Palin and Creationism

[billroper]

Ok, so let's talk about this, since several of you have brought it up. Apparently, her position on teaching creationism in the public schools is the same as mine:

It's ok to talk about it if it comes up, but you don't need to make it part of the curriculum.

Now why would I have a position like that, given that my personal belief is in a God who pretty much doesn't meddle, that is not too far away from some of the Deist beliefs in a God who created the universe and lets it run? It turns out to be really simple.

Sometimes, it is more important to teach the kids why than it is to teach them what.

If a child shows up in class and says "My parents say that God created the world and that evolution is wrong," the appropriate answer is not to say "That's not science, so we can't talk about it here." The appropriate thing to do is help the student understand why that statement isn't a matter of science, but rather a matter of faith.

The big difference between science and faith is that science produces testable predictions. (Except for string theory, which is starting to get a remarkably bad reputation in some circles because it doesn't produce testable predictions. But that would be another discussion altogether. :) ) Faith doesn't produce testable predictions, nor should it need to. That's sort of the essence of faith.

Science can't prove that God didn't create the world yesterday, complete with all of the internal evidence to indicate that it had been here for billions and billions of years. And science doesn't need to prove or disprove that. Science does need to assume that the universe is as it is based on the evidence that exists. And if you assume that God isn't a completely venal bastard (which is an assumption that I'd like to start from -- otherwise, should God exist, we're all in deep kimchee), then if God arranged all that evidence retroactively, it could only be because He wants us to look at it.

So no matter whether you believe God created the universe or not, science ought to go study the evidence that exists. And creationism, because it can't produce testable predictions, is the province of faith, and thus does not need to be discussed further in our science class.

Of course, you also need to fess up and admit that there are evolutionary mechanisms that still aren't well-understood -- because you're going to get the "irreducible complexity" argument thrown at you from time to time. But the fact that science doesn't yet have all of the answers is not one of its weaknesses -- it's one of science's strengths.

All of that is a complex lot of argument to give to kids. But kids aren't stupid. They're capable of understanding an amazing lot of things if you give them the chance to do so.

And if what you do is simply tell them that creationism isn't science without telling them why, then you're just arguing from authority.

You're asking them to take it on faith.

Comments

[smallship1.livejournal.com]

Well, exactly. And the fact that arguing from authority has seemed to be regarded in this kind of discussion as perfectly sufficient for science, but invalid for religion, is one of the things that has been getting up my nose for years.

Thank you for this.

[docstrange.livejournal.com]

I agree with you, as someone with hard science and social science training. Gov Palin said, "I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum." I hadn't thought about a hard prohibition as an authoritarian push of science as a matter of faith, but it's a good point you raise.

As I've said elsewhere, I for one am very much against "creation science" as a curriculum item, but very much for discussion of the differences between science and religion. My experience is also that there's no need to disparage either science or religion in that discussion. Then again, my schooling included a state-wide top science program that was taught by a religious institution. It was impressed upon us that science is a matter of methodology, and religion a matter of faith, each to its own purposes. Mixing up the two, it was explained, is best reserved for Philosophy classrooms.

My personal understanding

[capplor.livejournal.com]

is that science & religion are both methods for discovering truth. They are essentially compatible, though that is often forgotten in the fray. The How & the Why are both important questions to consider.

One of my concerns is that Palin is a member of an Assemblies of God church which has a reputation for Bait & Switch tactics. The AoG itself I have no problems with, The B&S (for the "Army of Joel" & other shady "semi-Christian" things) I do.

I'm going to wait while this plays out, but the more I hear of her, the less I like of her. That, however, is still my personal understanding & meant to be taken as such.

[rmeidaking.livejournal.com]

The thing is, science is something they can test, and it works every time. "Faith" isn't, or I would have won the lottery long ago. We may not understand exactly how two quantities of hydrogen combine with one of oxygen to make water - we don't have to; it works with or without "belief" or "faith."

If "faith" and "belief" worked in the same way, I would have won the lottery on Friday.

Creationism is a theory developed by non-scientists to deal with the world of 5000 BCE. It has no place in public schools of the 21st century.

[smallship1.livejournal.com]

Why would you expect faith to affect the lottery if you don't expect it to affect hydrogen and oxygen?

This is, of course, assuming you actually had faith that you would win the lottery on Friday. I would suspect it might have been more in the nature of a cynical exercise in self-fulfilling prophecy, but I don't know you so I can't be sure. Personally, I've wished a lot, but churches and scientists all agree that wishing doesn't make it so, and I'm too much of a realist to achieve genuine faith in the random operation of a load of balls. If you managed it, then I admire your strength of will at least.

Sorry about this, but this is exactly the kind of can't-be-bothered-to-make-sense argument that puts me right on the side of the religious. If you're going to attack belief systems shared by vast numbers of people for the last two thousand years, you could at least have the courtesy to think a little about what you're going to say.

[bedlamhouse]

Well, not exactly "works every time" since things got all Quantum. Science is now beginning to deal with two areas espoused by the prayer/magick crowd for some time:

- the answer is sometimes "no" (Science: results are often based on probability and the probability doesn't go in the direction you were testing, though it does sometimes)

- observation affects that which is observed (Magick: a non-believer can cause the experiment to fail)

Things may be a bit more dicey than Einstein expected.

[judifilksign.livejournal.com]

As a teacher who has to teach both Earth Science and Evolution (that is, change over time) to high school students, what you said is right on. I'm not going to debate a student's faith, I can only have them look at what is testable, and measureable.

Sometimes, I have to face a student who gets mixed up with their "Test" of faith with something that can be studied under the scientific method. I have to define the parameters so we can get to what we need to cover.

Someone earlier this month posted a link to a Florida biology teacher, and how he handled these questions that was really very good.

[mbcrui.livejournal.com]

I know people who believe in ID, that, if you said something like that to their children would sue you... and then run for School Board and get on it and get you fired for posing a danger to the school district because they sued you.

[bedlamhouse]

Well said.

Discussing why creationism is a matter of faith shouldn't shake anyone's separation-of-church-and-state boots.

Describing how science works may mean dealing with Evolution as a theory and therefore explaining just what that means (in terms of testability and completeness). If opening by saying Evolution is a theory (as was attempted in Cobb County, Georgia) keeps hard-core fundamentalists from pulling their kids out of school to teach them at home, go for it.

[mrgoodwraith.livejournal.com]

I saw a very good evolutionary explanation for "irreducibly complex" systems a few weeks ago: First, a structure arises from a combination of simple underlying pieces -- irreducible but not complex. After later mutation/selection, additional pieces/functions are piled "on top of" the simple underlying pieces, superseding some of those underlying pieces; the structure becomes complex but is no longer irreducible. Still later, mutation/selection knocks out one or more of the superseded underlying bits -- now, suddenly, the whole structure is irreducibly complex. I wish there were more people out there who could devote their time to explaining these sorts of things as clearly as that.

[weirdsister.livejournal.com]

Thank you for writing this. I personally am not threatened by anyone teaching or talking about intelligent design, especially alongside the theory of evolution. I think that science and faith can and do co-exist for many people. I don't think that being exposed to intelligent design as just one more theory will make kids more likely to believe one over the other. It's been interesting, as a pagan whose teenager has attended classes at a very conservative Baptist private school, I've felt that my daughter's exposure to "creationism" has improved her critical thinking, and it certainly hasn't convinced her to convert. I look at it this way: if it isn't appropriate to ban books we don't personally like, why should it be okay to ban ideas we don't personally believe in, especially in a "free" society? Just my own meek and humble opinion.