Who Says Science and Religion Don't Conflict?

A professor at London's Institute of Education, Michael Reiss, wants science teachers to handle questions about Creationism sensitively. This seems harmless. But may not be. It depends how this is interpreted. If a pupil from a religious background who believes in Creationism questions Darwinism when it is taught, then of course that  pupil needs answers. Science teachers need to answer the student's questions - and no doubt would answer without having read Reiss's book. But there is surely not an obligation to give much time to discussing the ideas or treat them as scientifically respectable in any way. These are science lessons. If we go down this route, then we may end up needing to include some alchemy in Chemistry lessons as a serious alternative to empirical science. The real danger here  is that this will be seen as an admission that Creationism (or alchemy) is a theory that merits discussion in a scientific context...something that has proved disastrous in the US educational context.

This is a bit like the issue of including papers by Holocaust deniers in an academic History conference. Only some false ideas are sufficiently coherent and evidence-based to justify their entry into the debate. Just by discussing some of the wilder ideas alongside evidence-based ones they are inadvertently given far greater respectability than they deserve. Creationism as an idea-virus is a good subject for sociological study; but given the US experience, educationalists should be wary about lending it as a 'theory' a seriousness that it does not in the least deserve...we might end up taking seriously the idea that thunder is caused by Zeus's anger too. Something like ten percent of students in the UK seem to believe in Creationism in some form according to Professor Reiss; but probably more than that believe in astrological predictions too...but that doesn't mean science lessons should get sidetracked into discussions of the evidence base for astrology (I'm an Airies by the way so of course I would be aggressive about this).

I like Dr Hilary Leevers's response that science teachers would be teaching evolution not creationism and so should not need a book to tell them how to "delicately handle controversy between a scientific theory and a belief". This raises interesting questions about what the role of a science teacher is. Surely it is at the most basic level to teach students about science, its methods and value. It is also to model good scientific practice which is certainly not to take all beliefs equally seriously.

If a Holocaust denier asks a question in a History lesson we wouldn't expect a History teacher to treat the student's position as just another belief: the point would be to show why this is not a position that a historian could hold without denying overwhelming evidence, and then move on swiftly. Presumably we wouldn't want a History teacher to engage in an extended debate about the actual evidence at this point as that would give deniers a credibility as part of the evidence-based debate that they don't merit (I support  Deborah Lipstadt's action here - she declines to appear on the same platform as deniers such as David Irving, despite having refuted Holocaust denial in great detail in an English court following a libel action from Irving. For more on that, see her excellent book History on Trial).

Comments

[Micah Tillman]

Science classrooms should be a place for understanding how the scientific method (whatever that is) has been, can be, and is applied to help us understand our world.

I've heard lots of people claim the mantle of "science" recently, though, so I'm in a pretty skeptical mood when it comes to believing anything is actually science. Surely there's a difference between the "science" that particle physicists practice and the "science" that theoretical physicists practice.

And do the social "sciences" even deserve the name?

[Ophelia Benson]

The interesting thing about David Irving is that the libel trial showed that he is not just a denier: he extensively falsified evidence in his published work. He does more than merely deny, he falsifies. I think this fact raises some difficult free speech issues. (I argued with Norm Geras about this around the time that Irving was arrested in Austria; Jonathan Derbyshire and Eve Garrard joined the discussion, both agreeing with Norm; I ought to think I must have been wrong, but I still don't...)

I don't think free speech laws do or should apply to falsification; I also don't think there ought to be a 'right' to falsify evidence. I accept (without much enthusiasm) that prison is not the solution for denial, but I also dispute the idea that Irving (or anyone) has a right to falsify evidence.

[Southern Quaker]

Prior beliefs are not just flushed down the drain when one is confronted with new information. Rather, the new information is cobbled onto the existing (mis-)conceptions. And confronting a such a student with the scientific evidence, without first addressing what those prior beliefs, will tend to make that student defensive and less likely to begin to build new knowledge.

So the question becomes, do you want to run roughshod over someone's pre-existing beliefs, get your point across, and move on to the next topic, or do you truly want to help that student begin dismantling false beliefs and building a scientific worldview? To do the latter, you must address those beliefs in a non-threatening way, so that the student understands what it is he/she objects to. Only then can one explain what scientific ideas are, and demonstrate why evolution is science and creationsim is not. The student may leave your course still a creationist, but will at least understand why his or her beliefs are not scientific.

Of course, this takes more time than a traditional lecture or three on evolutionary theory. But again, what is your goal? To race through a textbook or to help students make true progress towards becoming sophisticated thinkers?