Lawrence Krauss has this essay in the NYT where he argues against irrational exuberance about the recent school board elections in Kansas and the ouster of some Creationist school board members. Money quote:
I have recently been criticized by some for strenuously objecting in print to what I believe are scientifically inappropriate attempts by some scientists to discredit the religious faith of others. However, the age of the earth, and the universe, is no more a matter of religious faith than is the question of whether or not the earth is flat.
It is a matter of overwhelming scientific evidence. To maintain a belief in a 6,000-year-old earth requires a denial of essentially all the results of modern physics, chemistry, astronomy, biology and geology. It is to imply that airplanes and automobiles work by divine magic, rather than by empirically testable laws.
Dr. Abrams has no choice but to separate his views from what is taught in science classes, because what he says he believes is inconsistent with the most fundamental facts the Kansas schools teach children. (Emphasis mine.)
I am often of the opinion that a certain amount of relativism is required in the Culture War lest the strife become perpetual. I am willing to tolerate a great deal of diversity of opinion, even when I think that diversity is abject madness and even when individuals have chosen to confer that madness upon their children.
But Dr. Krauss makes an excellent point. Cultural relativism is all fine and good, but fundamentally teaching can only be conducted in a setting that enunciates the supremacy of evidence and fact. You cannot teach arguments and facts while at the same time denying the core proposition that teaching requires arguments and facts. And this issue exceeds science. Social studies instruction is based on history, and argument about history is based on what happened when -- on fact. You cannot deny the idea that evidence matters and teach social studies either.
I don't know how to resolve this in a manner where both sides will be happy. I think that the only solution must be the ouster of Creationists from positions of power in school decision-making. Creationists may teach their children in whatever manner they choose, but I -- like Krauss -- don't believe that allowing them to teach other people's children is a recipe for good instruction.
As a side issue related to the quote, it has always fascinated me how Creationists can deny evolution while at the same time enjoying the fruits of the science that evolution has facilitated. It seems like rank hypocrisy. Biology as a discipline is incomprehensible without evolution. It is simply nonsense. It would be like trying to make sense of physics while denying mechanics -- like trying to make sense of European history while denying that the Roman Empire ever existed. And biology has provided many gifts -- increased life expectancy being the most prominent. Do people believe that these gifts emerged by spontaneous generation, or rather that they emerged by lucky chance from a discipline fundamentally based on lies?
I feel cheated that I would work so hard to improve biology only to have my work thrown back in my face as falsehood, and then to have the thrower reap the benefits of my and other's hard work.
- Log in to post comments
I've raised that point on a number of occasions, arguing that no farmer can be a creationist and deny evolution, lest his fields be sown with teosinte and wild einkorn.
While I believe that evolution should obviously be taught in school, I also have to face the fact that school boards are elected. How do I have the right to tell parents in Kansas how they must vote in their local school-board elections? If they want to vote for a school board that chooses a creationist curriculum, then I guess so be it. But don't expect me to prop up their economies that will have little growth or innovation with welfare assistance and agricultural subsidies because their children have fallen decades behind on the basic building blocks of science.
However, if we're going to complain about Christian wrongheaded teachings, we should also note that they're not the only ones. Check out this article at Anne Althouse's page.
Because the universal public education is not a benefit bestowed on parents for the sole benefit of them and their children. The purpose of tax-payer funded education is to benefit society as a whole -- that's why there is no exemption for the childless from taxes that support educations. To the extent that a given school board candidate's stated positions will increase the number of non-competent graduates from the schools that would be affected by that candidates policies, ( and some of those graduates will be my neighbors,) I will voice my opposition to that candidate. I have zero problem telling a voter in Kansas not to do something that will adversely affect me.