Posted by Lars Berg on January 04, 1997 at 12:08:30:
In Reply to: Science Education crisis posted by Tyler on January 03, 1997 at 08:11:02:
: I have recently been reawaken by the prospect of the religious right movement╣s assertions that Creationism be taught on equal ground with evolution in the science classroom. I suppose that clear distinctions must be made on what constitutes science, and what does not. My feeling is that although scientific thinking has in some instances been, and may be in the future, almost doctrinaire in its view of the world, religion is wholly dogmatic in that it derives its │truths▓ from a single, unalterable, unverifiable source. What would a pious person do if faced with evidence contrary to religious tenet? Is it possible to convince a religious zealot the explanatory power of science in all venues of its reach? Why is it that the same people who use their televisions and microwave ovens cannot extend their confidences in the scientific enterprise to aspects of the life sciences? These are rhetorical questions and can be answered by anyone who gives them proper thought. We are mixing two ways of knowing about the world when this inevitable confrontation arises. Perhaps the Church should have just burned Galileo at the stake and not given him house arrest!
: All cynicism aside, genuine intellectual tolerance is entrenched in the desire to uncover the truth about things. It must be accompanied by the suspicion that there may be some unwavering thinking going on and even if the theory is confirmed to the point of sending spacecraft to specific points in the Solar System at precise times, there may be something even more fundamental underpinning the appearance. Science IS different than other ways of knowing in that there are observable consequences to inquiry, and it IS subject to verification. Now having said that, I╣d add that there can only be various levels of truth assigned to scientific theories according to how internally coherent they are and how well they fit the evidence, and their predictive power. In science, credibility is the measure between myth and approximations/predictions about the world. The mathematical ground will reduce the amount of interpretation in the physical sciences, but is less a factor in the life sciences (save population dynamics). So this theory on evolution is an inductive endeavour, and will always have a larger measure of uncertainty about it than deductive processes- those described within a system of logic. I believe that both material and abstract scientific │truth▓ is only to be found at the end of a correct line of mathematical reasoning. Truths of an ineffable nature are the purview of artists, philosophers and theologians. Let╣s separate them into two different arenas for discussion. But this is not what the Creationist movement wants for public schools
: Now, as far as secondary education is concerned, a central question is whether open-mindedness requires attention to Creationism in the science curricula. I think everyone agrees that science education is a necessary aspect in producing a well-rounded person, especially in a technological society. So many decisions today are technically based, and anyone without an inkling of science is destined for apathy and can easily fall prey to charlatanism. If these issues are to be understood, a familiarity with the natural sciences is requisite, as it has extended our appreciation and understanding of the known universe. Creationists decree that student ought to be taught both ideas and left to decide the issue for themselves. Well I think it is folly to expect a 14-year old to be able to make an informed decision on this terribly complicated issue. We might as well have a surgeon ask this age group whether a heart patient would benefit more from an angioplasty or bypass.
: Often, Creationists forward the issue of indoctrination whereby accusations are made against public schools about the dogmatic exclusivity of teaching only the one viewpoint. Nothing close to indoctrination occurs when the best theory is presented for what it is- a conjecture based on the observables. Evolution does this, and it predicts quite well. Creation science does neither. Additionally, science ed. exposes students to beneficial critical thinking skills, which is of value whenever one wants to make assessments based on context, issues, purposes and consequences rather than on fixed, dogmatic precepts or upon emotional or wistful thinking grounds.
: There would be a few aspects about education that would be adversely altered by a Creation treatment in science rooms. Educators would be put in the position of possibly misleading or confusing students about what otherwise is an eloquent theory that fits the facts. It does explain a lot, and is not fed only by one avenue of inquiry. Should we allow another, non-empirical viewpoint to dilute the well-evidenced, researched and documented theory? Where else in our lives do we allow equal ideas of unequal merit enter into serious personal or public debate? The science that evolution researchers and Creation advocates do are uncomparable, primarily because one of them is not science. How objective can ICR researchers be when they sign a contract which reads that there will be no avenues of inquiry opened that undermine the Biblical account? If Creationism is to be taught along side of evolution, then we are forced to acknowledge the other mythical ideas about the world in the science classroom. Who in this country subscribes to, or would allow, the teaching that Earth is supported on the back of an elephant, which in turn is supported by a turtle, which is supported.... It is impossible to instruct students in open-minded, unattenuated inquiry when pursuing these ideas. Religion stops asking with the turtle. Science would ask what supports the turtle and the further, necessary question of what supports the turtle╣s support, ad infinitum. To teach the fallacies of Creation │science▓ then, we are actually instructing doublethink- hardly a productive way of thinking! The only way that I see Creation being discussed in a science setting would be as a comparative tool. Then one may juxtapose the two ideas about origins in order to demonstrate the difference between free inquiry, and bound inquiry.
: A sensible thing to do would be to include the Creation account in a literature or mythology class, though I can hear the moans from the faithful regarding the latter. But then there would be another issue to deal with. There would be legal difficulties in presenting on religious veiw to the exclusion of all thers. It would be folly to have teachers instructing in all 600+ religious outlooks; imagine the headache! The Creationist cry of, │Both or neither in the science classroom▓ is senselessness and severely misguided. For those unfamiliar with the zeal in which this is occurring, watch and listen to Ralph Reed and the Christian Coalition.
Dear Tyler and Amanda
As a biologist, I am concerned too about the fundamentalist agenda to ban the teaching of the science I practice. Living in Europe, where such movements still are in their infancy, I look with some horror at the US and the development there (considering the tendency of us europeans to mimic the americans, we naturally have a stake in the US business).
Tyler brings up some points of great value which I would like to comment on. First of all, I think the evolutionist side benefits a lot by stating clearly what science is all about, and its value, rather than conducting the argument on a "we have the truth - you don't" level. Teaching science is inherently problematic. While, in my opinion, the basic point with science is to try to find out things on ones own, teaching has traditionally been a matter of handing down facts (or faith). I suspect that the older view is predominant among the creationist activists, and this would seem like the essential dividing line between the two fields. The issue then would boil down to whether our children shall be taught critical thinking or faith.
But of course, this argument hinges on science being characterized by critical thinking and open-mindedness. The fight against creationism and other scientifically disguised religious dogma must therefore go hand in hand with the fight against scientific dogma. As Tyler remarks, scientists from time to time act like doctrinaires. Though scientific doctrines have certain advantages over religious ones (repeatability, observability etc.) the two are closely related and can inflict similar dangers to their societies if taken as literal truth.
Therefore, in my opinion, the only faith that should be taught is the faith in oneself, in one's own ability to form opinions and to search the truth. Faith of this kind is is the essence of science, and should be the main argument against the creationists' claims.