The Times of London has two stories that involve the issue of teaching evolution alongside creationism in public schools. One of them is about Governor Sarah Palin. The Times Sarah Ebner has a moderate essay about the latter, but it includes some strange thoughts. For instance, this:
There's little doubt that Palin, as evidenced by the birth of her son, Trig, and her daughter Bristol's pregnancy, is pro-life.
Is it really the case that only pro-life women are willing to carry a Down Syndrome child to term, or will not whisk their daughters off to an abortion clinic as soon as the pregnancy test forms an image? Given the astonishingly low birthrates in most of Europe, maybe only pro-life women have children over there. But Ms. Ebner is not unreasonable. She tells us what "fires people up," about Governor Palin.
It's not that Palin says only creationism - a belief that the world was entirely God's work, and evolved much as is laid out in the Bible - should be taught in schools. Nor is it that she would have any direct influence on school policy if she made it to the VP's office. What many people actually find inflammatory is that Palin, the daughter of a science teacher, says that creationism and evolution can be taught as different sides of the same debate. That's a tough call.
Now as I have pointed out, Governor Palin said this once in a debate. She has not pushed for it as Governor, nor does she stand in favor of it as a policy now. So it is not Governor Palin's public actions or intentions, but her beliefs that are objectionable. Apparently, one is fit for office only if one believes the correct things.
That, apparently, is the rule in Britannia. Here again from the Times:
Michael Reiss, a biologist and ordained Church of England clergyman, agreed to step down from his position with the national academy of science after its officers decided that his comments had damaged its reputation.
His resignation comes after a campaign by senior Royal Society Fellows who were angered by Professor Reiss's suggestion that science teachers should treat creationist beliefs "not as a misconception but as a world view".
Now I am not certain exactly what Reiss proposed, but is it really a firing offense at the British Academy of Science to suggest that science teachers shouldn't tell their students that their religious beliefs are wrong? Apparently so.
What is going on here has nothing to do with science. It has everything to do with politics. Those people are not allowed to participate. That is a perfectly political and perfectly intolerant position.
At the risk of ruining my chances of ever taking a position with the Royal Academy (the thought of daily access to pub conditioned ale is attractive), I will confess that I agree with Reiss. It's not that I think that evolution and Biblical creation should be taught alongside one another, as having equal status in a science class. I don't. Ms. Edner says this:
The major problem is that evolution can be proved (or at least explained), but creationism can't. It's akin, say some, to allowing children to debate if the world is flat or round, and giving both sides equal credence.
But that isn't the problem at all. It is that Darwinian Evolution is a theory, and the Biblical story of creation is not. A theory provides a model of some field of phenomena, and gives rise to a research program. A theory is constantly tested as it is applied to various sets of data. The Biblical story of creation has not, nor will it ever give rise to a research program.
Science and faith are two rather different approaches to grasping the truth about what is. A faith may be more or less reasonable, but it rests on the human capacity for commitment. Science rests on the human capacity for questioning and the appreciation of uncertainty.
Science class has to be about science. But that doesn't mean that religious belief has to be shut out of it. For many of the students, this class of ideas is what is really interesting. Here is Reiss again:
"I realised that simply banging on about evolution and natural selection didn't lead some pupils to change their minds at all. Just because something lacks scientific support doesn't seem to me a sufficient reason to omit it from the science lesson . . . 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."
Closing the door on the questions that most important to students is a very bad strategy. Darwin himself frequently muses about Biblical explanations in his writings. Couldn't these passages be used in biology texts to bring students into the discussion? A clever writer could easily use such passages to focus the students attention on the specific questions of biology.
Maybe this could work out and maybe not. But apparently in England it is illegal to discuss it.
Recent Comments