Do Creationists Make Good Science Teachers?
A recent conversation with friend Alex Bertland, a Philosophy prof at Niagara University, converged nicely with some surfing I was doing regarding young earth creationism. By chance, I found a doctoral dissertation by one David Van Dyke, which Google returned under the heading "Do Creationists make good science teachers?" Mr. Van Dyke performed his research at Andrews University, a Seventh-Day Adventist school in Michigan that I attended myself during my freshman year. Van Dyke, apparently not a Creationist, exchanged views with readers of Roger Ebert's review of the movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed," and as a result of the exchange, Ebert invited Van Dyke to introduce his dissertation on his blog site.
Van Dyke's result? Children taught Creationism turn into perfectly fine doctors, musicians, architects, and even teachers and scientists. They're wrong about origins, but so what? The encroachment of Creationism into public schools gives rise to vitriolic arguments about science and religion, and church and state. Questions of public schooling aside (if the local school board elects to teach Creationism, the effect that has on families who do not believe in Creationism), the teaching of Creationism to children simply isn't a big deal.
posted by Nels Thompson @ 12:20 AM
2 comments
2 Comments:
Howdy-
Thanks for noting me.
I appreciate the dialog, but disagree with your conclusion: Teaching creationism is a big deal.
There exists as much evidence for special creation as there does for astrology, the faked moon landing and Holocaust denial, i.e.: none.
Presenting special creation as a valid altrernate "theory" of evolution in public school science classrooms violates of the Establishment Clause.
Dave Van Dyke
Buchanan, MI
Dave, thanks so much for taking the time to comment. I was on vacation when it came in, and I forgot to get back to it and publish it.
I posted this in reaction to another conversation about whether teaching Creationism "harms" children-- our word, not one you've used. I was raised Seventh-Day Adventist, and although I am now an atheist and I do not believe in any form of special creation, we have to be careful before we say that Creationists "harm" their children. "Harm" means an intervention might be justified, and we have to stay away from this sort of judgment of religious belief if, in fact, children are not being harmed. (In a recurring argument with friends, I state that teaching Creationism is categorically not the same as denying medical care to children, for example.)
Violating the Establishment Clause is a very different than than harming children. Violating the Establishment Clause is a big deal, but teaching Creationism isn't. The Establishment Clause is one thing (although we allow public money in the form of college grants to go toward Creationist institutions), but I have been responding lately to people who argue that teaching Creationism harms children, or that a belief in Young Earth Creationism could be grounds for commitment in an institution. (That last, I trust, offered hyperbolically.) You haven't voiced either of those things, and I don't want to suggest that you have by putting words in your mouth. It's in that context that I say teaching Creationism is no big deal. It's on par with, say, letting kids watch too much tv. It's a bad idea, not the best choice, but that's all. The educational outcome for children taught Creationism I think proves my point.
(Note: If you've seen an altered version of this comment, I've edited it here to reflect that "harm" is my word, from a different discussion, not Dave's.)
Nels Thompson
Buffalo
Post a Comment
<< Home