Why should "alternatives to scientific explanations" be taught in science lessons, any more than needlework is taught in French lessons?

I've always been inclined to agree with Stuart that a matter that seems to have divided the US and even become an election issue comes down to a matter of timetabling. The poor sap who is given the task of drawing up next year's fifth-form timetable has the power to heal or destroy nations.

But thinking about some of the points made in the 'Music in Universities' thread about the horrors of teaching to a rigidly constrained curriculum, and reading what the Revd. Dr Mr Professor Reiss actually says, I'm not quite so sure. It depends, I think, on what you mean by 'teaching' creationism.

I certainly agree it would be wrong to 'teach' creationism in science classes as a legitimate alternative scientific theory. Wrong, because it's not. But to say to teachers that it mustn't even be talked about in science classes, or discussed when it comes up, looks rather like just the sort of proscription that was being complained about in relation to university music courses.

It's beginning to seem to me eminently reasonable that, when teaching evolutionary theory to intelligent teenagers, the question of 'what about creationism and intelligent design?' is bound to come up. And why shouldn't this be an opportunity for any decent science teacher to talk about what scientific theories are, what science is, why evolutionary theory is scientific and why creationism isn't and so on and so forth. It's actually a fairly central point in understanding science to understand the distinction between science and non-science (good Popperians and good Hegelian dialectitcians should even, for different reasons, be able to agree on that ). And here's a good opportunity to do just that, a bit of 'philosophy of science' in a science lesson. 

As I read Prof Reiss, or as reported anyway, he isn't advocating 'teaching' creationism, just allowing teachers (in the good old fashioned way before centrally controlled national curricula and all that) to discuss these issues and explain why, whatever else creationism might be, it ain't science. Somewhat to my surprise, and if that is what he is saying, I think I'm coming round to agreeing with him.

An excellent and increasingly urgent suggestion, I think. The creationist movement in the US is alarming enough, but it is symptomatic of a wider distrust in science in general - a distrust that means that supposedly sensible, well-educated people will do things like deny man's role in influencing climate change, refuse perfectly safe vaccinations for their children, or expect the world to end when the LHC fires up.

Right. The conclusion I draw here, George, is that the science curriculum should explicitly contain some philosophy of science. I don't remember ever being taught anything at school about what a "scientific theory" actually is, and my A levels were exclusively in science subjects.

Yes indeed - and there's the rub! This is not about developing a "theory of science" which seeks to differentiate between Science and Non-Science at all (though that in itself should be a very beneficial exercise). It is merely about being careful (in a practical way) over semantics: i.e. "belief in Creationism" is - while being non-scientific - not a "misconception" as such. Those who believe in it do so out of upbringing and faith, and do so in a committed way based upon absolute belief as taught through religious documents.

In other words, all we see here is yet a further example of Political Correctness.

It should be perfectly possible to develop a method of teaching the difference between science and non-science without needing to invoke anything religious, but Reiss is here (in my reading) proposing that religious "world views" should be included in order not to alienate those who hold them from connecting with Science. I doubt that this will succeed, if only because those who teach science would need also to be experts in Human Behaviour, Moral Philosophy, and Religious Studies.

Baz

I do hope that ALL theories about the world's creation - be they never so crackpot - will be given equal time on the curriculum?

Surely it couldn't be that the 51st State is doing some more cosying-up to its masters in the Pentagon?

Ah, but that was religious education, and that's a different thing.

We are discussing here whether the Creationist "explanation" of the origins of our planet should be taught in SCIENCE classes.