The headline might be 'Creationism' biologist quits job but, for me, the main point is what was said by The Royal Society in their press release.
The Royal Society reiterated that its position was that creationism had no scientific basis and should not be part of the science curriculum.
The Royal Society reiterated that its position was that creationism had no scientific basis and should not be part of the science curriculum.
"However, if a young person raises creationism in a science class, teachers should be in a position to explain why evolution is a sound scientific theory and why creationism is not, in any way, scientific."A recent tv programme by Richard Dawkins found a number of science teachers who were reluctant to argue the case for evolution when confronted by pupils with contradictory beliefs. They should now have the courage to teach sience.
I was bewildered myself by journalists who used the terms "discuss" and "teach" willy-nilly, as if they were interchangeable. Also, where did he get his estimate of one out of ten children from creationism homes? It's a mine field, isn't it?
ReplyDeleteI heard him speak on Radio 4 the day the original story broke and he was quite clear that he wanted science teachers to allow discussion of Creationism but only if raised by pupils. This is certainly not the same as teaching Creationism and it seems a better approach than avoiding the subject altogether. No idea where the 1 in 10 figure comes from and I find that hard to believe.
ReplyDelete