Dear colleagues,

I thank you for your valuable comments. My view as Science Educator
and Scientist is indeed to keep an open mind while making sure my
pupils are given both side of the argument.

Assemblies where "Creation or Evolution" is discussed will often
lead to the debate been characterized as "Religion vs. Science".
However, they do not have to be in opposition. They are sometimes in
quite different fields of study, but sometimes actually in
parallel. Firstly (and far, far more importantly than the
Creationist red herring) there is the whole area of Science and
Social Responsibility. Scientific research is highly dangerous
unless it works with a moral compass: Why are we building a better
atom bomb ? should we research on these embryos ? etc etc. The new
GCSE Science syllabus is addressing this perspective in topics such
as the environment and human fertility treatments. By the same
token, my colleague teaching RS told me that a large section of
their GCSE RS course is called Religion and Medical Ethics. There
is no "versus" in any of this.

I personally believe that Creationism need not be a block over which
we need not stumble. The doctrine of Special Creation, and the
literal truth of Genesis, are beliefs which were held by Christians
until Darwin, by Christians whose knowledge was partial. Two
centuries before that, the Vatican was still teaching Ptolemaic
astronomy and threatening Galileo with the instruments of torture.
The huge majority of Christians have no problem with Evolution at
all. We are all seekers after truth, and we discover it inch by
inch.

Of course, I still have absolute – absolute – respect for those of
my Christian colleagues who hold different views. One day I will
stand before my Maker and He will chuckle at my feeble, imperfect
attempts to understand Him…

Dr E. Demoncheaux
Head of Science
Battle Abbey School

--- In learning-science-concepts@..., John Oversby
<j.p.oversby@...> wrote:
>
> 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:
> >
> >>&#352;Creationism is about your faith and belief.
> >>Science is not about faith or belief, it is
> >>about the aceptance of evidence. &#352; 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
>