Sue Blackmore have a somehow weird point of view published at the Guardian. It’s not that I disagreed with opening minds of children via education, but I think evidence is the better way to consolidate understanding. It must come immediately after explaining whatever you try to educate a child to, and should help him to accept the explanation the teacher provided.
If a teacher don’t provide evidence supporting whatever lesson he is teaching, he is not reaching for acceptance, but for belief. And that doesn’t make him better then a mere religious teacher and there is a possibility for the kid to equate science and religion and that would be the worst possible lesson to learn: then he can go lazy and bring the « God Did It » explanation (or that this is just some preexisting platonic Form which was waiting to be revealed) for whatever lays in front of him, thinking that this is good science.
Theory and supporting evidence must come together.
[addendum] There is another problem in the text, secondary, but worth to pinpoint.
Once you get it that’s that! How can you go on believing that God created humans in his own image when you can see, because you really understand the principle, that nature’s cruel and wasteful selective process can create all that design without him?
Cruel? Wasteful? Cruel implies that somebody, some conscious process defined morality. Wasteful that somebody defined economy.
On the other hand, it is not the understanding of how a process works that raise incredulity about the existence of an agent supposed to make it work. It’s absence of evidence of the existence of the said agent which preclude credulity, otherwise than through an irrational belief.
I think that Ken Miller is dead right wen he claims that God could use evolution as the process to produce and evolve life. I defended him on this point, because I know of a few intelligent agents doing so in the lab, either to produce a protein from scratch of to change more or less its characteristics. What lacks from Miller’s interpretation of the world is the evidence supporting the claim that the process was built and is supervised by God, and the evidence that his God exists. Miller chosen the a priori of the existence of God, a mere belief, and superpose it to his understanding of data, believing that there is purpose in the world and that this is enough evidence for the existence of the God of the Roman Catholic Church who created the universe.
Who could claim that Miller don’t understand biological evolution? He demonstrated several times that he do, and done so clearly. But still, he needs his beliefs to the supernatural. He is a well known example of understanding science and still hold irrational beliefs.[/addendum]
Sue, on this one either you lost a step or two, or you didn’t made yourself clear.