Darwin as a monkey, c. 1880s.

Darwin as a monkey, c. 1880s.

Updates: New Scientist joins the ‘party’, and Michael Reiss is forced to quit his position.

I’m baffled by the strident reactions to opinions expressed by Professor Michael Reiss, director of education for the Royal Society, who is supposed to have issued a “call for creationism in science“. That’s the headline of a BBC news article, which makes an interesting contrast to his denial, appearing later in the article, that he is calling for anything of the sort and his affirmation that, “Creationism has no scientific basis.” (His original statements appeared in the Guardian newspaper, but the BBC has some additional comments.)

Professor Reiss puts his views in the context of sharp divisions in the pre-existing notions of students about the origins of the species:

“An increasing percentage of children in the UK come from families that do not accept the scientific version of the history of the universe and the evolution of species.

“What are we to do with those children?”

What, indeed? That is a question that should be posed directly to those who have responded with strong opinions against Professor Reiss’ position. I don’t fully agree with Professor Reiss, myself; for example, his statement that “banging on about evolution” doesn’t work and that he “would be more content simply for them to understand it as one way of understanding the universe” is a step too far for me. I’m also unconvinced by his opinion that teachers should see creationism as a “worldview” rather than a misconception. But then, I have no experience of teaching people who believe something so utterly at odds with reality as it appears to me. What are we to do with those children?

Take, for example, the response of Nobel laureate Sir Harry Kroto. He is quoted in the Guardian as saying, “I warned the president of the Royal Society that [Reiss] was a dangerous appointment a year ago. I did not realise just how dangerous it would turn out to be.” With slightly less political subtext, he also said, “The thing the Royal Society does not appreciate is the true nature of the forces arrayed against it and the Enlightenment for which the Royal Society should be the last champion.”

There might be places and times where there are wars to be fought between scientific and religious views, but making teachers and students the soldiers in these battles will never be the right approach. I understand and support opposition to attempts to undermine science by injecting creationism into the curriculum in any way that appears to lend scientific legitimacy to such beliefs, but I don’t see how that is what Professor Reiss is suggesting. Anyway, the question would remain: what do we do with students who already believe such things? The sad truth is that the Englightenment which Sir Harry Kroto calls upon the Royal Society to champion has passed some people by, and I don’t see how it can help science to pretend that the children of these people do not exist. The burden of responsibility for effective communication falls upon the mouth before it does the ear. This is particularly true in basic, allegedly universal education.

The most important thing I’ve learned in the last year about writing as a means of communication has nothing (directly) to do with fiction. It is about science. Whether as a global activity, a personal endeavour, or an end-product, science is about communication. We have a scientific method that is a means to an end, but the scientific method is not the final step in the construction of science. That honour goes to the communication of the scientists’ findings to colleagues and the wider scientific community, usually via the publication of papers presenting and discussing the results. Without communication, there would be no meaningful knowledge produced by science; every development would die with its discoverer.

That said, it is true that practising scientists tend to put the onus on others to come to grips with their work by reading the published papers that announce their results. A lesser-recognised (and perhaps lesser-used) role of peer review is to ensure that this is indeed a reasonable expectation. But it is not a reasonable expectation that students should learn science like fully-fledged scientists. How are teachers of science supposed, at any level of education, to communicate to creationist students the very antithesis of what they have learned from their parents? The effective answer from those who have so vigorously opposed Professor Reiss’ views seems to be, “Not at all.”

Why can’t we see some reasoned, constructive, rational debate regarding this educational issue, instead of a dogmatic, almost paranoid refusal even to discuss it?