While I agree with the Royal Society that creationism or its cousin intelligent design (ID) are not science, I do think that what’s missing from a lot of science curriculum is any contextualization of science, its methodology, theories and practice, and how that rubs up against other parts of culture. In the same way that abortion in the States is the ultimate wedge issue expression for views on life, evolution becomes the same focal point issue by which views on life’s meaning are expressed.
What’s needed in both cases are frank and inclusive discussions of history and worldview on all sides. Evolution is not just sound science (aka scientific theory) as is gravity, it also has implications (like an absence of design) that affect many other issues beyond how species came to be as we see them today. In the same way, Christianity is not just an alternative viewpoint on the origin of species, it is a religion that impacts the way one understands many other issues (like human rights) beyond the history of life on earth.
From the BBC:
Last week Prof Reiss – a Church of England minister – said creationism should be discussed in science lessons if pupils raised the issue.
He was criticised by other scientists – though misquoted as saying creationism should be “taught” in science classes.
The society said some of his comments had been “open to misinterpretation”.
This had damaged its reputation.
‘Not scientific’
“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,” it said in a statement.
“He is to return, full time, to his position as professor of science education at the Institute of Education.”
The Royal Society’ reiterated that its position was that creationism had 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.”
It added that the society greatly appreciated the efforts of Prof Reiss, a biologist, in furthering its work in the important field of science education over the past two years and wished him well for the future.
Creationists take a literal interpretation of the Bible’s description of the origin of life and reject the Darwinian concept of evolution.
Prof Reiss, speaking at the British Association Festival of Science at the University of Liverpool, estimated that about one in 10 children was from a family which supported a creationist rather than evolutionary viewpoint.
Reaction
He said his experience had led him to believe it was more effective to include discussion about creationism alongside scientific theories such as the Big Bang and evolution – rather than simply giving the impression that such children were wrong.
Reacting to his stepping down, Lord Robert Winston, professor of science and society at Imperial College London, said: “I fear that in this action the Royal Society may have only diminished itself.
“This is not a good day for the reputation of science or scientists.
“This individual was arguing that we should engage with and address public misconceptions about science – something that the Royal Society should applaud.”
