I, too, wish to thanks James for his comment. Recently, Anna Cleaves and
Rob Toplis reported that a significant majority of the science teachers
they questioned took a creationist stance about the origin of the universe
and evolution. One of my new secondary teacher education students told me
last week that creationism was scientific, he was convinced. I am sure that
there will be more if I probe a little. Of course, the position we have in
schools is very messy, as Keith illustrates below. Nevertheless, it may
well be very helpful to engage more with this discussion, not least because
I am very sad about how some senior scientists, and The Royal Society, have
treated Michael Reiss. My respect for his position, even though I am an
atheist, is very strong.

John Oversby

On Sep 30 2008, Dr. Keith S. Taber wrote:

>I'd like to thank James for a very thoughtful
>comment on these issue, and recognise the good
>sense of much of what he is saying.
>
>I'd offer a brief observation:
>
>
>At 22:17 +0000 29/9/08, evonot_id wrote:
>
>>ŠCreationism is about your faith and belief.
>>Science is not about faith or belief, it is
>>about the aceptance of evidence. Š We don't talk
>>in science about belief in gravity or atoms.
>
>If 'we' is science teachers generally, then I am
>not sure. 1) I think the language used in
>classrooms is sometimes generated under pressure
>and in response to unexpected comments/questions;
>2) teachers have to try to model scientific
>language yet get quick clear messages across.
>(a) therefore sometimes teachers say thing such
>as 'scientists believe that everything is made of
>tiny particles' and 'this led Newton to believe
>that the moon stayed in its orbit due to the same
>force that makes things fall when we drop them'
>or similar. I'm sure a lot of scientists and
>science teachers would have no problem with that
>use of belief.
>(b) even where this does not happen, teachers
>will say things like 'everything is made of tiny
>particles' rather than always saying something
>like 'scientists have found that modelling the
>world as consisting of tiny particles offers
>considerable explanatory power' - which surely
>implies beliefs. I suspect sometimes this is a
>deliberate attempt to simplify language; often it
>is just generation of language with a lot of
>tacit 'taken-for-granted' but not made explicit
>caveats; but sometimes it may be because -
>despite what James suggests ought to be - I
>suspect many scientists and science teachers do
>believe (i.e. take to be a truth) that
>'everything is made of tiny particles', etc.
>
>Finally, I am not sure about separating belief
>and evidence. I believe that 'modelling the world
>as consisting of tiny particles offers
>considerable explanatory power' based on the
>evidence available to me at this time, but as a
>scientist I am in principle open to changing my
>mind if I come to interpret the weight of
>evidence available to me differently. (However,
>as a science educator I also know that my current
>understanding will influence how I interpret any
>new evidence, so that my beliefs may not seem
>rational to others.)
>
>So if James is suggesting that the best response
>to a child offering questions and arguments from
>a creationist standpoint is 'that is a matter of
>belief, it belongs in RS not science' then I am
>not sure the distinction will be clear to most
>pupils who probably consider much of what they
>are told in science to be beliefs rather than
>models. So I have much sympathy with James'
>position, but am not sure if offers a demarcation
>criterion what would be clear to students.
>
>Best wishes
>
>Keith
>
>
>
>
>

--
From John Oversby
Institute of Education
Reading University
Reading
RG6 1HY
Tel 0118 378 5906