How the Royal Society, the Guardian, most of the press, a Nobel Prize winner and Richard Dawkins got it wrong!

Posted on | September 17, 2008 | 3 Comments

So the Royal Society and its Director of Education, Professor Michael Reiss, have decided to part company following the faux-controversy caused by his recent statements on engaging with young people who express a belief in creationism in school. As Robert Winston, professor of science and society at Imperial College London, notes:

“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.”

Robert Winston gets it right, and much of the media, including James Randerson in the Guardian, got it wrong by trumpeting that Reiss had contended that creationism should be taught alongside evolution in the science class. He said no such thing, a fact now acknowledged by many of those who chose to misquote Reiss from the start. The actual words he used were less than crystal clear, it has to be said, but his intentions really could not be doubted. He did not say that creationism should be taught in the science classroom, and he did not propose that creationism should be ‘accommodated’, as Richard Dawkins and others have suggested – he did say that we should, as educators, engage responsibly with any young person who offers up the irrational and absurd fable of creationism as an explanation for life, the universe and everything.

Given the pack-animal approach of the press, I was not in the least surprised by their misjudged headlines. That the Guardian should get it wrong (”…creationism and intelligent design should be taught in school science lessons, according to a leading expert in science education…”) is a pity. Dawkins’ standard diatribe against accommodationism is to be expected (something I agree with him on, but to raise it here is to miss the point). But the fact that another eminent scientist (why are leading scientists always ‘eminent’?), and a nobel laureate to boot, also got it wrong is perplexing to say the least.

Sir Richard Roberts was quoted in the Observer, saying:

“I think it is outrageous that this man is suggesting that creationism should be discussed in a science classroom.”

Personally, I believe that the science class is precisely where creationism, and any other loony, irrational or misconceived narrative that tries to explain our origins, should be discussed. Who better to persuade the delusional of their errors, through the use of logic, evidence and experience, than a scientist? Would Sir Richard prefer that those children unfortunate enough to have been brainwashed into parroting the creationist drivel they hear from their parents or from some fallacy-spewing cleric should have their ignorance consigned to the relativistic sphere of the religious studies class?

The hardline approach one might wish to take with adults is absolutely not the approach we should take with children and young people in school. It is the responsibility of the teacher to educate, not to ignore, belittle or disparage. To push discussion of fallacious views, such as creationism, out of the science class, is to consign the holders of such views, potentially, to a lifetime of foolishness and scientific illiteracy. A small dose of reality, of evidence-based logic, of the scientific method, from the mouth of a real scientist might be enough to spark doubts in the minds of some intelligent children as to the efficacy of the religious claptrap their heads have been filled with from the moment they could listen.

Like many, I find it difficult to square the idea of a leading scientist who not only believes in the general concept of a god but who can actually believe in a particular god to the extent that he becomes an ordained priest in a specific sect. Sir Harry Kroto, quoted in the same Observer piece mentioned above, may have been right to criticise the Royal Society for the appointment in the first place. But to focus on the logical failings of Michael Reiss here is to run the risk of missing the main point he was trying, and evidently failed, to make: that we have a responsibility and a duty to educate those who would espouse creationist nonsense in the classroom. To do otherwise is to negate our role and responsibilities as educators.

Technorati Tags: michael reiss, the guardian, richard roberts, robert winston, richard dawkins, royal society, science, creationism, education

Comments