Is creationism about to be taught in Queensland? 31 May 201018 Sep 2017 PZ Mistletoe, under whom atheists get to kiss each other, has accused my home base state Queensland* of introducing creationism into high schools. However, what he is responding to, in the Murdoch press (never a good source of information) is a national draft curriculum for all Australian schools, so it is not just the so-called Bible belt state. Second, it is not to be taught in science classes, but in ancient history.Third, creationism is already in public schools in Australia via religious education classes, although of course it isn’t supposed to be. Is this a good or a bad thing? I am going to argue that it is a good thing, if done right. Here’s why: in third term this year I hope to offer a class at Bond entitled “Darwinism and Society” (although I do not think there is such a thing as “Darwinism“, a view I will assert in the lectures, and I am not entirely sure there is such a thing as “Society” either), and the reason is because you absolutely have to put these popular ideas into a historical context, and one way is to point out how creationist ideas go back to the earliest times in the western tradition. Consider this: modern creationism is not the historical creationism that goes back to Socrates. It was invented by a Seventh Day Adventist in the 1920s, and revived in the 1960s. It would surely help those who are religious to know that Darwinian ideas were not objected to on biblical grounds until the middle of the last century, rather than from the earliest times. Second, it would help all students to know that the reason why Darwinian ideas were objected to in actuality, and to deal with this. The main objection, which didn’t really take root until the late 19th century, was the implication that there are no purposes other than those conferred by survival. This is fruitful grounds for classroom discussions, and I think just raising the matter will increase the number of those who decide that actually one doesn’t need cosmic teleology to have a good life, although I would equally object to anyone who tried to impose that idea as I would to anyone who tried to argue for creationism. It seems to me that some people have a problem dealing with history in any way other than a morally charged manner, and that is more than anything else what we should be teaching this way. The idea that history teaches us the rightness or wrongness of the present or desired social order is I think pernicious and to be opposed early in students’ education, to prevent claims of things like manifest destiny, progressivism, and whiggism. So, while I can see how this might be misused by those with agendas, I think it is entirely a good subject to discuss in schools in Australia. Generally, such curricula result in teaching notes, textbooks and standards that will prevent such agendas if used properly. Here’s what the draft says: Controversies Students develop their historical skills in an investigation of TWO of the following controversial issues: • a) human origins (e.g. Darwin’s theory of evolution and its critics) • b) dating the past (e.g. radio-carbon dating, tracing human migrations using DNA) • c) fakes and forgeries (e.g. Piltdown Man, the Treasure of Priam, Noah’s Ark, the Turin Shroud) • d) the use and display of human remains (e.g. repatriation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander human remains, The Iceman, Egyptian mummies, Lady Dai) • e) imperialistic attitudes towards archaeological property (e.g. Indigenous cultural artefacts from around the world) • f) the ownership of cultural property (e.g. the return of Parthenon sculptures) • g) the impact of war and terrorism on antiquities (e.g. the Buddhas of Bamyan, the looting of Iraqi museums) • h) political and ideological uses of archaeology (e.g. archaeology under the Nazis and Fascists) • i) a school-developed study of a controversial issue. Students examine the nature and context of the controversy, including: • the historical background • the extent of the controversy (media coverage, nationalistic feeling, government involvement) and significant developments relating to the controversy • different perspectives and their bases • an assessment of the different perspectives. Doesn’t look like it warrants PZ’s ire, really. * I say home base, because I am and will always be a Mexican Victorian. Who needs warm weather all year round anyway? Australian stuff Creationism and Intelligent Design Education History Social evolution History
Ethics and Moral Philosophy Morality and Evolution 1: The Milvian Bridge 29 Apr 201422 May 2014 [Morality and Evolution 1 2 3 4 5 6 7] A while back I gave a talk to a group of theologians on the question of Darwinian accidents. It had no ethics content. The first question I was asked was “If you are an atheist, how can you have moral rules?” Like many others who talk… Read More
Evolution Trashcan: chaotic remnants 7 Dec 2008 Siris has an interesting piece on the nature of the liberal arts. I loves me some 13th century, I does. Bora objects to Obama’s choices being characterised as “elites” and therefore bad. On the other hand, the term “groupthink” was coined to characterise the elite advisors of the first American… Read More
Evolution Darwin conference at U Chicago 16 Apr 2009 Yes, I know there are thousands of these this year, and by October we’ll all be tired of them, but this one looks like the main game: Darwin/Chicago 2009. I am, of course, upset not to be invited to speak, but there are a few good names there to make… Read More
Right, but I’m guessing most of the concern is the ease with which this can/will be hijacked by people with agendas. That’s my concern at least. It may just be a case of [intellectually]-damned-if-you-do/don’t
I have no knowledge of the situation in Australia, but generally speaking I think many atheists recoil at the idea of creationism being introduced into curricula in any fashion because they feel that the less attention paid to creationism, and the less it is spoken of, the better. But this is a rather foolish idea, because the idea that humans are more than the product of evolution operating in the animal kingdom is a very powerful one in many minds, and will not go away if we simply ignore it. The idea that “we are nothing but animals” arouses strong fears in many minds on various fronts, including morality, survival after death, and the “disenchantment of nature,” and these need to be addressed frankly and forthrightly.
I actually think that the creationists are responsible in large part for a rise in interest in evolution, not a drop.
It was because of creationists that I really took up an interest in it. For a long while I bought the notion that science explains the how and religion explains the why, that the science was the science and we were all free to come to our own conclusions about the supernatural. But I found a very different reality when I started to talk to people about it. Evolution was a demon word especially among Americans (thank you internet) and science couldn’t be the science because the science was wrong (apparently)! I wanted to be able to take down creationist arguments so I started learning as much as I could about the topic. The more I’ve learnt the less I’ve realised I actually know, but it’s been a lot of fun trying.
As a SOSE teacher and a history teacher I’m highly skeptical. You are correct if this is “done right” it could be a good way of looking at a controversy in the media. What I am not keen on is giving the impression that a controversy exists within the scientific community as there is no creation vs evolution controversy among scientists to speak of. The controversy is between fundamentalists and scientists, as long as that is emphasised then I’d be satisfied.
I am not entirely sure there is such a thing as “Society” either Hm. Nobody’s taken the bait yet. And you’ve been practicing your handbag swinging all month.