Politics and the teaching of creationism

[otseng]

This thread is a continuation of Should Creationism be taught in classrooms? The purpose of this thread is to explore the intersection of politics and the teaching of creationism.

As a background, I argued the following:

Here is another argument for teaching creationism in public schools. As tax funded organizations, I believe the public should have a say in what gets taught. After all, it is their money. According to Gallop polls, Americans support teaching creationism in schools by a substantial margin.

For debate:
Does teaching creationism in public schools violate the separation of church and state?
What are other political issues that are involved in the teaching of creationism in public schools?

[otseng]

My understanding is that even homeschooling must conform to a basic curriculum, though I am not sure if a rudimentary understanding of science is a part of every curriculum. I believe otseng recently went through the trouble of learning about homeschooling so that he could teach his kids, so he would know more about it than me.

In Georgia, there is no requirement to teach from any particular curriculum/textbooks, but must at least cover reading, language arts, math, social studies, and science. The parent has complete freedom on teaching from whatever material in these areas.

Certainly they are responsible for education, but never to the detriment of the children. Teaching that a well-established theory can be completely wrong because of the faith of a person is saying to all that everything is true and everything is false, and it all depends on the convictions of the person.

What if a parent considers it a detriment to their child if he is taught that he evolved from a primate?

I would argue that, whether you agree with the conclusions about global warming or not, you need to present your kids with the evidence. You need to give them practice reasoning from data, so that they can come to their own conclusions, not only about global warming, but about things we haven't yet faced. Our obligation to our children, and to everyone's children, is to give them as much preparation as possible for the world they will have to live in.

And so, the evidence for creationism should be allowed to be presented to give kids the chance to make decisions for themselves.

[Jose]

What if a parent considers it a detriment to their child if he is taught that he evolved from a primate?

But your child is a primate. According to the definitions of different types of animals, humans come out in the primate category, specifically the ape category. The criteria are presented pretty well here, though you have to scroll down a few lines to get to the actual information. I think one does one's children a disservice to teach them that they are not biological organisms with the same physiological requirements as other animals. Only by making our relationship to animals clear can we ensure that our environmental awareness will be sufficient to maintain the earth suitably for our survival. We aren't that different from other animals, and the same rules apply.

I would argue that, whether you agree with the conclusions about global warming or not, you need to present your kids with the evidence. You need to give them practice reasoning from data, so that they can come to their own conclusions, not only about global warming, but about things we haven't yet faced. Our obligation to our children, and to everyone's children, is to give them as much preparation as possible for the world they will have to live in.

And so, the evidence for creationism should be allowed to be presented to give kids the chance to make decisions for themselves.

This gets us back to what the evidence is. Maybe I'm wrong, but all I have found is that Genesis presents it. I think most people know about Genesis, so I'm not worried that this aspect is being suppressed. What's missing is supporting science. As near as I can tell, the evidence for creation is usually presented as arguments against small pieces of the case for evolution. We had a thread on Evidence for Creationism a while back, but we didn't get very far into it. It might be good to wake it up again, or start a new one with a more clearly defined topic for discussion.

In any event, the nature of support for creation and for evolution are very, very different. If I am right, that support for creation is simply Genesis, then we run up against the establishment clause if we teach it in public school. By contrast, every Christian parent has the right, and possibly the obligation, to teach biblical literacy to their children. Therefore, between the classroom and the home and the church, everyone should get both sets of information. Then, as you say, they can make an informed decision.

[hannahjoy]

By contrast, every Christian parent has the right, and possibly the obligation, to teach biblical literacy to their children. Therefore, between the classroom and the home and the church, everyone should get both sets of information. Then, as you say, they can make an informed decision.

What about children who don't have Christian parents or go to church? They can't make an informed decision if they're never informed of the Creationist point of view.

[perfessor]

By contrast, every Christian parent has the right, and possibly the obligation, to teach biblical literacy to their children. Therefore, between the classroom and the home and the church, everyone should get both sets of information. Then, as you say, they can make an informed decision.

What about children who don't have Christian parents or go to church? They can't make an informed decision if they're never informed of the Creationist point of view.

Are you serious?

Are you suggesting that the public schools should have a responsibility to provide a Christian perspective to non-Christian students?

[ST88]

I think that actually America has a singular culture even if you think otherwise. It is a populist culture rooted in the fact that the American government long time ago abdicated its core responsibilities in providing the spiritual leadership to the nation. The government doesn't have and doesn't aspire to have a vision or even opinion about the importance of arts to give an example.

I think that this view is merely another splinter group in terms of the larger American society. Really, the only concept I can think of that would apply as an American culture is pride and its flipside cousin arrogance.

Actions are taken as reactions to political pressure from different interest groups. That's why the Ivy league snobbery and other examples from your post dominate the American landscape. The nature abhors vacuum and there you have local subcultures filling it in a seemingly random way. The worst in this trend is, in my opinion, that even the sponsorship of science is something that lawmakers would gladly get rid of. In no country I know the best scientists are preoccupied with grant proposals and other money issues to the extent they are in America.

Now, when you get to the issue of shaping the school curricula and the national educational policy you have the same picture. The local subcultures secured the monopoly and are not challenged by the presence of any coherent government policy. I think that some concerns of the religious communities who regard schools as dominated by "liberals" are justified. By the same token nobody can stop those religious communities from launching their own counterattacks.

This is only a problem for those who concern themselves with the idea that there is this larger entity called the "U.S.A." This country is not really a united nation the way many other countries are. It is a congolmeration of individual nation/states who have agreed, in principle and practicality, to agree on some common administrative ideas, such as a single currency, common defense, distribution of resources, etc. The only fairly close analogues I can think of are Swiss cantons and UK regions.

But our current administration has taken it upon itself to nationalize education, despite it having been exclusively a state issue. The main problem with regionalization is that there are snake-oil education peddlers who influence some areas and not others -- so standards, topics, and teaching styles are different in different places. In a practical sense, this is only a problem on a national level when the nation is thought of as a whole, rather than as 55 or so different administrative regions (or thereabouts).

As far as teaching the culture in schools let me explain my position with examples. Get rid of the culture of idolizing school sport teams, stop teaching children to beg by engaging them in cookie sales and other money raising activities, instead of teaching "tolerance" introduce sound curricula in subjects like geography and civics (cover the subject of religious differences among various ethnic groups in this country).

I don't think this is possible. Attitudes I share with many people may present you with obstacles. I do not think sports are bad, nor is the adulation that teams are given (though, admittedly, some take it too far). I also do not believe that bake sales & such for fundraising are bad ideas. But I suppose I could go off on the education industrial complex and the left-wing weenies who can't fathom that there are wrong answers to questions... but I won't.

All this is to say that politicizing education on a national level leads to the situation we have now, which is inappropriate guidelines applied to a national level of perceived adequacy. State-rights Republicans shouldn't be behind this because it makes local jurisdictions bow to Washington, and educators shouldn't be behind this because it effectively dictates what should be taught and how. In, fact, the word taught doesn't do the effect justice. So now we see the rationale of tax cuts falling into place. Teaching Creationism fits nicely into this paradigm because it's not a field of study that requires inquiry or hands-on lab work, it's a top-down, here-it-is, memorizable-facts subject. A subject like AP Chem, however, which requires students to use the right side of the brain, doesn't fit nicely into standardized tests. NCLB is perhaps a completely different subject, but I think it is emblematic of how education is viewed by the Right in general and by this administration in particular.

[otseng]

What if a parent considers it a detriment to their child if he is taught that he evolved from a primate?

But your child is a primate. According to the definitions of different types of animals, humans come out in the primate category, specifically the ape category.

It is only because the dictionary lexicographers submit to the idea of common descent. If common descent was not true, I doubt humans would be considered a primate.

Still, my question has not been addressed. If I personally believe it is a detriment for my child to be taught that he was derived from an ape, why should I not be able to decide what gets taught to my child and not allow him to be under such teaching?

I think one does one's children a disservice to teach them that they are not biological organisms with the same physiological requirements as other animals.

There is a difference between describing someone biologically and telling them they came from a monkey. It is entirely possible to separate the two and teach the former without the latter.

Only by making our relationship to animals clear can we ensure that our environmental awareness will be sufficient to maintain the earth suitably for our survival.

One can be environmentally responsible without believing humans are distant relatives from all the animals of the world. Believing in common descent is not a prerequisite for being environmentally aware.

We aren't that different from other animals, and the same rules apply.

Sure, I believe that. Because animals and humans come from a single designer.

Maybe I'm wrong, but all I have found is that Genesis presents it.

I don't think I've quoted from Genesis (or even the Bible) in any of my discussions on creationism. I believe all the evidence and arguments for the CM I've presented have been extra-Biblical.

As near as I can tell, the evidence for creation is usually presented as arguments against small pieces of the case for evolution. We had a thread on Evidence for Creationism a while back, but we didn't get very far into it.

The discussion dived off into the topic of the Global Flood, which is a huge part of the CM. Then more recently, that dived into deeper waters with Flood as science. Just on the topic of the flood we can spend a long time on that aspect of creationism.

Also, as an observation, no one has countered my arguments as being unscientific or as an appeal to the Bible. I would either suspect that my arguments have been scientific or that people are not willing to call me on being unscientific.

If I am right, that support for creation is simply Genesis, then we run up against the establishment clause if we teach it in public school.

What I have been repeatedly trying to show (though I guess with limited success) is that it is possible to teach creationism without the need to bring in religion or even the Bible.

Also, I do not think that it is because of the establishment clause that is the primary reason for prohibiting the teaching of creationism. I think evolutionists would have no problem having creationism taught as a religious class or even a philosophy class.

By contrast, every Christian parent has the right, and possibly the obligation, to teach biblical literacy to their children. Therefore, between the classroom and the home and the church, everyone should get both sets of information. Then, as you say, they can make an informed decision.

What about children who don't have Christian parents or go to church? They can't make an informed decision if they're never informed of the Creationist point of view.

Are you serious?

Are you suggesting that the public schools should have a responsibility to provide a Christian perspective to non-Christian students?

I do not think she was suggesting that public schools have a responsibility to provide a Christian perspective.

The point is, how can students make a critical analysis of evolutionism if it cannot tolerate any opposing viewpoints?

[przemeknowicki]

I don't think this is possible. Attitudes I share with many people may present you with obstacles. I do not think sports are bad, nor is the adulation that teams are given (though, admittedly, some take it too far). I also do not believe that bake sales & such for fundraising are bad ideas. But I suppose I could go off on the education industrial complex and the left-wing weenies who can't fathom that there are wrong answers to questions... but I won't.

Well, sports as present in many schools are essentially an alien transplant into the educational system. They are there because, as you said, of the attitudes of many people. If you have no problem with it why then you have a problem with teaching Creationism? It would certainly satisfy the wishes of many people.

The problem with bake sales are twofold. They are sold at artificial prices well above the market value. For this reason the proponents of the free market should be on my side but strangely they are not. Secondly, in most cases the bake sales are aimed at subsidizing the suburban (unsustainable) life style. I view them as corporate welfare on the small scale. Giving money to rich kids (scouts trips, baseball league) while ignoring the plea of the poor who lack in essentials outrage me.

It is the culture thing that most of the people see the school sports team and bake sales very different than how I see them. I don't want to start a fight over the sports in school and over bake sales. I want to start serious discussion about the culture.

Regards,

Thomas Orr

[Jose]

What if a parent considers it a detriment to their child if he is taught that he evolved from a primate?

But your child is a primate. According to the definitions of different types of animals, humans come out in the primate category, specifically the ape category.

It is only because the dictionary lexicographers submit to the idea of common descent. If common descent was not true, I doubt humans would be considered a primate.

No, I'm basing my definition on the simple listing of characteristics. If we simply separate things into animal, mineral, and vegetable, humans come out in the animal group. Within that group, sorting according to characteristics plops us in the primate group, and the ape subgroup thereof. This does not result from acceptance of common descent; rather, it is part of the evidence for common descent.

Still, my question has not been addressed. If I personally believe it is a detriment for my child to be taught that he was derived from an ape, why should I not be able to decide what gets taught to my child and not allow him to be under such teaching?

I guess that's why we have private schools and home schooling, as well as the legal right to remove your kids from school after the 8th grade, as the Amish do. However, you are likely to accept the medical bounty that comes from studies that use common descent as a working model. Medicine and agriculture rely heavily on evolutionary thinking.

There is a difference between describing someone biologically and telling them they came from a monkey. It is entirely possible to separate the two and teach the former without the latter.

Indeed, it is--and there are those who teach evolution exactly that way. They present the descriptions, and allow students to reach their own conclusions. I don't like this method, though, because it also allows students to reach incorrect conclusions--like the idea that monkeys went *pop* and turned into people.

One can be environmentally responsible without believing humans are distant relatives from all the animals of the world. Believing in common descent is not a prerequisite for being environmentally aware.

You are quite right. However, there are a great many people who use the logic that they don't need to pay attention to the future, because God will provide. This logic serves to justify environmental irresponsibility. We could argue that we should treat all of God's creatures with equal respect, but if we separate humans into a separate category--those who are more equal than the others--then there is the danger of thinking of humans as caretakers. We don't know enough ecology to be good caretakers of individual organisms, and ecosystem preservation seems to meet with little enthusiasm. My feeling is that we might be better disposed toward our fellow creatures if we thought of them as part of our extended family, rather than thinking of them as "others."

We aren't that different from other animals, and the same rules apply.

Sure, I believe that. Because animals and humans come from a single designer.

touche

I don't think I've quoted from Genesis (or even the Bible) in any of my discussions on creationism. I believe all the evidence and arguments for the CM I've presented have been extra-Biblical.

It is true that you have not invoked biblical support for your arguments, and have taken a purely logical stand on this (which does not imply that other stands are illogical, just that you have used logic rather than appeal to authority in your debates). Still, if I try to interpret your arguments using the Inuit origin story, they don't add up. You speak of creation, rather than growth from pea pods. You speak of a designer, while Raven was our guide and mentor. In short, the specific Creation Model that fits with your discussion is the biblical one. I have no problem with this, of course, since it is the one that is most common in our country. Rather, I mention it to illustrate two points. First, the CM does have religious background, and, seemingly, a particular religious background at that. Second--and this is directed at hannahjoy's comment below--the biblical CM is woven into our culture pretty deeply. We can refer to it without even mentioning it by name.

...Just on the topic of the flood we can spend a long time on that aspect of creationism.

Indeed we can. Thanks for the review of those threads...they did kinda veer off into discussion of the flood, didn't they?

Also, as an observation, no one has countered my arguments as being unscientific or as an appeal to the Bible. I would either suspect that my arguments have been scientific or that people are not willing to call me on being unscientific.

Your arguments have been excellent. I would not call them unscientific; rather, they are logical challenges to the scientific views others of us have put forth--and thus, they fit nicely within the scientific paradigm.

If I am right, that support for creation is simply Genesis, then we run up against the establishment clause if we teach it in public school.

What I have been repeatedly trying to show (though I guess with limited success) is that it is possible to teach creationism without the need to bring in religion or even the Bible.

This is what the ID folks are claiming--that their approach is not religious because they do not invoke any particular designer. However, the Creation Model itself is based upon religion. It is not a generic model that fits with all religions, but is specific to a relative few. As I see it, if we attempt to eliminate all bias toward any particular religion, and thus teach creationism in a religiously-neutral way, then we will have only a very small statement to make: "maybe, instead of natural processes, a supernatural being created everything." If we invoke timing of the creation event, or locations of events, or the Flood, we necessarily invoke a particular religious viewpoint. [I might summarize this by saying that I've been attempting to show (perhaps with limited success) that creationism is, by definition, religious interpretation.]

Also, I do not think that it is because of the establishment clause that is the primary reason for prohibiting the teaching of creationism. I think evolutionists would have no problem having creationism taught as a religious class or even a philosophy class.

This is true. There is no objection to creationism or religion per se. The objection is to presenting it as science. To be science, one must apply the conventions of science. Evolution happens to do so, since it is a theory that was developed to explain what we see in the world, and has been tested in a great many ways. Creation seems not to do so, unless we stipulate that the creation event specifically produced all of the features that suggest evolution has occurred--the "appearance of age" model.

By contrast, every Christian parent has the right, and possibly the obligation, to teach biblical literacy to their children. Therefore, between the classroom and the home and the church, everyone should get both sets of information. Then, as you say, they can make an informed decision.

What about children who don't have Christian parents or go to church? They can't make an informed decision if they're never informed of the Creationist point of view.

I seem to be an example, here. Until I went to college, I had met only one person who went to church (and he's the one who turned out to be gay). In college, I met a couple of others. Only during graduate school did I encounter significant numbers of people who attended a church of any kind. And yet, my friends and I all grew up knowing the Genesis story. We were all informed of the Creationist point of view. I cannot recall exactly how. Presumably, as I noted above, it is deeply entrenched in our society, and thus easy to learn about.

What I did not get from this upbringing was active instruction against evolution.

The point is, how can students make a critical analysis of evolutionism if it cannot tolerate any opposing viewpoints?

You raise an interesting point, which may be the crux of the matter. Evolution can tolerate, and has tolerated, opposing viewpoints. The critical thing is to give these viewpoints a "fair test" and determine whether they, or evolution, provide the better explanation for the existing observations. Thus far, evolution happens to have come out on top.

In most scientific arenas, it is sufficient to test an alternate hypothesis once or twice. When it has been invalidated, the field moves on. If students in that field ask about that alternate hypothesis, they are referred to the prior studies, which they read. Having examined the prior studies critically, the students move on to current problems in the field. Sometimes, the prior studies are discovered to have had some flaw, so the alternate hypothesis is re-examined. If it is invalidated by new tests, then it is considered dead.

Evolution is almost unique among scientific theories in that everyone has an opinion on the matter--probably a direct result of the apparent clash between evolution and Genesis, and the desire by biblical literalists to make evolution "go away." As a result, a great many people ask about alternate hypotheses. In nearly every instance, the alternate hypotheses have been tested and shown to be wanting. Unfortunately, non-scientists don't accept the answer, "that's already been looked at; go read the old papers." Not everyone wants to go back and read the studies that invalidated the alternate ideas. Not everyone has the scientific background to interpret the data. This makes it difficult. It is easy to ask the questions, but hard to assimilate the answers. Scientists have not made it any easier, because we are not that good at simplifying the information, and usually use technical jargon as part of our explanations.

My personal view is that evolution is so strongly supported that it must be discussed in school. If we give the objections "fair treatment," and discuss them scientifically, then we will, in general, end up proving them wrong. I would like to see creation presented as a religious explanation, where religion and science are different, but complementary, ways of knowing about the world. I would not like to be forced to demonstrate scientifically, and publically in schools, that the arguments against evolution are just plain wrong.

[przemeknowicki]

I don't think I've quoted from Genesis (or even the Bible) in any of my discussions on creationism. I believe all the evidence and arguments for the CM I've presented have been extra-Biblical.

Otseng, that may be true, however, let me be a straight shooter. I know I am not objective or scientific in what I am going to say. But I cannot resist to spell out what my instincts tell me. Also, I hope you will not get offended and will prove me wrong if I deserve it.

The problem with Creationism, in my opinion, are the very origins of this philosophy. It is grounded in believers' conviction that it is their duty to "defend" God, or their religion. It is not rooted in the passion to inquire and search for the truth.

There are many philosophical or intellectual systems competing with materialistic theory of evolution, some of them indeed interesting and admirable. Great German philosopher Hegel considered the material events being merely manifestations of the underlying evolution of the Spirit. In Hindu philosophy the Universe evolves in the rhythm of Brahma's breathing.

Creationism is very different from Hegel's dialectic or Hindu philosophy. Don't you think that before being accepted in schools it should convince us that it deserves to be selected as an alternative to materialistic evolution more than the concepts I mentioned? Unless, of course, the real motif is not to balance the education by showing the students some alternatives. Everybody knows that the real motif is the desire of Christians to be heard and allowed in public schools and this is precisely why we invoke the Constitution when opposing the pressure.

What is the intellectual content of the Creationism that would earn my admiration? I am afraid that anything produced out of fear (to offend God) will necessary result in poor and uninteresting philosophy. Worse, the rigid systems one is doomed to create when acting out of fear will fall with the next scientific discovery. This is the sad history, as I argued before, of the Christian church trying to compete with science over the past two centuries.

Interestingly, one may argue that the fear to offend the God of the Bible, which compelled Christians to come up with the Creationism is unfounded. There is no commandment I know of which would instruct the faithful that they must promote the biblical story of creation.

Regards,

Thomas Orr

[Corvus]

My understanding is that even homeschooling must conform to a basic curriculum, though I am not sure if a rudimentary understanding of science is a part of every curriculum. I believe otseng recently went through the trouble of learning about homeschooling so that he could teach his kids, so he would know more about it than me.

In Georgia, there is no requirement to teach from any particular curriculum/textbooks, but must at least cover reading, language arts, math, social studies, and science. The parent has complete freedom on teaching from whatever material in these areas.

I shall refrain from taking potshots at the American education system.

Certainly they are responsible for education, but never to the detriment of the children. Teaching that a well-established theory can be completely wrong because of the faith of a person is saying to all that everything is true and everything is false, and it all depends on the convictions of the person.

What if a parent considers it a detriment to their child if he is taught that he evolved from a primate?

Hm. Perhaps I was hasty in writing "detrimental to children". I have no doubt that some knowledge can have a detrimental effect on people's minds. I also have no doubt that some lies can also be very pleasing. The true detriment of allowing parents to say arbitrarily what their kids should or should not learn is a hindrance to the true understanding of the world we live in, and a strike against the authority and respectability of our seats of education and the scientific community. Because of the mindset it fosters, this in turn is detrimental to all progress. It is that much reviled liberal idea some posters were recently discussing where "all opinions are equally right".

There are still people who believe the sun revolves around the earth or that the earth is flat. They also use quite scientific jargon to support their case, but does this mean their theory should be on equal footing with the heliocentric model? Certainly not. That would be a disservice to the children, a disservice to honest science, and a disservice to knowledge and understanding.

Maybe I'm wrong, but all I have found is that Genesis presents it.

I don't think I've quoted from Genesis (or even the Bible) in any of my discussions on creationism. I believe all the evidence and arguments for the CM I've presented have been extra-Biblical.

But all those extra-biblical sources were looking for ways to support a biblical conclusion. Creationism is not a biological theory (or hypothesis), so I don't really understand how it can be taught as an alternative to evolution. Creationism is an historical account which implies or states outright that a creator exists. Though I believe that if a creator is proven to exist, there is no breach of the establishment cause, the fact that almost all people agree that God cannot be proven to exist (except, paradoxically, to those who already believe in Him), makes the very core of creationist thought unscientific. Since we have no way of knowing what a designed world should look like compared to a world where evolutionary forces as described by evolutionary theory exist, we are left with only philosophical arguments that are unverifiable, and of which there are plenty to be found on both sides of the debate.