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?

[Jose]

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...

As the crow goes straight for the eye, so goes Corvus to the heart of the matter.

I shall expand thusly: We have a curiously schizophrenic view of education. On the one hand, parents are seen as having the right to ensure that their children are educated appropriately. On the other hand, education is seen to be the exclusive purview of the states. On the third hand, we have the federal govmint trying to take over (eg NCLB) and the National Academy of Sciences working to identify uniform science education standards. Who has the greater right to control our children's education?

We would normally say that all parties' interests are convergent, and that the best approach is to prepare our children for living in the world that they will enter when the reach adulthood. This will be a rapidly-changing world that is heavily based on science and technology, is economically complex, and that faces increasingly severe threats to the environment and to supplies of food and fresh water. What kind of education best serves our children, if this is what they must deal with?

Ideally, it would be an education that is comprised of at least six components. 1. Communication--verbal and written literacy, computer literacy, visual literacy. Literacy is probably too weak a term; we should say expertise. 2. Mathematics--computation is essential to such a vast array of things that it is impossible to overstress mathematics. A group of employers with whom I spoke recently identified math skills as the single most severe deficit that current job applicants have. 3. Science--our world has been shaped by science, whether we like it or not. To understand it and deal with it, we need to know what science is and how it works. This is not just memorizing chemical, physical, and biological facts. It is thinking scientifically. 4. History--those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it. 5. The arts--this should be a part of visual literacy above, but also includes music and other media that are not strictly visual. 6. Religion--we derive profound comfort from our religions; we should make an effort to use our religious understanding positively to the benefit of our world.

Regrettably, it has been shown to be all too possible for religious fervor to drive people to intolerance and persecution, of women, of other cultures, of new ideas. This, in my mind, is using religion negatively, and trying to prevent the future from arriving by locking our minds in the past. It will not prevent the future from arriving; it will only make it more painful. Most of our religions have their roots in ancient times, and provide rules that served humanity well under those conditions. We have different conditions now, and will have even more different conditions in the future. We should address the future by blending the best of our religion's tradition with the scientific and technological information that we will need to survive.

By this logic, a parent's wish to shield his/her child from certain types of knowledge is misguided, and doomed to make the future more difficult for that child. Instead, the parent should tell the child that, while they may choose not to believe that aspect of their schooling, they should nonethelesss understand it.

[ST88]

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.

According to my understanding, sports are not in the schools because most people want them there. There are examples of schools that have stripped away sports from the curriculum because of the lack of funding. I believe this has happened in Oregon. The reason sports are in schools is because we as a society have decided that:
a) youths should have productive outlets for their energy
b) sports actually teaches viable social and learning skills
c) the Socratic ideal of developing both mind and body is a good idea
d) the health benefits of exercise are best shown by example

I would differentiate your above proposition by saying that the reason sports are maintained at such a high level in schools is because of political pressure put on them by the community. But sport itself is a separate educational ideal. Creationism does not have the extra-curricular benefits that sports does.

As a political subject, Creationism has just one thing going for it, its adherents. There is no social good in Creationism, it is only a subject of explanation.

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.

Bake sales & other fund raisers do produce a viable market-based product-service hybrid. They can be marked up precisely because a portion of the funds go to a cause that consumers would like to support. It's like buying organic produce even though it's more expensive.

But in terms of culture, the American ideal of education seems to revolve around preparing a student for life beyond childhood. In this regard, sports and bake sales have definite analogues in the adult world.

[przemeknowicki]

a) youths should have productive outlets for their energy
b) sports actually teaches viable social and learning skills
c) the Socratic ideal of developing both mind and body is a good idea
d) the health benefits of exercise are best shown by example

What you ascribe to the values of sports here are the noble virtues of Pierre de Coubertine ideals, which I support. I was talking about sports in American schools, which are far cry from what was practiced by British in the first half of the twentieth century, or even from what I learned when I was a student in Poland.

On the other hand I would argue that very few schools in America have a viable P.E. program. Similarly to how the school helps children in acquiring Math skills a good P.E. program should help the children in creating lifelong habits of being physically active, learn valuable physical skills, learn discipline and self-control, and also learn a number of valuable social skills. It takes a sophisticated culture, Japan with their martial arts being a good example, to translate the above goals into a working program of P.E. So, "we as a society have decided that: " as you put is definitely not enough and no populist approach (should I say, amateurish?) will do. I argue that even Afghan culture urging their youth to compete in wrestling or horseback riding has created the P.E. program far superior to ours.

My co-workers are far more involved in sports than myself if you judge by their constant talking about football and baseball leagues. If you drag them to tennis or basketball courts they impress me with their technical skills, which is no bad. I know very few, however, who exercise regularly or spend their winter vacations skiing. And those over forty, forget it. I am glad that my growing up in Poland produced quite different results. My first choice for winter vacations is skiing and I run regularly (http://www.przemek.us/running/running.htm). I also weight not much more than I weighted when I was twenty-something but this should be attributed to the fact that I was not exposed to the nutritional guideliness of the American aggro-business and food processing industry.

Regards,

Thomas Orr

[przemeknowicki]

Regrettably, it has been shown to be all too possible for religious fervor to drive people to intolerance and persecution, of women, of other cultures, of new ideas. This, in my mind, is using religion negatively, and trying to prevent the future from arriving by locking our minds in the past. It will not prevent the future from arriving; it will only make it more painful. Most of our religions have their roots in ancient times, and provide rules that served humanity well under those conditions. We have different conditions now, and will have even more different conditions in the future. We should address the future by blending the best of our religion's tradition with the scientific and technological information that we will need to survive.

Bravo. Just one step further and you will join my camp. I argue that the time has come when people instead of being judged by religions turn the table around and declare:

1. Every religion must explicitly embrace all basic human rights;
2. Every religion must explicitly endorse all secular rules aimed at providing peace, order and justice in society;

Every church satisfying rules 1 and 2 will elevate itself to the status of a respected religion while those that fail should be considered dangerous cults. Much of the confusion in this and similar debates stem from the fact that we didn't get there yet. Why?

Only by subjecting religions to the same rules and noble principles we expect from human beings, and chasing them from the political arena, we can create an environment where religions instead of fighting for political power will start competing for the most demanding minds. There is no limit what we can reach in the spiritual domain once that shift takes place.

Regards,

Thomas Orr

[perfessor]

a) youths should have productive outlets for their energy
b) sports actually teaches viable social and learning skills
c) the Socratic ideal of developing both mind and body is a good idea
d) the health benefits of exercise are best shown by example

What you ascribe to the values of sports here are the noble virtues of Pierre de Coubertine ideals, which I support. I was talking about sports in American schools, which are far cry from what was practiced by British in the first half of the twentieth century, or even from what I learned when I was a student in Poland.
.....
My co-workers are far more involved in sports than myself if you judge by their constant talking about football and baseball leagues. If you drag them to tennis or basketball courts they impress me with their technical skills, which is no bad. I know very few, however, who exercise regularly or spend their winter vacations skiing. And those over forty, forget it. I am glad that my growing up in Poland produced quite different results. My first choice for winter vacations is skiing and I run regularly (http://www.przemek.us/running/running.htm).

Wow - a 3:33 marathon at age 60! I'm very impressed. Your comments about our PE programs is right on target, IMO. It seems that for many schools, a successful program is measured by how many wins the football team ends up with, rather than by how many physically active students are participating.

[przemeknowicki]

Wow - a 3:33 marathon at age 60! I'm very impressed. Your comments about our PE programs is right on target, IMO. It seems that for many schools, a successful program is measured by how many wins the football team ends up with, rather than by how many physically active students are participating.

Thanks for your praise. I did run my 3:33 marathon at the age of 52 though, not at 60.

If you agree with me about deficiencies of our PE programs what are your thoughts about the prospects of improving the situation? I think that whoever is in charge, state or federal government, should assume the leadership and responsibility for creating the appropriate culture in education. This would clarify not merely the subject of deficient PE program (or the lack of it) but the subject of teaching Creationism in schools, which is the topic of this thread. More importantly, maybe we would have a serious debate what the purpose of teaching such subjects as Math is. Multiple choice tests are not the answer to what is wrong with our public schools as somebody in this forum already pointed out. What do you think?

Regards,

Thomas Orr

[otseng]

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.

I have created a new thread to explore this - Teaching of creationism and its religious overtones.

My personal view is that evolution is so strongly supported that it must be discussed in school.

And my personal view as well.

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.

So, I guess we can agree that from an "establishment clause" point of view, the teaching of creationism should be permitted. There is no political restriction on it not being taught (in particular as a philosophy or religious class).

I would not like to be forced to demonstrate scientifically, and publically in schools, that the arguments against evolution are just plain wrong.

I would not advocate forcing anyone to argue against evolution. But, it should be allowed if one choose to question it. Why should arguments against certain aspects of evolution be suppressed if there are logical reasonings behind them?

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

Considering Georgia placed 49 out of 50 in the SAT test in 2003, any potshots at the Georgia education system might be justified.

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.

Perhaps I believe in personal responsibility too much. I believe it is the responsibility of the parents to raise their child. It is not the responsibility of the government to do so (unless the parents are not physically/mentally/financially capable of doing so). The government, including the public schools, should not be able to usurp the responsibilities of the parents. Even if others would question the parenting techniques, they would have no right in determining how another's child should be raised.

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.

Actually, now I've convinced myself to be a geocentrist .

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?

I certainly agree. And that is something I have been striving to demonstrate here in the C vs E discussions. If it cannot stand up to scientific scrutiny, creationism then should not be taught as science.

[ST88]

On the other hand I would argue that very few schools in America have a viable P.E. program. Similarly to how the school helps children in acquiring Math skills a good P.E. program should help the children in creating lifelong habits of being physically active, learn valuable physical skills, learn discipline and self-control, and also learn a number of valuable social skills.

Yeah, you're probably right about this. But the corruption of ideals doesn't mean we should throw out the ideals. Essentially, what you are arguing for is a kind of back-to-basics of physical education, which is what I think the Presidential Fitness Program was trying to do in the 1980s. It's still going, I think, but it's much less emphasized.

[Corvus]

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...

As the crow goes straight for the eye, so goes Corvus to the heart of the matter.

Hah. Thank you for that flattering - though slightly gruesome - analogy. It actually took some deliberation, partly because of that schizophrenia you mentioned. I completely agree with your assessment.

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.

Perhaps I believe in personal responsibility too much. I believe it is the responsibility of the parents to raise their child. It is not the responsibility of the government to do so (unless the parents are not physically/mentally/financially capable of doing so). The government, including the public schools, should not be able to usurp the responsibilities of the parents. Even if others would question the parenting techniques, they would have no right in determining how another's child should be raised.

This was something that resulted in the large period of deliberation I mentioned to Jose. Just what exactly is the role of education? Is education to teach practical things, and does preparing a child for the world involve teaching them things they might not ever use (such as certain aspects of mathematics I found tedious in high school)? Is there some benefit in knowledge for the sake of knowledge? Does the teacher have a responsibility to the parents, or to the children, and can one responsibility usurp another? Perhaps I should start a post in Random Ramblings.

Actually, now I've convinced myself to be a geocentrist .

A blinking smiley indeed.

[Jose]

I would not like to be forced to demonstrate scientifically, and publically in schools, that the arguments against evolution are just plain wrong.

I would not advocate forcing anyone to argue against evolution. But, it should be allowed if one choose to question it. Why should arguments against certain aspects of evolution be suppressed if there are logical reasonings behind them?

Arguments should not be suppressed, I agree. Dissent and questioning are valid and important. I would, however, ask for an individual's honest questioning, in which they seek to understand those things that are currently uncertain to them. What we see in the "teach the controversy" approach is a series of prepared questions with "explanations" for why evolution is impossible or wrong. It is these "questions evolutionists cannot answer" that are being pushed into schools through political maneuvering. An example is the "Critical Analysis of Evolution" (pdf file!) lesson plan that has been foisted onto Ohio by the ID lobby.

This lesson contains many seemingly innocuous questions about seemingly innocuous things, but focuses on the so-called Icons of Evolution for which prepared anti-evolution "explanations" have been presented. The lesson plan offers "brief supporting answers" and "brief challenging answers" for the various questions. These answers are scientifically inaccurate, and are worded so as to be misleading (an example is here). Even the "right answers" are wrong. They take advantage of common incorrect assumptions and misconceptions, and lead the unsuspecting new learner to develop an incorrect "understanding" of evolution. Of course such students will accept the anti-evolution arguments--they've been led to such a wacky view of what evolution is that it's obvious that it's wrong! The real story is much different, much more straightforward, and much more correct.

To "teach the controversy," one must raise these kinds of questions--because they are the only controversy that exists. The logical reasoning that suggests evolution must be wrong because "there are no transitional fossils" fails when we understand what transitional fossils are and how evolution works. The logical reasoning that examples of natural selection are invalid because "it's just microevolution" makes no sense, because that's just what microevolution is supposed to be! The logical reasoning that 4-winged flies don't address evolution because "they just have extra wings and not wholly new structures" fails when we realize that evolution works by modification of existing structure, not by magically popping new things out of nowhere. The 4-winged flies demonstrate that cellular identity is determined genetically, and is subject to mutational change--and that developmental control genes can change morphology easily.

However, by forcing teachers to use this lesson plan by political maneurvering, anti-evolutionists can tie up the little time that is available for science. Thus, they achieve their goal of not teaching evolution, but by removing real science and replacing it with misinformation.

And therein lies my objection. Questioning and seeking understanding are fine. Distributing misinformation under the guise of questioning is not. If there truly is logical reasoning behind questions about evolution, by all means bring them in--but it's cheating to base the "logic" on ideas that are already known to be wrong.