Friday, September 12, 2008


From The Guardian's website, a silly person speaks:
Creationism and intelligent design should be taught in school science lessons, according to a leading expert in science education.

The Rev Prof Michael Reiss, director of education at the Royal Society, said that excluding alternatives to scientific explanations for the origin of life and the universe from science lessons was counterproductive and would alienate some children from science altogether.

If I've got this straight, the good Reverend Professor is saying that science teachers should teach non-scientific things in science class to kids who don't believe in science.
He said that around one in 10 children comes from a family with creationist beliefs. "My experience after having tried to teach biology for 20 years is if one simply gives the impression that such children are wrong, then they are not likely to learn much about the science," he said.

Finally, an explanation for why I suck at math. If only my teachers had accepted some of my wild guesses wrong answers I could be doing calculus today!


  1. '...a leading expert in science education.The Rev Prof Michael Reiss,...'
    Nuff said.

  2. Merkin,
    Yeah, I know, but I figured I'd see what he had to say before jumping to conclusions...

  3. Apart from everything else, I don't think ambiguity and confusion really help in the classroom.

  4. Pierre,
    I think some uncertainty/ambiguity is fine in most humanities classes, but if 2+2=4 (etc.) is up for debate then we're fucked. Almost as bad is the creep of hard science methodology (or rather, some bullshit facsimile of it) into the realm of the humanities.


    First words you see above.

  6. ArtSparker,
    If only...
    On second thought, ouch!