doubtingt

My contention is that creationism should be
dealt with head on in biology class as an
example of a common misconception or naive theory
that is refuted by evidence.

Creationism asserts an unfalsifiable premise (God), but makes many falsifiable assertions
that have in fact been falsified by highly reliable and widely accepted data.

Many students in grade school science accept
creationism and many do not realize that it
has been falsified by science. In addition,
creationism directly contradicts many aspects
of evolution, thus students creationist concepts
are probably impeding their understanding of evolution.

Science education routinely deals with students
misconceptions and routinely sets out to help
students understand why these misconceptions are
incorrect and why some alternative theory is
more justified according to the methods of science.

Effective education in biology and of evolution should do the same with creationism.
The entire discussion could and should be about
how these competing theories hold up to scientific scrutiny, thus the discussion would be within the normal, proper domain of science education.

I can think of 3 potential reasons why some might say this would not be a good approach.

1) It would harm not help understanding of evolution and science.
I strongly disagree with this idea and it flies in the face of most research in education and cognitive science.

2) It is unconstitutional.
I don't think so. Making claims that can
only be justified within a particular religion and cannot be justified via science would be unconstitutional. However, making scientifically justified claims and teaching students how and why competing claims are justifiable according to science has a clear secular basis.
In fact, if a teacher knowingly avoids important scientific issues b/c they have religious implications, this is special protective treatment
of religious ideas and is unconstitutional.


3. Doing this may be good educational policy, and may be constitutional, but its bad PR.
Separationists will lose more in the long run than they gain.
I think this is the most plausible objection
to taking creationism head on in the science classroom. I can imagine some reasonable arguments
for this objection. Although, currently I'm inclined to think that the gains outweigh the losses.

theyeti

The problem is that it would be an unwelcome diversion from learing about real science. Exposing creationist arguments for what they are shows what phonies and frauds the people who promote creationism are, but it doesn't usually teach kids about evolution. Furthermore, creationism deals with issues (age of the Earth, cosmology) that go beyond biology class. The best way to refute creationism IMO is to have a solid understanding of evolution and science in general.
If creationism were simply debunked, it would be perceived as anti-religious bias by the cretos, and they'd have a potential case in court. Furhtermore, you're walking a thin line here: There is a difference between the "Doctine of Creation" which is upheld by pretty much all monotheistic religions, and "Scientific Creationism" which is the anti-evolution nonsense propagated by ultra-conservative groups. Trying to refute the former would clearly be unconstitutional.

Yes, it would be bad PR. The creationists would scream bloody hell about it, call it another example of the "dogmatism" and "indoctrination" present in the public school system, and claim it unconstitutional "viewpoint descrimination" to boot. Of course they're not going to be swayed by insisting that creationism is really just plain wrong. And they'd demand an equal share of the time to debunking the debunkers, and public sentiment would be with them. The last thing we want is for biology class to be turned into an extended creation/evolution debate. No one will know why creationism is wrong unless they learn some solid biology. After that, it takes care of itself.

The real problem is the whole foot-in-the-door approach that creationists have been trying of late. Their current strategy is to let teachers "discuss" creationism/ID because they know that a significant percentage would be pro-creationism, and would thus use the opportunity to evangelize. They could then focus their efforts on intimidating pro-evolution teachers, getting their own kind more teaching positions, and dominating the school boards. Please note that these last tactics have already been agressively persued by conservative Christians for the past two decades.

Allowing creationism to be "debunked" will only facilitate their efforts. It's best simply to leave it as a non-issue and to let students explore it on their own. If they've been taught well, and if they understand evolution and are interested in science, they will see the creationist arguments for the nonsense they are. Creationism feeds off of ignorance and religious dogmatism. We can't do anything about the latter, but we can at least address our country's ignorance-of-science problem.

theyeti

Jayhawker Soule

I believe that creationist arguments, if raised, should be dealt with tactfully, thoroughly, and and in a manner that exemplifies the scientific method. I do not believe that the biology class should be artificially deployed as a weapon against Christian literalism.

Splat

Not necessarily. What doubtingt is suggesting is, as he notes, grounded in research in education and cognitive science. The basic idea is to start with students pre-existing conceptions of how things work and go from there, guiding students through a process of exploration, testing, and revising their conceptions until they converge on the "expert" conceptions.

I've worked on curriculum development projects that use this approach for environmental education (focusing on the issue of global warming), and it's impressive when it works.

Conceptually, creationism is ideal for this approach, since it is widely held (especially among children) and it is so incredibly flimsy.

But politically it's simply too hot to touch, and while I know there are many, many biology teachers who could handle it conceptually, there are many many more who could end up doing more damage than good, and yes, simply having it in the curriculum at all would give it the illusion of more credibility than it deserves.

Alonzo Fyfe

There are two components of creationism.

There is a scientific element -- false claims that there is "proof" that the earth is 6,000 years old. These can already be dealt with in a science class to explain the distinction between good science and bad science.

A student who brings up one of these "proofs" of a 6,000 year old Earth should be allowed to do so -- and, hopefully, the teacher is well enough versed on the subject to be able to explain why the conclusion is not scientifically sound given the data.

Then there is the religious element, which a science teacher ought not to be discussing one way or the other.

And here is the rub, because creationists do not allow the (bad) science of creationism to be discussed independent of its religious element. When confronted with evidence that a conclusion is not scientifically sound, the retort that it is religiously sound must remain open.

Arrowman

You might be interested in this paper A Comparison of Students Studying the Origin of Life From a Two-Model Approach vs. Those Studying From a Single-Model Approach
<a href="http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-060.htm" target="_blank">http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-060.htm</a>
which is an ICR paper by (the late) Richard Bliss, a well known creationist who focused particularly on education issues.

OK, let's leave aside Bliss's bias and dubious academic credentials, not to mention the question of where he found a group of teachers willing to teach creation "science" to their students (ie, cultural / societal bias?) - the paper does include some points relevant to this issue.

In this paper, Bliss highlights two conclusions: that students who studied both evolution and creation
1. "learned the evolutionary data and elements better". (He says this was "unexpected")
2. Learned creation better (well, duh - or as Bliss puts it "expected").

Bliss also claims that
I don't know enough about the study to comment on this claim, but I would suggest that since creation "science" concepts are much simpler (simple-minded) than those of evolution, it would be hardly surprising that if they were to be taught seriously (ie, with the teacher ignoring all the obvious flaws and rebuttals), they would be more accepted by all students, not just the "higher IQ" ones. Note also that while Bliss claims that the "higher IQ" students picked up on creation, he does not mention the "lower IQ" students. The implication he wishes to make is clear, but it may not be borne out by the full data.

This is a conclusion I am intuitively inclined to agree with. It is imho easier and more effective to teach critical thinking and the scientific method when you're using counter-examples - ie, examples of non-critical thinking and unscientific methods! But I'm not sure that was the point Bliss was trying to make...

Bliss goes on to say
Yes, well.... On that basis, we should be teaching flat earth and other discarded ideas.

So - I am inclined to agree with the idea that some (as Alonzo has pointed out) creationist concepts might actually be useful as counter-examples in a science class. But as others have pointed out, it's a very difficult subject to handle - politically and religiously. I think any science teacher who decided to introduce these concepts unilaterally (ie, without being questioned by the students) would need to be very well prepared and very cautious in their presentation.

[ September 16, 2002: Message edited by: Arrowman ]</p>

Buffman

If a two model approach is better than the single model one, then why not a 4, 10, 20 model approach? That's where the real problem begins when trying to teach accurate scientific knowledge in a limited time frame. (i.e.: Why just the Judeo-Christian creation stories as the counter-balance?)

I wholeheartedly agree about teaching the techniques of critical thinking. Additionally, I have no problem with teaching comparative religion classes. (However, I rather suspect that finding qualified and competent teachers could prove to be a rather daunting task.)

doubtingt

This is mostly a response to theyeti, but it may be relevant to others' comments.


Splat has done a good job at arguing that comparison and contrast between students prior beliefs and the concepts your teaching is good
pedagogy, and this is supported empirically and
theoretically. As for its constitutionality, as long as the instruction stuck to refuting falsifiable assertions I don't see the problem.
In fact there would be no need to mention religion or even Biblical creationism. Simply
focus upon specific assumptions that students
actually enter the class with and explain why
spontaneous appearance of complex species does not
cohere with the facts nor does it qualify as a
"scientific explanation". Which goes back to the first point about how creationist assertions can be used to foster greater understanding for the scientific process in general.
As for bad PR, creationist will be upset and cry foul, but at the same time they will expose themselves for the frauds they are. They will be
forced to argue that they do not want a scientifically valid discussion of both theories, but that they specifically want a discussion that
is slanted towards giving creationism more validity than the scientific community will allow.

Many fence sitters in the public are swayed by
creationists claims that "an honest discussion can't hurt, why supress it?" If creationism was
critiqued like any other theory, creationist would have to switch gears and claim that they
know more about the scientific validity of creationism than the entire scientific community world wide. They would have to attack science head on and in the open, and I think they would
lose a lot of support and sympathy by doing so.
They are already attacking science behind the scenes, which I think is more dangerous.

American Educators have long adopted the don't ask don't tell policy you are endorsing, and we
are losing ground on the issue. I am coming to think that it is time for an all out battle that
forces everyone to lay their cards on the table.
My fellow Americans do frighten me most of the time with their lack of critical thinking, but
I think that religionists are winning the battle in schools, politics, and the culture at large mainly b/c those who see the problem adopt a
passive stance of "If we just avoid the issue it will go away."

doubtingt

Nothing in what I said suggests otherwise. The fact is that that creationist arguments fail miserably when examined with the scientific method. In fact, it is their clear failure that
makes them such a useful example that could aid in
highlighting the difference between a good and poor theory. Yes, this should be done with tact.
Actually, good science education should simply create exercises where students compare, contrast and critique the theories themselves using the
tools of the scientific method. The teacher simply spouting off "the facts of science", regardless is almost never a good idea b/c it
presents science as yet another authoritarian
belief system.

doubtingt

Obviously, if this study has not been published in a scientific journal, it not worth much consideration. As for his claim of "greater acceptacne of creationism" that is not at all surprising, given that students were probably
presented with an innaccurate and distorted set of
empirical "facts" against which they compared the theories.

As for flat earth, many classrooms do address the
flat-earth theory and they contrast it against a round-earth theory and the evidence, just as I'm
suggesting for creationism. This is one of the topics used in research to show the utility of directly addressing students prior misconceptions.