Friday, September 12, 2008
The Science of Religion
There is an update on the story of the statement by Michael Reiss, director of education for Britain's Royal Society, that teachers should discuss creationism as another "worldview" in science classes. As reported by New Scientist, the Royal Society has issued a statement affirming that it is opposed to creationism being taught as science and Reiss has released a clarification of his comments:When young people ask questions about creationism in science classes, teachers need to be able to explain to them why evolution and the Big Bang are scientific theories but they should also take the time to explain how science works and why creationism has no scientific basis.The problem remains, as far as the US is concerned, that our Constitution prohibits a public school teacher from teaching that creationism, because it is non-scientific, is therefore false, just as much as a public school teacher is prohibited from teaching that creationism, or any other religious proposition, is true. To address it at all puts the teacher in philosophical and legal waters that many, if not most, are ill-prepared to navigate and which are best addressed in a class on philosophy (including the philosophy of science) and/or comparative religion with a developed curriculum and teaching materials and with training for the teacher.
.
Comments:
<< Home
Would it be legal to teach that a 6,000 year old Earth is false?
Would it be legal to teach that we have perfectly good explanations for irreducibly complex structures?
Would it be legal to explain the misconceptions about the Second Law of Thermodynamics?
Would it be legal to teach that there is absolutely no evidence for a world-wide flood that took place 5,000 years ago?
Would it be legal to teach that modern humans do not descend from a single man and woman who lived less that 10,000 years ago?
These are serious questions. I'm curious to know if such questions are forbidden because they come from creationism.
I'm glad we don't have your problem in Canada so we can directly refute the most outrageous creationist lies without worrying about whether they come from religion.
Would it be legal to teach that we have perfectly good explanations for irreducibly complex structures?
Would it be legal to explain the misconceptions about the Second Law of Thermodynamics?
Would it be legal to teach that there is absolutely no evidence for a world-wide flood that took place 5,000 years ago?
Would it be legal to teach that modern humans do not descend from a single man and woman who lived less that 10,000 years ago?
These are serious questions. I'm curious to know if such questions are forbidden because they come from creationism.
I'm glad we don't have your problem in Canada so we can directly refute the most outrageous creationist lies without worrying about whether they come from religion.
I'm curious to know if such questions are forbidden because they come from creationism.
No, they aren't forbidden and yes such matters can be taught as part of science. Any effect on religious belief resulting from teaching the age of the Earth, a proper understanding of the 2nd LoT, the evolution of life, including humans, etc., is considered to be "incidental" effects on religion. It would be problematical if a public school course set out specifically to disprove young-Earth creationism, however.
I'm glad we don't have your problem in Canada so we can directly refute the most outrageous creationist lies without worrying about whether they come from religion.
And, if the [cough] right government gets in, your schools can freely teach those lies as if they are the truth. There are advantages and disadvantages to every system.
No, they aren't forbidden and yes such matters can be taught as part of science. Any effect on religious belief resulting from teaching the age of the Earth, a proper understanding of the 2nd LoT, the evolution of life, including humans, etc., is considered to be "incidental" effects on religion. It would be problematical if a public school course set out specifically to disprove young-Earth creationism, however.
I'm glad we don't have your problem in Canada so we can directly refute the most outrageous creationist lies without worrying about whether they come from religion.
And, if the [cough] right government gets in, your schools can freely teach those lies as if they are the truth. There are advantages and disadvantages to every system.
John Pieret says,
And, if the [cough] right government gets in, your schools can freely teach those lies as if they are the truth. There are advantages and disadvantages to every system.
Hmmm ... it seems to me that evolution is in trouble in most states and that creationism is being widely taught in classrooms across your nation.
It seems to me that religion is very much a part of the school system and a part of government and politics. Perhaps your constitution isn't doing as good a job as you might think?
BTW, there's no danger at all that creationist lies are going to be taught in most Canadian schools and no political party is advocating that. That has nothing to do with the law. It has to do with the more secular nature of our society. This is not a legal issue, it's a fight for hearts and minds. (But you knew that, didn't you?)
And, if the [cough] right government gets in, your schools can freely teach those lies as if they are the truth. There are advantages and disadvantages to every system.
Hmmm ... it seems to me that evolution is in trouble in most states and that creationism is being widely taught in classrooms across your nation.
It seems to me that religion is very much a part of the school system and a part of government and politics. Perhaps your constitution isn't doing as good a job as you might think?
BTW, there's no danger at all that creationist lies are going to be taught in most Canadian schools and no political party is advocating that. That has nothing to do with the law. It has to do with the more secular nature of our society. This is not a legal issue, it's a fight for hearts and minds. (But you knew that, didn't you?)
Perhaps your constitution isn't doing as good a job as you might think?
No, it is doing exactly as well as I expected.
... there's no danger at all that creationist lies are going to be taught in most Canadian schools and no political party is advocating that.
That was also the case in the US up until the 1960s. (Don't confuse anti-evolutionism with an attempt to teach creationism.) Things change.
That has nothing to do with the law. It has to do with the more secular nature of our society.
I don't pay taxes to support the Catholic Church.
This is not a legal issue, it's a fight for hearts and minds.
So, how do you want to decide what is the right heart and mind to have? Top down from the government or bottom up from the people themselves?
If both Canada and the US do it bottom up, then the difference is not in what the government does but in our people, no doubt because of complex social forces well beyond the mere form of government. If the difference is because of Canada's government imposing those hearts and minds top-down, I think I'll take a pass, thank you very much. Democracy may be messy and dangerous but it's still the best option we have.
(But you knew that, didn't you?)
No, it is doing exactly as well as I expected.
... there's no danger at all that creationist lies are going to be taught in most Canadian schools and no political party is advocating that.
That was also the case in the US up until the 1960s. (Don't confuse anti-evolutionism with an attempt to teach creationism.) Things change.
That has nothing to do with the law. It has to do with the more secular nature of our society.
I don't pay taxes to support the Catholic Church.
This is not a legal issue, it's a fight for hearts and minds.
So, how do you want to decide what is the right heart and mind to have? Top down from the government or bottom up from the people themselves?
If both Canada and the US do it bottom up, then the difference is not in what the government does but in our people, no doubt because of complex social forces well beyond the mere form of government. If the difference is because of Canada's government imposing those hearts and minds top-down, I think I'll take a pass, thank you very much. Democracy may be messy and dangerous but it's still the best option we have.
(But you knew that, didn't you?)
If both Canada and the US do it bottom up, then the difference is not in what the government does but in our people, no doubt because of complex social forces well beyond the mere form of government.
That's correct. This is a fight that has to be resolved within our societies.
I'd like scientists to concentrate on explaining why creationism is wrong rather than rely on lawyers to keep it out of the classroom by arguing about how to interpret the US Constitution. Americans are relying too much on having government protect them from creationism and not enough on demonstrating that creationism is wrong.
Not only is that policy wrong-headed because it fails to address the real issue head-on, it's also dangerous because a change in the Supreme Court could easily turn the tables. Then you're screwed because you've put all your eggs in the wrong basket.
That's correct. This is a fight that has to be resolved within our societies.
I'd like scientists to concentrate on explaining why creationism is wrong rather than rely on lawyers to keep it out of the classroom by arguing about how to interpret the US Constitution. Americans are relying too much on having government protect them from creationism and not enough on demonstrating that creationism is wrong.
Not only is that policy wrong-headed because it fails to address the real issue head-on, it's also dangerous because a change in the Supreme Court could easily turn the tables. Then you're screwed because you've put all your eggs in the wrong basket.
I'd like scientists to concentrate on explaining why creationism is wrong ...
I'm all for that.
... rather than rely on lawyers to keep it out of the classroom by arguing about how to interpret the US Constitution.
We're stuck with this Constitution (trust me, it's no time to open it up for wholesale revision) and enforcing it is one tool in a non-exclusive toolbox for promoting good science education.
... it's also dangerous because a change in the Supreme Court could easily turn the tables.
Which would put us into a situation no worse that what you advocate, where scientists and educators would have to fight for the "hearts and minds" of the electorate.
Then you're screwed because you've put all your eggs in the wrong basket.
What do you think is not being done by scientists in the US?
I'm all for that.
... rather than rely on lawyers to keep it out of the classroom by arguing about how to interpret the US Constitution.
We're stuck with this Constitution (trust me, it's no time to open it up for wholesale revision) and enforcing it is one tool in a non-exclusive toolbox for promoting good science education.
... it's also dangerous because a change in the Supreme Court could easily turn the tables.
Which would put us into a situation no worse that what you advocate, where scientists and educators would have to fight for the "hearts and minds" of the electorate.
Then you're screwed because you've put all your eggs in the wrong basket.
What do you think is not being done by scientists in the US?
What do you think is not being done by scientists in the US?
They are spending too much time arguing that Intelligent Design Creationism is religious (duh!) and that it's unconstitutional to teach it in public schools.
They should be concentrating their efforts on showing that IDC is just plain wrong (and stupid). It shouldn't be taught anywhere. Not even in the churches.
They are spending too much time arguing that Intelligent Design Creationism is religious (duh!) and that it's unconstitutional to teach it in public schools.
They should be concentrating their efforts on showing that IDC is just plain wrong (and stupid). It shouldn't be taught anywhere. Not even in the churches.
They are spending too much time arguing that Intelligent Design Creationism is religious (duh!)
It's traditional to counter the propaganda of one's opponents.
They should be concentrating their efforts on showing that IDC is just plain wrong (and stupid).
There has been at least a half-dozen books in the last year, by such people as Ken Miller, Francisco Ayala, Sahotra Sarkar, Philip Kitcher, Neil Shubin, etc., refuting creationism and ID, plus many, many articles by scientists and many statements by scientific associations, all saying that creationism is unscientific and (worse than stupid) dishonest. Short of having the entire scientific community do "all creationism, all the time," I'm not sure what more you'd expect them to do.
Post a Comment
It's traditional to counter the propaganda of one's opponents.
They should be concentrating their efforts on showing that IDC is just plain wrong (and stupid).
There has been at least a half-dozen books in the last year, by such people as Ken Miller, Francisco Ayala, Sahotra Sarkar, Philip Kitcher, Neil Shubin, etc., refuting creationism and ID, plus many, many articles by scientists and many statements by scientific associations, all saying that creationism is unscientific and (worse than stupid) dishonest. Short of having the entire scientific community do "all creationism, all the time," I'm not sure what more you'd expect them to do.
<< Home
