Should scientists debate creationists?

[Dancing David]

These seem like valid concerns to me:
Concerns about calibration of radio dating techniques
How can random processes give specific values?
How do entirely new traits evolve?
(I didn't read the transitional fossil thread to which you are no doubt alluding)

In fact I think all of these questions are currently being explored in the field.

I find no reason to suspect ulterior motives in those who ask the tough questions.

Perhaps this will elucidate the difference between asking a question because you want the answer and asking the questions because of your beliefs.

A friend of my fathers is a prominent archaeologist and when he first started teaching in the sixties he was in the deep south of the USA, he was teaching a world prehistory class and the first day of class gave an overview of the course, starting with geology, prehistory and then history and the role of humans and the course of human's societies and culture(from the anthropological POV) , the rise of homo sapiens sapiens, hunter gatherers, horticulture, agriculture and economies of storage and the use of different technologies.

At the end of the overview he asks if there are questions and one of the students raises his hands and asks in a southern drawl "Mr. Coe, what about the Flood?"

Now this question while a very good one is usually enough to send archaeologists into gales of laughter. There is very little evidence that supports the idea of the Flood as presented in the bible. It is a cultural religious belief that is not usually discussed in a prehistory class expect in the context of cultural differences in flood myths and the possible origins of flood myths.

However it is appropriate for an instructor , if they so choose to say, "There is no evidence of a universal flood as described in the bible." It is the instructor’s job to decide what the curriculum of the class is and to not spend the majority of class time discussing why outdated theories are no longer held to be true. Although most will discuss the glaciations and the evidence for them and why the 'flood' theories are no longer current.

And then on the whole dating of objects issue, your assertion that there is no discussion of dating techniques is just wrong. Time is limited in classrooms, and while it might be appropriate in a college or honor’s high school class, it is not appropriate for grade schoolers, there is just not enough time.

In a world prehistory class or in just about any college class where dating methods are discussed you will here a lot about the imprecision’s and errors of radiometric dating, you will also here about how dates are arrived at through a convergence of factors and that carbon dating is in fact the most imprecise of the dating methods used, because of contamination.

So I don’t know why you want to insist that the radio carbon errors are not discussed, in a high school physics class they are not going to discuss the whole range of theories and the grueling details about the rise of quantum mechanics. They are going to hit the high lights.

And you can’t blame scientists for the errors of the public media, the media is interested in punching things up and selling ad time. They are not going to discuss the whole issue of how a date is arrived at and if it is supported by other evidence. You will still here people saying dumb stuff like “the swiss worshipped cave bears, they even found an altar with cave bear skulls” and “Neanderthals buried their dead with marijuana plants’.

The same is true for all the questions that you pose, they are important questions, and the answers to them are discussed in the appropriate forums and places, endlessly, and in fact if you don’t understand them you won’t get a good grade.

But a school child asking “What good is half an eye?” is a loaded question that they have been trained to ask and it is a derailment of a classroom. There are transitional eyes in abundance, there are transitional fossils in abundance. Some people ask questions because they don’t want to hear the answers.

 

[Beth]

Wow, a lot of responses this morning. I'll do my best to reply, but I think it appropriate to quote from some posts bit father back to provide some context. I was talking about why I support educational vouchers and charter schools. I'm going to cut the stuff I think is too much of a derail, but if I skip a point you want answered, please feel free to post it again.

Yes, well, if the alternative is to require their children to learn something the completely undermines their religious faith, then the alternative is far worse.

But fortunately, that isn't the only alternative. After all, we don't require that students believe in the theory of evolution; they just need to have an elementary understanding of what scientists feel is the best explanation we can currently devise without invoking a creator.

So as long as a K-12 school met the curriculum requirements regarding what they teach, I think that is adequate and all we can reasonably ask of them.

What about the evidence, the reasons science scientist think evolution is the best explanation. No I don't think "an elementary understanding of what scientists feel is the best explanation we can currently devise without invoking a creator" is enough. It has nothing to do with an explanation that doesn't evoke a creator. It is all about the evidence. You seem to have specifically ruled that the actual evidence not be a required part of the teaching and apparently called it a far worse alternative to not teaching anything about evolution. This is a travesty!

Perhaps your not even aware of the evidence and was taught that it is only a theory to provide a naturalistic explanation. Is this why so many come here claiming evolution is nothing more than a belief?

My response to this, kind of lost among the discussion on the importance of evidence (and I agree it is quite important) is that children are not capable of understanding all of the evidence in depth. At some point, and in nearly every subject, the child is simply expected to trust in what his teachers are telling him. This doesn't mean that evidence can not or should not be brought up, or that I would object to their doing so, it's simply why I phrased the original post as I did.

I must disagree strongly here. It takes only remedial if any math to understand a half life.

Having taught how to make half-life computations in a college classroom setting, I must disagree. It's not remedial math. But even if you are correct, what we were discussing was curriculum requirements. State requirements have to make choices about what is included and what is not. Currently, evidence for evolution is not included in the curiculum guidelines for my state. I'm okay with that, but if the experts who develop such curriculum were to include it, I'd be okay with that as well.

My original point, which seems to have gotten lost, was if a school teaches the required curriculum, that's all that is reasonable for the rest of us to expect.

Very rarely does understanding how the evidence obtained require having the skills to obtain and prove it yourself. A large portion of the evidence only requires understanding how to ask the questions. Not on any detailed evaluation of the answers.

If you can't make a detailed evaluation of the answers (and you're quite right about that part), then you have to trust the source you are getting the answers from. This is fine and appropriate. This is also why I said that teaching evolution means teaching " what scientists feel is the best explanation we can currently devise". Please don't read more into that simple statement than I intended.

Forgive me at my abject horror at your suggestion that we pander our way around the truth to protect the innocent from "trauma". I would be banned if I expressed what I am feeling right now.

You are forgiven, but I'm not suggesting that "we" pander our way around the truth. I'm suggesting that those parents who are concerned about the effect of evolution on their child's faith be allowed (via vouchers) to select a school that would do so. Then they have no cause to try and impose such pandering on the rest of us.

If it offends you that they should be allowed to do so, well, you're allowed to be offended and try to change things to be more to your liking. Just as they are offended that their children are taught things in school that directly contradict their faith and they try to change things to be more to their liking.

Well, you're asking them to have faith in EVERYTHING, then. Why should evolution be singled out, except to cater to the creationists? It is a dishonest and/or misleading position to take.

Yes, we ask children to have faith in nearly everything we teach them. Evolution is not being singled out for that reason.

If you wish to see me after school, I'd be happy to make an appointment to explain carbon dating to you, but for now accept that is the scientific consensus that it is accurate.

This is a good answer to an individual child. It doesn't, however, support including such details in curriculum requirements.

Why even try to teach how trustworthy the evidence is. It is good that they would question its trustworthiness. The most important thing is that they have the evidence as presented to consider possible fallacies. If the pursuit of these fallacies inspires higher learning so much the better. Isn't that worlds ahead of saying, "scientist believe evolution"? With that they don't even have evidence to question. The very idea that what a teacher teaches is to be "trusted" without question is disturbing to me. It is a totally seperate issue than trust of the individual teacher.

I think you are misinterpreting what I said. I never said that what teachers are to be trusted without question. I never said that children shouldn't question the evidence and be given answers. You are making some major leaps to conclusions that aren't appropriate here.

Forgive my apparent ignorance, but why exactly is promoting non-critical thinking and strawman representations of evolution a better alternative than actually teaching students the science behind evolution?

It's not a better alternative. It is an acceptable alternative that some parents prefer. We don't require that students believe in evolution, only that they have an understand of the basic theory.

You aren't seriously proposing that it's ok for parents to teach their children blatant falsehoods and call it science, are you? That path can lead only to scientific stagnation, if not a massive scientific setback!

What you call blatant falsehoods, they call the truth. I think they are wrong, and I don't much like the idea, but like it or not, it is acceptable in our society. Homeschoolers can teach what they like. Private schools can teach what they like. The question is whether it's reasonable to support such educational efforts though vouchers. I've given the matter a great deal of thought and my answer is yes. If the school (I don't support vouchers for homeschoolers) teaches the required curriculum that is all I think is reasonable for us to require of them.

Religious faith should take precedence over science in a science class?
Really?

Not what I said. Not what I believe.

 

[Mobyseven]

Beth, while I'm glad to have a clarification of your position, I must say I still wholeheartedly disagree.

First off, I disagree with the rationalisation that, "What we call falsehoods, they call the truth." That may be so, but it doesn't mean that there are two diametrically opposed versions of the truth. It simply means that they are wrong. For all you would like to go on about parents rights to choose what to teach their children, I will raise you the right of a child to be taught critical thinking skills and the scientific theories that are most correct for the age we live in. Evolution should be taught as correct, because for all the terms and qualifiers that scientists have to use to steer clear of dogma, evolution is correct, damnit! That is what should be taught, and the reasons why this is so should be taught! Perhaps examples of ongoing debates in evolution should be presented as examples of how science is still broadening our knowledge (Punctuated equilibrium vs. Gradualism), but there is no reason to believe that the entire theory is correct without it and that should be taught. In physics there are many debates going on, such as the WIMPs vs. MACHOs debate (among other contenders) but for the most part the particle model of physics works pretty well thank you very much. I must say though, that should the LHC not find evidence of the Higgs Boson, the particle model of physics would find itself on shakier ground than evolution has for decades now.

By allowing parents to teach their children falsehoods, you are simply fostering yet another generation of ignorance and backlash against the scientific community. When falsehoods are allowed to be presented as science, no one - not the child, not the scientific community, not society as a whole - benefits. Any apparent benefits in the short term will be set off in the long term through scientific stagnation. The best outcome in such a system is scientific stagnation. The worst is a modern Dark Age.

You say that the teaching of falsehoods as truth is, "...acceptable in our society." I have to ask the question: "WHY is it acceptable in our society?" Is it because there are genuine benefits to be had from the teaching of falsehoods? Or is it simply because of the masses of poorly educated people and uncritical thinkers who are allowed to vote, and who will vote for the politician who promises them what they want - not scientific advancement, but government sanctioned indoctrination of the next generation.

I don't want to live in a society where it is considered the 'right' of a parent to indoctrinate their child and teach their child blatant falsehoods. Rather, I want to live in a society where the right of the child is paramount, and where children receive a schooling in critical thinking and science, and not faith and propaganda.

 

[Beth]

Beth, while I'm glad to have a clarification of your position, I must say I still wholeheartedly disagree.....I don't want to live in a society where it is considered the 'right' of a parent to indoctrinate their child and teach their child blatant falsehoods. Rather, I want to live in a society where the right of the child is paramount, and where children receive a schooling in critical thinking and science, and not faith and propaganda.

You're certainly entitled to disagree. I wasn't trying to convert you, just clarify my position. As I stated earlier, it is a value judgement. We are all entitled to our various values systems.

I came to this position after a lot of thought and consideration about various conflicting interests and what I think the probable effects of various approaches would be on our society. In the end, someone has to decide what is best for children in our society. In my opinion, unless they overstep the bounds of the law (which can be changed to reflect the changing values of our society) it's the parents who should be making that call for their individual children. It's reasonable to require that children learn about the basics of the theory of evolution but it's not reasonable to require that they believe it.

To further clarify my position: I think the route to achieving the best possible education for every child is through individualized education. I think empowering parents and allowing them more choices will move us towards that goal. Even if some parents make some choices that I don't agree with, I think the overall benefit of vouchers in allowing more freedom and choices in providing education to the children of our society is sufficient to justify supporting vouchers.

 

[quixotecoyote]

You're certainly entitled to disagree. I wasn't trying to convert you, just clarify my position. As I stated earlier, it is a value judgement. We are all entitled to our various values systems.

As Daniel Moynihan once said, “We are each entitled to our own opinion, but no one is entitled to his own facts." This holds true for parents, teachers, and students. Regardless of your opinions, facts are facts and should be taught as such.

 

[CplFerro]

I think scientists should debate creationsists, but only by asking them a specific question-set over and over, pressing them until they get an answer. The question-set is this:

How did God make life forms? Not WHO, but HOW did he do it. Don't tell me about who you think did it, or didn't do it. HOW was it done? What is your theory regarding the specific HOW of the matter? HOW, HOW, HOW. If you don't have a theory yet, what IDEAS do you have regarding a possible theory? When do you imagine "intelligent design" science will have a theory, or an idea regarding a possible theory. HOW?

And so on. Just keep hammering home the point that these people are anti-science, because they're proposing a solution to a puzzle that leads to an insoluble wall of mystery.

Cpl Ferro

 

[Meadmaker]

I think scientists should debate creationsists, but only by asking them a specific question-set over and over, pressing them until they get an answer. The question-set is this:

How did God make life forms? Not WHO, but HOW did he do it.

This theme is popular among skeptics, but, frankly, it looks silly. Once you accept the existence of miracles, there is no "how". It just happens.

That was the one thing I thought was horribly wrong with Shermer's tactics from the debate described in the OP. He was criticizing "and then a miracle happens" without, apparently, realizing that that was, in itself, a complete explanation, entirely satisfactory to anyone who believes in miracles.

 

[quixotecoyote]

This theme is popular among skeptics, but, frankly, it looks silly. Once you accept the existence of miracles, there is no "how". It just happens.

That was the one thing I thought was horribly wrong with Shermer's tactics from the debate described in the OP. He was criticizing "and then a miracle happens" without, apparently, realizing that that was, in itself, a complete explanation, entirely satisfactory to anyone who believes in miracles.

However, it is completely unsatisfactory if said believer is trying to pass himself/herself off as a scientist.

 

[CplFerro]

This theme is popular among skeptics, but, frankly, it looks silly. Once you accept the existence of miracles, there is no "how". It just happens.

That was the one thing I thought was horribly wrong with Shermer's tactics from the debate described in the OP. He was criticizing "and then a miracle happens" without, apparently, realizing that that was, in itself, a complete explanation, entirely satisfactory to anyone who believes in miracles.

Dear Meadmaker,

It serves to highlight, however, how utterly unscientific such people are. How does one scientifically analyse a miracle? Does it leave an ion trail or something?

Cpl Ferro

 

[Beth]

As Daniel Moynihan once said, “We are each entitled to our own opinion, but no one is entitled to his own facts." This holds true for parents, teachers, and students. Regardless of your opinions, facts are facts and should be taught as such.

Fact are facts indeed, but we were discussing curriculum requirements involving teaching the theory of evolution.

Further, you're making a value judgement here. Now, it happens to be one I agree with, but let's not lose sight of the 'fact' that it is a value judgement. That's why I bolded the 'should' in your statement. Statements about what people should do are value judgements. If enough people in a society agree on certain values, those values are incorporated into our educational system. The disagreement regarding the teaching of evolution is substantial and has been very detrimental to our educational system (at least in my state). A compromise seems appropriate and allowing parents to have their children taught the theory of evolution in a manner than doesn't conflict with their personal beliefs seem a reasonable one to me.

 

[quixotecoyote]

Fact are facts indeed, but we were discussing curriculum requirements involving teaching the theory of evolution.

Further, you're making a value judgement here. Now, it happens to be one I agree with, but let's not lose sight of the 'fact' that it is a value judgement. That's why I bolded the 'should' in your statement. Statements about what people should do are value judgements. If enough people in a society agree on certain values, those values are incorporated into our educational system. The disagreement regarding the teaching of evolution is substantial and has been very detrimental to our educational system (at least in my state). A compromise seems appropriate and allowing parents to have their children taught the theory of evolution in a manner than doesn't conflict with their personal beliefs seem a reasonable one to me.

There is that fact of evolution and the theory of evolution. I think you are confusing them.

Further I could have said that school is meant to teach facts, not opinions, meant the same thing, and avoided this tangential values discussion you want to focus on.

 

[Beth]

There is that fact of evolution and the theory of evolution. I think you are confusing them.

No, I understand the difference. The 'fact' of evolution is not a part of our state's curriculum requirements. The theory of evolution is.

Further I could have said that school is meant to teach facts, not opinions, meant the same thing, and avoided this tangential values discussion you want to focus on.

I just discuss whatever interests me. You are free to focus on what interests you and if a particular tangent is not of interest, you need not reply. Also, a statement like 'school is meant to teach facts, not opinions' would not have avoided that tangent because it is a value judgement itself (your idea of what schools ought to teach) and further it is demonstrably incorrect in regards to our current school system. Schools clearly do teach opinions as well as facts.

 

[jimbob]

I think scientists should debate creationsists, but only by asking them a specific question-set over and over, pressing them until they get an answer. The question-set is this:

How did God make life forms? Not WHO, but HOW did he do it. Don't tell me about who you think did it, or didn't do it. HOW was it done? What is your theory regarding the specific HOW of the matter? HOW, HOW, HOW. If you don't have a theory yet, what IDEAS do you have regarding a possible theory? When do you imagine "intelligent design" science will have a theory, or an idea regarding a possible theory. HOW?

I prefer a slight variation:

Why?

Specifially why create a (young) Earth, and then provide evidence that it is older and evidence for evolution, and provide humans with the faculties to analyse this evidence?

An omnipotent being could, by definition do that, but it seems a little pointless.

Just because I like stirring, I might also suggest that Young Earth Creationism is blasphemous. If god gave created us, he gave us the tools to see how old the Earth is. The parable of the talents shows that we should use our talents, and not analysing the evidence is a waste of our god-given talents.

Actually I don't think it is blasphemous, just utterly stupid, but then I am an atheist....

 

[pgwenthold]

Just because I like stirring, I might also suggest that Young Earth Creationism is blasphemous. If god gave created us, he gave us the tools to see how old the Earth is. The parable of the talents shows that we should use our talents, and not analysing the evidence is a waste of our god-given talents.

Actually I don't think it is blasphemous, just utterly stupid, but then I am an atheist....

I have said this before many times. If God exists and created everything, then he created me as a rational, thinking being, one who does not accept something by "faith" and requires evidence. However, using the gift of rational thought that God gave me, I see no evidence that God exists, and therefore do not believe in him. In fact, in order to believe would require that I not use the gift of rational thought that he gave me, and it seems to me that not fully utilizing God's gifts would be a sin. Thus, I am forced to conclude that, if God exists, it would be a sin for me to believe in him.

 

[Meadmaker]

Just because I like stirring, I might also suggest that Young Earth Creationism is blasphemous. If god gave created us, he gave us the tools to see how old the Earth is. The parable of the talents shows that we should use our talents, and not analysing the evidence is a waste of our god-given talents.

Back when I was a Christian, that's what I thought. I thought it was outrageous to say that God lied to us by doing things like mucking with radioisotope levels to make Earth look very, very old.

 

[quixotecoyote]

No, I understand the difference. The 'fact' of evolution is not a part of our state's curriculum requirements. The theory of evolution is.

That's ridiculous. The theory is meaningless without first teaching the fact. You can't honestly teach the theory without teaching the fact as well.

 

[Dancing David]

As Daniel Moynihan once said, “We are each entitled to our own opinion, but no one is entitled to his own facts." This holds true for parents, teachers, and students. Regardless of your opinions, facts are facts and should be taught as such.

Public education yes, at home no.

 

[Dancing David]

That's ridiculous. The theory is meaningless without first teaching the fact. You can't honestly teach the theory without teaching the fact as well.

That depends on the grade level, the time given and unfortunately the text book used, I don't feel that people should allow for religous dogma to enter the the public schools as science, what they want to teach at home is up to them.

 

[whiteyonthemoon]

Why can't creationists have everything so horribly wrong? Why can't they be misinterpreting not only the biology, chemistry, and physics of evolution but also the mathematics of randomness?

Great point. Both sides in the debate seem willing to misinterpret the mathematics of randomness.

 

[Dymanic]

And then on the whole dating of objects issue, your assertion that there is no discussion of dating techniques is just wrong. Time is limited in classrooms, and while it might be appropriate in a college or honor’s high school class, it is not appropriate for grade schoolers, there is just not enough time.

With "No Child Left Behind", there's barely time for science at all. The central premise is that kids who can't read and do math aren't likely to learn much about science or anything else, and it's hard to argue with that. Here the futility of scientists debating creationists is further underscored by the observation that these deficiencies -- not serious obstacles to grasping creationist teachings -- render the playing field hopelessly uneven.

If science literacy among adults in the U.S. is any measure, then the public school system hasn't been very successful in this area for some time. Maybe abandoning the effort altogether is the best policy. When so simple a thing as the meaning of the word "theory" as it is used in science is so widely misunderstood among full-grown adults (as has just been demonstrated here), how useful is it to attempt to fill little heads with facts about biology even if these same facts now comprise the very theoretical ground on which the science of biology now stands?