On Creationism in schools
On Peter's website a thread came up about whether or not Creationism should be taught in schools. One comment in particular gave me a lot to think about, so I am going to respond to it here. For two reasons, 1) I am not entirely sure Peter's post is the best place to discuss such an emotional and polarizing topic, and 2) becuase I want it to be clear that I stand by the opinions expressed in this post. I have given this a lot of thought, so I don't want anyone to think these are just angry rantings. Though, I will admit that this is something that I feel very strongly about so I am sorry if I come on too strong or get carried away in the middle of it.
The comment that gave me a lot to think about was Holly's and is quoted here:
As a teacher, i have to respond to this. in my opinion, my job as a teacher is to educate my students of ALL possibilities. Besides teaching content, my responsibility as a teacher, especially a high school teacher, is to teach my students responsibility and how to function in society. More than ANYTHING, i hope to teach my students how to think for themselves, how to become their own person. In order to do this I think it is absolutely 100% necessary to expose them to ALL sides. Yeah, I suppose it would be nice to breed a bunch of little kids to believe what I do.. and trust me it would be easy (they are so easily influenced), but I'd like to think I have morals. My goal in life isn't to convince everyone else to believe what I do and to agree with me. My goal is to make sure that we are bringing up children to think for themselves. Thankfully we live in a place where this can be appreciated.
Now I don't teach science, but I think that what I've expressed applies to any content. While some may think that the physical, scientific facts can be the ONLY basis to anything in this world, there are others that absolutely don't need those facts to understand what makes sense to them. They have proof as well, unfortunately for them it just doesn't come wrapped up in nice little "logical" scientific box (that they can hurl at someone in a debate.)
Bottom line- I wholly believe that it is extremely important for our teachers to teach all possibilities and let our students decide for themselves.. let them make decisions based upon what has been presented to them. I don't think an evolutionist should teach evolution as 100% truth, and I don't think that a creationist should teach creationism as 100% truth either. Rather, they should present what we know about either side and let it be.
Even less than one hundred years ago we didn't have scientific proof for many things that are considered "logical" now.. we didn't know how harmful cigarettes are for example.. that doesn't mean that they were good for you. To think that just because we don't have scientific proof for things now means that it's illogical or impossible is ignorant and closed-minded. Another important part of being a teacher- teaching open-mindedness.
For people who have such a hard time believing in things that aren't scientifically proven, you (a general term) sure do believe or have "faith" in a lot of illogical things.. or at least spend time coming up with or supporting conspiracy theories that don't have any sort of scientific proof behind them . I know quite a few of you support (or at least did in the past when we had discussions) the Loose Change theories (or ideas should i say??) Not only did these guys have absolutely no science behind what they said but backed up most of what they said with very poorly researched "facts".. see below) watch the history channel's two hour special: 9/11 Conspiracies: Fact or Fiction.. where the Popular Mechanics study (including experts in several fields) disproves pretty much everything that was said in Loose Change... and then tell me 9/11 was an inside job (I think you can see it on youtube.) Is "scientific proof" only real when it is convenient for one's political agenda?
Sorry I'm digressing now.. so I'll stop.
Let me get to my point right out so that no one misses it. Creationism has absolutely no place in any teaching of science in schools.
And by creationism I mean the idea that we didn't evolve from bacteria, and that the world is only 10,000 years old and that man walked with dinosaurs and so on. Whether or not God had any hand in how we got here is not relevant to the discussion. The motivating forces behind the universe are not being discussed. What I am talking about is the different conclusions from trying to figure out what point A was given that we are now at point B.
I think to have any sort of discussion about what should and shouldn't be taught in schools we need to briefly talk about what the point of going to school is. Or for a teacher, what are the goals of an educator? Now, this is obviously going to vary quite a bit depending on what type of school it is (e.g. elementary, trade, college, graduate). To generalize tremendously I think the goal of an educator is to prepare students for where they are going. And from school to school, 'where they are going' is what is different.
As a public school teacher (where the discussion of evolution and creationism comes into play) we want to enable children to become working productive citizens and give them as many opportunities for success and happiness. Or to put it another way, by the time they are through the public school system, we want to have given them options for their own path through life and have given them the ability to choose the one that is best for them.
Holly and I both agree this, here is what she said, "my responsibility as a teacher, especially a high school teacher, is to teach my students responsibility and how to function in society. More than ANYTHING, i hope to teach my students how to think for themselves, how to become their own person."
Preparing students for where they are going involves two different areas: Teaching them facts (Large part of what is done in school, small part of what you come away with), and teaching them how to come to their own solutions/conclusions when presented with a problem/question. A.k.a. teaching them how to think (Small part of what you actually teach, large part of what you come away with). From my own personal experience, facts are easily forgotten. I don't remember 99% of what I have been lectured about. (As an aside, I think this is why the block plan at Colorado College is still successful despite the pace at which it is taught.)
So this comes to the meat of the discussion: which facts (to use the term above) should be taught in schools? And by facts I don't just mean 'the capitol of the USA is Washingtin D.C.'. I mean how to read, how to do math and science. I.e. The subject matter. Now how much science actually needs to be taught is up for debate. In high school I took a biology class that talked about the parts of the cell and all that. I have never once used ribosomes outside of the context of high school biology. And I probably never will. But like I said above, that isn't the point. What you learn is not as important as the fact that you are learning. So, I think science is good. (Whether or not that is a good conclusion is a discussion for some other day.) Science is an attempt at describing and understanding our world. Now when you talk about science, the topic of where we come from is going to come up. The scientific explanation for this, I am going to call 'the origin theory'.
Holly said "I wholly believe that it is extremely important for our teachers to teach all possibilities and let our students decide for themselves." Now First off, it is impossible to teach all the possibilities. We just don't have enough time to teach every origin theory out there. Nor do I think it can be argued that is what we want to do. (The next few paragraphs contain some good examples of creation stories not worth being taught) So, "all the possibilites" has to be narrowed down a little bit. How do we narrow all these options down? What gives an origin theory validity? Here are a few criteria we can use:
- The existence of sacred documents
- The story has been around a long long time
- Popularity. Shit tons of people believe in it
Looks look at each of these a bit further.
The existence of sacred documents When I was in High School I started writing a bible. I posted the whole thing online a couple years ago. I think we can all agree that my silly little story should not be taught in schools. Now, I ask you this, how is the bible's origin theory any different? The bible was written at some point by people. My bible was written by me. The people who wrote the bible we writing god's word. I was writing God's word! (I don't actually believe that, but I could). I am not trying to say that the actual bible is not God's word, I am just saying that if we are going to start teaching an origin theory in science classes, the existence of a bible should not be the only qualification. A bible is easy to come by. In similar veins to this you should read about the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
The idea has been around a long long time A long time ago people thought the earth was flat. We know today that it isn't. I use the word 'know' there because millions of things we use every day operate on this fact. Airplanes, sattelites lattitude, longitude to name a few. However, there are still people out there who insist that they still believe the world is flat. (I seriously just don't buy it, it must be a joke). Just because an idea has been around a long time and some people still believe in it does not mean it has any value. We would be doing our children a disservice to leave this open as a possibility, since it isn't one.
Popularity Just because an idea is popular, does not mean it should be taught in schools. Let's say you lived in an area of the country that was incredibly racist. Everyone in your community thinks certain people are not as good as certain other people. This is a popular idea. Should you then say, "well, all people might have been created equal, oh except you Jimmy with the third eyeball in the middle of your forehead, your race is less than the rest of us."? No you should not. This does not serve our goal of teaching. Furthermore, people are idiots. I say this in all seriousness. I am an idiot. You are an idiot. We are all idiots. We all remember things wrong. We all have learned things that just aren't true. We all haven't learned lots of things. So, just because a lot of people know something does mean we should pass it along. Let's go out and ask people what the 50 states are. Or how the judicial system works. Or why a compass doesn't point to true north. Or if 'a lot' is one word or two. Or if "ain't" is a word. Or what e = mc^2 means. Popularity does not mean reliability, or reproducibilty, or reasonablity.
So, I really don't think any of those reasons are good ones for why a particular origin theory should be taught. And as far as I can tell, they are the only ones used in favor of Creationism.
There is one criteria that does work, though, and that is the scientific method. So, aptly named, because all of science is based on it.
I think being open minded is a very important value. A value that I share with Holly. However, there are certain assumptions that come with a scientific statement. Namely accountability. We hold scientific statements up to accountability and the rigours of review. So, we can't just be open minded and touchy feely when it comes to science. "All the possibilites" have not passed the test required to be taught in a science class.
We use science in every aspect of our lives and people depend on the science. People depend on medicines that work. People use bridges that don't fall. People use telephones that connect them with people on the other side of the planet. We know not to bleed our patients. We now about germs and washing our hands. We use science to make our crops better and keep them alive. (my examples are pretty pitiful, please help me with some better ones). We hold science accountable (to reuse the word for emphasis) for its results. We need science to work because our lives literally depend on it. That is why this discussion is so cut and dry. It isn't about us being being mean and not letting people have their beliefs because they don't fit into cute little boxes. Science means something.
Our world as we know it is a testament to the scientific method. If one accepts any of it, uses any of it, depends on any of it (and we of course all do), they have to continue to accept that the scientific method is going to produce the best available explanation. Therefore, and this is the crux of the whole discussion, an origin theory that has not undergone the rigors of the scientific method, does not belong in any teaching of science.
And this is why creationism should not be taught in science in schools. Because it is not based on the scientific method. Period.
Creationists even goes further than that and they deny accepted scientific conclusions. To quote Holly,
They have proof as well, unfortunately for them it just doesn't come wrapped up in nice little 'logical' scientific box.
Their theory isn't "logical" but still has proof? This is not a debate about faith. This is not a debate about God versus not god. This is not a debate about whether or not miracles happen. Believing in God and believing in evolution are not mutually exclusive. Science and religion are not mutually exclusive. Science and sprituality are not mutually exclusive. This is not a discussion of beliefs.
This is a discussion about what should be taught as science. Science which is based on the scientific method. Which is based on reproducible results. If something is taught as science it carries with it an implied authenticity. Of truth. Of accountability. That is what people are going to take away from a science class. So we have to put that into the material taught in a science class. People trust science.
Creationists deliberately ignore reproducible scientific results. Creationists don't produce their own. For all intensive purposes it doesn't appear that they believe in science at all. So it has no right to be taught there. Period.
However, creationism can be taught in schools. It should go right along next to a discussion of Native American legends, and the story of Christ, and Chanakuh, and George Washington chopping down a cherry tree. But it doesn't get the same emphasis and thoroughness of science because it hasn't earned it.
Because it is not science. It doesn't actively participate in the scientific community. It sits in the corner and complains that every one picks on it. If you want to contribute to science you have to treat science as a discussion. You have to be willing to be wrong. Science is not an ideaolgy. Science is the currently accepted understanding of the world. And is constantly changing and progressing. As we learn more our understanding is going to change. But it is not a static being that doesn't react to new findings. Yes, historically speaking people have made mistakes, missed things, ignored things, but there is always that search for truth. Creationists (as far as I can tell) refuse to have a discussion about conclusions. It is not science.
Let's come back to our original goal: To prepare people for the world. How is teaching them that science doesn't have to be logical help prepare them? When we teach students we give them tools. The scientific method is the base tool. Why would we teach them that its results are only right if convenient?
From here on out I am going to look at specific things that Holly said.
Even less than one hundred years ago we didn't have scientific proof for many things that are considered 'logical' now.. we didn't know how harmful cigarettes are for example.. that doesn't mean they were good for you.
I am having trouble understanding Holly's point here. 100 years ago we didn't know that cigarettes were bad for you. But because of the scientific method we are now sure of that. So instead of teaching all possibilities, we teach young children that smoking is unhealthy. They weren't good for you. Ever. Because of the scientific method we know that.
To think that just because we don't have scientific proof for things now means that it's illogical or impossible is ignorant or closed-minded. Another important part of being a teacher- teaching open-mindedness.
That is very true that to think that just because we don't have scientific proof of something that it is illogical or impossible is ignorant. But that is not what is going on here at all. We do_ have scientific proof of evolution. We can watch and see bacteria evolve. We can trace evolution back through fossils. We can carbon date dinosaur bones to millions of years ago. But creationism says this science is wrong (without shoing how) and says that their theories are right (again without showing how). _That is illogical. Not only is that illogical. That is the definition of close-mindedness! They refuse to accept scientific arguments and at the same time refuse to disprove them. Science is all about being open-minded. We are willing (albeit sometimes grudgingly) to entertain an idea— as long as it is backed up with results. Backed up by the scientific method.
What I am so upset about all this is that Creationism isn't based on scientific proof, but claims to be.
Anyway, to continue with Holly's comment.
For people who have such a hard time believing in things that aren't scientifically proven, you (a general term) sure do believe of have "faith" in a lot of illogical things.. or at least spend time coming up with or supporting conspiracy theories that don't have any sort of scientific proof behind them.
I will try and not take this statement personally, since I remember telling Holly all about the Loose Change documentary in my apartment. This is quite a biting the statement. To start off with, when we had that discussion, I prefaced it by saying that, "I love conspiracy theories." There are a number of reasons for this.
- I love looking outside the box.
- I don't usually just accept what I am told, but have to have have the reasoning behind it
- I can't help it but I have a major distrust of authority
There is nothing unscientific whatsoever about a consipiracy theory. The usual problems with consipiracy theories are a) seeing what you want to b) making drastic leaps of logic, c) basing theories on evidence that is incomplete. However a good consipiracy theory is one that looks at all the facts and then makes a hypothesis. It then tries to prove that hypothesis. A conspiracy theory is only a theory because it can't be proved. But consipracy theories have all sorts of scientific proof behind them. People do hours and hours of research. In the case of the JFK asasination, people poured over every inch of the Warren Report. They redid interviews. They made new interviews. They recreated the shots needed to have killed him. Unfortunately, along with a popular conspiracy theory you are going to have people that just don't do science very well. Or people don't remember things properly. Or they make things up for the fame of it all. When this happens people apply science to it and test their claims. And disprove them. Which has happened many times with the JFK assasination (I use that link as a starting point for reading about the theories, not as proof in and of itself).
The point I was really trying to make with my "I love conspiracy theories" statement was that I love looking at things scientifically and then trying to prove something that before was unproven. It is the same high I get from a good theorem in math. That is why last January I didn't sleep a night for a week because I was reading every JFK theory I could get my hands on. Ultimately, I decided that we just can't know the truth about what happened that day, and that what the government is telling us can't be the whole answer. There just too many holes. I came from this conclusion not illogically or irrationally (I hope) like a crazed mad men hell bent on hating the United States, but after looking at all the evidence I could come across.
This brings us Holly's comments about the Loose Change documentary.
I know quite a few of you support (or at least did in the past when we had discussions) the Loose Change theories (or ideas should I say??) Not only did these guys have absolutely no science behind what they said but hacked up most of what they said with very poorly researched "facts'"... see below) watch the history channel's two hour special: 9/11 Conspiracies: Fact or Fiction.. where the Popular Mechanics study (including experts in several fields) disproves pretty much everything that was said in Loose Change... and then tell me 9/11 was an inside job (I think you can see it on youtube.) Is "scientific proof" only realy when it is convenient for one's own political agenda? Once again, I am trying not to take any of this personally, but it feels like a very angry rant aimed right at me. But let's look at this.
You can say that they are Loose Change theories. To quote the dictionary on my computer, a "theory" is "a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something". A theory in no way implies truth. It simply is an attempt at an explanation.
(As an aside, because this tripped me up in college, a "theorem" is a truth in that it is based on other truths that you have already accepted.)
To say that the people behind Loose Change based their theories on absolutely no science is a complete lie. It was bad science (which we will get to), there is no doubt about it, but science nontheless. And this is something I think I told you in our original discussion about Loose Change. I remember saying that I didn't buy a lot of it. If I didn't say these things I should have told you. Conspiracy theorists have a tendency to get carried away.
But they did do science. One of their arguments went like this: "The government's claim is that the metal in the World Trade Center melted, causing the collapse. Let's look at what kind of fires would have been caused by the planes crashing into them, then let's look at how hot those fires get, and then let's look at what temperature the metal in the World Trade Center melts at." This is a very logical series of questions. And is a scientific approach to a question.
Additionally, they tried to back up every claim they made with a reference to a scientist. Which is what we require or a scientific endeavor. The ability to reproduce ones conclusions.
But it was bad science in that practically every single claim they made was substatiated by Wikipedia. And Wikipedia, as per our discussion way above, does not have any accountability. So practically nothing in the Loose Change documentary can be substatiated.
I would love to see this 9/11 Conspiracies: Fact or Fiction documentary. And will be adding it to my Netflix queue. If they really do disprove "pretty much everything that was said in Loose Change" then that is that. I don't read and follow conspiracy theories because I hate the government and I hate the establishment. I love conspiracy theores (like I said before) because I love the search for truth.
Really 9/11 conspiracy theories are a perfect example of science at work. One person, or community, proposes a theory, and then another responds. In order for something to become accepted as "Scientific knowledge" (remember even that is constantly changing) it usually comes after open discussion. Which is precisely, what the Creationists refuse to have. And which is precisely why I don't think it should not be taught in science classes.
Is 'scientific proof' only realy when it is convenient for one's own political agenda?
I am honestly very offended by this statement. The suggestion appears to me to be that I only entertain the conspiracy theories behind Loose Change because I am angry and hate the government. It is true that I am angry at the current admistration. And it is true that I am very distrustful of the government (read A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn). But it is not true that I knowingly distort my definition of science to support my agenda. If I am endorsing an idea that is not scientifically or logically based I want to know.
Finally, I don't really see what the Loose Change documentary has anything to do with teaching Creationism in schools. I certainly would not endorse teaching the theories to students. So even if I illogically endorse the Loose Change theories, being illogical in the privacy of my apartment is my right. But in public schools, in a science class, deliberately leading kids astray is unacceptable.
30 September 2008 09:53pm UTC • 62 views • 0 comments
Tagged with creationism, education, science, conspiracy, jfkassassination, loosechange
Add a comment!
You must be a member to do that! Become a member or login!.
Subscribe to the feeds: 
0 comments
No comments yet. Be the first to add one!