Oh No! Not in the UK!

From Thursdays Grauniad:

Teachers should tackle creationism, says science education expert

Blah.
The Royal Society just went down in my estimation. Big time.
Reverend Professor Michael Reiss, director of education at the UK's national academy of science said:

"I realised that simply banging on about evolution and natural selection didn't lead some pupils to change their minds at all. Now I would be more content simply for them to understand it as one way of understanding the universe"

Reiss wants the classroom to be broad minded and open and I would normally agree, but not in this case. Reality is not a consensus, though many think it to be so. Rather it is an endless learning curve. There is no vote in the 'how reality is' debate. None. Believing something is true, no matter how deep your conviction, does not make it true. Note this because the future of humanity depends on it.



Professor Reiss, I thought you would have been well aware that evolution is the best explanation we humans have for the existence of life; including ourselves. An invisible magician poofing things into being is not an explanation and is of NO scientific merit AT ALL (sorry for shouting). Add to this the observation that if these young people are unable to change their minds, why are they studying science in the first place? Science is dynamic in that if new evidence is uncovered, theories will have to change. This is called learning. Religion is static and dogmatic, it kills free thought and investigation. In an unchanging universe it may have a place but the universe we inhabit is not unchanging.

"Reiss, who is an ordained Church of England minister, told the British Association Festival of Science in Liverpool that science teachers should not see creationism as a "misconception" but as an alternative "world view". He added that he was not advocating devoting the same time to teaching creationism or intelligent design as to evolution."

'Alternative world view'. WTF ALTERNATIVE!?!?!
How many alternatives do you want Professor Reiss? One each? I say again, there is no vote in the 'how reality is' debate. There are only the facts that our humble minds can discern from the majesty of the cosmos which surrounds us. Let us look. Evolutionary biology is supported by many branches of science including: anthropology, archaeology, paleontology, ecology, zoology, biochemistry, molecular biology, genetics, geology, comparative anatomy, cladistics... the list goes on.

If you would care to demonstrate your 'alternative world view' please present the evidence.

Waits
crickets chirp
tumbleweed blows past

Oh, that's right, you don't have any.

"Creationism is based on faith and has nothing to do with science, and it should not be taught in science classes," said Prof Lewis Wolpert, a developmental biologist at University College London. "There is no evidence for a creator, and creationism explains nothing."

well said Professor Wolpert.

Reiss agreed that creationism and intelligent design are not scientific theories, but he said that did not automatically exclude them from science lessons. "Just because something lacks scientific support doesn't seem to me a sufficient reason to omit it from the science lesson … there is much to be said for allowing students to raise any doubts they have – hardly a revolutionary idea in science teaching – and doing one's best to have a genuine discussion."

OK, so lets teach astrology and an Earth centered universe in physics class, we can throw in the luminiferous aether for good measure. How about flat Earthism and the Noachian flood in geography, or alchemy in chemistry class, or π=3 in mathematics. Also, which creation story do you want to see taught? No doubt it's the Biblical creation but which one for the creation of humanity, Genesis 1 (see verse 27) or Genesis 2 (see verses 7, 21 and 22)? They can't both be correct. Furthermore, if scientific discussion has to include a Judaic/Christian/Islamic myth then we should also discuss the counterparts from other religions ie Hinduism, Buddhism, American Indian, Norse, Inuit, and a hundred others. Perhaps we should also include the Biblical teaching that insects have four legs, and bats are birds. How about the Moon being made of green cheese Prof Reiss? As you said above, "Just because something lacks scientific support doesn't seem to me a sufficient reason to omit it from the science lesson".

I hope you now begin to see how your argument falls on its arse.





-----------------------

OK, maybe a bit of 'baby Jesus' is fine for the kids at Christmas, on the same level of fantasy as Santa Clause, but between grownups - let's keep reality real. OK? Please.