Should Creationism be taught in classrooms?

[otseng]

Should Creationism be taught in classrooms (as science)?
More specifically, should it be taught in public schools?
If so, how should it be taught as a science?

[Jose]

I will also add that it is nice to receive a reply from someone in a polite manner in which one can attempt to learn more about a subject without fear of someone becoming unduely offended. Thank you.

You're welcome. It is the standard of civility that has been established in this forum that led me to spend time here. There's a lot to talk about, and it's much easier to do so if we're polite about it.

...there is an abundance of evidence for creation as well. They have used such scientific facts as the shrinkage rate of the sun, the "Cambrian Curtain," and the ever-popular Second Law of Thermodynamics to quite successfully form an argument for creation totally based on science and devoid of any "religious" assertions.

Ah yes, these arguments. They have, of course, all been shown to be invalid. The argument about the sun, as I recall, was formulated before there was an understanding of nuclear fusion. The argument is no longer valid, but is still raised by detractors of evolution. The Cambrian Curtain, as you've called it, is discussed in more detail in the thread The Cambrian Explosion. I've posted some information there, and would be happy to discuss it further in that thread. The second law of thermodynamics, of course, is a favorite, because it claims that evolution isn't possible because it creates order out of chaos. What this argument ignores is the simple fact that the sun provides a constant input of energy to the earth, and that this energy is more than enough to build the complexity. The argument sounds snazzy, but is just plain wrong because it addresses the earth alone, and not the earth-sun system.

Many of the Creationists who use these and other arguments in debates, when pressed, will admit the flaws of the arguments. That is, they know the arguments don't work. Yet, they use them again in the next public appearance before a different audience.

Creationists can even give examples of strict evolutionary scientists who have, through the processes of science, concluded that there seems to be more factual evidence to support creation rather than evolution.

And, at the National Center for Science Education, you can find a list of a very large number of scientists named Steve who accept evolution. It turns out that having an Authority on your side, or a bunch of authorities, is actually irrelevant in science. What matters is the data, and whether the explanations account for it in the most plausible way. If a scientist chooses to set aside some of the data, and conclude that creation is more likely, then they may do so--but it won't convince me or the majority of other scientists. The data are still there for us to interpret, and our interpretation turns out to be evolution. I don't really care which way it comes out; I have no stake in the outcome. But, I do care that the interpretation fits the available data.

With creationism, you cannot find, as you said, a current and tangible example in our natural world of a creator/designer bringing something into existence from nothing. However, it can also be said that evolutionists have failed to successfully observe a true and sustained form of evolutionary development in the natural world - whether it be an attempt to recreate it in a lab or otherwise.

How much evolution would you like? Change in allele frequencies in response to selection pressure? Formation of new species? Or, is it necessary to re-create all of life's history? There was a time, not too long ago, that Creationists said that no evolution of any kind had been observed. Changes in allele frequencies were demonstrated. Creationists then said, "that's just microevolution, and it doesn't count" and insisted that speciation was the requirement. Now that speciation has been demonstrated, the requirement has been changed again--in some people's view, to be the entire pattern of life. So, I guess the question is, how much of evolution is necessary for us to observe, before it's accepted that we have observed it?

Furthermore, there is still lacking a fossil record that can illustrate a species' evolution, in full or in most part, from its primitive to present form

This is kinda the same thing. How much evidence do you want? Perhaps an analogy is appropriate. In the morning, you see my car in my garage. At noon, you see it in the parking lot at work. You have no observations inbetween. Because there are no intermediate observations, must we conclude that my car did not get driven from home to work, or that an equally viable explanation is that an identical car was created in the parking lot?

Working with fossils is great fun, actually. We will never have all of them--in part because so many have already eroded to dust. It's like a jigsaw puzzle, for which we don't have all of the pieces. Unlike a jigsaw puzzle, however, there are lots of additional lines of evidence that can be brought to bear on the problem. Together, all of these lines of evidence, and the fossils that have been identified, fit together into a coherent picture. The picture is fuzzy in places, because we don't have enough pieces; new fossils often show that some of the details need to be revised, but the overall picture is pretty robust. The most fun part is that anyone can collect data and evaluate it.

[The Watcher]

There's a lot to talk about, and it's much easier to do so if we're polite about it.

Indeed it is.

As for the few examples of evidences I sited, I must still conclude that creationists have presented strong scientific arguments that, in the least, deserve to be presented equally when the origins of life are discussed - as regarding the subject of this thread.

The argument about the sun, as I recall, was formulated before there was an understanding of nuclear fusion.

In the discussions I have seen/read on this matter, thermonuclear fusion was actually taken into consideration. As opposed to strictly using a model based upon gravitational collapse.

Regarding the Second Law of Thermodynamics:

What this argument ignores is the simple fact that the sun provides a constant input of energy to the earth, and that this energy is more than enough to build the complexity...[it] is just plain wrong because it addresses the earth alone, and not the earth-sun system.

Similarly, the discussions on this matter openly include the sun's provision of energy to Earth in our planet's system. However, it can be continued on to say that although a constant source of energy is a necessity it is not enough, in and of itself, to bring about order. There must also simultaneously be a mechanism (or code) present within the system to "guide" the present forces into an ordered existence. For instance, at the forming of life there would need to be some "directions" (through delicate chemical processes or otherwise) for reproduction, for the extraction of usable energy sources from the environment to be used for growth, and then translating that energy into an actual growth process. Without this, it can be successfully argued that any form of life would not survive through a single lifespan.

As for the "Cambrian Explosion," I will certainly look at the information within the thread for this topic - I anxiously and continually look for information on both positions. Again, however, it was given as an example because it has not yet adequately been rendered useless within the context of scientific evidence supporting some form of creation or design.

It turns out that having an Authority on your side, or a bunch of authorities, is actually irrelevant in science.

You are correct. This was only presented as a means to further establish the position that scientific minds can find scientific support for creation/design.

...Creationists said that no evolution of any kind had been observed. Changes in allele frequencies were demonstrated. Creationists then said, "that's just microevolution, and it doesn't count" and insisted that speciation was the requirement. Now that speciation has been demonstrated, the requirement has been changed again

When used as an argument for the existence of all species having been derived from a single ancestor, microevolution is not necessarily valid. The creationists raise a good point here. Microevolution is openly accepted by all creationists that I am aware of. As you probably know, however, microevolution merely creates variations within the same group of a species and does not create an overall increase or decrease in genetic matter that would result a new and distinct species. The popular term for such variations is, of course, "horizontal." Meaning that it occurs within the same species. What has still failed to be adequately presented and observed is "vertical" evolution - that some form of variation has occurred that resulted in a change in the organism's overall genetic structure thus creating a totally new species. In all of my studies, I have failed (perhaps, I admit, by my own fault) to find any form of true and unquestionable speciation that has occurred.

Perhaps an analogy is appropriate. In the morning, you see my car in my garage. At noon, you see it in the parking lot at work. You have no observations inbetween. Because there are no intermediate observations, must we conclude that my car did not get driven from home to work...

Finally, although I appreciate it, this analogy is not of comparable complexity to our subject matter. I offer this: you enter into a room with an open window, overturned paint jars, and a beautifully complex and appealing painting - complete with geometric shapes, appropriate shading, and incredible use of color. Was there a painter who created this work of art, or did a strong wind from the open window swirl the paints into the air and place them in such a way? In the true spirit of science, neither could be ruled out until further investigation. In the true spirit of education, however, one should not focus only on the window and ignore the brushes.

[Jose]

I must still conclude that creationists have presented strong scientific arguments that, in the least, deserve to be presented equally when the origins of life are discussed

I disagree. The arguments that have been presented thus far are what we might best call "quibbles" with one or another aspect of the data. There are many, many other pieces of data as well. To come up with an alternative explanation for one observation is interesting, but to challenge the Theory, it is necessary to have a viable alternative explanation for all of the observations together. Evolution does this well. Creation would do so also, provided we build into the act of creation the addition of all of the "clues" that have led scientists to conclude that evolution is the way life works.

Still, your complaint is valid: that alternative models should be presented equally when the data supporting them are equally strong. Therein lies the difficulty. Just how strong are the data?

The argument about the sun, as I recall, was formulated before there was an understanding of nuclear fusion.

In the discussions I have seen/read on this matter, thermonuclear fusion was actually taken into consideration. As opposed to strictly using a model based upon gravitational collapse.

I stand corrected. A bit of nosing around leads me to offer the following: the shrinking sun model was originally based on arguments that were shown to be invalid in 1920 by Eddington. The more recent argument comes from a paper of Akridge's, in 1980, in which he reviews and reinterprets the data of Eddy & Boornazian (1979), who concluded from their own data that there was no shrinkage. Later measurements have failed to find shrinkage. It seems that the available data do not find shrinkage, which seems to render this argument moot.

Akridge, Russell (1980) The sun is shrinking, ICR Impact 82

Eddington, Arthur Stanley (1920) The internal constitution of stars, Nature 106:14-20

Eddy, J A & Boornazian, A A (1979) 'Secular decrease in the solar diameter, 1863-1953' Bull Am Astr Soc 11:437

...it can be continued on to say that although a constant source of energy is a necessity it is not enough, in and of itself, to bring about order. There must also simultaneously be a mechanism (or code) present within the system to "guide" the present forces into an ordered existence...

But is a guide really necessary? There are many purely chemical systems that show self-organization. There is no reason to imagine that self-organizing chemistry was impossible 4 billion years ago. Admittedly, it is difficult to recreate conditions identical to those that existed then, and even more difficult to recreate unique microclimates that may have been important. Did the chemistry initially take place on a clay surface that acted as a catalyst? Were molecular "midwives" able to make some of the reactions occur more readily, as has recently been demonstrated in the laboratory? We don't know all of the answers (which is what makes this field particularly interesting), but we have no reason to imagine that "special guides" were required.

On the other hand, the special guide idea is intriguing to me. It is being kicked around that the original life forms, or self-replicating molecules, were RNA molecules of various types. Simple RNA molecules seem to be, if my recollection of the literature is correct, things that can be assembled under conditions similar to those we think prevailed at the origin of life. It would actually be fairly easy, if there were even a lousy method for short RNAs to be made, for complementary sequences to arise and pair. The RNA-splicing RNAs work this way--and are even called "guide RNAs." Maybe the "special guide" was RNA. (Of course there are a lot of maybes here...I'm thinking this up as I go along. I bet the RNA guys have already thought of this and designed experiments to test whether it's reasonable.)

[I will digress briefly, as I often do, to point out that the origin of life is not part of the theory of evolution. "Evolution" refers to the changes that living things have undergone--and therefore starts only after the formation of life. It is important to keep the different theories separate.]

As for the "Cambrian Explosion," I will certainly look at the information within the thread for this topic - I anxiously and continually look for information on both positions. Again, however, it was given as an example because it has not yet adequately been rendered useless within the context of scientific evidence supporting some form of creation or design.

Excellent. Keep us posted on what you find. My short synopsis of the story is that there really is no "explosion." We're talking millions of years, with the "explosion" representing only the development of shells. The "scientific evidence" for design used to be the idea that all of life suddenly appeared at once. It didn't--unless you call 10 or 20 million years "sudden." And, of course, it is necessary to ignore all of the major life forms that didn't appear until much later...it's a pretty sloppy explosion.

Microevolution is openly accepted by all creationists that I am aware of. As you probably know, however, microevolution merely creates variations within the same group of a species and does not create an overall increase or decrease in genetic matter that would result a new and distinct species.

Microevolution is, as you say, accepted by creationists now. It wasn't for a long time. Nonetheless, the definition is important to get straight. Microevolution refers to changes in allele frequency within a population. it is not the creation of variations--that requires mutation (and, in diploid organisms, can be furthered by recombination). Variations are created by mutation, and thus become part of the gene pool--new alleles. New alleles can be lost from the population, if they are deleterious, or they can become common (or fixed) in the population, if they are advantageous. Now, can new alleles increase or decrease the genetic information? Yes. This has been documented. All that is necessary is a gene or chromosomal duplication to add information, or a deletion to remove information. Duplications, once formed, provide an extra copy of a portion of the DNA, which can undergo mutations without affecting the organism--and thus develop new functions.

To create a new species doesn't really require very much. In the case of meadowlarks, all it takes is microevolutionary changes in the instincts that determine the courtship songs. Once they are different, as they are for eastern and western meadowlarks, they no longer interbreed. They are new species. Similarly, microevolutionary changes in the proteins on the surfaces of sperm and egg are sufficient to make two separate populations of the same species become unable to interbreed. Again, we have new species--but all of them derived from the basic fact of each species reproducing according to its kind. There are many species where these kinds of things have happened, and the species are clearly distinct, but still look pretty similar. In time, microevolutionary changes in genes that control their morphology will make them look different. Or, maybe we'll get lucky, and a major control gene may undergo a mutation, and give rise to a dramatic morphological change.

The popular term for such variations is, of course, "horizontal." Meaning that it occurs within the same species. What has still failed to be adequately presented and observed is "vertical" evolution - that some form of variation has occurred that resulted in a change in the organism's overall genetic structure thus creating a totally new species. In all of my studies, I have failed (perhaps, I admit, by my own fault) to find any form of true and unquestionable speciation that has occurred.

Let's quibble with language! Where I come from, "horizontal" gene transfer is between individuals of the same generation (or between species), as happens when bacteria transfer plasmids. "Vertical" gene transfer is from one generation to the next, via normal parent/offspring inheritance. We aren't very clear on the role of horizontal gene transfer in evolution. It's clear that it happens in bacteria, and it appears that it happened in the fusion of eubacterial and archaebacterial cells to form eukaryotes. But the data are not yet enough to draw a very clear picture. Otherwise, vertical evolution is the rule.

There are many documented instances of speciation. However, you will probably not find what you seek: someone describing what they saw as a species changed from one to another. It turns out that no one was watching. In laboratory work, it is pretty easy to create strains of, for example, fruit flies, that cannot interbreed--and are thus "new species" by definition. But, since they still look like flies, they are considered to be irrelevant. Here, it seems that the criterion is morphological change. Yet, with dogs, where there is great morphological change, it is said that this isn't evolution because they can still interbreed. Well...we have clear examples of speciation without morphological change, and morphological change without speciation. The difference is simply which genes are involved in the changes. Microevolution gives rise to speciation and to morophological change.

you enter into a room with an open window, overturned paint jars, and a beautifully complex and appealing painting - complete with geometric shapes, appropriate shading, and incredible use of color. Was there a painter who created this work of art, or did a strong wind from the open window swirl the paints into the air and place them in such a way?

Excellent analogy. It's like the whirlwind in the junkyard creating a 747. Fortunatley, evolution doesn't work like that. It's not an all-at-once event. It would be more like the wind blowing things about, and one bit sticking to the canvas. Later, wind blows things about, and another bit sticks to the first bit. Later, wind blows more bits, and so on and so on. In the end, we have some kind of assembled stuff on the canvas, and we marvel that this entire construction is there. It happened one step at a time. The difficulty is that the time is so unimaginably long.

In fairness, I should say that if there were a valid argument against evolution, or any kind of scientific proof that it doesn't work that way, the discoverer would be widely acclaimed as having made a major discovery. In fact, that's how science works: we're always doing our darnedest to prove our competitors are wrong. If any of the creationist arguments against individual bits of evidence supporting evolution were meritorious, they would earn high praise. The trouble is, they don't stand up to close scrutiny.

Even that, however, is beside the point. The issue, in science classes, is not whether we should discuss specific arguments that have been raised to suggest that specific data are imperfect, but whether there is an alternative model besides evolution that adequately explains the observations in a scientific way. Personally, I think it would be most productive to explore the creationist models scientifically, and see if they would work. Earlier in this thread, we were discussing this issue and concluded that the Flood figures prominently in creationist models, especially with respect to geology and the fossil record. Therefore, we moved to the Global Flood thread to examine the Flood Model scientifically. I have since summarized where we were, and started a new thread, The Flood As Science, where the points for discussion are in the initial post. It might be interesting to look over those points, and see where they lead. It would also be interesting to identify other creationist models that are considered to be valid alternatives, and to explore them in a fair scientfic test. That is, rather than say "evolution's no good because of X" or "creation's no good because of Y," let's go the other way, and say "this model makes these predictions. Are they met?"

[The Watcher]

I disagree. The arguments that have been presented thus far are what we might best call "quibbles" with one or another aspect of the data. There are many, many other pieces of data as well. To come up with an alternative explanation for one observation is interesting, but to challenge the Theory, it is necessary to have a viable alternative explanation for all of the observations together.

I will only say this: again, creationists have indeed found some intriguing evidences that seem to amount to much more than mere "quibble." As it can also be said that evolutionists indeed have some intriguing findings. I would also add that in order to challenge a scientific theory in any field of science one does not necessarily have to have a completely structured alternative - merely some evidence as to why it may be possible that the theory is not fully correct.

But is a guide really necessary? There are many purely chemical systems that show self-organization. There is no reason to imagine that self-organizing chemistry was impossible 4 billion years ago.

Yes, a "guide," from lack of a better word in my post, of some sort is absolutely necessary for any system to function in an organized fashion. A guide may be in the form of written music from which individual musicians work together to perform beautiful pieces or it may be (as I mentioned in my previous post) in the form of basic chemical reactions. You are correct in that for as long as the earth has been in existence, be that 4.5 billion years or six thousand, what occurs chemically today should hold true throughout history. The problem arrises when one postulates as to how, when one works in reverse, the original building blocks were organized to function as building blocks - building blocks also containing the necessary "code" to build a living organism. There are currently many studies revolving around RNA as you stated. Largely due to their importance to amino acids and proteins - the "building blocks" of life, so to speak. You are also correct that the actual origin of life is not addressed in the evolutionary theory itself. It is only often debated hand-in-hand by both creationists and evolutionists.

As for microevolution, I do understand its meaning and what occurrences are associated with it. However, you have made a valid point that I will anxiously dig into. I only would disagree that a variation can only be produced by a genetic mutation. Although mutations do undeniably cause variations, the vast majority of which are disadvantageous, they are not the only means by which a variation can occur. Many variations of a species occur through quite natural genetic processes.

Concerning my analogy: thank you for your kindness. I must add that I meant it in no regard to the time involved in the painting's creation. I was only referring to the finished product - such as we see things now. It is as if we (mankind) have only just entered a room in which the painting is, in full or in part, completed...it is now up to us to discover how it got to be in its present form on the canvas.

In conclusion, I'm afraid that I must still contend that the theory of creation has just as much right to be presented as does the theory of evolution. There remain many arguments that fail to be fully falsified under close scrutiny on both sides of this subject. As there are also many that have been falsified and the arguments taken into different areas in attempts to salvage the presentation - again, on both sides. This is why I must still, in my own researched opinion, contend that for the sake of presenting science to our students in its highest form (an unbiased, open-minded, and unrelenting search for proven knowledge) the theory of creation, the theory of evolution, and (as much as time allows) the questions surrounding each should be treated equally.

I apologize if this post is somewhat rushed in form. I will be leaving for the holiday and rest is beckoning me to an early morning. If you reply to this post it may be several days before I acknowledge - please take no offense. I must say that this has been a pleasant debate, Jose, and if I do not meet you again here I will meet you again on another thread. I am The Watcher.

[Jose]

I will only say this: again, creationists have indeed found some intriguing evidences that seem to amount to much more than mere "quibble." As it can also be said that evolutionists indeed have some intriguing findings. I would also add that in order to challenge a scientific theory in any field of science one does not necessarily have to have a completely structured alternative - merely some evidence as to why it may be possible that the theory is not fully correct.

I use the word "quibble" not to imply that the arguments are only minor issues, but to imply that each one addresses the details of only one of a great many pieces of information. This is a general characteristic of the creationist/ID approach to evolution: find an "icon of evolution" (to use a book title, just for amusement), and offer some ideas about why it might be wrong. These ideas may be based fully in science, but they have thus far suffered from two problems. The first is that they do not include additional scientific information that is relevant. They typically describe findings that argue against the evolutionist interpretation, but omit findings that are contradictory. E.G. the "shrinking sun" argument, wherein the contradictory findings were not mentioned--although the contradictory findings are the repeats of the original measurements, and have shown that the original measurements were either in error, or caught a brief fluctuation rather than a long-term trend.

The second problem is that each anti-evolution argument addresses (or quibbles with) the interpretation of one piece of evidence, but presents the logic as if removing this piece of evidence will nullify the entire theory. That's not how science works. It may be the way creationism works, however, if my reading of the information is correct. (ie, if evolution is true, then Genesis isn't, so the Bible can't be Truth, and therefore can't be God's Word, so all of Christianity and Morality come crashing down around us. This is a very pessimistic view, but it seems that many creationists hold it.) That is, if the sun were actually shrinking, we would not be able to conclude that the earth is only 6000 years old. We would still have to contend with the completely independent measurements of the ages of rocks and of the universe.

In any event, these arguments have not usually been raised in classrooms because of the first problem: full analsysis of the argument shows that it is
not a valid argument. Instead, it is based on incomplete data or on faulty reasoning. This is the problem with ID: it states that for anything that we do not currently have a complete scientific explanation for, the only possible intrepretation is that God did it. It ignores the line of reasoning that we may learn more as time goes on, and eventually be able to describe it fully. It jumps directly to "it must be designed."

Yes, a "guide," from lack of a better word in my post, of some sort is absolutely necessary for any system to function in an organized fashion. ... The problem arrises when one postulates as to how, when one works in reverse, the original building blocks were organized to function as building blocks - building blocks also containing the necessary "code" to build a living organism.

I think that part of the difficulty in envisioning unguided chemistry is exactly the "working in reverse" issue. We have a tendency to think that there is, or was, some Plan for building life just the way it is now. This makes it very hard to imagine pure chemistry coming together specifically to create RNA, DNA, and protein. But, if we throw out the idea of a Plan, and say, "we are the result of things that happened to work," then there is no need to worry about why nucleotides were chosen as the genetic repository.

It also does not require full-blown Life to develop a form of a guide. Once there are self-replicating molecules, basic evolutionary principles can apply. Error-prone replication creates variants. Those variants that happen to work better are the ones that take over. The variants that take over are not brand new, completely different things--they are slight variations on what was there before. This kind of competition acts as a guide of sorts. It's not a guide for specific chemicals, but a guide for things that work a little better than their predecessors. Does this seem horribly inefficient? Yes. It must have been horribly inefficient. It took billions of years to get going.

I only would disagree that a variation can only be produced by a genetic mutation. Although mutations do undeniably cause variations, the vast majority of which are disadvantageous, they are not the only means by which a variation can occur. Many variations of a species occur through quite natural genetic processes.

I think there's a communication issue here. A "mutation" is no more, and no less, than a change in DNA sequence. Mutations happen all the time, through errors in DNA replication, or chemical damage, or any of a variety of things. Since "genetic variation" is simply the presence in a gene pool of different alleles, which are versions of a gene with slightly different sequences, it is clear that the only way to get variation is to have a way to change DNA sequences--which is defined as "mutation." Mutation is a "quite natural genetic process." Once there are different alleles (having arisen by mutation), then reassortment and recombination can produce different combinations of alleles, and thus amplify the variation. But, without mutation, there would be no differences in DNA sequence, and thus no variation to amplify.

And, yes, most mutations are deleterious. Natural selection weeds them out. Still, there are some that are not deleterious--like the one that most Americans have inherited from their European ancestors, the ability to produce lactase in adulthood, and thus tolerate milk. Most people on earth are lactose-intolerant, because they don't have this mutation.

One of the big problems in the creation/evolution issue is that we don't use the same definitions of terms. Some of the most obvious are "theory," "macroevolution," "mutation," and "transitional fossil." We also don't subscribe to the same ground rules. Science is, by definition, the endeavor of using evidence from the world itself to learn how the world operates. By definition, it seeks to determine which natural processes occur in which ways, and, over time, can be used to explain the history of the earth and its life. Creation, on the other hand, by definition, starts with the premise that the Biblical story is an accurate description of that history, so the evidence from the real world must be interpreted to fit the Truth that we began with. One is reasoning toward a goal. The other is reasoning from the data, with no goal in mind--at least initially. Once an explanation has been proposed, we can design tests of that explanation, in which case there is a goal in mind: testing the predictions of the model.

This is why it is so important to identify the predictions of the models, and to test them directly, before we can legitimately bring them into a science class. I would think that creationists would want to do this in a forum such as this, before going into science classes. What would happen to their cause, if science classes did treat their models scientifically, and proved that they don't match the data, and must therefore be wrong? What would happen to their cause if science classes "taught the controversy" and in the process, proved that the objections to evolution are based on misunderstanding, or in some cases, misrepresentation? This would be worse than not bringing creationism up at all, using the simple argument that science cannot address god.

[otseng]

In my research for the Flood as Science thread, I stumbled upon an article that I thought was apropos for discussions here.

The article, The Method of Multiple Working Hypotheses, by Thomas Chamberlin, addresses how the "dangers of parental affection for a favorite theory can be circumvented." And what it proposes goes a bit against the scientific method.

The author explains the process of how a ruling theory comes into being:

The moment one has offered an original explanation for a phenomenon which seems satisfactory, that moment affection for his intellectual child springs into existence; and as the explanation grows into a definite theory, his parental affections cluster about his intellectual offspring, and it grows more and more dear to him, so that, while he holds it seemingly tentative, it is still lovingly tentative, and not impartially tentative. So soon as this parental affection takes possession of the mind, there is a rapid passage to the adoption of theory. There is an unconscious selection and magnifying of the phenomena that fall into harmony with the theory and support it, and an unconscious neglect of those that fail of coincidence. The mind lingers with pleasure upon the facts that fall happily into the embrace of the theory, and feels a natural coldness toward those that seem refractory. Instinctively there is a special searching-out phenomena that support it, for the mind is led by its desires. There springs up, also, an unconscious pressing of the theory to make it fit the facts to make them fit the theory. When these biasing tendencies set in, the mind rapidly degenerates into the partiality of paternalism. The search for facts, the observation of phenomena and their interpretation, are all dominated by affection for the favored theory until it appears to it author or its advocate to have been overwhelmingly established. The theory then rapidly rises to the ruling position, and investigation, observation, and interpretation are controlled and directed by it. From an unduly favored child, it readily becomes master, and leads its author whithersoever it will. The subsequent history of that mind in respect to that theme is but the progressive dominance of a ruling idea.

He then states the danger of having a ruling theory:

When the last stage has been reached, unless the theory happens, perchance, to be the true one, all hope of the best results is gone.

To avoid the problem of having a ruling theory that crowds out any other competing hypothesis from having a chance to give voice (and possibly to give rise to correcting errors and exposing truth), he proposes having multiple hypotheses to explain things.

To guard against this, the method of multiple working hypotheses is urged. It differs from the former method in the multiple character of its genetic conceptions and of its tentative interpretations. It is directed against the radical defect of the two other methods; namely, the partiality of intellectual parentage. The effort is to bring up into view every rational explanation of new phenomena, and to develop every tenable hypothesis respecting their cause and history.

He then states that having multiple hypotheses allows a richer and more complete investigation into the subject matter.

A special merit of the method is, that by its very nature it promotes thoroughness. The value of a working hypothesis lies largely in its suggestiveness of lines of inquiry that might otherwise be overlooked. Facts that are trivial in themselves are brought into significance by their bearings upon the hypothesis, and by their casual indications. As an illustration, it is necessary to cite the phenomenal influence which the Darwinian hypothesis has exerted upon the investigations of the past two decades. But a single working hypothesis may lead investigations along a given line to the neglect of others equally important; and thus, while inquiry is promoted in certain quarters, the investigation lacks completeness. But if all rational hypotheses relating to a subject are worked co-equally, thoroughness is the presumptive result, in the very nature of the case.

The proposal of teaching creation in the classroom is simply an instantiation of the proposal by Chamberlin. In terms of having a hypothesis of life origins, there is really only two, evolution and creation. And teaching both would fulfill having multiple working hypotheses.

[Nyril]

The proposal of teaching creation in the classroom is simply an instantiation of the proposal by Chamberlin. In terms of having a hypothesis of life origins, there is really only two, evolution and creation.

Indeed, I feel that all students should learn how the Ancient Greek Pagans felt the world came to be. It serves as a valid contrast to the modern theory of evolution.

[otseng]

Indeed, I feel that all students should learn how the Ancient Greek Pagans felt the world came to be. It serves as a valid contrast to the modern theory of evolution.

If that is indeed the case, you are welcome to present evidence and arguments to demonstrate the plausibility of their hypothesis of how the world came into being. Please start a thread to present the ancient Greek model and we can debate its validity.

[Jose]

The proposal of teaching creation in the classroom is simply an instantiation of the proposal by Chamberlin. In terms of having a hypothesis of life origins, there is really only two, evolution and creation. And teaching both would fulfill having multiple working hypotheses.

Chamberlin raises a very important point. When any of us invents a hypothesis, we tend to become enamored of it. It takes a great deal of counter-evidence to make us give it up, and even then we do so reluctantly. Perhaps this is why various fields have developed "methods" to try to ensure impartiality. In my field, the traditional question is: "do the data force you to that conclusion, or are there alternate hypotheses?" In other fields, the "scientific method" is used: make formal predictions from the hypothesis, and then determine whether any of them can be shown not to occur.

Actually, for life origins, there are zillions of alternate hypotheses. Every culture has its origin story. To some extent, these are all equally valid. It really wouldn't be appropriate to teach just one of them in opposition to evolution; we should include them all.

Alternatively, we can lay out the evidence, and ask what the various alternative explanations might be. For each, we can make formal predictions, and then determine whether additional data matches the predictions, or fails to match, thereby proving the hypothesis wrong. This might be a little tricky if we examine 100% of the existing data before developing some explanations, because we'd have to wait until more data are collected before we can do the next assessment. It might be interesting to choose a dataset from, say, 20 years ago for the initial hypothesis-building, and then use the last 20 years' worth of data to test the predictions.

The trouble with creation, per se, is that it's hard to make predictions, other than "the things we find will be as they are because that's how they were made." We'd have to specify a particular creation model, and test the historical predictions of the story that surrounds creation itself--such as predictions based on the Global Flood model, or predictions based on the model that the earth was created on Oct 26, 4004 BC. I'd hate to single out a particular religion for such a test, since the results might not support it, with the result that science classes would be viewed as actively turning students away from that religion. That would be worse than not mentioning it.

[Nyril]

If that is indeed the case, you are welcome to present evidence and arguments to demonstrate the plausibility of their hypothesis of how the world came into being. Please start a thread to present the ancient Greek model and we can debate its validity.

It was more a general way of saying, which version of it would you care to have taught? Not everyone is a Christain, and the amount of effort required to teach them all would be beyond reason.

Jose said it best:

Actually, for life origins, there are zillions of alternate hypotheses. Every culture has its origin story. To some extent, these are all equally valid. It really wouldn't be appropriate to teach just one of them in opposition to evolution; we should include them all.