Teaching Creationism in Schools

[Ivellious]

So I just finished up my fall semester of university classes, including one class in particular that was very interesting, and very relevant to a popular topic on this forum. It was titled "Understanding the Evolution-Creationism Controversy." It was taught by a professor well known for his study of biology and the teaching of biology in public schools.

The class covered a broad range of topics. We started by learning the history of evolutionary thought, from the discoveries of various geologists and biologists pre-Darwin through Darwin's life and discoveries, and some of the major work done on evolution since then. We then moved on to the history of creationism within the United States since Darwin's time, ranging from the invention/rise of fundamentalist Christianity in the early 20th century through the creation science movement and the more recent public battles between Intelligent Design and evolution. Throughout all this we learned about several dozen major people involved in the different creationist movements.

After that we spent a good amount of time studying the various types of creationist beliefs (such as flat-Earth, young-Earth, old-Earth, progressive creationism, day-age, theistic evolution, etc.).

The second half of the course dealt with the legal/political/societal impact of the battle between evolution and creationism. We studied over a dozen major court cases, starting with the famous Scopes trial and ending with the Dover trial involving Intelligent Design. Along with those, we learned of many pieces of legislation over the last century or so that aimed to eliminate evolution from the classroom, and how the public controversy has become so vocal and lucrative money-wise over the years.

Right now, though, I'd like to concentrate on the issue of teaching creationism in public schools. The court cases we studied all focused on this issue. I'm fascinated by this particularly because it seems like most creationist websites and organizations contend that it is perfectly legal to teach creationism, in any form, in science classes. Just at my school I've talked with various religious organizations (all Christian), and they have told me this as well. I have at least 5 pamphlets/handouts in my backpack trying to convince me that it is just anti-Christian rhetoric that says we can't teach creationism in schools.

And yet, after taking this class, it is absolutely laughable to say that it is legal or constitutional to teach Christian creationism, or advocate it in any way, in public schools, particularly in science classes. post-Scopes trial, not a single court case has been ruled in favor of teaching creationism in schools, or in favor of "protecting" students from learning about evolution because of their religious beliefs. It's baffling that anyone can see these cases, mostly taking place in the southern US, and try to say that it is legal to teach any version of creationism in schools, and yet that seems to be a predominant belief among Christian groups.

Now, clearly many schools and teachers still do not teach evolution and instead teach creationism, or teach the two side by side, despite both of these being illegal. Studies show that even in states typically considered to be more liberal, only about 60% of teachers teach only evolution. So I don't mean to give the impression that anyone truly cares about the laws and court rulings.

So I guess the discussion point I pose is this: Can anyone explain to me why so many people think it is/should be legal to teach creationism as a science? Or does anyone have an argument for or against teaching creationism in schools? Or anything even remotely related to what I have written here?

[jlay]

The term creationism itself has problems. For one it's a broad term. And people on both sides of the issue missue the term. I would have loved to have been in that class. (I'd be very interested to hear or read anything you have from this course.)

Creationism is very much a religious posistion for lack of a better word. It appears the word is being used in a very broad sense. Knowing people in the ID movement, I'd say they would not want to be labled under 'creationism.' At least not in this broad sense. OECs are not going to want to be categorized under the same umbrella with Ken Ham. Too me, creationism speaks of the Genesis account in the Bible. To teach that in school is to teach a religious belief.

Another problem, s you can see on this forum, there are 'creationist' who also hold in some form or fashion to evolution. Even I hold many aspects of evolutionary theory as fact. So, to say evolution vs. creationism is also to really make a mess of each label.

The other error (and this occurs on both sides) is to presume that creationism is in conflict with science. Can it be? Yes. When people use the term 'evolution' in this sense, I've always found they are speaking of Darwiniam evolution. Molecules to man through descent with modification. Yet, I always find evidence of equivocating. Evolution, in the sense of Darwinism is religion. Now, many will object, but it is a reality that Darwinism is not simply a natural byproduct of following science where it leads. I've demonstrated multiple times on this forum the many problems in the foundational assumptions regarding evolution. Darwinism wants to lay claim of terms like mutation, NS, etc. They equivocate these changes which can be "evolution" in one sense of the word, and then apply them as proof regarding another usage of the word. I have discussed these issues with a phd in evolutionary biology and several other phd level biolgists, and the same problems plague thinking all the way to the root. If the root is bad, guess what? The terms evolution and science are often mistakenly used synomomously.

Now, clearly many schools and teachers still do not teach evolution and instead teach creationism

What is your evidence for this? For one, how is it clear? You've provided no evidence of this. Many? What percentage?

I am as staunch an opponent to Darwinism you will find. But in the most broad sense, I oppose the teaching of Creationism in public schools.
I grew up in public schools in the Bible Belt (East Tennessee) and I was NEVER taught Creationism in the classroom in any form or fashion.

[Ivellious]

Jlay, I'll get back to this more later tonight (provided the world does not end), but when I said that many teachers choose not to teach evolution/teach some form of creationism, I'm basing it on studies and surveys done by both my professor of the course, and other academic groups around the country. I'll post links later (and some more specific data). To be honest, though, it is interesting to note that most studies across the country show very similar statistics on this issue...that is, you really aren't more likely to be taught anything religious in Tennessee than, say, Oregon or something. But again, I'll post specific links later.

Also, I understand your remarks about the term "creationism." As I sort of alluded to earlier, the term itself has a huge number of possible definitions, and the views of two creationists might be totally different. And I didn't mean to suggest that the Bible and science are incompatible, but in the class we studied many, many instances of different groups and individuals that sought to create a divide between the two. For the record, that included both studies of fundamentalist Christians AND groups of militant atheists (though the atheists didn't become very vocal in the discussion until more recently).

In most of the court cases we studied, the central theme/problem typically involved a group trying to discredit or ban evolution from the classroom altogether, or a young-Earth creationist group trying to get their views presented in the science curriculum. Part of what we were shown is how most creationist sects (so to speak) really have not been all that vocal in the public forum regarding evolution and such. I'm not trying to sound biased, but young-Earth creationists are almost literally the only ones who make any noise in court cases or legislation related to what should be taught in schools. Until the more recent Dover trial, that is.

[jlay]

I,
Look forward to the links.
Agreed, those who think they are promoting the cause are probably doing more damage than good. I think there are reasons for this. One is ignorance. Many people lobby a position without really understanding what it is they are arguing for. I have Christian friends who say we need to bring prayer back into the schools. What if the teacher is a Muslim or Hindu, or Atheist? In the US, religion has been politicized and essentially used as bit in the mouth of sincere Christian folk.
The next problem is that there is refusal to recognize that Darwinism as a philosophical position and ideology, akin to a form of religion. For this, I think there are valid reasons to oppose Darwinism being taught, but that doesn't mean that Creationism should be taught in its place. In fact, I think most of the arguments against Darwinism are not religious at all. I ran into this isssue with Neo. He kept asking me to show empirical evidence of God, when I was arguing against Darwinism. The validity of Darwinism has nothing to do with this. If there was no empirical evidence for God it wouldn't make Darwinism true. That is fallacious reasoning. The truth of one position does not stand on the success or failure of another.
Often we will have secular scientists point out issues with Darwinism. Example: http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php ... O-C.2012.4
In this case, pointing out these issues has NOTHING to do with faith. Creationists groups will reference these issues which often leads to a lot of ugly back and forth.

I would say for the most part that my issues lie here:
-Many in the science community are religiously committed to Darwinism. They conflate Darwinism to mean science. Thus loading their arguments to basically say, "If you are against Darwinism, you are against science." Darwinism is not a term interchangeable with the term evolution or science. Many concepts that fall under the term evolution are held by Creationists, and produce no conflict. I see virtually nothing regarding raw data and evidence that creates a contradiction between Creationism and science. The contradictions arrise out of philosophical and ideological positions, and how the evidence is interpreted. This is so deep rooted, that even though fallacious reasoning can be pointed out, it has virtually no effect.
Let me give you an example. Let's say a group from ABC Univeristy applies for a grant to go into the field and look for transitional fossils. Now, I doubt the actual request would be this blatant, but nonetheless.... This is based on question begging. If your intention is to look for transitional fossils, then your work is already compromised and unscientific. Your are presuming something to be true regarding what you are looking for. There are many more subtle issues of this replete throughout the scientific community. Pointing them out can have some interesting results.
-Consensus is not science. Popular opinion is not how science is done. Regardless of how many scientists believe in Darwinism, it doesn't make it true.

[Philip]

Do I want any ONE view of creationism taught in public schools? Absolutely not! Do I want Darwinism/naturalism/evolution yanked? No! But I'm an OEC, and so one might wonder if I would want creationism taught if from that perspective. Certainly not from my position alone. What I would like to see presented are ALL of the main assertions of how the universe came to be, and how non-life became alive - and let the student make up his or her mind, and be exposed to the entire range of speculation about this matter - as just about every viewpoint brings some scientific EVIDENCE to it's theories.

And so, in a secular society where there are competing THEORIES of various naturalism/evolutionary mechanism, and as there are competing theories between theists (evolution/YEC/OEC), then it seems to me that as NONE of them have absolute proof, then, strictly speaking, none are yet SCIENTIFIC certainties. And as evolution is by no means a scientific certainty, and yet it is deemed by the masses and education boards/states as acceptable because it is supposedly scientific based, it's exceptionally disturbing that theistic viewpoints that also incorporate scientific observations and theories are universally excluded because they are considered supposedly and totally unscientific. And not only are the states and school boards against creationism, but they almost universally and naively believe that the only option for teaching creationism is from a YEC viewpoint, and that teaching of creationist viewpoints means that no scientific evidences can be presented for them. YECs quite clearly present their understandings of scientific evidences - which I welcome as part of the discussion. And the schools and states mentality that this issue boils down to evolution vs. YEC creationism also fails to consider the various hybrid viewpoints, OEC or theistic evolution. The media does this as well - it's always science/evolution/naturalism vs. YEC. A horribly false dichotomy of the actual range of viewpoints.

Oh, but wait, what are the churches teaching about creationism? Usually nothing. When they do, it's often just from a YEC viewpoint. Churches typically seem to view scientific issues as a minefield that can lead to no good. A pity!

I think most of the arguments against Darwinism are not religious at all.

So true, jlay! The schools, states and media also fail to recognize that good science SHOULD also investigate and weigh measurable, observable, available evidences that present serious problems for various theories. But these are being universally ignored and branded as always being "religious" challenges and not scientific ones. Or they take the view that some form of naturalism or evolution is absolutely true, it's just that we haven't yet nailed down the proven specifics. HUH? That's their understanding of scientific methodology or consensus of PROOF? And mankind overwhelming believes that there is some god (or gods) behind the universe, so why not also look at the evidences presented as support for this? How is it that one could believe that IF God created the universe and life that there would be no SCIENTIFIC evidence of such? We don't have to present theology to do this. Let the possibilities stand, be observed, and each person can decide as they will, and as to any theological implications or connections.

[Ivellious]

so I apologize for leaving this out so long without providing the links...It turns out that you need a subscription to access the journals in which the papers I was referencing were published. I can read them because my university grants me access, but it would be rather un-helpful to post links that no one else could follow. so I've been searching for other references to them, nd I eventually found a few news articles that reference various statistics. Here you go:

http://www.minnpost.com/learning-curve/ ... gy-classes

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 123336.htm

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/08/scien ... .html?_r=0

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 141657.htm

Out of these articles, there are two papers referenced that I've read...one by a pair of professors at the University of Minnesota who polled students at the U of M to find out what they were taught in high school biology, and also polled Minnesota public school teachers about what they taught. The other is a paper from Penn State University, which studied what teachers taught in schools only. Feel free to read these. I checked to make sure that the statistics given in the articles matched the research papers themselves, and they check out in that category.

[Ivellious]

http://biologos.org/uploads/static-cont ... o-full.png

Here's another link about evolution in the classroom, this time it's a picture showing each state's grade on teaching evolution, courtesy of a 2012 report from the National Center for Science Education. As you can see from the picture, a state's region is not much of an indicator of how much the state teaches evolution (and how well). It also quickly runs through a handful of important court cases surrounding the evolution-creation controversy in schools.

[jlay]

http://biologos.org/uploads/static-cont ... o-full.png

Here's another link about evolution in the classroom, this time it's a picture showing each state's grade on teaching evolution, courtesy of a 2012 report from the National Center for Science Education. As you can see from the picture, a state's region is not much of an indicator of how much the state teaches evolution (and how well). It also quickly runs through a handful of important court cases surrounding the evolution-creation controversy in schools.

The problem with that is clear. They conflate evolution (changes we see and observe in nature) to Darwinism, which is without question an ideology (or relgious philospohy) on how man shares a common ancestor with modern apes, and is descended from primative apes. Like almost everything I see, this survey is loaded with question begging, confalting and equivocation.
The fact that so few see these obvious fallacies is what is concerning.

[stoicjackal]

'The notion that chance could have produced even one cell - a doctrine proposed by H. Huxley among others - completely transcends the imagination. How an entity looking like a miniature solar system (an atom) could have evolved into a spiral helix which possessed a completely different structure able to split into two, and thereafter to replicate is a story that belongs more to Hollywood than to a science classroom.' - Larry Azar