Creation in science classes? Maybe...

Professor Michael Reiss, Director of Education for the Royal Society, seriously irritated most of his fellow Royal Society members and a good chunk of the scientific community by posting a blog entry on September 11th suggesting that creationism and intelligent design should not automatically be excluded from science education.

I'm the first to holler about the separation of church and state and would have been first in line to complain if my own kids were being taught creationism over the basic principles of biology and physics (you know, evolution, the Big Bang, and all that kind of good stuff). However, I have to say that I really believe that Professor Reiss is being unfairly targeted by the scientific community, a large number of whom now want him removed from his position.

A quick scan of the blogosphere would have readers believe that Reiss, who happens to be both a biologist and an ordained Anglican priest, wants science teachers to actually teach creationism, if not in place of evolution, then certainly as a perfectly correct and acceptable option. No wonder scientists were irked.

However, a closer read of his actual post reveals a clear understanding of evolutionary biology as well as understanding and sensitivity for those of our students who simply can't reconcile their beliefs with mainstream scientific thought. As Reiss points out,

...a student who believes in creationism has a non-scientific way of seeing the world, and one very rarely changes one's world view as a result of a 50-minute lesson, however well taught.

Quite frankly, whether the student is right or wrong in their beliefs in creationism or intelligent design is irrelevant. Instead, Professor Reiss suggests that we simply consider our students' "alternate world view" and, if we're comfortable as teachers, encourage discussion in class of the opposing viewpoints.

I do believe in taking seriously and respectfully the concerns of students who do not accept the theory of evolution, while still introducing them to it. While it is unlikely that this will help students who have a conflict between science and their religious beliefs to resolve the conflict, good science teaching can help students to manage it – and to learn more science.

Respect for our students, teaching science and scientific thinking to kids who might otherwise reject much science out of hand because of its conflict with their world view, and teaching accepted scientific theory in an innovative context? Sounds like a good deal to me. Allowing discussion of intelligent design in a biology class doesn't mean that we as scientists believe in it or even validate it; rather, it means that we respect our students. Again, as Professor Reiss notes in his blog,

I feel that creationism is best seen by science teachers not as a misconception but as a world view. The implication of this is that the most a science teacher can normally hope to achieve is to ensure that students with creationist beliefs understand the scientific position. In the short term, this scientific world view is unlikely to supplant a creationist one.