Despite its lack of scientific authenticity, creationism and intelligent design still have a large amount of proponents who continuously push and lobby for their inclusion in the classroom. I don’t think the movement has much ground to stand on; after all, what legitimate reason is there for something entirely faith-based to be taught in public schools as a legitimate alternative to a time-tested scientific body of facts? I think that the backlash against the teaching of evolution in schools is something that is entirely bred by misinformation and misunderstanding of not only what science is, but also what should be taught in schools.
The specifics of what should be included in education is a vast, comprehensive subject in and of itself; another blog for another time. But I definitely think that legitimate science is something that should be taught in schools and that religious ideas should be kept out, especially when they are taught alongside legitimate scientific ideas and theories. I consider such a notion to be a violation of the separation of church and state, and so does the U.S. Supreme Court. That last bit may sound rather tangential, but it’s important to note that creationism and intelligent design are essentially religious in nature, being non-scientific explanations for origins that invoke creators and deities, and as such can have those kinds of criticisms levied against them.
Science is not a discipline that is subject to the whims of those who dislike its ideas; it’s a naturalistic, method-dependent way of testing and proving observable facts and phenomena in this world. It’s important that that is what is instilled in students and not the faith-based ideas behind creationism that serve a religious agenda.
UPDATE: Formatting correction, enjoy the paragraphs.
Self Evaluation Post
14 years ago
I agree that creation science is extremely "hole-y" from a scientific standpoint. Yet, I think part of the reason why individuals or groups get worked up about the issue is because of that "separation of church and state" that you off-handedly mention.
ReplyDeleteAs much as we would like to uphold that separation, I think the practical reality is that religion and ones belief (for some people at least) are closely intertwined in their sense of self and their worldview. From a scientific perspective one might be of the opinion that religion and belief are complete rubbish. Yet, one cannot deny that they are strong motivating factors in life. And, they are viable ways of living.
So the question really is about trying to reconcile the different ways of living. One being science, and the other being belief. Can both science and belief be taught in a classroom? Do you think that is possible or do you think they are mutually exclusive? And what are the implications if they are mutually exclusive, as you seem to be suggesting?
Science and religion are two completely different ways of looking at the world; I'm not trying to criticize religion in general, I'm only criticizing those who feel as if their beliefs should be elevated as science and should precedence over the beliefs of others in the classroom. I don't think that sort of thing should be allowed. Like I mentioned, religious faith and acceptance of science are hardly mutually exclusive, so the only implication I'm trying to make is that people shouldn't try to make their faith claims sound like science, and that they should also keep their faith claims out of the classroom.
ReplyDeleteI understand your point and it is very valid, but I believe it all comes down to tradition. People are reluctant to change, in general, and the administrators that are now controlling the school systems had more religion aspects in their classes than we do today. They are reluctant to change and thereby we have both conflicting subjects in school today.
ReplyDeleteI have to argue with Ford, that religion has no place in public schools. It violates the very foundations of the country. Not only, does it violate the separation of church and state it also creates a divide in the education of students from region to region. Such that regions that are religiously influenced would be taught something completely distinct from regions that teach evolution. As a fan of public institutions it sounds inexplicable to teach something that has no definitive scientific credibility as science. While, I agree that all theories should be taught in the classroom I do not think that creationism can be called a theory. As Ford makes explicit, something that is not falsifiable cannot claim to be scientific. I do agree that every individual is entitled to their beliefs but by teaching creationism/intelligent design as a science what message does that send to those whose beliefs do not lie with God?
ReplyDeleteBut is not science a sort of religion as well? Even if we can "test" things, is there not a basis of faith in science? We believe in gravity, many would say, because we can sense it. In the same way, to the devoutly religious, they believe in their religion because it has a particular reality for them. What makes religion less valid than science if both have a faith basis?
ReplyDeleteWe can never know anything in an absolute sense, so I will agree that science does require some degree of faith, but only in the sense that every other thing we “know” requires faith (I won’t go too deep into this, but reading on epistemology and Descarte’s evil daemon scenario will give you an idea of what I’m talking about). But in the case of science, we’re placing our faith in the scientific method, which we’ve used consistently to explain the way different physical phenomena work. We have faith in it working because it’s always worked to describe the natural things around us. That’s how science can be considered more legitimate than religion in terms of explaining naturalistic phenomena. This doesn’t devalue religion, because religion is used to assess completely different things than science, like morality and spiritual/theological matters.
ReplyDeleteNow in response to the claim that science itself is a religion, I’d like to point a few basic things: science has no “adherents” as a religion, doesn’t seek to explain anything other than natural phenomena, and gives no instructions on what we ought to do or the way things ought to be. Science is descriptive, not prescriptive, which is what I think separates it from religion.