Student Concerns About Evolution: Open for Discussion?

Professor Michael Reiss, writing in the Guardian (UK)'s blog, suggests that students be allowed to raise doubts about evolution. He says:

So how might one teach evolution in science lessons, say to 14 to 16-year-olds? Many scientists, and some science educators, fear that consideration of creationism or intelligent design in a science classroom legitimises them.

For example, the excellent book Science, Evolution, and Creationism published by the US National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine, asserts: "The ideas offered by intelligent design creationists are not the products of scientific reasoning. Discussing these ideas in science classes would not be appropriate given their lack of scientific support."

I agree with the first sentence but disagree with the second. Just because something lacks scientific support doesn't seem to me a sufficient reason to omit it from a science lesson. When I was taught physics at school, and taught it extremely well in my view, what I remember finding so exciting was that we could discuss almost anything providing we were prepared to defend our thinking in a way that admitted objective evidence and logical argument.

So when teaching evolution, there is much to be said for allowing students to raise any doubts they have (hardly a revolutionary idea in science teaching) and doing one's best to have a genuine discussion. The word 'genuine' doesn't mean that creationism or intelligent design deserve equal time.

However, in certain classes, depending on the comfort of the teacher in dealing with such issues and the make-up of the student body, it can be appropriate to deal with the issue. If questions or issues about creationism and intelligent design arise during science lessons they can be used to illustrate a number of aspects of how science works.

This sounds very reasonable to me. Note that Prof. Reiss very clearly says that he does not consider creationism or intelligent design theories to be scientifically valid. All he says is that if students have issues with evolution -- say because their parents are into creationism -- it makes a lot of sense for their biology teacher to discuss their concerns with them.

What does it say to the student when the teacher merely pooh-poohs their concerns or dismisses them without discussion? It seems to me that the most likely two outcomes are

1. the student decides the teacher is clueless -- therefore the science is suspect, or
2. the student decides his parents are clueless -- therefore their religion is suspect

Neither strikes me as a good thing. Rather, it seems far wiser to address students' concerns.

Members of the Royal Society do not agree; many called for Reiss's resignation from his position as the Society's Director of Education. It doesn't seem to much matter that what Reiss actually said and what they imagine he said are two different things.

Cross-posted with Unity of Truth.

Fathers of Science

The Catholic Church has always respected reason, perhaps more so than the rationalists themselves. She has also long been a promoter and supporter of the sciences.

On March 12, 2008, the John Templeton Foundation made the announcement of the winner of its annual Templeton Prize, which honors achievements engaging the great questions of life and the universe. The $1.6 million prize for 2008 went to Michal Heller, a Polish cosmologist and professor in the faculty of philosophy at the Pontifical Academy of Theology in Cracow, Poland. What makes Heller additionally remarkable is that he is a Catholic priest. ...

As a priest-scientist, Fr. Heller is not unique. Rather, he stands in a long and great tradition of learned priests who were both scientists and men of faith. Some are well-known to history, such as Roger Bacon, the 13th-century Franciscan who stressed the concept of "laws of nature" and contributed to the development of mechanics, geography, and especially optics. Others are obscure. All, however, left a lasting legacy on their eras in learning, science, mathematics, and practical progress.

Above all, the priest-scientists offer a powerful lesson to Catholic apologists: There is no reason to stand mute when the name Galileo is wielded like a cudgel and the Church is savaged as an enemy of human progress. Apologists and well-read Catholics can point to these priest-scientists and declare forcefully what Fr. Georges Lemaître-discoverer of the "Big Bang"-robustly proclaimed in 1933: "There is no conflict between religion and science."

Read the full article at Fathers of Science (This Rock: September 2008) for many examples of scientists who exemplify this fact.

Cross-posted with Unity of Truth.