I have long advocated that the best way to defeat Creationism is to bring it into the schools and teach children what's wrong with it. We have nothing to fear from directly exposing our children to the controversy between science and religion. I'm sure that science and rationalism will win the hearts and minds of our children if we let them face off in a fair fight.
Mike Dunford isn't so sure. In a recent posting at The Questionable Authority (Benefits of teaching the "controversy") he addressed an article by Michael Balter in the International Herold Tribune. Mike thinks that teaching the controversy is a good idea but only if you have the right teachers. Teachers like university Professor Steven Verhey. Unfortunately, Mike concludes,
If I was confident that Balter's suggested approach would result in science being taught the way that Verhey taught it, I would be happy to support it. As things currently stand, however, I think it's a lot more likely that his approach would result in science being taught the way the Discovery Institute wants to teach it - heavy on the Jonathan Wells, light on the honesty.This is very sad. If Mike is right it means the battle is already lost in the American schools. This means it's true that the courts are the last resort in the battle to teach science. We can't rely on the science teachers in the public schools to stand up for evolution. It's all in the hands of lawyers who must fight hard to suppress Creationism in order to save biology.
How did we ever get to this point? Is it true? Would teaching the controversy really lead to victory for the superstitious? I don't think this is true in Canada.
17 comments :
I'm not convinced that most high school teachers are up to the task of teaching evolution properly, let alone understanding and explaining the problems with Creationism, especially if it is disguised as ID. And it would not be sufficient just to teach the science - they would also need to possess (as well as teach) the critical thinking skills necessary to debunk the bad arguments.
I've often thought that (at least in the UK) school students don't have it explained to them why an experiment they are asked to do is a good and useful one. If this did occur it could work as an induction into understanding scientific methodology, and help give students the concepts to pick out why one thing is science and another is not science.
My worry isn't that we've lost the battle in the public schools, it's that one hard-line Creationist can do more damage than a number of reasonable, dedicated teachers explaining why Creationism is a joke.
Given that the DI has been promoting language which claims to ask teachers to present the evidence, how do we keep teachers from ramming Creationism down their students' throats while no one is looking?
Theo Bromine says
I'm not convinced that most high school teachers are up to the task of teaching evolution properly, let alone understanding and explaining the problems with Creationism, especially if it is disguised as ID.
That's horrible. If high school science teachers can't tell the difference between evolution and religion then the situation in America seems hopeless. Aren't science teachers supposed to be more science literate than the average citizen?
Larry Moran said...
That's horrible. If high school science teachers can't tell the difference between evolution and religion then the situation in America seems hopeless. Aren't science teachers supposed to be more science literate than the average citizen?
I can't speak for the situation in the US - my comment is based on my experiences with Canadian (Ottawa, Ontario) science education. Alas, some of the science teachers I encountered (in schools that were supposed to be among the best in the area) were demonstrably less science literate than a bright 14-year-old.
But I don't think it would be a case of being able to tell "evolution from religion". ID hides its religion well. Do you think that an BA in science plus teacher's training would be sufficient for a teacher to be able to debunk the claim of Irrecucible Complexity for the bacterial flagellum?
What other bits of non-science, political ideas without any theory or hypothesis behind them, contradicted by all the data, would you suggest we have schools use their time and money for?
theo bromine syas,
I can't speak for the situation in the US - my comment is based on my experiences with Canadian (Ottawa, Ontario) science education.
My experience in Toronto is quite different. Not all of the high school teachers I encountered were perfect but they all knew a lot about science. Most had a university degree in science and several had Master's degree. Two high school teachers did undergraduate projects with me on evolution and one completed a Master's degree in my lab.
I've been invited to high schools several times to lecture on evolution and creationism and one time I even had a debate with a prominent creationist.
My kids' biology teacher talked about creationism with considerable knowledge of the issues. He encouraged the students to debate the topic in class.
Do you think that an BA in science plus teacher's training would be sufficient for a teacher to be able to debunk the claim of Irreducible Complexity for the bacterial flagellum?
Yes, of course. All they have to do is go to talkorigins.org and read the articles. They can even direct their students to that website and discuss the articles in class.
j asks,
What other bits of non-science, political ideas without any theory or hypothesis behind them, contradicted by all the data, would you suggest we have schools use their time and money for?
Astrology—especially in the lower grades. There are several easy experiments you can do in class to show that astrology is bunk. It's a good example to teach critical thinking.
In middle school you can introduce UFO's, crop circles, and Bigfoot in order to ram home the point that science and rationality will always win out over superstition.
The goal is to teach student how to think and the best way to do that is to show them by example. That means discussing some things that are wrong.
This strategy isn't confined to science classes. In US history class, for example, I expect teachers to discuss the American version alongside the real history. In economics class, teachers should make sure students know about capitalism even if it's only to point out the flaws. :-)
Unfortunately the default method of thinking is rationalizing. Only when people learn analytical thinking and can distinguish it from rationalizing will they understand science in a useful way. I suspect that those with poorly developed Piagetan formal reasoning skills (probably including some science teachers) will be a tough sell.
Larry,
I agree with your point, but there is a very good reason that teaching the controversy cannot be allowed as a policy in US public schools. One out of three High School Biology teachers are creationists. They will use this as an excuse for teaching creationism.
Yea, the situation seems hopeless. But it is getting better. We are just now getting past the point where identifying a biology teacher who is teaching creationism is not considered a Witch Hunt but rather is considered finding out who is not doing their job.
When biology teachers sneaking creationism into their classrooms has the same status and produces the same reaction as, say, social studies teachers esplaining that the Holocaust is totally made up, or Physics teachers teaching Cold Fusion, etc., then we can talk about teaching the controversy.
But at that point of course, there still is the age old problem... there is already too much to do. Let's let that controversy bit fit into some other part of the curriculum!
Gred makes a good point. In addition, we have plenty of communities which provide support for teachers teaching creationism -- so not all the creationist bio teachers even have to sneak it in. (For example, http://tinyurl.com/38y6ge [on Pharyngula] -- the case of the history teacher pushing creationism hogwash and being protected by his administration and community.)
Does Canada have a national curriculum?
I think a major part of the problem is related to an observation of James Randi's... from his newsletter a while ago. He commented that con men find scientists relatively easy to fool because:
...because they think as scientists... (he says 'see above' here... there's a larger quote at the URL)... and because they assume that someone not thinking logically cannot deceive them because he’s not their intellectual equal. They think they’re smarter than the con man, not recognizing that such deception is the strength of the con man, his only profession...
... what happens when an even normally competent science teacher finds themselves dealing with an audience prepped by the creationist frauds (themselves con men of a particular sort.. and note that this will happen, even if the teacher does bring in the discussion on their own schedule as part of a prepared curriculum) is something similar, I think: the teacher is used to dealing with relatively honest arguments, relatively simple matters of cause and effect, and (at best) might have some skill in nudging someone who already wants to learn to think for themselves a little closer toward being able to doing so effectively. Dealing with the huge, stinking pile of bizarrely contradictory bullshit that is creationism and IDC requires a rather different set of skills.
Catching the creationists out in their deceptions is easy enough in terms of spotting the structure of the lie (these are generally rather transparent lies to anyone who knows the field halfway well), but that's only a very small part of the battle. Critically, you're also probably dealing with someone who's been lied to by determined, experienced liars... worse, someone who's internalized the lie, who's committed themselves enough to the lie to bring it to a biology class, and 'challenge' the teacher with it... So you're in the position both of dealing with this massive stinking pile of manure reasonably systematically (which is no small order despite the trivial nature of each deception... they're easy lies to call out, but there are a lot of them, and your audience is likely to be hostile and will hold up that potentially lengthy process as much as they can) and getting Joe Fundie-in-training to admit (even if only to himself) he's been taken for a ride... not easy things to do, really.
Suggestions? For what my advice is worth, I'd say teachers dealing with this stuff... even if they're going to bring it up themselves as part of the curriculum (better, probably, for several reasons, then letting the fundie bring it in on their own schedule, at least) have to have some solid grounding in the very arts of deception they'll be facing. How to spot a lie, how to call it out efficiently, effectively... So just as a trained illusionist like Randi can catch sleight of hand thanks to his own experience in performing it, they can catch a deceitful argument mid-sentence, rather than sitting there thinking too long: 'that's a pile of bullshit... but where to start...' (which is a perfectly rational response, actually, but not always a tactically powerful one).
As to the more psychological question of how one coaxes the deluded to let go of a delusion to which they've committed themselves, that, I've less advice for. Bigger question, I'm afraid.
The problem in the States is political, rather than with the qualifications of science teachers (I'm sure there are a range of great to awful teachers, just as there were when I went to school).
Schools are largely run by local school boards (with some state and federal restrictions). Coming out in favor of "traditional values" (e.g., religion) is usually an asset for a school board candidate, helping to assure parents that children will be exposed to favorable moral influences while at school. Churches and church organizations focus on turning out the faithful for such elections (as well as those at the state level).
Unless boards overstep their bounds to the point that many parents feel their children aren't getting the education they need (and the parents' tax dollars pay for) - e.g., Dover - it seems to me that simple public expressions of religious faith, for example, on the part of board members would be sufficient to suggest to principals and teachers which way the wind was blowing, making them reluctant to be too critical of creationism when presenting a "teach the controversy" curriculum.
I think this a godd idea in principle, though I can think of lots of ways the implementation could screw up (eg. a teacher who isn't very competent -- or one with an agenda for the Other Side). But what I like about it is that I think the ID/Cists get a fair bit of propaganda mileage out of the What They Never Told You About Evolution angle. Done properly, this preempts that line.
AJ Milne says,
Suggestions? For what my advice is worth, I'd say teachers dealing with this stuff... even if they're going to bring it up themselves as part of the curriculum (better, probably, for several reasons, then letting the fundie bring it in on their own schedule, at least) have to have some solid grounding in the very arts of deception they'll be facing.
I appreciate the sentiment here but I don't think it's necessary for teachers to be that highly trained in detecting bullshit. Most teachers are pretty good at it.
The other probem is that most of you are forgetting the role of students. The teacher simply has to moderate a class discussion of evolution vs. creationism. The students themselves can carry on the fight.
The idea here is to give the creationist and rational students the chance to challenge each other. I think the net effect of this would be to embarrass the creationists since most of their arguments look very silly when exposed to the light of day.
Once people start laughing at the IDiots, they're doomed. Let's create that opportunity in the schools.
jud says,
The problem in the States is political, rather than with the qualifications of science teachers
Most of the problems in America are political. That's the problem. :-)
Science teachers should be on the front lines whenever there's political interference in science teaching. They were in Dover.
This thread started when I read about Americans who lacked confidence in science teachers. Polls suggest that at least 40% of science teachers are creationists so I think the lack of confidence is justified.
Larry Moran said: "Polls suggest that at least 40% of science teachers are creationists...."
I'd be very(!) reluctant to base conclusions about what science teachers think on reports of poll results. What were the questions, how were responses structured, where was the poll conducted, etc.? This could be as simple as asking "Do you believe God created the Earth?", which to the compartmentalized minds of many Americans would be the same as asking "Do you believe in God?"
I'd rather see answers to questions asked of biology teachers regarding mechanisms of evolution such as natural selection, inheritance, mutation, etc., to see if there is a proper understanding and acceptance of those propositions, before drawing any (provisional) conclusions about their fitness to teach.
Post a Comment