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?

[ST88]

Should Creationism be taught in classrooms (as science)?
Absolutely not. I don't mind if it's taught, but it should be taught in a social studies context as part of a wider discussion on the World's various creation myths. (Assuming there is room in the education budget for social studies anymore).

Science should be taught as science. The country is already lagging behind much of the western world in scientific literacy. My feeling is that this has to do with the relative decline in the social value of science and the loss of curiosity about the world.

Also, many would-be scientists are instead going into computer fields instead of scientific fields, because that's where the money is. These may be some of the smartest, most driven people on the planet. But they study human information systems instead of hard science. Most basic science is now done by government or through government grants. It didn't used to be this way. It used to be that individual philanthropists offered prizes for scientific discovery. Aside from a few math and astrophysics prizes, this is no longer done. Large corporations no longer do basic science, they perform specific experiments that are relevant only in the context of the corporation.

Creationism is just a symptom of this trend. It's not good science to start out with an idea and then set out to justify this idea. But this is how many people believe science works. "Scientists are people, so they must be biased." But just like Christianity tells us that we must deny ourselves certain pleasures that we crave, science tells scientists that they must refrain from making assumptions about their experiments before the data comes in. As a result of this belief (& other feelings about the media), people have this cynical view of information that they receive from such studies. My feeling is that people should be skeptical, not cynical. A skeptic will ask What's wrong with this? but a cynic will say Something's wrong with this and not pursue it further.

In short, we already have problems with how science is taught, we shouldn't be turning the schools into places where we turn away from scientific thought

[otseng]

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

This is probably not a surprise to anyone, but I do believe Creationism should be taught in public classrooms as a science.

I do not believe it should be taught simply because it is an explanation of life and the world. Rather, as in anything taught in a science class, the only things that should be taught are things that have a logical basis and evidence to support it.

I believe the Creation Model (CM) offers a reasonable scientific explanation for many of the things we see in the world. The topic of the global flood is one such example. It offers a model that is consistent with the evidence that we see in the world today.

In terms of cosmology, Creationism also can offer valid criticisms to cosmological evolution. One such area that has been discussed here is Is the universe bounded or unbounded?

Other areas that have a scientific basis that should be presented are - the Anthropic Principle and Intelligent Design. These two areas are certainly getting lots of attention among respected scientists and there is no reason to avoid exposing these areas in public school classrooms.

If so, how should it be taught as a science?

As I mentioned above, it should only be taught with supporting evidence and logic. As a matter of fact, the Bible should be left out as supporting evidence. References to any specific "creator" should also be left out.

It is also interesting to note that the Scopes trial was contesting the Butler Act, which stated:

it shall be unlawful for any teacher in any of the Universities, Normals and all other public schools of the State which are supported in whole or in part by the public school funds of the State, to teach any theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals.

Now, the tables are entirely reversed and Creationism is forbidden to be taught in public schools.

And all that is asked now is for the evidence and logic to speak for themselves.

[Lotan]

otseng wrote:

I believe the Creation Model (CM) offers a reasonable scientific explanation for many of the things we see in the world.

Can you define 'reasonable scientific explanation'? I don't see how miocene apes or T-rex would fit very well into a creationist model. Nor would I consider Noah's ark a reasonable scientific explanation.

The topic of the global flood is one such example. It offers a model that is consistent with the evidence that we see in the world today.

That would be great if there were any evidence that a global flood actually occurred. Do you suppose that it did and geologists just don't know? Or that they do know, but they are afraid they won't get any grant money if they tell? Or maybe they're just blinded by Satan? These are the usual creationist excuses. I don't imagine that you're the type to fall for them, but I don't know.

Other areas that have a scientific basis that should be presented are - the Anthropic Principle and Intelligent Design.

I would suggest that these should be demonstrated to exist before we add them to the curriculum. The Anthropic Principle is simply adaptation turned on its head, added to the quaint assumption that our species is somehow 'more special' than any other. Consider how much of the universe is uninhabitable. Twenty-five percent of one little planet is the best God could do?
As for ID, yes we do see patterns in nature; branches, honeycombs, spirals, etc. but does a tornado really require intelligence? Or bubbles in a mud puddle?

And all that is asked now is for the evidence and logic to speak for themselves.

Exactly, but that shouldn't mean that when a naturalistic explanation for a natural phenomenon isn't ready to hand that we should immediately seek a supernatural one. Two thousand years ago the earth was flat. Now we've sent spacecraft out of the solar system. Science has progressed because of a freedom from belief and science will continue to increase our understanding without any help from God.

[Jose]

Also as no surprise to anyone, I come down on the side of saying that creationism should not be taught in science classes.

Most basic science is now done by government or through government grants. It didn't used to be this way. It used to be that individual philanthropists offered prizes for scientific discovery. Aside from a few math and astrophysics prizes, this is no longer done. Large corporations no longer do basic science, they perform specific experiments that are relevant only in the context of the corporation.

Science has been funded by government grants for a long time (certainly since Sputnik), but for a long time before that, scientists often had to be independently wealthy to be able to do science at all. The big problem now is that it has become so complicated and so expensive that the grants have to be far larger than ever before just to purchase the equipment and supplies. Add this to the fact that the US spends the smallest amount for research, as a percentage of GDP, among industrialized countries, and we've got serious trouble looming. Corporations, according to my friends therein, do some basic science, but you're right: it really must be product-oriented or it doesn't generate the income the corporation needs to fund it.

My feeling is that people should be skeptical, not cynical. A skeptic will ask What's wrong with this? but a cynic will say Something's wrong with this and not pursue it further.

An excellent point. Whenever any of us in the lab presented data to my postdoctoral advisor, he always asked us "where's the problem?" He didn't ask "is there a problem?" he asked where it was. The most important assumption to make is that there is a problem, somewhere. Only if you can rule out all problems anyone can think of, can you consider the possibility that maybe, just maybe, your interpretation might stand up for a day or two.

I believe the Creation Model (CM) offers a reasonable scientific explanation for many of the things we see in the world. The topic of the global flood is one such example. It offers a model that is consistent with the evidence that we see in the world today.

Fortunately, Flood Geology isn't part of Creation. It's an endeavor to relate geological information to the story of the Noachian Deluge, which at best, would be a Godly anti-creation. We're not considering teaching anti-creation in science classes.

Joking aside, whether Flood Geology has a rightful place in science classes depends on how well the data support a global deluge. I believe that ST88 and others have presented some cogent arguments in the global flood thread against this. Deep discussion of the data should be reserved for that thread.

Similarly, we probably have to leave deep discussion of the other issues mentioned by otseng in those threads as well.

But, we are left with how to teach creationism as science, which cannot be done without reference to data. I might suggest that we cite specific evidence and specific data to support a proposed method of presenting it as science. Can it be done?

Can you define 'reasonable scientific explanation'? I don't see how miocene apes or T-rex would fit very well into a creationist model. Nor would I consider Noah's ark a reasonable scientific explanation.....

....That would be great if there were any evidence that a global flood actually occurred. Do you suppose that it did and geologists just don't know? Or that they do know, but they are afraid they won't get any grant money if they tell? Or maybe they're just blinded by Satan? These are the usual creationist excuses. I don't imagine that you're the type to fall for them, but I don't know. ...

....I would suggest that these should be demonstrated to exist before we add them to the curriculum. The Anthropic Principle is simply adaptation turned on its head, added to the quaint assumption that our species is somehow 'more special' than any other. Consider how much of the universe is uninhabitable. Twenty-five percent of one little planet is the best God could do?
As for ID, yes we do see patterns in nature; branches, honeycombs, spirals, etc. but does a tornado really require intelligence? Or bubbles in a mud puddle?

I see what you are driving at, Lotan, but give otseng a break. I don't mean to sound like a dork here, though I do not claim not to be a dork, but I think we'll be more effective with a bit more patience. Otseng has come by his beliefs honestly, just as we have, and deserves credit and respect for his efforts to make this discussion forum work. I too, share your frustration at thinking that many of these issues have already been solved scientifically, so everyone should know the answer. But, each of us has to wrestle independently with the issues.

The important thing is that we need data. Otseng asks "for the evidence and logic to speak for themselves." I think we all agree on this point. He mentions the Anthropic Principle. I haven't read that thread yet, and I don't know enough about it to offer a counterargument. I'm intrigued that Lotan refers to it as "adaptation turned on its head." I'd like to see a bit more evidence to support that assertion.

Similarly,

Exactly, but that shouldn't mean that when a naturalistic explanation for a natural phenomenon isn't ready to hand that we should immediately seek a supernatural one.

My understanding of ID is that this is its main thrust. But simply stating so isn't satisfying to me--any moreso than

[The global flood idea] offers a model that is consistent with the evidence that we see in the world today.

So, I might say, "otseng, provide us with an example of how you would use Flood Geology/Anthropic Principle/Intelligent Design to make a scieintific case for creationism in 9th grade biology? What evidence would you put forward? Can you give us a link to an adequate description of the evidence?" I then might say, "Lotan, I know you know a counterargument to this. What are the data? Can you put in a link to an adequate description of the evidence, so that others of us reading this thread can evaluate both claims on their merit?" I would hope that other contributors might use the same format.

Having said that, I fear that I must abandon my own advice for now, because I have to run. I'll try to support the statement I made in the first sentence in another post.

[bernee51]

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?

sure it should be taught - but as part of a religious studies curriculum. Besides which of the multdarous creation myths would be taught. Personally I like the native Australian rainbow serpent.

Creation theories merely abound in order to prove a creator...they have no 'legs' of their own.

Creation science is an oxymoron.

[otseng]

Creationism is just a symptom of this trend.

I would argue the opposite. The denunciation of Creationism being taught in schools is indicative of the general climate of lack of open inquiry in classrooms and society. Science is furthered by open debate on existing theories and is hindered by lack of challenges to theories. And evolutionary theories are closed to challenge and debate in classroom settings. As a matter of fact, often evolutionary theories are taught as fact and challenges to the theories are not tolerated. This leads to a decline is scientific advancement, rather than progression.

To classify Creationism as a myth is a marginalization and mischaracterization of it. I hope I have demonstrated on this forum (and will continue to demonstrate) that it is possible to engage in a logical debate on the tenets of the CM. I have not resorted to belief in pure faith to support my claims. I have tried to the best of my ability to use scientific principles to defend my positions. Furthermore, I have rarely even referenced the Bible in any of my discussions on C vs E.

It is easy to simply dismiss the CM as a myth. I would also add that I can see why people would believe this. People are taught throughout their educational years (and beyond) that evolutionary theories are a fact and that everything else is wrong. Even I was taught this. And to reverse the bias against evolutionary teachings it took quite some time for me.

Can you define 'reasonable scientific explanation'?

Using evidence from the world around us and to develop a hypothesis/theory to fit the evidence together in a coherent and logical manner.

I would add that experimentation on these hypotheses is often not possible (creation, abiogenesis, cosmological evolution are some examples). But, these hypotheses should generate some predictions and we can further refine them through further observations.

Other areas that have a scientific basis that should be presented are - the Anthropic Principle and Intelligent Design.

I would suggest that these should be demonstrated to exist before we add them to the curriculum. The Anthropic Principle is simply adaptation turned on its head, added to the quaint assumption that our species is somehow 'more special' than any other. Consider how much of the universe is uninhabitable. Twenty-five percent of one little planet is the best God could do?
As for ID, yes we do see patterns in nature; branches, honeycombs, spirals, etc. but does a tornado really require intelligence? Or bubbles in a mud puddle?

I will reserve discussions on these in the appropriate topics that I linked to.

Fortunately, Flood Geology isn't part of Creation.

I would disagree. It is a part of the CM as much as paleontology is to evolutionary biology. It is too much to get into detail here. Again, I will reserve that for the Flood thread.

But, we are left with how to teach creationism as science, which cannot be done without reference to data. I might suggest that we cite specific evidence and specific data to support a proposed method of presenting it as science. Can it be done?

I agree completely. Specific evidence and data are required to support scientific theories. I believe it can be provided and I have tried to do so in the threads mentioned above (as well as numerous other threads here in the C vs E subforum).

So, I might say, "otseng, provide us with an example of how you would use Flood Geology/Anthropic Principle/Intelligent Design to make a scieintific case for creationism in 9th grade biology? What evidence would you put forward? Can you give us a link to an adequate description of the evidence?"

There was an attempt to start talking about the evidence for Creationism, but it has generated several other threads and time hasn't allowed going back to the original thread.

The entire debate on C vs E is a huge and complex one. I would dare say it's one of the most complex topics in science because it touches on so many fields (physics, biology, geology, cosmology, molecular biology, chemistry, anthropology, meteorology, oceanography, paleontology, mathematics, information theory, philosophy, and several others I'm sure to miss). But I hope that we can at least touch on major points of Creationism in this forum so that people can understand that is simply more than just, "Oh, I don't know. God did it."

[Abulafia]

I'm an evolutionist. I think that at some point within secondary education, creationism should be introduced to students within science class.

I also think that the way science class in general is taught needs to be drastically revised.

I'll forego my lengthy rant on the problems of the direction the modern education system is taking in general, (reader's digest version: Critical thinking skills are being pushed out in favour of preparation for entering the workplace), and say that my understanding of how science classes tend to be taught within secondary schools is that it accomplishes one of two important goals.

Science classes focus on teaching the students the details of the best current theories. There are frequently little "blurbs" thrown in about the history of science, and where the present theories came from and why they replaced the previous theories (Maxwell, Faraday and friends).

I think that there should be a greater emphasis placed on understanding the origins of science (which included a theistic frame of reference), and which gives a more realistic presentation of how many theories tend to be competing at any given time, and how hard it can be to take into account all of the implications when one theory supplants another.

It seems to me that since the Creationism vs. Evolution argument is a hot topic currently, and one that its important for kids to learn how to deal with, it would be a good topic to approach in schools. Of course to do so properly, the 'best' theories from each camp would have to be looked at, as well as their origins.

I don't think that equal time for creationism and evolution should be given. If I were convinced that there was a version of creationism that had greater or equal merit to the dominant theories, I would reconsider (whether it was Christian, Hindu, or Yoruba).

But I think that it's reasonable for there to be criteria set for what gets to count as a valid theory which excludes revelation and deals only with observation and logic. Otherwise the competing revelations (again, take Hindu and Christian as examples) make it unworkable.

How do you pack that in and still have time for everything else? I don't know.

[Jose]

I'll forego my lengthy rant on the problems of the direction the modern education system is taking in general...

We could rant in unison.

I think that there should be a greater emphasis placed on understanding the origins of science (which included a theistic frame of reference), and which gives a more realistic presentation of how many theories tend to be competing at any given time, and how hard it can be to take into account all of the implications when one theory supplants another.

It seems to me that since the Creationism vs. Evolution argument is a hot topic currently, and one that its important for kids to learn how to deal with, it would be a good topic to approach in schools. Of course to do so properly, the 'best' theories from each camp would have to be looked at, as well as their origins.

I know teachers who do try to bring them both in, and attempt to evaluate the predictions of the models. The downfall of the approach is that there's one heck of a lot of information that one needs to do a good evaluation. That is, your last point is important: there's too little time to do this topic, or any topic, justice.

So we're back to the beginning: what can be done to teach creationism scientifically? I disagree with the approach of finding things we can't yet explain in detail, and conclude that they must be designed. I don't like the approach of proposing YEC models, and then presenting data that rule them out. That's just rude. Similarly, I don't like the idea of presenting "arguments against evolution" (cf. Wells' Icons of Evolution) when those arguments depend upon incomplete information or seek to make scientists look deceitful.

[Two examples: Haeckel's embryo drawings. He sought to illusrate what was once a cute idea, that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. We know now that it does nothing of the kind, and that he made his drawings "overly optimistic" with respect to that theory. The "arugment against evolution" is that these are inaccurate drawings that are used to support a wrong theory. What is left out is that new, accurate drawings support the current theory. There is remarkable similarity among vertebrate embryos.

And then there are the peppered moths. The anti-evolution argument is that the experimenter put the moths there on purpose where they would never be in real life, so the experiment is a fake. Besides, there was no net evolution (moths went from gray to black to gray over the course of the time period), and the moths were still moths. Is it really helpful for anyone if we bring this up in classes, and point out that while peppered moths don't land on wide spots on trunks, they do land on trunks beside branches--and that birds look for them there? Is it right to say that the photographs are for our benefit, so we can see the coloration, and therefore they aren't a "faked experiment"? Is it right to say that the observations do show evolution, first toward black, then toward gray, and that the anti-evolution argument is a misrepresentation of the findings?]

We need real experiments and real predictions by creationists to go with the historical approach. If there are YEC predictions that really fit the evidence better than evolutionary predictions, then there might be a starting point.

But suppose evolution is true, and the Bible is not inerrant...we run the risk of doing more than we are now. Now, the tradition is to leave out creationism. I doubt that it will be satisfactory to disprove it. That brings in the church vs state problem from the opposite direction--singling out one religion not to support it, but to weaken it. Down that road we should not go.

[ST88]

Creationism is just a symptom of this trend.

I would argue the opposite. The denunciation of Creationism being taught in schools is indicative of the general climate of lack of open inquiry in classrooms and society. Science is furthered by open debate on existing theories and is hindered by lack of challenges to theories. And evolutionary theories are closed to challenge and debate in classroom settings. As a matter of fact, often evolutionary theories are taught as fact and challenges to the theories are not tolerated. This leads to a decline is scientific advancement, rather than progression.

I don't think this is true. Since I've begun researching this topic (thank you, otseng), I've noticed that many Creationists seize on parts of evolutionary theory that have already been refuted or altered through the scientific process. And they tend to use reasoning that is less than scientifically or rhetorically rigorous in order to make their claims. While this was true of many scientists back before the modern era, we have since discovered how best to think about these things and interpret the evidence. Unfortunately for Creationism, many of its proponents come off as religious zealots and irrational apologists. Present company excluded, of course.

Not that this has anything to do with the science involved, but it tends to discourage people on the Creationism side from using science to check out the claims. For example, being able to view objects that are more than 10,000 light-years away is a real problem for Creationists who do not wish to invoke God. So God is invoked, and the debate goes back to being religious and unsuitable for a scientific discussion. This is just one example, and yes, I am aware of Dr. Humphreys' theories regarding the speed of light -- there are problems with this view that have not been thoroughly checked out, probably having to do with the problems above.

In any event, Creationism has this odd character of being a religious theory that is applied to the evidence in terms of the religion. Regardless of attempts to de-religionify (?) it, such as what you're doing, there can be no getting around the fact that God is responsible for causing (setting in motion, if you like) the forces that surround us. Why does the earth revolve around the sun? God swirled the cosmic dust & formed them in that way. POP! How do animals come into being? God created them out of the cosmic miasma. POP! How does man come into being? God formed the clay and breathed life into him. POP! I don't see how you can get away from this.

To classify Creationism as a myth is a marginalization and mischaracterization of it. I hope I have demonstrated on this forum (and will continue to demonstrate) that it is possible to engage in a logical debate on the tenets of the CM. I have not resorted to belief in pure faith to support my claims. I have tried to the best of my ability to use scientific principles to defend my positions. Furthermore, I have rarely even referenced the Bible in any of my discussions on C vs E.

It is easy to simply dismiss the CM as a myth. I would also add that I can see why people would believe this. People are taught throughout their educational years (and beyond) that evolutionary theories are a fact and that everything else is wrong. Even I was taught this. And to reverse the bias against evolutionary teachings it took quite some time for me.

It's not that evolution has such a hold on people that they think the Creation model is wrong. It's that there are so many other creation theories in addition to the Biblical one that there is no reasonable way to distinguish between them. They all require mystical & magical happenings at their beginnings. How can we not marginalize Creationism when it forces us to believe in a Creator? How is it possible to take it seriously if the system breaks down when we divorce it from its Creator?

Is it possible for a Creationist viewpoint to exclude God? I submit that it is not. If you study the workings behind Creationism, you eventually get back to this fact.