Evolution, Creationism and Science Education

[Simon Bridge]

The Education Curriculum, Science and Creationism
An Essay in Practical Pedagogy

I keep seeing, especially in the United States, people trying to get some variation on the theme of Creationism into High School curriculae... curriculums... curriculie-curriculai... courses. In this essay I examine some of the main attempts and the arguments and misconceptions which give rise to them. Hopefully this will lead to a better understanding as to why, exactly, creationism in any form cannot have a valid place in any honest science curriculum.

Teach Us the Truth
A very common misconception, especially amongst students, is that Science Education is about teaching the truth.

While the truth is important to all education, the whole point of Science Education is to teach about Science.

Science is what scientists do.
Scientists look for natural solutions to problems. They look for natural causes for phenomina under investigation. Even theistic scientists approach phenomina from the point of view that God did not have a hand in this (God intervened, or set up the Universe, in such a way as to make the phenomina understandable in terms of natural causes.)

This could be thought of as the "Atheistic Principle" in science.

I defy anyone to point out any (scientific) research where the assumption of the existance of God has contributed usefully to an experiment. (Preferably backed up by reference to a peer-reviewed publication.)

Thus, the idea that a supreme being had a hand in the appearance of life (or even the universe) is not science. And so it should not be part of a science curriculum.

Q.E.D.

Let Us Decide for Ourselves
At any time, in Science, there are a range of competing ideas and paradigms. Perhaps High School Science courses should teach this range, allowing students to make up their own minds about which ones to believe?

To a certain extent we do.

The course is divided into the major disciplines (Physics, Chemistry, Biology) with subdivisions being clearly indicated (electronic, astro, quantum in physics for eg.) Variations of thought exist, and are taught, between these major divisions.

However, science courses for high School students are usually far too basic to admit a great deal of variation. At such a basic level, all the ideas have been tested for generations. There has been plenty of time for major variations to be checked and the clearly false ones to be eliminated. The basic science of today consists of ideas which have survived this, somewhat brutal, process.

It is a valid critisism that students frequently come away from a Science course with the impression that Science procedes from one idea to the next through a linear-esque progression ... Thomson gives way to Rutherford, Newton to Einstein, Lamark to Darwin, and so on. So when students discover the competition of ideas and the general uncertainties in the way Science is conducted, they can become "disillusioned": cynical and distrustful of anything carrying the label "science".

Part of this is due to the belief that one should "find the Truth then believe it to the end". Partly to the impression of science being about the truth. Many adolescents are seeking some stability and certainty in lives that have suddenly become chaotic and insecure. While science can provide tools in this search, it is not the end of the search. For many people, this search continues well into adulthood.

Are students, therefore, in a good position to "decide for themselves"?

That students keep coming up with this suggestion, suggests that they (at least the ones making the suggestion) may not be. Science is not about looking at the evidence and deciding what to believe. Presented with a genuine variation in ideas, a scientist is trained to suspend judgement on all of them until some definitive experimentation is concluded. In the meantime, the ideas are considered "interesting". (Of course, being human as well, scientists have their favorites.)

Scientists do not make up their minds which to believe - they let the universe make up their minds for them.

So, just asking they be allowed to decide for themselves which to believe, the students are showing that they do not understand the fundamental processes in science.

Perhaps, however, students should ask to be taught the variations so as to better understand the feild they study?

This would be a great argument. Generally, it runs into the more practical problems in education: resources, funds, time. Is there enough time to cover the range of topics needed to understand the techno-scientific aspects of the world we live in, provide tools to help graduates puzzle through things not explicitly covered in the course, and provide a useful profile of the variations in scientific ideas where those exist?

Imagine studying science in a course like that? How would you fair in a pop-quiz where there are three or four ideas about the question? From the other end: how would you deliver such a course?

All school courses represent a compromise of one kind or another. While it would be possible to produce a course as described, it would involve giving up something else. As it stands, science courses are pared almost to the bone. They include only major ideas which are frequently used and found useful by scientists. Already, much that is taught of the scientific body of knowledge (the facts et al) cuts into the teaching of the toolkit (scientific method and philosophy) which is probably more useful in the long run but more difficult to set exams for.

In the end, it is hardly suprising that graduates end up confused. Schools are set difficult goals against overwhelming odds, and are underresourced to boot. Teachers are increasingly asked to cope with higher and higher beaurocratic workloads (detracting from teaching) and have to bow under PC pressure. That the education systems work as well as they do (which is to say, "at all") is a remarkable acheivement.

A place for creationism?
Creationism, as a school of thought, makes a reasonable study.
Darwinism, as a school of thought also makes a reasonable study.
There are different ways of thinking about the world which affect our lives; it seems reasonable to acknowledge this.
The study of the alternative ways of thinking about things is the study of philosophy. So, it would seem that Creationism is appropriate to a course in philosophy.

Intelligent Design?
ID is not used by scientists. So the argument, above, also applies to ID. This applies regardless of whether we think that ID is a form of creationism or not.

Truth and High School Education
A footnote on truth in science education: practically everything taught to high-school science classes is known to be wrong in some important way. It is known to be untrue.

Newton's Law of Gravitation, for eg, fails to account for the orbit of Mercury (amongst other things). It has been supplanted by General Relativity.

We teach Newtonian Physics in High School because;
(a) High School students stand some chance of understanding it,
(b) it accounts for all the phenomina most will directly experience in their lifetime,
(c) it'll help students understand Einstein's work,
(d) it is actually still used by scientists every day.

Since it is what scientists use, it is a valid part of a science course. Einstein is also valid - and more true. But we spend less time on Einstein because it is less useful, harder to understand, and school-time is limited.

From this example, you can see that merely being true is not high on the list of priorities.

 

[the_bgma]

There's a few good quotes in there...

...

Scientists do not make up their minds which to believe - they let the universe make up their minds for them.

...

A place for creationism?
Creationism, as a school of thought, makes a reasonable study.
Darwinism, as a school of thought also makes a reasonable study.
There are different ways of thinking about the world which affect our lives; it seems reasonable to acknowledge this.
The study of the alternative ways of thinking about things is the study of philosophy. So, it would seem that Creationism is appropriate to a course in philosophy.

...

I agree with those completely. Keep science classes SCIENCE-ONLY, and do philosophy somewhere else.

Here's the argument for only teaching evolution in science classes, from the Book of Science:

...there are still many out there who cling to a biblical literalism that denies the factual evidence for these established scientific theories, and continue to teach such absurdities to children. (Recall that at one time church teachings taught us the earth was flat, and later that the sun revolved around the earth!) Such biblical literalism is dangerous, for it teaches that we should deny facts we can see with our own eyes, in favor of the writings of men from thousands of years ago.

Those pushing such ideas sometimes also support a theocratic state, and harsh or capital penalties for those who do not believe in their particular brand of theism or deny their “facts” or do not follow their particular set of prescribed morals. We cannot allow biblical literalists to commandeer the scientific education of our children and pervert it into something that is no longer science, for this would be the first step toward their goal of a theocracy. So, we must take pains to lay out detailed, organized evidence for these truisms that should be obvious to any rational observer. The Bible of the Good and Moral Atheist includes some short summaries of such evidence, but interested readers should also consider looking over the list at the TalkOrigins website...

When the theist argues the metaphysical, we must certainly allow them their beliefs. After all, they are by definition beliefs about which no definite proof can be given. But when the theist pronounces on the physical world, in contradiction to physical evidence, it demands that all Freethinkers stand up for the truth.


**************************************************
The Bible of the Good and Moral Atheist

 

[Beerina]

I wanna see "teach the controversy", where people study the social aspects of people lying in order to get their religion into a school's curricula, combined with the mental juggling the honest ones must be going through in their state of neurosis (holding two logically incompatible beliefs) in order to reconcile their worldviews in a "yeah, that's the ticket!" sort of way.

 

[Simon Bridge]

I wanna see "teach the controversy", where people study the social aspects of people lying in order to get their religion into a school's curricula, combined with the mental juggling the honest ones must be going through in their state of neurosis (holding two logically incompatible beliefs) in order to reconcile their worldviews in a "yeah, that's the ticket!" sort of way.

... unfortuately "psychology" is not in the science curriculum.

This would probably be appropriate to a social science class (NZ has a junior-school course called "social studies", which teaches a mix of history and geography from a "people-perspective". However, the focus is on "tolerance" over criticism. I can see why this should be ... however it means avoiding intolerable aspects of cultures under study. This is teaching children to tolerate others by deliberately ignoring their bad points, but I digress.) - this splits in the senior years as history, geography, and sociology.

However, the way people hold conflicting world views is to compartmentalise their models. Some beliefs apply to some situations and other beleifs to others.

Also why I tend to react to statements along the lines of "Science dosn't apply to everything"... since the utterer will then compartmentalise things according to their preconceptions of what science is and can do, cutting a large chunk of themselves and their lives from the most powerful methodology for thought around.

the_bgma: nice link there. Tends to be a little reactionary for my taste. I think the argument I started the thread with is stronger in it's pursuasive power, and yet, is seldom articulated. It allows people with anti-evolutionary beliefs to understand why their beliefs are not in the science curriculum without actually attacking those beliefs. Such folk thrive on martyrdom anyway.

I recall a leading counter-evolution-ist giving a speach at a skeptics conference (forget who or when - anybody? I think it was these creation science people.) where the speaker was outlining the major challenges for evolution in the face of creationism. I noted that none of the "challenges" involved creationism being true. Instead, the major challenges noted revolved around evolutionists approach to teaching their subject to the next generation... they tend to be dismissive and intolerant (seeming), tending thus to alienate a rebellious youth. Creationism is then, painted as an expression of youthful defiance of authority - an extension of the break from ones parental authority.

It's also a lot easier to follow and understand.

Another approach I have used is to start out conceding that God created everything ... then pointing out that we want to find out about creation. We have four sources of information;

1. Our own senses and experiences:
Unfortunately, we know that our senses are unreliable, or experiences misleading. We are easily tricked. Our thought/reasoning processes are imperfect and we are frequently wrong about things - which can lead to embarrassment in front of others as well as any physical effect.
* We follow our own experience only with trepidation.

2. Another Authority
Since we know there are others wiser than ourselves, it is reasonable to consult them. This method also avoids embarrassment from being wrong since you can always poit to another to take the blame.
However, any of this information is second hand and may suffer from misinterpretation as the authorities wisdom is turned into words which we must hear correctly then apply our poor reason to interpreting. And what happens when two esteemed authorities disagree? Will there always be a third authority to mediate? And - authorities are prone to the same failures as #1, albeit less so. How are we to judge how much to esteem a given authority? How does one come from obscurity to authority? Is this process trustworthy?
* We follow authority only with caution.

3. From an unimpeachable source: i.e. The King James Bible (Insert the holy book of choice here - this is an example only.)
This is great - the bible is written by prophets of God, or people observing the prophets and works of God, who seem to have access to some greater insight than mere sages.
This information must be at least second hand - usually third or fourth - and suffers at least from the translation/interpretation problems mentioned before. We also have to consider the frailties of the writers, they could be misinformed or even lying. Perhaps they want to make a particular spiritual point and are prepared to sacrifice physical accuracy for this purpose? (After all, they know they are talking to ordinary people - see #1)
This method has an additional advantage in the embarrasment stakes: the source is unimpeachable. The embarrassment goes to whoever would point out the (supposed) flaws in any truth so obtained.
What about false prophets? How are we, mere mortals, supposed to tell?

* We follow prophets or holy books with, perhaps, more confidence - but some caution is still needed to avoid false teachings designed to mislead us as well as to determine when a writer intends to be literal and when metaphorical.

4. Direct from God
Getting the Word of God directly would seem to bypass all these problems. You are a prophet of the Word. Well done! You now know the Truth.

Trouble here only comes from trying to tell other people about this. How can you be sure that they understand you? If you are a prophet and you don't care if others understand you or not - what are you doing reading this then?

What if God tells you something that is at odds with the conventional ways of interpreting the unimpeachable source (#3)? Or the authority (#2). i.e. How does one get recognised as an unimpeachable source?

How can you tell that this contact is not with the Devil? Or that you are not just mad?

In all cases, we need some way to use only our own experience to test the reality of something (like the reliability of an authoratative utterance). Cue scientific method.

#2: an authority gains status by showing skill with this method and you belive utterences which show scientific rigour.
#3: there are no unimpeachable sources.
#4: What is true by divine revelation will also stand up to empirical testing (or it dosn't deserve to be called "true" - if it dosn't then you've been contacted by the Devil or you are mad.)

This whole thing leads to source #5...

5. We ask creation directly.
The advantage is that this information is first hand. While creation is ambivalent about us being right, it is very definite about when we are wrong. Scientific method, then, becomes a dialogue with craetion Herself, in which She leads a delightful and merry dance, and slaps us hard when we misstep. And so we learn the dance too.
The disadvantage is that this takes an aweful lot of courage.


It remains only to locate the limits of scientific thought. These seem to get pushed back every time someone defines them Scientists love forbidden knowledge.