Creationism in the UK

[jamesq]

I was hoping that creationism was a purely American vice (with rural Western Canada being unfortunately US-like), but apparently three out of ten science teachers in the UK want to teach it as well.

Fiona Johnson, head of education research at Ipsos Mori and director of the Ipsos Mori Teachers Omnibus, said: "Our findings suggest that many teachers are trying to adopt a measured approach to this contentious issue, an approach which attempts not only to explain the essential differences between scientific and other types of 'theory', but also to acknowledge that - regardless of, or even despite, "the science" - pupils may have a variety of strongly held, and arguably equal value, faith-based beliefs."

Just because it's a strongly held value doesn't mean it's of equal value. A strongly held belief can still be wrong and I hope we haven't gotten to the point where wrong has equal value to right.

Thankfully saner heads have chimed in:

Prof Higgins said: "Creationism, as an alternative to the evolution of species, has long been thoroughly discredited by rigorous analysis of data. Of course, if a pupil raises it as a hypothesis then a brief discussion as to why creationism is wrong might be appropriate as part of an education in intellectual integrity and rational thought.

"But it would undermine any educational system to purposefully teach discredited ideas which are now only perpetuated through ignorance or flawed thinking - one might as well teach astrology, flat earthism, alchemy or a geocentric universe."

I see no indication that UK schools are actually going to go this way, only that a polling firm has found some crackpots. Hopefully that's as far as it will go.

Read all about it here:
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/76915/Third-of-teachers-want-Creationism

Comments

[tyroticon.livejournal.com]

Professor Higgins sounds a tad unhinged, publically espousing his views in such an unproductive fashion. Being right about his core point is not good enough.

[jamesq]

Rereading the article (and the quoted text) I don't see this at all.

[tyroticon.livejournal.com]

I know. You see what he says as so self-evident that it doesn't matter to you how he says it. I see the contempt and how counterproductive that is to his stated goal of demonstrating the flaws in creationism. That is not rational behaviour. You don't best dogmatism by adapting dogmatic behaviour.

[jamesq]

Stating the truth is not dogmatism and suggesting that it is is to demonize people you disagree with. That Prof. Higgins does so in a matter-of-fact tone that doesn't bother pussy-footing does not make it contemptuous. There's no rule that says he has to bend over backwards to accommodate other peoples opinions and so he doesn't. But neither does he hold them up for derision.

If a store has a sign in the window that states "cash only", is that offensive? Not really. I'll grant that it could soften the blow by saying "we'd really prefer if you used cash instead of credit cards, pretty please", but I don't think that will be effective in the goal of preventing people from not using cash, nor do I think it will keep touchy credit card users from being offended.

Conversely, the sign could say "Cash only you miserable credit-using idiots living beyond your means". That really would be offensive.

I'd argue that Prof Higgins' statement is clearly in the cash only zone and neither in the pretty please nor the miserable idiots zone.

When did we get to the point that a statement of facts or disagreement was equivalent to an offense?

---

You seem to think it's his job to discredit creationism, and so shouldn't offend its proponents. It's not - Creationism has already been discredited and wasting time repeating the same arguments (that have been ignored repeatedly anyway) only legitimizes it.

An example: Plenty of people have pointed out that Evolution does not defy the second law of Thermodynamics, and Creationists are well-aware of this. It doesn't stop them from using the argument again as soon as the skeptic is out of hearing. They will proudly point out that so-and-so skeptic debated them and were unable to convince them. Thus we see that arguing with them as equals doesn't accomplish anything and has the negative affect of making them look like a viable alternative.

Like trolls, you should simply ignore them and hope that others will do likewise. A rule I really should heed more often, given the circumstance. Teach around them if you can, but confronting them directly is a fool's errand.

Prof. Higgins' method is in fact the one I'd recommend: If it comes up, discuss it rationally as you would any other hypothesis that a student might hold out of ignorance. But don't preallocate time to it because that might convince people that there's something to it.