Teaching Evolution in a Creation Nation

What do we want out of America’s schoolchildren? . . . out of America’s creationists? I’m tickled pink to announce that my co-author Harvey Siegel and I have just sent in our final manuscript for our new book, Teaching Evolution in a Creation Nation. In this volume, we tackle these difficult questions head-on.

As we’ve explored in these pages, Harvey and I review the historical and philosophical issues involved in America’s long culture-war battle over evolution and creationism. Historically, I argue, creationism (in most of its religiously inspired variants) has worked like other forms of religious and cultural dissent. Philosophically, Harvey reviews the tricky definition of science, as well as the most common objections to evolution education.

In essence, we argue that the best way to understand creationism is as a form of educational dissent. By defining creationism that way, we can see some directions in which classroom policy should go.Jack chick Evolution

Most important, we argue that the proper aims of public-school evolution education should be to inculcate a knowledge and understanding of evolution. No creationist-friendly variants should be allowed in science classes as science. But dissenting students must be allowed and even encouraged to maintain their dissent. We can’t insist that students believe this or that about evolution. Not in public schools, anyway. We must insist, however, that students know and understand that evolution is the best scientific explanation of the ways life came to be on this planet.

Among the tricky questions raised by our book are these:

  1. Is “belief” an inherent part of good evolution education? That is, should children in public schools be encouraged not only to know and understand certain facts about evolution, but to believe that evolution is really the best way to understand the roots of our species’ existence?
  2. Does it water down evolution education to allow dissenters to maintain their dissent, even in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence?
  3. From creationists’ perspectives, is it too much to agree that mainstream evolution science really is the best science? Will creationists agree that their ideas are more religiously inspired belief than legitimate scientific dissent?
  4. Can teachers in the real world walk this line between teaching facts about evolution and teaching belief in evolution?

There’s one important question that is less difficult: When will this baby hit the bookstores? Our editor at the University of Chicago Press tells us our baby will be like a real baby: it needs to gestate for at least nine months before it’s ready to get slapped around.

And I’m confident it will attract plenty of slappers.

Advertisements
Leave a comment

7 Comments

  1. Congrats on getting the final manuscript in!
    Praj

    Reply
  2. “From creationists’ perspectives, is it too much to agree that mainstream evolution science really is the best science?”

    I think scientists like Dr. Jay Wile (http://blog.drwile.com/) and Dr. Cornelius Hunter (http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/) would disagree. Evolutionary science is unfalsifiable and rife with speculation and ad-hoc explanations. It is great philosophy, but lousy science.

    “Will creationists agree that their ideas are more religiously inspired belief than legitimate scientific dissent?”

    I believe we already admit this. We are just looking for evolutionists to admit the same.

    Reply
  3. Am I able to comment on this?? I tried twice yesterday.

    Reply
    • Sorry, Tim, they were bumped to spam due to the links. I’ve posted your original comment and cleaned up this thread a little bit.

      Reply
  4. Mark Germano

     /  February 7, 2015

    Anti-evolution activists like to insist that evolution is unfalsifiable and then throw up a bunch of links and arguments that show how evolution is false.

    Reply
    • They really mean (or ought to understand) that naturalism as a metaphysics functions as a reductive religious ideology with dangerous social and ethical implications — a problem one does not need to be “religious” to appreciate. That problem remains apart from the settled (falsifiable but verified) facts of human ancestry, planetary and cosmic history, etc.

      Reply
  1. Do Teachers Have the Right to Be Wrong? | I Love You but You're Going to Hell

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s