Friday, September 12, 2008 | Reason : Commentary | print version

Print | Comments |

Science lessons should tackle creationism and intelligent design

by Michael Reiss

Reposted from:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2008/sep/11/michael.reiss.creationism

Teachers need to accommodate the differing world views of students from Jewish, Christian or Muslim backgrounds — which means openly discussing creationism and intelligent design as alternatives to evolutionary theory

What should science teachers do when faced with students who are creationists? Definitions of creationism vary, but about 10% of people in the UK believe that the Earth is only some 10,000 years old, that it came into existence as described in the early parts of the Bible or the Qur'an and that the most evolution has done is to split species into closely related species.

At the same time, the overwhelming majority of biologists consider evolution to be the central concept in biological sciences, providing a conceptual framework that unifies every aspect of the life sciences into a single coherent discipline. Equally, the overwhelming majority of scientists believe that the universe is of the order of about 13 to 14 billion years old.

Evolution and cosmology are understood by many to be a religious issue because they can be seen to contradict the accounts of origins of life and the universe described in the Jewish, Christian and Muslim Scriptures. The issue seems like an ongoing dispute that has science and religion battling to support the credibility of their explanations.

I feel that creationism is best seen by science teachers not as a misconception but as a world view. The implication of this is that the most a science teacher can normally hope to achieve is to ensure that students with creationist beliefs understand the scientific position. In the short term, this scientific world view is unlikely to supplant a creationist one.

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.

Having said that, I don't believe that such teaching is easy. Some students get very heated; others remain silent even if they disagree profoundly with what is said.

I do believe in taking seriously and respectfully the concerns of students who do not accept the theory of evolution, while still introducing them to it. While it is unlikely that this will help students who have a conflict between science and their religious beliefs to resolve the conflict, good science teaching can help students to manage it - and to learn more science.

Creationism can profitably be seen not as a simple misconception that careful science teaching can correct. Rather, a student who believes in creationism has a non-scientific way of seeing the world, and one very rarely changes one's world view as a result of a 50-minute lesson, however well taught.

Michael Reiss is professor of science education at the Institute of Education, University of London, and director of education at the Royal Society

For more on this topic, go to:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/sep/11/creationism.education
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/one-in-10-pupils-believes-in-creationism-927099.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article4735331.ece

Posted: Friday, September 12, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 82 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #246296 by PrimeNumbers on September 12, 2008 at 6:14 am

I think that a quick guide to creation myths, with amusing pictures on the OHP, makes a great starting point for a science class. You can show how different people all over the world have very strange ideas about how we all came about, and how they're all different.

Next you look at the difference between science, and belief.

And if some children's beliefs get ridiculed, and are "lost of science", then they fail those exams, we'll, it's just tough, and quite frankly, their parents faults.

Pseudo-science and crap like ID are great to show how real science is better.

Other Comments by PrimeNumbers

2. Comment #246298 by thewhitepearl on September 12, 2008 at 6:16 am

and one very rarely changes one's world view as a result of a 50-minute lesson, however well taught.

Good point, evolution deserves much more than a 50 minute lesson. The basics should be instilled in grade school science classes.

Nothing about creationism is science. God created light isn't science, it doesn't actually explain how he did it.

Other Comments by thewhitepearl

3. Comment #246299 by Quetzalcoatl on September 12, 2008 at 6:19 am

I demand that ALL these creation myths be taught, and that the children be allowed to make up their own minds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_myths

Teach the controversy!

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

4. Comment #246303 by Diocletian on September 12, 2008 at 6:24 am

For the Royal Society to lend credence to the teaching of creationism is a sad day for Britain. Unfortunately, the schools are not being asked to show the strengths of science compared to the illogic of faith. Rather, they are being asked to 'respect' faith as a legitimate alternate theory to science. They are being asked to value everyone's 'views' as being equal. So those children who are taught to hate homosexuals, see females as inferior and the property of males (honour killings are justified as is female genital mutilation), and that science is only another 'view' of the world will not be subject to ridicule by society. In fact, society will be castrated to the point that human progress will not only stop, but it shall start on the decline.

Other Comments by Diocletian

5. Comment #246305 by severalspeciesof on September 12, 2008 at 6:31 am

My blood pressure is going sky high right now, so if this doesn't make sense, well....

Promoting religion (which is ID & creationism) as something worthwhile to talk about in a SCIENCE class DOES legitimize ID. Just think of what could (& probably does happen) in classes where the teacher is a creationist. Sure, you could have guidelines in place to try and prevent creationism being taught as a Viable alternative, but that can only go as far as people are willing to uphold it. This is the very thing that ID'iots want.

It's the fucking wedge document coming to life!!!!

TWP, glad to hear you're okay.

Other Comments by severalspeciesof

6. Comment #246306 by irate_atheist on September 12, 2008 at 6:33 am

1. Comment #246296 by PrimeNumbers -

I totally spot-bollock agree.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

7. Comment #246308 by Quetzalcoatl on September 12, 2008 at 6:37 am

I feel that creationism is best seen by science teachers not as a misconception but as a world view.

By this logic, the idea that the Universe was created last Thursday by a fat purple bullfrog named Mick is also a "world view".

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

8. Comment #246309 by Colwyn Abernathy on September 12, 2008 at 6:40 am

10% of the people in the UK who think the world is 10,000 are wrong. Mt. St. Helen's is roughly 4 million years old. I don't see why we should "teach the controversy" when it's a political one, not a scientific one. A political studies course mebbe, but not a science course.

Other Comments by Colwyn Abernathy

9. Comment #246312 by Pilot22A on September 12, 2008 at 6:46 am

What's next? Bigfoot in Anthropology class? It just get's sillier and sillier.

Other Comments by Pilot22A

10. Comment #246313 by DamnDirtyApe on September 12, 2008 at 6:47 am

I'm all for teaching the contraversy, providing it involves the right amount of pointing and laughing.

Other Comments by DamnDirtyApe

11. Comment #246314 by severalspeciesof on September 12, 2008 at 6:57 am

From the article:

Just because something lacks scientific support doesn't seem to me a sufficient reason to omit it from a science lesson.

I agree with the statement, but the problem with ID is not only does it lack scientific support, it is devoid of any explanation. Let's give for an example something that lacks scientific support, but at least can be explained: The moon landings were a hoax. At least believers in that can point to the flag 'waving' on the moon and say "See, there must be wind, there is no wind on the moon, therefore they were not on the moon." But what do ID'iots have? 'I don't understand so godidit!'

Man, I'm telling you all... it's the fucking Wedge Document coming to life!

Other Comments by severalspeciesof

12. Comment #246316 by reedmiller on September 12, 2008 at 7:03 am

Since such a significant part of the learning process is being able to understand new information in context to what you already know, it does a disservice to teaching evolution to not frame it in terms of what your students already believe to be true.

This doesn't mean that you need to legitimize creationism, quite the opposite. If you have students who believe the earth was created in 6 days, teaching them evolution will not simply replace this in their minds unless you give them the context for how the two concepts are at odds with each other, and how they are incompatible.

Ignoring the already accepted beliefs of students undermines your ability to teach new, and contradictory, information.

Other Comments by reedmiller

13. Comment #246317 by John Locke on September 12, 2008 at 7:04 am

no no no no no.

no. i dont care if this guy is officially far more academically proficient than me, he is clearly a cretin. along the ranks of a friend of mines university proffessor who, whilst teaching logic, was adament that if you tossed a coin and it landed heads, the next time you tossed it it was less likely to be heads again. clearly a cretin.

no. utter bollocks should not be taught in a science class. science should be. socio-religious views and teaching should be left outside. it has nothing to do with science. you dont teach the history of middle earth in history (although due to tolkeins anglo saxon scholarship it is closer to the reality of history than creationism) nor do you teach phrenology in sociology or psychology.

good science, and general better teaching of its principles, should be taught at younger ages. if children of 16-18 think that the world was created by something akin to a paul daniels trick then let them think it, f**k em and let them fail. they should be capable of some degree of independant thought at that point.

Other Comments by John Locke

14. Comment #246319 by severalspeciesof on September 12, 2008 at 7:12 am

Again from the article:

Evolution and cosmology are understood by many to be a religious issue because they can be seen to contradict the accounts of origins of life and the universe described in the Jewish, Christian and Muslim Scriptures

If they see it as a religious issue, tuff shit. Then their views don't belong in the science class. If they see creationism as science, then again, tuff shit, it's not and that's the way it should be promoted in science classes, if promoted at all.

Other Comments by severalspeciesof

15. Comment #246323 by severalspeciesof on September 12, 2008 at 7:16 am

13. Comment #246317 by John Locke

no no no no no.

no. i dont care if this guy is officially far more academically proficient than me, he is clearly a cretin...

Yes yes yes yes yes!!
Thank you!

Other Comments by severalspeciesof

16. Comment #246324 by Foggy29 on September 12, 2008 at 7:19 am

As pointed out in the discussions yesterday, this dingbat is REV Prof Dingbat.

Here's a profile http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2006/nov/28/academicexperts.highereducationprofile

Critical thinking capacity thoroughly removed at birth I fear, but scarily he's a government adviser. Clearly, trying to juggle the demands of evolutionary biology and his imaginary friend have made him pop a fuse. I really am concerned for the future of UK science education, more and more of the undergraduate and post graduate students I have to deal with are completely unable to think critically. This is typical of the increasing lack of scientific rigour I have to deal with daily and will only serve to legitamise the views of the myth lovers.

Other Comments by Foggy29

17. Comment #246325 by beanson on September 12, 2008 at 7:23 am

The only reason for introducing 'creationism' into a science class would be to pour abject ridicule and scorn upon it, this would necessarily undermine the 'respect' the author seems to think superstitions deserve in the 21st century.

Other Comments by beanson

18. Comment #246329 by HandyGeek on September 12, 2008 at 7:33 am

The author is dead wrong. Flat earth theory should probably not be taught with validity. Blood letting would not be taken seriously as a preventive treatment. It can be talked about as an example of what NOT to do in most cases. Flat earth can be taught as a dead theory. Creation could be treated as such. But to give it any validity is shooting the messenger of fact.

Other Comments by HandyGeek

19. Comment #246330 by John Locke on September 12, 2008 at 7:34 am

hmm now it becomes clear. a reverend.

i wonder if he is the steriotypical (a word i stress) academic who may be great at applied knowledge (these types often reside on more scientific and mathematic roads) but has difficulty tying his own shoelaces or conversing with humans?

EDIT: his post would suggest the answer is yes, yes he is.

Other Comments by John Locke

20. Comment #246334 by liberalartist on September 12, 2008 at 7:37 am

"...about 10% of people in the UK believe that the Earth is only some 10,000 years old, that it came into existence as described in the early parts of the Bible or the Qur'an and that the most evolution has done is to split species into closely related species."

is this just his opinion or something, where did he get this?

Comment #246299 by Quetzalcoatl:
Thanks for the link, I prefer the Bakuba myth where the guy vomits everything into existence. Now that's serious science!!

Other Comments by liberalartist

21. Comment #246336 by Quetzalcoatl on September 12, 2008 at 7:42 am

liberalartist-

Thanks for the link, I prefer the Bakuba myth where the guy vomits everything into existence. Now that's serious science!!

In that case all today's binge-drinkers are performing a valuable scientific experiment. Simple probability dictates that one day, one of them will vomit up something new into existence.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

22. Comment #246337 by PERSON on September 12, 2008 at 7:43 am

How about the Egyptian mythos, where the creator is literally a wanker?

Other Comments by PERSON

23. Comment #246339 by Larry Moran on September 12, 2008 at 7:50 am

reedmiller says,

Since such a significant part of the learning process is being able to understand new information in context to what you already know, it does a disservice to teaching evolution to not frame it in terms of what your students already believe to be true.

This doesn't mean that you need to legitimize creationism, quite the opposite. If you have students who believe the earth was created in 6 days, teaching them evolution will not simply replace this in their minds unless you give them the context for how the two concepts are at odds with each other, and how they are incompatible.

Ignoring the already accepted beliefs of students undermines your ability to teach new, and contradictory, information.

Exactly right! I agree 100%. Those who want avoid talking about the biggest threat to science on the grounds that it ain't science are not part of the solution. They're part of the problem.

We need to confront those silly superstitious ideas in the classroom and show students why they are wrong. A science class is the best place for it since the superstitions are posing as science.

The goal is to teach critical thinking. Ignoring controversies is no way to teach critical thinking.

Other Comments by Larry Moran

24. Comment #246347 by severalspeciesof on September 12, 2008 at 8:04 am

Quetz,

Slightly OT, but you do realize in the link you provided, that your name only appears 3 times while the god Osiris appears 7 times and Marduk 13 times. Somethings wrong there, wouldn't you agree?

Other Comments by severalspeciesof

25. Comment #246350 by mixmastergaz on September 12, 2008 at 8:08 am

Hey there's something wrong here.

Vaal and I had a brief exchange of views on this thread earlier today (I think it was up to two pages of comments) and now they've disappeared.

Josh?

Anyway, I can't be bothered re-typing my whole post again but in a nut-shell, I would say that discussion of creationism belongs only in a religious studies classroom. It has no place in a science class as it has nothing to do with science.

Other Comments by mixmastergaz

26. Comment #246351 by John Locke on September 12, 2008 at 8:09 am

sorry larry

yes teach a controversy but in this case there is none. by any academic or intellectual standard. so throw it out.

i agree if you attempt an assault upon their sensibilities they will clam up and its game over, so dont.

you can teach the science as it stands, without referring directly to religion and most students will get the idea, if not all of them

Other Comments by John Locke

27. Comment #246352 by Quetzalcoatl on September 12, 2008 at 8:09 am

Severalspeciesof-

I let my might speak for itself, no need for advertising. I am secure in my divinity. Those other gods have inferiority issues, and think that getting their names mentioned a lot makes them my equal. Fat chance.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

28. Comment #246354 by Quetzalcoatl on September 12, 2008 at 8:13 am

Mixmastergaz-

Different article:

http://richarddawkins.net/article,3096,-Teachers-should-tackle-creationism-says-science-education-expert,Guardian

There are about three at the moment that mention Michael Reiss, no wonder it's confusing!

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

29. Comment #246357 by severalspeciesof on September 12, 2008 at 8:16 am

Those who want avoid talking about the biggest threat to science on the grounds that it ain't science are not part of the solution. They're part of the problem.

Forgive me, as I know this isn't necessarily aimed at me, but who has said anything about avoiding talking about this threat. If it comes up in science class, call it as it is: not science but religion then go on, leaving the student to sink or swim. If there is a course (and there should be) about critical thinking skills, there's where it can be dissected, exposing its' superstitious bowels.

Other Comments by severalspeciesof

30. Comment #246358 by Verylee on September 12, 2008 at 8:17 am

@ Comment by mixmastergaz

Hey there's something wrong here.

I think you might be getting confused with an almost identical article on another thread
Teachers should tackle creationism :)

Other Comments by Verylee

31. Comment #246372 by reedmiller on September 12, 2008 at 8:35 am

sorry larry

yes teach a controversy but in this case there is none. by any academic or intellectual standard. so throw it out.

i agree if you attempt an assault upon their sensibilities they will clam up and its game over, so dont.

you can teach the science as it stands, without referring directly to religion and most students will get the idea, if not all of them

Except that does the students a disservice. In order to be able to maintain any semblance of religiosity there is a need for rather significant cognitive dissonance, simply piling more on is not at all guaranteed to succeed in dispelling false notions.

But I don't think it should necessarily be a part of any curriculum. Instead, to teach evolution (or anything really), you should encourage any of your students to bring up any concerns that they have, even if those are creationism, so that they can be handled appropriately and scientifically.

Obviously you're aware of the staggeringly large percentages of people who believe literal creationism, and that isn't going anywhere unless educators are willing to confront those misunderstandings, in the science classroom, where they should.

Other Comments by reedmiller

32. Comment #246376 by Chris_The_Positivist on September 12, 2008 at 8:38 am

Sounds like a great idea, but as Richard says himself, to teach the controversy is in a rather underhanded way, to allow creationist dogma into our classrooms. We know there is no controversy really and by allowing it in classrooms we feel we can educate against years of indoctrination. This is a bold idea and one that might work, but I'm concerned that this may open the door for creationism to be taught more seriously and thus confuse and delude young and suggestible minds.

Other Comments by Chris_The_Positivist

33. Comment #246378 by MatthewL on September 12, 2008 at 8:39 am

If I may say so, I read an article in today's independant about this, and I must admit the impression of the issue I got was quite different from what many people here are commenting on.

The general idea seems to me is that Reiss want creationism to be mentioned in science class, as it seems 10% of school children are creationists, they need to have the reason creationism isn't being taught explained to them.

This reason, in the eyes of reiss, is that creationism is unscientific and therefore not taught in science class.

Other Comments by MatthewL

34. Comment #246381 by Defiance on September 12, 2008 at 8:42 am

So teaching religious ignorance is apart of a science lesson, we must not allow this transgression to continue. Creationism/ID belong in the bin along with other worthless ideas like homeopathy, holistic treatments and Derek Acorah.

Other Comments by Defiance

35. Comment #246384 by Contrivanced on September 12, 2008 at 8:48 am

If creation does make its way into the public system, maybe they should teach it in English class or Social Studies as an idea. And I will say it again, if Creation and ID are Forced into the cirriculum, then evolution should be taught in sunday school.

Other Comments by Contrivanced

36. Comment #246386 by flying goose on September 12, 2008 at 8:53 am

This guy was on Radio 4 this morning, it seems to be a fuss about nothing, a silly story, something to be offended by, if you have a mind to be offended.
His view seems to be that if the subject comes up in a science lesson, ( which it will) then it should be tackled head on and not ducked. As for there not being enough time for this in school, bollocks!any teacher that won't answer children's questions, really ought not be teaching .

'Hello teacher tell me what's my lesson?'

'Sit and listen, sit and listen.'

Other Comments by flying goose

37. Comment #246404 by reedmiller on September 12, 2008 at 9:21 am

It's really rather upsetting how many people replying seem to have not bothered reading the article, and instead are just replying with the standard "no creation in science class" fare. I doubt anyone here needs to be convinced that creationism is not science, and should not be taught as science.

The article does not argue against that at all. So perhaps everyone replying as if it did should take a second and consider why they are reacting how they are.

Other Comments by reedmiller

38. Comment #246405 by catskill on September 12, 2008 at 9:22 am

Last night on Charlie Rose there were two former Treasury Secretaries talking about economic issues. The one was saying how we in the US have great opportunity based on our ability to change and innovate. He said that the next great revolutions like that of the internet are going to be in the life sciences, but that unfortunatly we are also the country that is debating whether evolution might be true or not. Goes to show that striving to be a backward religiously motivated country will have far reaching effects.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPP4qM_yL-Y

Other Comments by catskill

39. Comment #246409 by DamnDirtyApe on September 12, 2008 at 9:32 am

It doesn't belong in a science class, simple as.

RE or philosophy classes for these types of discussion thankyouplease.

Other Comments by DamnDirtyApe

40. Comment #246413 by severalspeciesof on September 12, 2008 at 9:39 am

36. Comment #246386 by flying goose

...then it should be tackled head on and not ducked.

And in my opinion stating the obvious "You're wrong", and go on to explain what evolution is, tackles it head on. If a student said that Pi is equal to 3 because the bible says so, as a teacher all I need to say is "Wrong, this is what Pi is." Show the student the answer (with explanation as to why you got to the answer) and if that student then puts 3 as an answer to the question of "what is Pi?" mark it wrong. Period.

Other Comments by severalspeciesof

41. Comment #246421 by severalspeciesof on September 12, 2008 at 9:49 am

37. Comment #246404 by reedmiller

It's really rather upsetting how many people replying seem to have not bothered reading the article, and instead are just replying with the standard "no creation in science class" fare. I doubt anyone here needs to be convinced that creationism is not science, and should not be taught as science.

The article does not argue against that at all. So perhaps everyone replying as if it did should take a second and consider why they are reacting how they are.

I have read the article but my views are against that of Reiss' thinking that talking about and dissecting creationism in a science classroom doesn't legitimize it. I think it does. One can talk about it in a critical thinking course, or religion course.

Other Comments by severalspeciesof

42. Comment #246423 by flying goose on September 12, 2008 at 9:52 am

'It doesn't belong in a science class, simple as.

RE or philosophy classes for these types of discussion thankyouplease'

No, sorry, it belongs when and where the question is raised,

Creationism is WRONG and here is why.

No fobbing it off to another teacher.

Other Comments by flying goose

43. Comment #246428 by flying goose on September 12, 2008 at 10:00 am

Please don't encourage teachers to say
'Sit down Jones and stop asking questions.'

Other Comments by flying goose

44. Comment #246442 by severalspeciesof on September 12, 2008 at 10:16 am

Please don't encourage teachers to say
'Sit down Jones and stop asking questions.'

Never will. I was a teacher (Art) and I always loved questions and questioning the students. But creationism is as wrong as if one of my students said that mixing red pigment with yellow pigment will get you green. I'd show the student what happens, and if that student still didn't get it, well... either I failed in my teaching or the student failed in understanding, but I couldn't hold up my teaching for very long over this because that would be a disservice to my other students.

Other Comments by severalspeciesof

45. Comment #246448 by severalspeciesof on September 12, 2008 at 10:20 am

I've got to go now for the weekend, I might be able to pop in a bit here and there, but my blood pressure is down now and I do see where some may take away from my rants as though I think creationism should just "go away", but still....

Other Comments by severalspeciesof

46. Comment #246452 by thewhitepearl on September 12, 2008 at 10:22 am

Whoa there Mr. Pointy Fingers Quick to Judge, perhaps if people would stop writing articles on why creationism should be taught in science class, we'd stop responding with it isn't science and shouldnt be taught IN science class. Perhaps you overlooked this gem from the article,

"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

Perhaps you should read and re-read that sentence until it sinks in.

Other Comments by thewhitepearl

47. Comment #246455 by severalspeciesof on September 12, 2008 at 10:24 am

That was well put WP!!

Now I really will be going...

Other Comments by severalspeciesof

48. Comment #246485 by geehigh on September 12, 2008 at 11:16 am

My wife is a Biology teacher here in the Midlands in a predominantly Muslim area, and if this nonsense ever gets any credibility (as it just might, one never knows. Anything to make a teacher's job harder, what?), then she will find herself out of a job.

Reason? Because she will point blank refuse to teach creationism in any form. She has already informed her boss of this.

Should she ever lose her job because of this creationist excrement, both the members of the education authority and the good Reverend Professor Reverend Person Michael Reiss will have to relearn how to sit, because we'll both sue their idiotic arses clean off.

There can be no compromise here. Creationist hoods do not play by the same rules.

Let it be yelled from very responsible rooftop regardless of whoever it irritates: CREATIONISM IS NOT SCIENCE AND NEVER WILL BE, AND MUST NEVER EVER BE ALLOWED ANYWHERE NEAR THE SCIENCE CLASSROOM!!!

Philosophy or 'Theory of Knowledge' classes maybe. But science classes? Never ever EVER!

Point made?

Good.

Best wishes

Graham.

Other Comments by geehigh

49. Comment #246486 by Frankus1122 on September 12, 2008 at 11:20 am