Creationism: Let It Be The Light!
I noted on the BBC’s Education part of their news site that a school teacher was asking the Education for the right to use Creationist educational materials.
Okay, so after reading the first paragraph, my jaw was bouncing off the floor, but by the end of the article it sounded like a remarkably sound idea, particularly when you’re talking about students who have maybe gone on to study Biology at A Level.
The idea was not that the teacher was wanting to put forward Intelligent Design as the explanation for evolution, he was wanting to put it forward to stimulate debate about Darwinism.
Apparently, education officials deny that Intelligent Design is a science, and that’s why you’re not allowed to use those teaching materials. They are right about it not being science: it doesn’t propose a testable hypothesis, and but I don’t think it is always wrong for schools to consider it.
Admittedly, I wouldn’t want my children to go to a school where they were taught Intelligent Design as an equivalent to Darwinian evolution (partly because my eldest is three, so I think he’s a bit young for all that just now), but I’d welcome pupils being encouraged to debate what is and what isn’t scientific, and to learn that science advances by overturning old theories.
Darwin’s theory overtook Lamarckism as an explanation for creatures changing over time, and has been pretty much unchallenged scientifically since. That doesn’t necessarily mean it will be unchallenged in the future and if it can’t stand on it’s own two feet in a scientific debate (and I’m presuming a science teacher chairing such a debate would be able to weed out unscientific analysis), then maybe it is time we started to question it a little more.
Personally, I have no doubt that Darwin’s theory of evolution is correct, based on studies I have read — I’m a biology graduate with a particular preference for the study of evolution — but if new evidence came to light which suggested an alternate mechanism, and that mechanism was able to be tested and challenged and still stood up, then it would be unscientific of me not to consider it.
Anyone who wants to become a scientist — or for that matter an adult who isn’t going to be taken in my a scamster every twenty minutes — needs to learn how to carry out critical thinking. Without critical thinking you’ll never challenge scientific orthodoxy. If no-one ever challenged scientific orthodoxy, we’d not have the knowledge that the earth revolves around the sun (theory revived by Copernicus); we’d never have accepted Einstein’s theories, and we’d think the science of plate tectonics was just plain daft.
The teacher has apparently said that the GCSE syllabus requires the children to appreciate how science works and to understand the nature of scientific controversy — in which case the history of our current understanding of evolution would provide a fascinating canvas: from God’s creation to Lamarckism, to Darwinism and the infamous Scopes Monkey Trial in the US.
Back in April, the Royal Society warned against allowing creationism in school saying that pupils must understand that science backs Darwin’s theory of evolution.BBC News
I’ve got no problem with this: introduce Intelligent Design, Lamarckism and Darwinism into the debates, sit back and watch the debates and ensure that it is explained why Intelligent Design is not considered a scientific hypothesis, and why scientists feel that the evidence points — including what we understand about the particulate nature of genetics as demonstrated by Gregor Mendel — points the scientific community towards accepting Darwin’s revolutionary evolutionary ideas (sorry!), rather than Lamarck’s.
Having said all that, I’m not 100% convinced that this is appropriate material for fourteen and fifteen year olds: to me this is a more advanced understanding which would be more appropriate to an A-Level syllabus taught to sixteen and seventeen year olds, but if the GCSE syllabus requires understanding of the nature of scientific controversy, then I guess it ought to be included somewhere.
Of course, the difficulty in all this is how to present it. Intelligent Design should not be presented as a scientific theory — because it isn’t — but that doesn’t mean it is necessarily incorrect. In fact, that is precisely the reason it is not a scientific theory — because it cannot be demonstrated to be true or false, it falls outside the realm of science and into the realm of belief.
There are obvious difficulties therefore in presenting it: a school which has a religious ethos might not be sufficiently critical of the theory. The following two statements are entirely true, and yet paint very different pictures:
- Scientists haven’t been able to rule out Intelligent Design as an explanation for evolution
- Scientists consider Intelligent Design to be a belief rather than a scientific theory because it is not testable
Both statements are equally true but generate entirely different messages…
Equally, you might get teachers who are atheists who extend the beliefs further to suggest that because Intelligent Design is flawed as a scientific theory this somehow means that all religion is flawed, and that religious people are crackpots.
Both would obviously be entirely inappropriate: religious beliefs are not scientific, and do not fall under the scope of the science classroom, except in explaining how science does work, and similarly, just because Intelligent Design isn’t scientific, doesn’t mean it’s wrong. It may or may not be: the whole point is that we can’t prove it.
So, where do I stand exactly? Well, I’ve managed to include the names of both of my cats in the article (not that that’s particularly relevant unless you like cats, or are now wondering who they are named after) and I’ve convinced myself that if you’re going to have a serious debate about what makes science then maybe Intelligent Design does deserve to show up in our Science classrooms from time to time — if only to explain why it shouldn’t be there!
Hello. I am 
Lamarck and Mendel? (the cats)
Ooh, nice try, but you scored no points
Definitely Darwin for one of them. And I’m thinking Einstein for the other. I really should know since I’ve met both of them and trod on at least one.
There is absolutely no need for this debate at all. I agree with a healthy debate in science, but creationalism is not science, science is based on logic, whereas creationalism is just another way for the church to carry on trying to regain it flagging audience. The last grip onto the small amount of power it still has. Religious beliefs should be classed as a mental disorder.
Ian,
I don’t know if you actually read the post, but if you had, you would have been aware that I was not suggesting that creationism was science. I was however suggesting that creationism or Intelligent Design could be held up as an example in the science classroom as to why an argument founded on belief rather than a testable hypothesis should not be considered scientific.
But you’re a perfect example of my argument that the greatest amount of religious intolerance put forward in the world today is that put forward by the atheists. I mean, come on.
Well, maybe. But people as intolerant of others as that should be locked up and kept away from the rest of society. Do you not think that’s fair?
Maybe you should read either of my posts on Religious intolerance: the atheist bigots or the dismissive and closed minded scientists.