As some of you may have noticed, I didn’t get round to writing a summary of the final episode of Richard Dawkins’s Channel 4 series “The Genius of Charles Darwin.” The truth is, I’ve only just got round to watching it myself — and forgot to make notes!
To make up for it, I’m going to suggest that you read the excellent summary provided by John over at Homo economicus’ Weblog. You could do a lot worse than add this blog to your feedreader. John has excellent credentials and his blog is always a good, well-informed read.
One thing I would like to talk about regarding this particular episode, however, is the attitude of teachers in British schools to the teaching of Darwin/evolutionary theory. In the course of this episode, we are introduced to a gentleman called Nick Cowan, who is a science teacher at Liverpool’s Blue Coat School (the school isn’t named in the documentary, but this gentleman didn’t take much finding!)
Mr Cowan can be seen in this segment, about seven and a half minutes in, and in the following segment — and if you haven’t already seen the documentary, or if you haven’t guessed, he is a creationist.
Watching, I was utterly dumbfounded. At one point, Dawkins asks the viewer if he/she would want someone like Mr Cowan teaching their children, and it was like being five and at a pantomime all over again! I actually shouted “no!” at the screen, that’s how strongly I felt about this issue.
Choosing my words carefully, I have to say that from where I’m sitting Mr Cowan’s credentials as a science teacher of any kind are completely undermined by the nonsense he spouts during this segment. If I had kids and this man was teaching them I would have been waiting at the school gates on Tuesday morning suggesting very strongly that he should be dismissed.
Now some might argue that because he isn’t teaching creationism as part of the science curriculum (he teaches it in a general studies class), I shouldn’t have an issue with this. But the man is a scientist, for God’s sake! (Yes, that was deliberate.) A scientist believing in God is bad enough, but I can just about accept that. But a scientist (okay, a science teacher — not always the same thing!) believing in creationism?… no, it’s too much of a dichotomy, and whilst he might be able to live with that and rationalise it using the unscientific intelligent design copout, I certainly can’t.
It is extremely depressing. People like Nick Cowan are potentially damaging our future understanding of science and quite possibly contributing to shortages of properly qualified scientists in science-related industries. Evolutionary theory is a fundamental part of biology. It’s vital that these kids have an accurate and truthful understanding of it, that they know just like I know, just like Dawkins knows, just like many, many of my regular readers know that it is a fact. The evidence is so overwhelming that it is now, in spite of what creationists and intelligent design proponents might claim, simply absurd to “believe” otherwise. It is a fact, as Dawkins points out, in the same way that gravity is a fact.
As my former headmaster, Phil Willis MP, says concerning the creationist packs that were sent to five thousand secondary schools in the UK back in 2006,
“This is quite frankly a distraction that science teachers can well do without.”
In April of 2006, the Royal Society summed it up quite perfectly, however. I leave you with their comment and the first segment of Episode Three of “The Genius of Charles Darwin”.
“Young people are poorly served by deliberate attempts to withhold, distort or misrepresent scientific knowledge and understanding in order to promote particular religious beliefs.”
Yes, yes, and yes!
Personally, Gary, when it comes to rationale musings a science teacher should whatsoever not take any source of teaching other than that of professional credentials granted to him. Else, that would cause a big amount of absurdity in understanding pure science with [unscientific] spiritual liturgy, for lack of a better word.
Eventhough there’s what so-called subjective consciousness in everyone’s mind, Mr. Cowan has apparently been ‘jiggling’ at the wrong side of a playground.
Yes, yes and yes? Having a Meg Ryan moment there, mate? 😉
I’ve just had a very well argued email from one of his former pupils that strongly suggests that this picture of Mr Cowan might well be a little misrepresentative. Based on how he presented himself in this documentary and on the BBC website, however, I still feel very much the same. I can only ever have concerns about someone who wants to introduce intelligent design material into “debates” concerning evolutionary theory.
I think that it is telling that most sites (that allow comment upon such articles) contain some random posting in defence of Nick Cowan – as now does this one. Yes he is a bit nutty some time, but is a first rate chemistry teacher, and intellectual enough to teach a balanced class on the pros/cons of creationism. He’s one of the (positive) reasons I chose a career in science, studying as it happens genetics.
Dawkins has let too much of the fame get to his head, and now just turns out bulk fodder – a place though that does have. He’s essentially a utopianist, something that evolution itself clearly couldn’t achieve. Its as boring listening to him as Nick talk about Stoke city, but it’d be much more fun having with Cowan to discuss your research. And ultimately that’s what Dawkins preaches, fun, no?
And therein lies the problem; there are no pros where creationism is concerned, only cons. When science is involved, there is no place for creationism in the classroom — even in the context of a debate regarding the controversy surrounding the issue. By all means discuss it in religious studies, but it cannot be given validity by any kind of suggestion that creationism/intelligent design has any scientific relevance.
Really? I somehow doubt it.
>late reply
I think that Dawkins has actually bought into the idea that a ‘post-religious age’ would be largely harmonious and progressive. He really has stopped thinking – too busy with the pop-sci stuff.
There are plenty of pros with creationism if you look at it from the right angle. I dont believe in them, but I’m not going to prevent somebody else from discussing them in whichever context they feel appropriate. If they are shouted down so be it – consensus tends to serve the world well in that way.
Science (as a vague discipline/framework for understanding the world) ‘works’ because it is on the whole merit driven. The more wrong you are, the less attention that is paid to you. There is a place for religion within this so long as it continues to offer some practical advice for many people, a role that it has been perfecting for thousands of years. There is a place for actively bashing that, and for actively opposing science – both are necessary for the framework to remain effective.
I would certainly agree that Dawkins is of the view that a world without religion would be an improvement. Whether he believes it would be largely harmonious and progressive, however, I can only guess. I tend to feel that he is not quite so naive as to buy into such a simplistic understanding.
Firstly, I’m speaking about creationism from the position of science. As far as I’m concerned, as I’m sure you’ve already worked out 😉 , that is the right angle. Secondly, we are talking specifically about the science classroom. In this situation, it simply cannot be deemed appropriate — whatever the teacher might believe. By all means, discuss the subject and its controversy in religious education but leave it out of the science classroom. As I’ve already said.
I’m not sure I’d go quite that far, but I do certainly take your point. Maybe religion, in some way, helps keep science “real”. I don’t know. But I am reminded of something that Christopher Hitchens once said. I can’t remember the exact quote but, essentially, he said that he wouldn’t want to live in a world without religion because, in effect, he enjoyed the sport. Sometimes, I suppose — most of the time, in fact — opposition is needed, however wrong it may be. It promotes rigour and accountability so… yes, I definitely take your point.
Clearly this sort of discussion has been beaten to death across the www, but returning to the specifics of Nick Cowan, my memory is that maybe 5% of the kids he taught took an interest in the creationism aspect. Another 10-15% actively pursued a ‘real’ science career in part due to his influence, and almost everybody in his class achieved better grades in chemistry for being there.
I think maybe 2 of the 5% that listened to the creationism angle actually believed it – and they were probably more religiously inclined from their upbringing anyway. The point (there was one) that I am trying to make, and relate to the previous post, was that Nick’s teaching methods – the wacky bits included – contributed more to the ‘real’ scientific education of his students than would have been achieved by sticking to the text book. Rigourous scrutiny is beneficial almost irrespective of the source, and there are more scientist out there doing ‘real’ science as a result of Nick’s effort. That’s why his students past and present respect him so highly.
As I said in the comment above your first comment here: “I’ve just had a very well argued email from one of his former pupils that strongly suggests that this picture of Mr Cowan might well be a little misrepresentative. Based on how he presented himself in this documentary and on the BBC website, however, I still feel very much the same. I can only ever have concerns about someone who wants to introduce intelligent design material into “debates” concerning evolutionary theory.”
Nick’s pupils are very quick to defend him — and that says a hell of a lot about his teaching credentials. I can’t help feeling that it’s a bit of a shame that he presented himself — or, if I’m being especially generous, allowed himself to be presented — in this way. He clearly is a very able, excellent, even, teacher judging by your comment and others I’ve received.