Let the Children Decide?
Posted By Kathleen David on August 11, 2005
There was a political cartoon by Tony Auth that ran the other day in my local newspaper. It said Teach Both Theories…Let the Kids Decide
For those reading after the link goes dead or are on dial-up here is what the cartoon consisted of. The first panel was a Dumbledore kind of character and behind him are two charts one labeled Chemistry and the other Alchemy. The second panel had a bald man with a mustache who is wearing a trench coat and behind him are two pictures of brains labeled Phrenology and Neurology. The third is Albert Einstein and he has a magic wand in one hand and a piece of chalk in the other and written on the blackboard is Magic and Physics (E=MC squared). The final panel has a scientist sitting in an observatory with the words Astrology and Astronomy.
This is all in reference to “Intelligent Design” which a group is trying to convince schools to teach along with evolution in biology and let the children make up their own minds what they want to believe. They may have succeeded in Kansas while doing a hard press elsewhere. They claim is that G-d never enters into to it since there is no deity mentioned by name. Instead it is the idea of an intelligent force creating the universe since Darwin’s theory is too narrow to explain everything. Now all Darwin was talking about was evolution. He left physics and the creation of the universe to others.
I know a lot of people who would love to go to school that taught everything mentioned in the Auth’s cartoon. It almost sounds like Hogwarts come to life. Now the people favoring intelligent design are suggesting that this be taught in biology but they would understand if it were taught in either philosophy or another required class like say social science. I don’t know many schools that teach philosophy at the middle or high school level and I don’t see this as social science either. There is time enough in college for this sort of thing to be taught if the students want to learn it.
Parents do have the choice of sending their children to private schools that teach to their beliefs. Heck in these schools you can have religion classes and no one blinks. If they want to teach “intelligent design” then more power to them but I really don’t think based on the 1987 Supreme Court ruling on creationism that this is going to fly in schools. Or if this flies then they should teach every creation myth known to humanity so the kids could decide what they want to believe.
I am grateful for political cartoons that give me a laugh and make me think.
Tom Toles is another must-read political cartoonist, I think — you can find him over at http://www.ucomics.com/tomtoles/ .
Intelligent design? Sigh.
TWL
I don’t often disagree with you, Kath, and normally I try to stay away from controversial subjects on your blog. but I question your last comment about thinking. Sounds like you have a pretty closed mind on the subject.
(KOD: I wouldn’t say that I am close minded but say if I am a parent and I am a very devout hindu then the Christian version of creation with a supreme being is not going to jive with what I believe or if I am a Buddist. The Christian point of view is still in the minority when place against the world view of how the world was created. Either teach everones POV on the “philosophical” possibilities of how the universe was created or none. This includes the dead religions since they may have it right.)
That said, I see no harm in letting the childen learn at least about what the debate is about. After all, you never know. A third theory may come along that settles some issues missing in both theories. My guess is those who believe in evolution will be be just as adamant about their theory as those who believe in creationism. We can see that now in fact.
(KOD: Probably there will eventually be some third theory that we don’t even know about yet. But Religion is Religion no matter how you gussy it up to make it look like science and the courts have been pretty clear on this matter.)
Kath:
Points taken: but the “Intelligent design” argument does take into account almost every religious viewpoint since almost all religions think their god(s) created the universe anyway. On the other hand, any one who accepts the theory of evolution and the Big Bang theory has pretty much just said there is no God. While I may not want your religion crammed down my kid’s throat. It’s not the state’s job to dispel the notion of a God either. In fact, they’re specifically prohibited from doing so. Teaching both theories preserves that line. At least until we can rewrite that pesky freedom of religion clause out of the Constitution.
I’d like to keep this as non-confrontational as possible (since that’s the tone Kath sets), but I would take issue with a couple of your statements.
1) “On the other hand, any one who accepts the theory of evolution and the Big Bang theory has pretty much just said there is no God.”
I have hosts of examples that punch holes in this statement. I’ve taught in two different science departments in my career (about to be three), and my wife’s been in graduate/postdoc positions in three different universities (and about to be a professor in a fourth).
She and I are atheists, but we’re in the minority — among my colleagues (since they’re the ones I know better), there have been quite a few faiths represented, from high Catholic (i.e. the faith of the Really Long Wedding Ceremony, or at least that was my experience at hers 🙂 ) to Mormon to Jewish to various Protestant denominations. Yes, there’ve also been some agnostics and some atheists, but certainly not the majority.
One of the best biology teachers I’ve ever worked with is also one of the most devout Christians.
Further, my first job interview fresh out of grad school was to teach physics at a Catholic school. I said I’d probably work in some astronomy when the occasion warranted, since that’s my background, and asked, “you’re not going to have any problem with me teaching cosmology?” Their response was “no. We’re Catholic, not creationists.”
So from both the science-teaching side and the side of at least one major faith, teaching science is hardly teaching atheism.
You’re right that it’s not the state’s job to dispel the notion of a God — but teaching evolutionary biology does not in fact do that.
2) “That said, I see no harm in letting the childen learn at least about what the debate is about.”
The basic problem with “letting them learn about the debate” is that they have to understand the terms of the debate first. The “debate” within the scientific community about evolution is about various mechanisms within it, and is a fairly technical and often jargon-filled debate.
There is no such debate about the existence of evolution, at least not within science.
Now, if you want to “teach the controversy” concerning society’s acceptance or lack thereof of evolution, I’m all for it. But do it in a sociology class or a class on comparative religion (which, IMO, I think just about any school could benefit from). Leave science out of it.
Best,
TWL