This Jesus and Mo comic made me giggle (as always), and spurred me into writing…
One of the big calls from the US Creationist and ID movements (although we all know they’re basically one and the same) is the idea that with Evolution you need to
Teach kids both sides of the argument, and let them decide. Present them with all the facts and use a process of critical analysis to come to your conclusion.
Now, on the surface of it that would seem a perfectly reasonable thing to do, which is precisely why CrIDiots™ use it. It does of course fall down in a couple of highly important respects.
1. It assumes that there are only the two sides of the argument.
Why stop at just weighing creationism or ID against evolution? Why not throw Deism in? What about some of the Greek and Norse creation theories? If you really want to weigh all points of view you might even need to include things like Last Thursdayism. It quickly becomes apparent that you do need to draw the line somewhere or classes will start to crumble under the weight of different theories.
So, how to draw the line? The most obvious place to start is by examining the remit if the particular area of the curriculum being taught. If it was an English class (presumably examining the theories for grammatical accuracy, or narrative flow etc) then we can use criteria relevant to the English curriculum. However the chances are that the area of the curriculum in question is Science. Now for something to be taught as science, it actually needs to be Science – obvious I know, but it needs to be repeated. For something to be science is needs to follow the basic principle of the Scientific Method. If it doesn’t do that but relies on some form of special pleading then I’m sorry, but it’s out of the science classroom.
2. It assumes that children are able to critically examine the evidence.
From my readings of the many and varied articles dealing with the debate this side of the argument often tends to be forgotten. Can children critically examine a scientific theory and arrive at a reasoned conclusion?
The answer to that would seem to depend on a few things, chief of which is the age of the child. As any parent knows the mind of a child is like a sponge when it comes to knowledge, sucking up pretty much any nugget of information presented to it. If the child is under the age of 9 the chances are that the knowledge will be taken on board with little to no questioning other than the relentless Why? which is pretty much never used in an attempt to garner further information on the subject but as a method to torment the information giver. By the age of 10 things have begun to change. I’ve noticed that my own daughters (she’s about to turn 10) quest for knowledge has become more detailed. When given a fact she’ll first off place that fact in a context that she can deal with, and then work from there. If she finds a gap she’ll ask a more detailed question – Why does this…? What happens if…? etc. It’s only now that her critical analysis skills are really beginning to form, and it’ll take several years of such questioning before she becomes adept at their use. But even by the time children reach mid teens – the age when the serious learning towards various qualifications is taking place - most of them will have barely mastered the right analysis skills to properly assess most of the big scientific theories. If you add a second theory – especially one that has little or no scientific merit – then you’re just making their job that much harder.
The second requirement for critical analysis is to come at the subject matter with an open mind with no pre-conceived bias. The problem here is of course that from a young age all children have been indoctrinated with the beliefs of their parents, teachers, and other figures of authority in their everyday life (and I am obviously including theists, and atheists alike here). For the most part that information has been taken in at face value, accepted as truth, and fundamental beliefs will be very deeply entrenched and difficult to alter. From age 10 onwards children are constantly being bombarded with new knowledge and to expect them to fully evaluate this new knowledge, weigh it up against previous knowledge, and arrive at a viable conclusion – especially when dealing with difficult concepts – may be a bit too much to expect.
Where there is genuine scientific controversy, then by all means teach it. But don’t try and invent a controversy where none exists. Children have enough to learn as it is without having to deal with information that has little or no merit in the field it’s being taught.
Tags: Critical Thinking