Reiss forced out

didn’t Dawkins suggest that he resign his religious post, not this one?

[Absolutely correct Adam, I’ve edited the post to reflect that. Sir Richard Roberts called for his dismissal, Dawkins — to his credit — did not. Thanks.]

The response by the RS just empowers creationists – it makes them look bigger and more powerful than they actually are in the UK, and it gives any journalists with creationist sympathies a great way of getting more creationist headlines in the paper – if someone else talks about the subject they can create a biased editorial and the mainstream papers will jump on it because they love to get a load of cheap provocative headlines about some new ‘trend’ or flavour of the week topic. Think how a few high profile knife attacks making the news allowed them weeks worth of cheap headlines on the subject.

Barry — if a math teacher had a 13 year old in class (sincerely) insisting that 2+2=17, and failed to engage them, that teacher would be a crap teacher. Of course, there are no social forces out there insisting that 2+2=17, so it doesn’t usually arise for math teachers; kids who do that are either incredibly dumb or making a joke. Science teachers really do have to confront this, and for most of them their training hasn’t equipped them with it very well. I presume that you have read the original statement of his views, so you know what they are (unlike, for example, the writer of the leader in the Times who seems not to be able to read).

Of course, teachers can ignore the ignorant and ill-formed beliefs of their students, and just insist that they are wrong without giving them any reasons why they’re wrong, as you recommend. Would that be science education? Maybe. The effects? Well, probably no worse than many other bad practices.

Creationism is not science

That’s true, Barry – I believe Reiss made the exact same assertion himself.

It is, however, always in line with scientific discovery to ask questions, and it is the job of any good teacher to provide answers and guidance surrounding those questions as much as it is to appease a curriculum. Better students explore topics – even in the interests of disagreeing with them – than dumbly copying down facts as dictated.

Of course, the problem is different from student to student. Someone who clearly has been engaged, as it were, respectfully, yet clearly exists to provide a contrary disruption, should probably be left to his own idiocy. Of course there’s a difference between inquisitive debate and a tiresome fool kicking up a fuss because he’s found something to disagree with.

It should fall under the rubric of good teaching not course content.

My reading of his article was that it did.

“The response by the RS just empowers creationists – it makes them look bigger and more powerful than they actually are in the UK, and it gives any journalists with creationist sympathies a great way of getting more creationist headlines in the paper”

I have to say, I’m quite looking forward to Melanie Philips’s (oh so predictable) piece on this in the Daily Hate. It’ll probably take the following form.

1) defending Reiss because he didn’t say that creationsim should be taught.
2) Compare the RS to some kind of historical religious persecution.
3) Use above to defend the teaching creationism in schools.

She’ll probably display her impressive ignorance with the, ‘theory versus fact’ chestnut as well.

Since it was not part of Reiss’s position that it should form part of the curriculum, you obviously haven’t read and understood what he wrote Brian.

Clearly a lot of people (admittedly, most of them reporters with the stupidity typical of the breed) weren’t able to do that, which means he didn’t choose his words carefully enough. When you occupy a position like his, there’s a price to be paid for that, and he paid it. I feel bad for him, but that’s how the world works.

When I was a student at a large, public, Southern U.S. university in the early 90s, I had an evangelical Christian roommate. She had a pamphlet explaining to her that she was allowed to learn about evolution for science courses, in order to give the required answers, and could in good conscience continue to believe in her heart that it was all wrong without feeling a religious obligation to argue the point in every class or drop out of science courses.

This struck me as a surprisingly reasonable attitude, and one that I have adopted as a professor — I don’t require that my students believe in their hearts everything that I teach them, I only require that they learn the current standard of scientific knowledge. You can believe in your heart in creationism all you want. Only writing about it in lieu of a proper exam answer will get you an F. It sounds to me as though Reiss was making this sort of distinction; asking for more is like insisting on some sort of creed, which is of course totally unscientific.

Incidentally I speak as someone who once derailed an entire economics class for a good month because I wasn’t willing even for a second, to grant Econ 101’s initial (absurd) assumptions, and so we ended up talking for an hour every morning about whether or not there really was any such thing as a free lunch. Eventually they chucked me out.

I find most of the so-called ‘skeptic’ movement hard to deal with as they are so loathe to turn their skepticism against Economics and (most of) cognitive psychology, both pseudo-sciences as much as astrology or homeopathy and, in the case of so-called ‘neo-classical’ economics, a good deal more harmful than most. But when the pseudo-science results in conclusions that fit one’s own political prejudices, it seems, we must forget all that blather about facts, evidence and argument. (Michael Shermer being the pre-eminent example).

Chris- look at the previous thread on this. I DID understand him, and said from the start that I thought he wasn’t proposing anything novel or objectionable- but that he had failed to express himself clearly. I’m not accusing him of anything. I think he meant well. But as a purely practical matter, if you become a liability in an exposed position like that your ass gets fired. Nobody ever said life was fair.

“Nobody ever said life was fair.”

But his sacking is the result of self-proclaimed defenders of the Enlightenment deliberately misreading him. The letter from Roberts says nothing about the Guardian article or his paper (or even his book). It displays a refusal to engage with the ideas at hand.

Instead, the letter demonstrates that the objection is all to do with Reiss being a reverend, as it mentions the disquiet at his initial appointment. Given that it has nothing to say about the current, entirely manufactured farce, it can only be read as, ‘we didn’t like him then, and now we have a pretext to demand his sacking’.

It really is disgraceful. Not so much demanding the sacking of someone you don’t like, but dressing it up as part of a noble intellectual quest.

I do not think he should have been forced to resign but I do think that this notion that you have to engage with creationists is a malign one. This whole issue is not a matter of engagement, or shouting louder.

This is a case of not having to engage, debate or entertain such opinions at all, ever. What do you tell schoolchildren who profess to believe in creationism etc? Tell them they are wrong. Since when has it become a relationship of debate between teacher and pupil?

(For my own part, I refuse – ever – to argue about creationism with people. It is a religious belief and not subject to argument – the key reason I find Dawkins & Co’s endless squawking so laughable.)

I think this passage of Yehudi Menuhin’s on the subject of teaching is quite relevant:

The teacher offers guidance here and there, but the primary factor, the driving force, in your relationship and work together is the student’s own commitment and desire to learn. Tecahing is like sailing: the wind and the sails give the boat its motion; your role is to steer and guide.

The teacher must never forget that he isn’t making all the important moves and contributions; he isn’t in control. He has before him a child with a living motive element. The child will do much of his own finding and discovery, once he has learned how to experiment.

I think Reiss would agree. If a teacher’s purpose is to guide his student, as Menuhin says, then to push directly against what is driving them – whatever that might be – is counterproductive. It’s not just that it leads to failed exams but it leads to students learning nothing whatsoever. Reiss is describing something that a good teacher should be doing anyway. The whole argument has become massively sidetracked because the word “creationism” is in there.

You don’t acknowledge creationism as valid in science class, and he appears to be well aware of that – but you do acknowledge the student! If you are unable to do that, you have no right to call yourself a teacher.

The RS has mirrored a stagnant attitude to teaching beautifully by dismissing Reiss. The message is: if it’s disagreeable, chuck it out. This attitude is neither scientifically or pedagogically viable. It’s inert.

On a side note, teachers are often expected to cope with and attempt to educate dysfunctional children who disrupt lessons, refuse to cooperate with work, attack each other and sometimes attack the teacher. But this teacher, who suggests that a student with an impractical belief system be acknowledged and engaged with in civilised discourse in the noble interest of reconciling them with the subject they are trying to f***ing teach gets the sack. Come on.

I remember arguing vigorously with my teachers on all kinds of topics.

So did I, but I didn’t advocate creationism, racism, anti-semitism, flat-earthism, alchemy, neo-nazism, astrology or witchcraft and I presume neither did you.

Why? Firstly because I didn’t believe in any of these things and secondly, if I would have wanted to just wind up my teachers, it wouldn’t have been very effective, because such positions were regarded as totally outside the realm of reasonable and civilized discourse – and I think that was a good thing.

The fact that the boundaries seem to have shifted so far, that science teachers are asked to seriously engage creationists, makes me shudder.

The fact that the boundaries seem to have shifted so far, that science teachers are asked to seriously engage creationists, makes me shudder.

I really don’t get it. If someone raises a hand and spouts a silly idea, that provides an opportunity to teach. Why not teach?

I think the spirit of this is absolutely right but I also wonder how you can teach evolution without ‘push[ing] directly against what is driving’ a creationist, or at least a certain kind of creationist…

You can’t teach a person anything by deriding or dismissing their fundamental beliefs. Nothing was ever gained by calling a person stupid or misguided other than mistrust. A teacher need not acknowledge the validity of creationism but they need to cultivate the trust of the student and encourage the asking of questions, and pose questions to them as well. Being seen as opposing them will only serve to create distrust and distance.

As I say about two comments in, some students are so hopelessly driven by the need to fight and disrupt that they are impossible to engage. However many children (and adults) are disruptive and argumentative out of a sheer desire to be acknowledged.

If you are faced with someone you consider to be ignorant and deluded, and they themselves consider you to be ignorant and deluded, then you can fight that person forever and get nowhere. A mutual acknowledgement must be reached, or else the purpose itself may as well be abandoned.

Yes, I agree with all that too, but I think you’re defending a slightly different point now. (And to be honest, I don’t think it’s a contested one: I’m pretty sure no-one here is in favour of teachers ‘calling a person stupid’ in class or otherwise showing open contempt towards her pupils). The specific query I was trying to raise was how you might try to act on your interpretation of Menuhin’s advice in this instance…

To try to make things clearer, what I have in mind is someone who is not ‘hopelessly driven by the need to fight and disrupt’ but just has a seemingly unshakeable conviction of the correctness of her anti-scientific views perhaps coupled with a desire to evangelise to others. Her religion is an important motivating force for her. How do you teach evolution to such a student while respecting your (generally, I think, excellent advice) not to ‘push against’ what is driving the student?

“Reiss didn’t call for creationism to be part of the science curriculum, he said (absolutely clearly, in his original statement of his view) that teachers should, as a matter of good pedagogical practice, be willing to engage with students they encounter who come to the class with creationist views.”

He did far more than that. These are the key quotes:

“I feel that creationism is best seen by science teachers not as a misconception but as a world view. The implication of this is that the most a science teacher can normally hope to achieve is to ensure that students with creationist beliefs understand the scientific position. In the short term, this scientific world view is unlikely to supplant a creationist one.”

“Creationism can profitably be seen not as a simple misconception that careful science teaching can correct. Rather, a student who believes in creationism has a non-scientific way of seeing the world, and one very rarely changes one’s world view as a result of a 50-minute lesson, however well taught.”

I can see why scientists are outraged.

His ‘engagement’ isn’t ‘arguing vigorously’. It’s giving up. Suggesting to these children that scientists believe in evolution, to explain to then what evolution is, but with the understanding that creationism isn’t misconceived and they just have a different world-view.

It’s entirely proper that he was forced to resign. The whole purpose of a scientific education is to teach the value of a scientific worldview, and he’s rejecting that. It’s not acceptable to reject teaching the scientific world-view in a science classroom. That’s exactly what science education should be about. That’s exactly what the Royal Society exists to promote. We shouldn’t tell students who don’t believe in science that that’s okay and not a misconception, just a different worldview they have.

they just have a different world-view.

He judges the world-view as non-scientific. That’s not giving up.

Leederick, that’s very unfair. There’s no implication in your quotations that Reiss holds creationism ‘a non-scientific way of seeing the world’ to be of equal value to science. Actually, if I read him right, he answers the question I trying to press to Alex above. If one is faced with a student for whom evolution conflicts with their deepest and firmly held religious convictions then in this case one can’t hope to ‘teach’ evolution. All one can really hope to do in this case is enable the student to understand the scientific position (and hopefully also to engage in some sort of a positive dialogue). Any more than this would be evangelism, not education. (This wouldn’t require acknowledging any merit in the religious view, or abandoning the desire to displace it, but would show a realistic deference to human psychology and a principled one to the values of education.)

It’s not satisfactory to do the work you’re assigned?

novokant, I don’t think that’s a difficult question at all. You ask students to explain the theory of evolution, and why it is generally held by scientists; if they can do that, they pass, if they can’t, they fail. It doesn’t matter whether or not the students believe it, and one doesn’t ask them merely to “regurgitate” things; the important thing is for them to understand the theory well enough to explain it.

And just for the record I agree with Righteous, voyou and notsneaky.
AND I don’t think Reiss was trying to say more than that, despite his inartful way of phrasing it.

As it happens I have had the experience of discovering that one of my students was a creationist. This happened in the context of a confirmation class. My reaction was as follows. a) Be polite and respectful about her beliefs b) Explain why I thought them mistaken c) Find an accessible text which sets forth the problems with creationism by an actual scientist and lend it to her.

Result: She’s not a Creationist.

So, basically, my sympathies are with Fr. Reiss. Do those who think that throwing a hissy fit or ducking the issue is a better response have similar stories to tell of their success in debunking creationism?

(A list of issues where partisans are only willing to tolerate a simple straightforward and unequivocal expression of the party line (on either side) and will seek to punish deviants: anything touching on religion and education (including this issue); Israel/Palestine; abortion/right to life, ….etc. )

Quite so. Drawing lines in the sand isn’t really helpful at all. We can and should painstakingly differentiate all day long on every topic under the sun. Unless and until, that is, some manifest scumbag tries to defend the traicíon franquista against the Spanish Republic.

Do those who think that throwing a hissy fit or ducking the issue is a better response have similar stories to tell of their success in debunking creationism?

I’m not throwing a hissy fit, neither am I ducking the issue. Indeed I applaud your behaviour and I hope science teachers treat these young people tactfully and respectfully – after all, it’s not their fault that they have been indoctrinated with a manifestly false ideology (and let’s please not throw it in with Marx, some of whose works, for all their faults, are still a worthwhile read both as part of the history of ideas and as a critique of certain excesses of capitalism; also they are intellectually on a wholly different level, though probably far too complicated for most high-school students).

Reis, however, is arguing something completely different, I think it’s worthwhile repeating some of what he said:

I feel that creationism is best seen by science teachers not as a misconception but as a world view.

Creationism is a misconception, it’s simply wrong and doesn’t employ scientific methodology at all, but rather tries to put a pseudo-scientific veneer on what’s written in ‘the good book’.

The implication of this is that the most a science teacher can normally hope to achieve is to ensure that students with creationist beliefs understand the scientific position. In the short term, this scientific world view is unlikely to supplant a creationist one.

This is a capitulation. As opposed to Mordaunt, who tried to and convince a creationist and succeeded, Reiss has thrown in the towel already.

Just because something lacks scientific support doesn’t seem to me a sufficient reason to omit it from a science lesson. When I was taught physics at school, and taught it extremely well in my view, what I remember finding so exciting was that we could discuss almost anything providing we were prepared to defend our thinking in a way that admitted objective evidence and logical argument.

Reiss wants or at least feels the need to discuss creationism in science class, there is no doubt about it. Now maybe his physics class was full of little geniuses, who digested the curriculum in no time, got bored and started throwing ideas by Kuhn, Feyerabend or Quine around, merrily chipping away at the very foundations of scientific methodolgy – if so, good for him. But firstly these were all extremely interesting and knowledgeable scientific minds in their own right, as opposed to creationists who are nothing of the sort, and secondly it’s rather likely that the pupils in your bog-standard science class will have enough on their hands comprehending the very basic principles of science. I really don’t see how discussing ridiculous and unscientific ideas like creationism is going to be fruitful in this context.

So when teaching evolution, 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.

As I said, if your class is highly intelligent and advanced, then why not discuss writers such as the ones I mentioned above. But creationism simply doesn’t lend itself to a genuine discussion because it is unscientific bogus and someone who doesn’t understand the difference between the two shouldn’t set educational policy. Also, creationism isn’t mainly about spontaneous and creative doubts that spring up in student’s minds, but rather a political-religious agenda set by a group of adults, who have been trying to push it through the curriculum for decades investing an inordinate amount of time, effort and money in the process.

So everybody’s tolerance here is a nice touch and please be gentle and tactful towards young people with creationist beliefs, but don’t fall for the trap set by religious kooks and allow discussion of creationism in science class.

Novakant:
(1) calling something a ‘world view’ isn’t an endorsement
(2) saying ‘we can’t normally expect to bring about X’ does not imply ‘and so let’s not try!”

“the non-scientific example needn’t be creationism, it could be alchemy or Ptolemaic astronomy”

I think Ptolemaic astronomy was science (along the lines of Daniel’s joke about Astrology and Popper). It was just a failed theory.

This seems to be a shocking capitulation by the Royal Society to the forces of creationism — an implicit admission that evolutionary theory is so shaky that anyone who suggests engaging with students about its scientific credentials must be thrown overboard. It’s as if one of Obama’s advisers were to be fired for daring to suggest engaging with McCain supporters to explain why they should vote for Obama. It’s like keeping Palin away from the media, lest they ask embarrassing questions.

A thoughtful and almost productive discussion, but coming late I must remark on this:

“Nobody ever said life was fair.”
Yeah, but it should be. And since when has this been an excuse for PEOPLE (in positions of power) behaving unfairly?

Like, since ever?

And life should be fair? That and £5 will get someone with terminal cancer a hot lunch. Science, on the other hand, might just find a way to cure them.

Yes it is – life is unfair in many ways, and one of them is that a lot of the other people in it are total f*ckers who would do something like that. It’s why doors have locks, houses have insurance, states have prisons… Until we invent ‘Magic Nice Powder’ and sprinkle it on everyone, life will be unfair because of people, as much as because of random acts of nature.

But isn’t it true that Prof Reiss said something more than simply that science teachers should ‘engage’ with creationist views when expressed by pupils. Didn’t he suggest that science teachers should not treat creationism as a ‘misconception’ but rather as a ‘world view’? And that gives some legitimacy to creationism, doesn’t it? How can a science teacher argue against creationism without treating it as a misconception? Should science teachers treat scientific racism as a world view rather than a misconception if pupils bring it up? Or would that just be plain wrong?

Any ‘total f*cker’ who deals with criticism of the way that they behave as a ‘total f*cker’ with a “shrug of the shoulders and a meaningless “life’s not fair”” has pretty much abandoned any moral claim to being treated decently; only their [relative] power protects them. Their ability to enrol the power of the state does protects them, but, in a situation where state retribution is unlikely, and if, having sized them up and down and judged that you are stronger then them, their own moral vision more or less demands that you kick them in the balls. At least. Hell, they deserve it even if they haven’t behaved like a ‘total f*cker’ – Reiss did not say what he is accussed of saying – all they need do is to hold to a moral vision in which the behaviour of ‘total f*ckers’ is given a pass by a reference to the inherent unfairness of the world.

And anyway, its more than behaving as a ‘total f*cker’. In this case, the people that forced Reiss from his job claimed to be defenders of the Enlightenment while acting on the basis of ignorance and unreason, and were successful in their demands not because of the power of their argument, but because of the power derived from their cultural status and authority. Secular bishops? They are making the express claim that they are not ‘total f*ckers’ even as they behave as ‘total f*cukers’.

“And no, it doesn’t give “legitimacy” to creationism to call it a “world view” – why would you think that?”

If it is true that Prof Reiss suggested that science teachers should not treat creationism as a ‘misconception’ (the bit you missed out in your response to mine) but as a ‘world view’, that seems to lend legitimacy to creationism, just at it would seem to me to lend legitimacy to scientific racism or theories of white supremacism if science teachers were urged not to treat them as a misconception. What is creationism if not a misconception?

“Your comment about scientific racism also shows that you haven’t understood him, since the point about “world views” was about non-scientific stances and was that they aren’t easily amenable being overturned in the mind of the holder (including many school pupils) by scientific means, since the holder doesn’t buy into the criteria that science deploys. ”

But then, in what way can a science techer meaningfully ‘engage’ with creationist views? That would be an argument for leaving it out of the science class altogether. But that doesn’t seem to be what he was advocating. If it is legitimate to discuss in science classes it muct be in terms of scientific claims and that means explaining to pupils that they are labouring under a misconception. What is a scince teacher to do with ‘I don’t buy into the criteria that scinec deploys’ but I still insist you are wrong. How can he or she ‘engage’ with that? As someone esle has suggested, it is like asking an English teacher to enegage with the views of a pupil who holds that Shakespear’s sonnets are written in French and rejects a priori, any evidence to the contrary.

I like and admire Prof reiss and think he has been unairly treated. I am not an apologist for anyone, least of all the RS, but it was right to call Reiss on this at some level.

Being silly, sure. But it isn’t about me upgolding my moral superiority through violence, it about be demonstrating the utter emptiness and brutality of the moral vision that is entailed by shrugging your shoulders when a wrong is done and remarking that ‘life is unfair’.

And don’t think that justifying the sacking of Reiss on the grounds that ‘life is unfair’ is anything other than ‘might makes right’. And ‘might is right’, with its rejection of reason, is far more an affront to the Enlightenment than anything that Reiss has said.

“Commenters in favour of Reiss’s sacking have been hasty to pull apart his argument like worried pedants scrabbling for words and sentences that are “open to interpretation””, which is, interestingly, part of the creationist playbook when it comes to dealing with utterances of scientists.

“there’s an excellent example of current Charles Simonyi Professor Of The Public Understanding Of Science doing exactly that”

And the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science has, of course, supported Prof Reiss in this.

It is equally remarkable how quickly, in many instances, such rubbish can removed.

If this sort of engagement isn’t ‘fruitful’ in a classroom setting, then I’m not sure what would be.

Sperry, I don’t think we’re as far apart as it seems, in fact, I think that Reiss’ position runs counter to much of what you and Mordaunt have said. You both describe cases in which creationists students have come to renounce their previous beliefs in favour of a more scientific worldview. Reiss, on the other hand, isn’t very hopeful that such a thing could take place:

most a science teacher can normally hope to achieve is to ensure that students with creationist beliefs understand the scientific position. In the short term, this scientific world view is unlikely to supplant a creationist one.

a student who believes in creationism has a non-scientific way of seeing the world, and one very rarely changes one’s world view as a result of a 50-minute lesson, however well taught.

Yet, in the cases you both described the conversion did happen and it seems in a rather short period of time. Reiss seems to think that the chances of such a thing happening are slim and that we should resign ourselves to this alleged fact.

He also says that we should try our best to have a “genuine discussion” about the issue. At least to me a “genuine discussion” means a discussion with an open, not predetermined outcome in which the original viewpoints are sufficiently rational to be weighed against each other. If one of the viewpoints is irrational to begin with, then the proponent of that viewpoint will either stubbornly stick with it or abandon it in favour of the more rational viewpoint, but the latter choice will not be the result of the dialectical process indicative of a genuine discussion about positions on which reasonable people can disagree. Rather, the participant will adopt the rational viewpoint because he chooses rationality and empirical evidence over irrational belief.

That’s why I said that giving equal weight to both the irrational and the rational viewpoint at the beginning of such a discussion will hardly be fruitful. Confronting students with the scientific viewpoint and making a good case for it in the hope that they will adopt it, without making concessions to the religious position, however, can be fruitful as both your examples have shown.

Where we do seem to differ is on the question, if the religious viewpoints should be discussed in science class – I think they shouldn’t, because, well, they are unscientific and it is not the task of science teachers to debate religious matters. Furthermore, it has long been the political strategy of the creationists to try to make inroads such as “teaching the debate” in science class, as Sarah Palin puts it:

Teach both. You know, don’t be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it’s so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both.

Unfortunately it is not only kooks like Palin who make such arguments, but Michael Reiss himself seems to veer in a similar direction, though he phrases it much more carefully (2006 on the new GSCE science courses):

Supportive of the move, Reiss describes the new courses as a “significant shift” away from the traditional aim of school science – to prepare candidates for A-levels. (…) Controversially, Reiss also says the new courses increase creationism’s presence in the science classroom. “I think all the new GCSE science courses open up the possibilities for discussions about socio-scientific issues, including creationism”

This sounds very similar to what Truth in Science, a group affiliated with the creationist Discovery Institute, had to say about the same subject at the time:

But the new GCSE science syllabus that schools have begun teaching this term brings “a fresh opportunity to reconsider what is taught about origins“. (…) The Truth in Science website says: “We consider that it is time for students to be permitted to adopt a critical approach to Darwinism in science lessons.”

I hope this sufficiently explains my opposition to both Reiss and the discussion of religious matters in science class. This does not mean that teachers should simply ignore the ideological preconditioning of their students and I certainly welcome attempts to take them seriously convince them by having a chat after class or recommending books to them – but let’s keep “the debate” out of the classroom.

Novakant,
Where we do seem to differ is on the question, if the religious viewpoints should be discussed in science class – I think they shouldn’t, because, well, they are unscientific and it is not the task of science teachers to debate religious matters

Believing that Eve was created from Adam’s rib is unscientific and irrational, but what about more scientifically dressed species of creationism, like the ‘irreducible complexity’ argument – should it be rejected out of hand too? That would look kinda dogmatic, no?

‘Irreducible complexity’ isn’t rejected out of hand – it’s rejected because it’s already been shown to be wrong. Sheesh.

The point is not that it’s wrong but that it isn’t in itself a religious dogma. Would novakant’s scheme allow a student to bring it up and receive a response or would it receive some sort of “do not think about this in science class” order?

“I still think the crux of the complaint here involves the misunderstanding of what “lesson” generally means to folks in the UK and what it means to North Americans.”

Doubt it. Had no trouble understanding what he meant, same as you.

Lex:
That and £5 will get someone with terminal cancer a hot lunch. Science, on the other hand, might just find a way to cure them.

Is that it?
Just keep curing every affliction in sight? That’s science?
Or is that more exactly how science gets pimped to a progressively more nervous public?
And it isn’t it more accurately the world-stance of medicine?
Isn’t it at least possible that “science” may proivide us with the uncomfortable suggestion that letting people die of cancer could help us improve ourselves, as species and as residents of an increasingly overcrowded world.
In fact that that’s how our immune systems evolved to their current proficiency?
Because people died, some of them, and others lived?
If I take over a tidepool, or better still a pool in a freshwater creek, and I decide that everything that lives in that pool gets to benefit from my progressively superior ability to control that pool’s ecology, and that’s what I do, I keep everything alive in that pool alive, only there’s living things there I can’t identify with my cheap-budget instruments, so they die. And then everything starts getting cyclically more and more out of whack.
Same as if I just keep alive the things I like like subtropical landscaping everywhere, and humans, and dogs and cats, contrasted to at the expense of birds and fish and wild animals generally…
So keeping people alive no matter what means polar bears, lions, elephants, all get replaced by obese people in big energy-consumptive vehicles.
Instead of them, them.
So what?
What does medicine have to tell us about the extinction of the great cats?
Anything?
Is there a way through that?
Well so with these godlike abilities come godlike responsibilities.
So keeping people alive won’t pull the world back into its harmonic imbalance, as contrasted to this feedbacking shriek of dissonance we’re entering, the back and forth of harmonic imbalance being how we walk, how our brains work, how our eyes work, the conditions we evolved under, and to, and with, what we owe our living at all as well as our present mighty configuration to, but science isn’t able to provide us with any other mandate than the medical one?
Bad news: science and medicine are not identical disciplines.