September 11, 2008

scientists respond to comments by Michael Reiss on creationism in the classroom

Prof Michael Reiss, Director of Education at the Royal Society, today debated creationism’s place in the science curriculum at the BA Festival. Leading scientists offered their thoughts on the issue.

Prof Reiss’s views can be found here.

Prof Lewis Wolpert, Developmental Biologist at University College London Medical School, said:

“Creationism is based on faith and has nothing to do with science, and it should not be taught in science classes. There is no evidence for a creator, and creationism explains nothing. It is based on religious beliefs and any discussion should be in religious studies.”

Dr John Fry, Reader in Physics at the University of Liverpool, said:

“Creationism is only a possible worldview for an atheist. Any theist must accept that science is attempting to discover the wonder of God’s universe. It surely is blasphemy for a believer to deny God’s power by denying the evidence for his creation.

“Science lessons are not the appropriate place to discuss Creationism, which is a world view in total denial of any form of scientific evidence. I am completely in favour of challenging the scientific basis of Evolution and understanding its strengths and weaknesses, just as I am in favour of challenging all other scientific theories: that is how we learn and make progress and that should certainly be a part of science lessons. But Creationism doesn’t challenge science; it denies it!”

Prof Robin Dunbar, Evolutionary Anthropologist at the University of Oxford, said:

“Evolution (and hence Darwinism) is the central organising principle in biology, to which almost all biologists sign up. While some disciplines within biology (broadly defined) can get by quite happily without mentioning evolution (mostly those like biochemistry or physiology that focus on mechanisms), in reality (to quote the great geneticist Dobzhansky yet again) nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. Yet evolutionary theory has a marginal representation in the school (and many university!) curricula. I find that very bizarre, and a reflection of the drift in science education over the past half century increasingly towards mechanisms and away from the “big” questions (like the origin of life) that drove Victorian science and gave us science as we have it now.”

Prof John Bryant, Professor Emeritus of Cell and Molecular Biology at the University of Exeter, said:

“My worldview is both scientific and Christian and leads me to an acceptance of evolution as a wonderful set of mechanisms by which living things have emerged, developed and changed over a period of billions of years. However, the worldview of some religious believers does not include the possibility of evolution and they adhere to a theory which is formally known as special creation. I do not think that that special creation should be specifically taught but rather, as indicated in Michael’s presentation, should certainly be mentioned as one of the alternative positions. Further, if the class is mature enough and time permits, one might have a discussion on the alternative viewpoints. However, I think we should not present creationism (or ID) as having the same status as evolution.”