Teaching the converted
Royal Society Education Director urges teachers to show “respect” for Creationist “worldview”. Ted Nield reports.
Geoscientist Online 10 September 2008
Professor Michael Reiss, Director of Education for The Royal Society, the UK’s de facto national academy of science, told the BA today that “ we should take seriously and respectfully the concerns of students who do not accept the theory of evolution, while still introducing them to it.”
“While it is unlikely that this will help students who have a conflict between science and their religious beliefs to resolve the conflict, good science teaching can help students to manage it - and to learn more science” Professor Reiss said. “Creationism can profitably be seen not as a simple misconception that careful science teaching can correct. Rather, a student who believes in creationism can be seen as inhabiting a non-scientific worldview, a very different way of seeing the world.”
Definitions of creationism vary; but about 40% of adults in the USA and perhaps over 10% in the UK are “young Earth creationists” (YECs) who believe that the Earth is only some 10,000 years old, that it came into existence as described in the early parts of the Bible (or the Koran) and that the most that evolution has done is to change species into closely related species. Such creationists admit the possibility that the various species of zebra had a common ancestor, but that aardvarks, zebras, monkeys, bananas, sea squirts, manatees, trilobites and human beings do not.
At the same time, of course, the overwhelming majority of biologists and palaeontologists consider evolution to be the central concept of their science, providing a conceptual framework that unifies the life sciences into a coherent discipline. Equally, the overwhelming majority of scientists believe that the universe is 13-14 billion years old.
Prof. Reiss said: “Even though evolution and cosmology are well established scientific theories, they are at the centre of a prolonged, possibly deepening, religious controversy. Evolution and cosmology are understood by many to be a religious issue because they can be seen to contradict the accounts of origins (inorganic, organic and human) described in the Jewish, Christian and Muslim Scriptures. The issue seems like an ongoing dispute that has science and religion actively battling to support the credibility of their explanations for origins. The lower visibility of presentations of moderate views creates the impression in many people's minds that a clear delineation exists between those who support scientific theories and those who adhere to scriptural teachings.”
“[I believe that] creationism is best seen by a science teacher not as a misconception but as a worldview. The implication of this is that the most a science teacher can normally aspire to is to ensure that students with creationist beliefs understand the scientific position. In the short term, this scientific worldview is unlikely to supplant a creationist one.”
So how might one teach evolution in science lessons, say to 14-16 year-olds?
“The first thing to note is that there is scope for young people to discuss beliefs about the origins of the Earth and living things in other subjects, notably religious education (RE).” says Reiss.In England, the DCSF (Department for Children, Schools and Families) and QCA (Qualifications and Curriculum Authority) have published a non-statutory national framework for RE and teaching units which include a unit asking 'How can we answer questions about creation and origins?'. The unit focuses on creation and the origins of the universe and human life, as well as the relationships between religion and science. It can be downloaded from http://www.qca.org.uk.
In the summer of 2007, after months of behind-the-scenes meetings and discussions, the DCSF Guidance on Creationism and Intelligent Design received Ministerial approval and was published. “As one of those who helped put the Guidance together I am relieved it seems to have been broadly welcomed.” Reiss told the reporters. “Even the discussions on the RichardDawkins.net forum have been pretty positive while The Freethinker, 'The Voice of Atheism since 1881', described it as "a welcome breath of fresh air" and "a model of clarity and reason".”
“Scientific theory” is not equivalent to “cockamamie theory”
“The Guidance points out that the use of the word 'theory' in science (as in 'the theory of evolution') can mislead those not familiar with science …because it is different from the everyday meaning (i.e. of being little more than an idea). In science, of course, the word indicates a substantial amount of supporting evidence, underpinned by principles and explanations accepted by the international scientific community.
“The Guidance goes on to point out: "Creationism and intelligent design are sometimes claimed to be scientific theories. This is not the case as they have no underpinning scientific principles, or explanations, and are not accepted by the science community as a whole. Creationism and intelligent design therefore do not form part of the science National Curriculum programmes of study".”
The Guidance points out that the nature of, and evidence for, evolution must be taught at key stage 4 as these are part of the programme of study for science, while key stages 1,2 and 3 include topics such as variation, classification and inheritance which lay the foundations for developing an understanding of evolution at key stage 4 and post-16. It then goes on to say: "Creationism and intelligent design are not part of the science National Curriculum programmes of study and should not be taught as science.
However, as RE teachers through the ages have long been aware, there is a real difference between teaching 'x' and teaching about 'x'. Says Reiss: “Any questions about creationism and intelligent design which arise in science lessons, for example as a result of media coverage, could provide the opportunity to explain or explore why they are not considered to be scientific theories and, in the right context, why evolution is considered to be a scientific theory.”
“This seems to me a key point. Many scientists, and some science educators, fear that consideration of creationism or intelligent design in a science classroom legitimises them. For example, the excellent book Science, Evolution, and Creationism published by the US National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine asserts "The ideas offered by intelligent design creationists are not the products of scientific reasoning. Discussing these ideas in science classes would not be appropriate given their lack of scientific support".
“I agree with the first sentence but disagree with the second. 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 … I remember finding so exciting was that we could discuss almost anything, provided we were prepared to defend our thinking in a way that admitted objective evidence and logical argument.
“In an interesting exception that proves the rule, I recall one of our advanced level chemistry teachers scoffing at a fellow student who sat with a spoon in front of her while Uri Geller maintained he could bend viewers' spoons. I was all for this approach. After all, I reasoned, surely the first thing was to establish if the spoon bent (it didn't for her) and if it did, then start working out how.
“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. The word 'genuine' doesn't mean that creationism or intelligent design deserve equal time. However, in certain classes, depending on the comfort of the teacher in dealing with such issues and the make-up of the student body, it can be appropriate to deal with the issue.
“If questions or issues about creationism and intelligent design arise during science lessons they can be used to illustrate a number of aspects of how science works such as 'how interpretation of data, using creative thought, provides evidence to test ideas and develop theories'; 'that there are some questions that science cannot currently answer, and some that science cannot address'; 'how uncertainties in scientific knowledge and scientific ideas change over time and about the role of the scientific community in validating these changes'.
Heat vs light
“Having said that, I don't believe that such teaching is easy. Some students get very heated; others remain silent even if they disagree profoundly with what is said. The DCSF Guidance suggests: "Some students do hold creationist beliefs or believe in the arguments of the intelligent design movement and/or have parents/carers who accept such views. If either is brought up in a science lesson it should be handled in a way that is respectful of students' views, religious and otherwise, whilst clearly giving the message that the theory of evolution and the notion of an old Earth / universe are supported by a mass of evidence and fully accepted by the scientific community".
“I do believe in taking seriously and respectfully the concerns of students who do not accept the theory of evolution while still introducing them to it. While it is unlikely that this will help students who have a conflict between science and their religious beliefs to resolve the conflict, good science teaching can help students to manage it - and to learn more science.
“Creationism can profitably be seen not as a simple misconception that careful science teaching can correct, as careful science teaching might hope to persuade a student that an object continues at uniform velocity unless acted on by a net force, or that most of the mass of a plant comes from air. Rather, a student who believes in creationism can be seen as inhabiting a non-scientific worldview, that is a very different way of seeing the world. One very rarely changes one's worldview as a result of a 50 minute lesson, however well taught.
“My hope, rather, is simply to enable students to understand the scientific worldview with respect to origins, not necessarily to accept it. We can help students to find their science lessons interesting and intellectually challenging without their being threatening. Effective teaching in this area can not only help students learn about the theory of evolution but better to appreciate the way science is done, the procedures by which scientific knowledge accumulates, the limitations of science and the ways in which scientific knowledge differs from other forms of knowledge.”
Reaction to the views expressed by Professor Reiss (pictured) today was uniformly hostile. Prof Lewis Wolpert, a Developmental Biologist at University College Medical School, said: "Creationism is based on faith and has nothing to do with science, and it should not be taught in science classes. There is no evidence for a creator, and creationism explains nothing. It is based on religious beliefs and any discussion should be in religious studies."Dr John Fry, Reader in Physics at University of Liverpool, said: "Science lessons are not the appropriate place to discuss Creationism, which is a world view in total denial of any form of scientific evidence. I am completely in favour of challenging the scientific basis of Evolution and understanding its strengths and weaknesses, just as I am in favour of challenging all other scientific theories: that is how we learn and make progress and that should certainly be a part of science lessons. But Creationism doesn’t challenge science; it denies it."
Prof Robin Dunbar, Evolutionary Anthropologist at University of Oxford, said: "Evolution (and hence Darwinism) is the central organising principle in biology, to which almost all biologists sign up. While some disciplines within biology (broadly defined) can get by quite happily without mentioning evolution (mostly those like biochemistry or physiology that focus on mechanisms), in reality (to quote the great geneticist Dobzhansky yet again) nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. Yet evolutionary theory has a marginal representation in the school (and
many university!) curricula. I find that very bizarre, and a reflection of the drift in science education over the past half century increasingly towards mechanisms and away from the “big” questions (like the origin of life) that drove Victorian science and gave us science as we have it now."
Prof John Bryant, Professor Emeritus of Cell and Molecular Biology at the University of Exeter, said: "My worldview is both scientific and Christian and leads me to an acceptance of evolution as a wonderful set of mechanisms by which living things have emerged, developed and changed over a period of billions of years. However, the worldview of some religious believers does not include the possibility of evolution and they adhere to a theory which is formally known as special creation. I do not think that that special creation should be specifically taught but rather, as indicated in Michael's presentation, should certainly be mentioned as one of the alternative positions. Further, if the class is mature enough and time permits, one might have a discussion on the alternative viewpoints. However, I think we should not present creationism (or ID) as having the same status as evolution."
- Michael Reiss is professor of science education at the Institute of Education, London and director of education at the Royal Society. His research, writing, teaching and consultancy expertise is in the fields of science education, bioethics and sex education.