Celsus

Hi Hugo.

You raise some interesting points, but there are several problems with practicalities, which is what I believe some of the people posting here have been trying to say. Let me raise a few more problems:

1) Creationism has never been a science, or even just bad science. Their positive evidence is zero. "God did it" does not leave any testable hypotheses or predictions. There is, frankly, nothing to compare it with. Contrast this with catastrophism which already gets its 5-minute hearing in an A level geography syllabus. That lesson is at least useful in showing how the methods of the "gradualists" won out over the catastrophists, both competing through methodological naturalism. Creationism as a biological theory has none of these hallmarks.

2) The assaults on the methodology of science that Creationists use cannot be dealt with in a practical window which does not severely cut into the teaching of good science. Simply, philosophy of science and methodology are not appropriate Keystage 3 topics (would most 17-year-olds be able to grasp--or rather care--why Plantinga is spouting nonsense in his attacks on methodological naturalism?). Hence that would only serve to confuse students.

3) We know that Creationism, despite its guise of science, is really just a fundamentalist vehicle for preaching their evangelism in classes. There are other crackpot theories, such as astrology, homeopathy, animal magnetism, and others, which take (or have taken) the guise of science, but no one seriously expects that they will ever make their way into the classroom. The only difference is that Creationism is influential on the establishment (and only in Western countries with Christian influence). Letting them in, no matter how infinitesimally, will just pander to their goals of gaining recognition (letting them in for the purpose of being debunked will no doubt be used to drum up even more conspiracy claims against the scientific establishment, unless they are given equal time).

So what we have (and I'm not attacking your position, but rather trying to cite the implausibility of teaching creationism in schools), is the nonscience which is creationist biology, which has no testable theories or predictions, and in order to point out why these problems are not acceptable in science, you need to go into philosophy of science, which is not Keystage 3 levels. Much better is not to give the Creationists a fair hearing. They had their fair hearing over 2 centuries ago while they were the establishment, and lost, and stating that is as much time as should be spared for them in the classroom.

Joel

KC

This cannot be overemphasized, IMNSHO. Far too many people haven't bothered to stop and wipe the foam from their mouths before accusing Dawkins of saying things he neither said nor implied.

KC

emotional

No, it's not persuasive.

Exactly. I don't see how there can be a metaphysical certainty. When Dawkins says the universe has no purpose, he is making a metaphysical statement. What galls me is that he makes it with the same certainty he makes about biology. One may speak certainly of the fact that life evolved, but one may not speak so certainly of the opinion, the belief, that the universe has no purpose. He confuses everything and lumps it all under the guise of scientific certainty: "the earth revolves round the sun, we share a common ancestor with the apes, and the universe has no purpose". Halt! The last statement is the odd one out! It's not a fact of science. Dawkins is, in effect, by those statements "stepping on religion's turf". Chalk up one more hypocrisy point to Dawkins' score...

Scientists should be more like Darwin than Dawkins. Darwin did lose his theistic faith, but he never trumpeted it aloud. Darwin knew his theory would have sociopolitical ramifications, but he contented himself in bringing a scientific theory and not poking his nose into those peripheral matters like Dawkins is doing. Darwin never said "the meaning of evolution is..." and all that metaphysical, non-scientific jazz.

RufusAtticus

By not studying the supernatural. In other words, Christians, like all other scientists, use methodological naturalism.

Phoenixstar

Hugo,

There are classes for those that believe in creation, theology. Giving CS time in a discipline which it does not adhere to the basic tenets of is an injustice to those that teach it and those that are their to learn about it. I understand what you are saying but to allow them time in a place where it does not belong will add more fuel to their fire rather than put them out so to speak. The compromise they have now is at it should be. Want to learn about Creation read the bible or attend a scool of theology. Want to learn about theories of science attend the necessary classes to which discipline in science most interests you.

Harpy

Hugo, firstly I would like to appologise for my earlier pugnacious attitude. I did perhaps lapse into rant. Ok no perhaps about it.

However; I must disagree with your ideas on how to deal with creationists. you said The over-riding point here is that creationists are not going to go away any time soon. Shall we seek some form of compromise, however unsatisfactory it may seem to those who think only the truth should be taught in schools, or continue to play an all-or-nothing hand?

Don't you believe that only the truth should be taught in schools?

There is no debate, evolution is science creationism is fable. To allow creationism time in the science classroom is to admit total defeat to the fundermentalists.

As for Dawkins being too strident and ailenating christians, fortunatey in the UK we do not have the same problem that the US has with biblical literalists. The very vast majority of UK chistians would be just as appaled as me ( maybe not just as appaled) at the idea of children being taught creationism in the classroom.

The danger here is from apathy the British do not rouse quickly and Creationism may find it's way into the science classes of a number of schools before people become aware of the problem.

We need Dawkins to make a noise because otherwise this pseudoscience may sneak under the radar of the great British public.

Quetzal

As do I. My intent was to point out that there are substantial practical difficulties with your ideal solution.


Understood. It was not my intent to demand that you provide a lesson plan. The seven points I detailed in my post were generated by a YEC acquaintance of mine, one who I actually have some grudging respect for (he's a PhD biochemist) and who has a fair understanding of the thrust of the main creationist organizations. He has stated (in a similar discussion) that those seven points represent the minimum topical areas that would need to be covered in any "equal time" agreement. Moreover, these "topics" must be covered in as much detail as any other scientific theory (i.e., evolution). Since I believe he has a pretty good feel for what the creationists are demanding (although I have no objective "proof" of that), I thought you might want to reconsider whether or not your solution was in fact implementable - given what the creationists are demanding.

I think I covered the first part about lesson plans. I would suggest, however, that there can be no real accomodation or modus vivendi without a realistic understanding from the science side as to what such an accomodation would entail. Again, we have limited time, limited resources, and a great deal of material to cover simply to introduce students to the basic information that is needed in a secondary school biology/science curriculum.

And that is precisely the problem. I'm afraid that from what I've read and heard, the creation side really DOES see it as an "all-or-nothing" proposition. The theistic evolutionists like Miller et al - the folks who would be the "moderates" that might be expected to accept your scheme - are not the ones pushing creation into science classes. It is a minority - well financed and vocal, but still a minority - of certain Protestant sects that are driving this.

No, I doubt that they will, more's the pity. Although as theyeti pointed out, the modern creationists are a fairly new phenomenon, the same "kinds" of people - with roughly the same message - have opposed organic evolution since Darwin, and others with a similar bent have opposed science since the demise of the Epicureans. Unfortunately, I think this may quite likely be a true "slippery slope", although I am hesitant to use that phraseology. In this case, it may be justified based on the stated goals and actions of many of the main creationist proponents and organizations.

I'm not sure there IS an accomodation possible, although we shouldn't stop looking for one. In the interim, using popular and expressive writers and philosophers to "put the scientific case" before the public in understandable and reasonable terms is the best policy. Newer writers like Diamond, Ehrlich, Futuyma, Eldredge, Pennock, Ruse, etc are already beginning to get their books in print and out to a mass audience. Until a sea change occurs, scientists must oppose any attempt by the creationists to dictate the science curricula of our secondary schools. That of course, is my opinion, and shouldn't be construed as attacking your efforts to develop a different theory or approach.

villainess

Just out of curiousity, where do you draw the line in attempting to persuade people of what you think of as the truth?

I draw the line with "being a bit rude and arrogant" on the ok side and "killing people" on the not ok side. I realize that a lot of people think that the former (or indeed certainty in general) leads indirectly to the latter, especially in the political circles I tend to move in. I'm curious whether that idea is, in fact, one you hold, or if you're just making this comparison to emphasize your distaste for Dawkins.

As for Dawkins driving people to creationism, I don't know how it is in the UK, but in the United States it seems to me that the people who tend to be creationists are people who are coming out of an extremely fundamentalist mindset, are distrustful of nearly everything our culture has produced in the last hundred and fifty years or so, wouldn't be "evolutionists" even if we washed their feet and made them breakfast, and have never read Richard Dawkins except when he's quote-mined. Liberal Christians here in the US tend to be a lot more turned off by the social and political positions that correlate with creationism than they are by one good scientist waxing rant-ific in a quote-mineable way.

the_villainess

Clutch

Hugo, I think Nik got it right. The issue of freedom to air wrong-headed or absurd views is importantly distinct from the issue of teaching children wrong-headed or absurd views. Arguing from absolutes is a poor idea here; the term "child" is vague, so an allusion to "education" tout court is too blunt an instrument.

Dawkins, in a paper called 'Viruses of the Mind', talks about children at an age such that they will believe that there is a tooth fairy if their parents tell them so. I submit that the mechanisms of reflective evaluation that motivate Mill's reasoning are not in play in such cases. Now, older children (8-14 years, say) might not buy the tooth fairy (ie, in the absence of the gravitas and ritual that surround the harder-sold myths), but when their teachers uniformly teach the existence of a scientific conspiracy, they are no more inclined or equipped to rationally separate the perceived authority of the source from the reasonableness of the claim than a younger child is with a more outlandish claim.

Young men and women 15 years and older? I dunno, except to say that by that point a very great deal depends on what's gone on already.

As for your analogies with Galileo, I think your devil's advocate blows it here. The thing about Galileo's result was that you really could see it work. It sounded heretical, but you could predict and explain stuff with it. The authorities didn't want to know, but had Bellarmine whirled things around, thrown them and such, he'd have found the results to have been predicted by Galileo's laws. So you'd have an analogy if the scientific establishment was burning creationist tracts unread or just ignoring them.

In fact, though, the claims of creationists have been subjected to painstaking analysis -- every new set in fact, despite the now massive meta-inductive evidence that each new creationist will be as fraudulent as the last twenty. Result: Zero predictions. No "earnest of success", as Macbeth would say. An appalling catalogue of mistakes and misconceptions ranging from the merely uninformed to the grossly dishonest. There's just nothing there analogous to Galileo's position -- ie, such that a good hard attempt to make it work would cause its predictive and explanatory virtues to stand out.

Hugo Holbling

I'd like to thank everyone for their reasoned responses and for calming the tone, hopefully in the realization that i'm not a creationist nut. Given that i don't have as much time as i would like and that already too many people are asking me interesting questions, i hope it'll be okay to reply in a general fashion as best i can.

I am emphatically not suggesting that crazy ideas be taught as though they are sound and hence provided with a platform of legitimacy that they do not deserve. Neither do i suppose that the philosophy of science should be part of curriculae at too early an age for it to be of any help or use. I am mindful that my proposals are not without flaws, but they are not supposed to be ideal; rather, i'm exploring whether or not there can be another solution to a very definite problem in the current political climate.

It should be clear that i do not want creationists to have their cake and eat it. If compromises are made in an effort to head their demands off, they can expect to do likewise. If they refuse to offer any accommodations, their position will look as dogmatic and unreasonable as we all suspect.

Now on to some practicalities. It may well be that creationism has little to offer in the way of support and could be dealt with in a few minutes, but perhaps another possibility would be to teach via the perspective of the history of science. The older creationist ideas could be explained, followed by the evolutionary thinking that overturned them and why, moving on to modern creationism and how it differs (if at all), along with critical responses and so on. This may seem vague, but that is how i learned about this area, as i said before.

The objection has been made that there simply isn't time to go into this, but that presupposes a stationary curriculum. In my opinion (and i may be hopelessly wrong or aiming at a higher age-group), it would be better to learn the tools to distinguish for oneself between good and bad ideas, using this area as a case study and with correspondingly less time for other areas, rather than teaching the accepted understanding in a variety of subjects. The first would enable students to learn for themselves and to continue learning, while the latter may not furnish such abilities. However, if you think the latter will implicitly lead to the former, this will be moot.

I am skeptical of the idea that the philosophy of science should wait until later years, although i may be wrong and i certainly don't mean to imply that it should be fed to infants. Plantinga and Lakatos may be asking too much, but i see no reason why basic questions of the demarcation between good and bad ideas or empiricism will be beyond students studying evolution.

Not all countries have the same (largely political) problem with creationists that the US does. It should be clear by now that i am not advocating the universal application of my proposals; instead, they are meant to address a very specific difficulty that doesn't exist everywhere but which nevertheless doesn't appear to be going away any time soon. Nor do i suppose a blanket implementation would be helpful, but even testing on a small scale could go some way to assuaging the current stand-off.

Thanks again for all the suggestions and critical remarks, which i am happy to consider and to use to improve or reject my ideas. As a closing note, i should say that my earlier point is made by default: everyone following this thread cannot help but understand better the arguments as to why creationism should or should not be taught in schools.

Slightly off-topic:

Gladly accepted.

No. Being versed in the philosophy of science, that word has no place in the discussion. Indeed, this is why i hope that children will be taught tools, rather than facts, because the latter can follow from the former and perhaps they can understand why truth has nothing to do with science. Asking someone to question how they distinguish between a good idea and a bad one will - i think - lead them to reject creationism on their own initiative.