, one could teach astrology “as a world view” without making claims to its veracity.

Later in the article, Reiss is quoted as saying “Just because something lacks scientific support doesn’t seem to me a sufficient reason to omit it from a science lesson.” Again, the problem here is what we mean by ‘lesson’. Sure, I can (and do) include Bill O’Reilly’s tirade on Katrina in my lessons on Critical Thinking, and his views lack support (any, not just scientific). But I make no claims as to the veracity of his assertions, just the structure of his reasoning.

All of this ambiguity in the article appears to have caused a stir over in Carlton House. The Royal society issued this retraction earlier today (9/16):

Some of Professor Michael Reiss’s recent comments, on the issue of creationism in schools, while speaking as the Royal Society’s Director of Education, were open to misinterpretation. While it was not his intention, this has led to damage to the Society’s reputation. As a result, Professor Reiss and the Royal Society have agreed that, in the best interests of the Society, he will step down immediately as Director of Education a part time post he held on secondment. He is to return, full time, to his position as Professor of Science Education at the Institute of Education.

The Royal Society’s position is that creationism has no scientific basis and should not be part of the science curriculum. However, if a young person raises creationism in a science class, teachers should be in a position to explain why evolution is a sound scientific theory and why creationism is not, in any way, scientific.

The Royal Society greatly appreciates Professor Reiss’s efforts in furthering the Society’s work in the important field of science education over the past two years. The Society wishes him well for the future.

The issue has also been blogged over at Pharyngula: Royal Society statement regarding Michael Reiss (original post here: Michael Reiss’s big mistake)

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.