This isn’t easy to write – I chickened out of the title I really wanted (We should teach creationism in schools) – but stick with me before you throw the brickbats.
Some time ago I did a series of posts in which I looked at evolution in the light of some creationist material I had been sent. But this is a totally different argument.
I’m currently reading the excellent How Mumbo Jumbo Conquered the World (see in UK see in US) by Francis Wheen, recommended to me by our erudite local radio DJ (not an oxymoron in this case) Mark O’Donnell.
In one chapter, Wheen tears into the marvellous stupidity of post-modernism/post-structuralism and also bewails the lack of condemnation, even from senior politicians, of the teaching of creationism in school science. I believe it has a place there, though I would place it in astronomy/cosmology lessons, not biology.
The reason is this. I’m a popular science writer. My job is to make science accessible to the general reader, and a tool that popular science uses with great success is context. We put science into its historical perspective. We include stories of the people involved in the discoveries. This makes the subject more approachable. School science often lacks context. It is presented as bare fact, and as such is often a turn-off. At risk of sounding a touch post-modernist myself, this presentation of science as absolute fact/truth, without giving the context of how it was developed, also makes it easy for people to come up with silly ’it’s just a theory’ arguments against evolution. But that’s another story.
I’ve just written a book (due out in August) called Before the Big Bang (see in UK see in US). Dealing, as it does, with cosmology, I have a chapter covering creation myths. I explain that the term ‘myth’ isn’t an insult – a myth is a story with a purpose. It tells of something with import for our everyday life, usually occurring far in the past or in a distant land. And I show how the creation myths were also an attempt to explain our cosmos, and that though they have been superceded scientifically as explanations of the origins of the universe, this doesn’t invalidate or attack the lesson that goes along with the myth.
By putting creation myths into context in this way, we are much more likely to defuse the issue than by rigidly insisting that they should never appear in science lessons.
One argument that’s used in the US is that creationism should be taught in schools in social sciences or history: it’s not a scientific concept, but still has cultural relevance. I think you’re suggesting the same thing, the problem is that you’re in danger of being quote-mined: they’ll use “We should teach creationism in schools” without the rest of your argument. And you’ll be raised to the level of “respected science writer Dr. Brian Clegg, writing for Nature”.
Politically, I think suggesting that creationism should be taught as myth is a non-starter, because you’re going to be attacked by both sides.
What you say makes a lot of sense Brian but your title is perhaps misleading. It’s one thing to present creation myths in a science class as a way of establishing context and providing useful insight into the development of our understanding of the world.
But creationism, if I have understood correctly is a philosophy that manifestly doesn’t treat these myths as myth. They are asserting that the biblical account should have equal footing with any modern scientific analysis of the origin of the universe or of life anywhere within it. That’s what is objectionable. But I don’t suppose you were advocating that, despite your title.
Morning Bob – our posts crossed – how right you were!
You’re right, Stephen. The title is, I admit, a shameless attention grabber. (That’s us popular science writers for you.) However, having said that, in teaching the creation myths as context for cosmology, I would also describe how these can be misinterpreted, resulting in creationism, hopefully preparing children to better understand the argument, so in that sense I do advocate teaching creationism – but not as an alternative scientific theory, but as a phenomenon that emerges from a misunderstanding of the nature of creation myths.
Both buses arrived at the station at the same time, narrowly avoiding collision.
1)http://www.bautforum.com/science-technology/43821-natural-selection-random-genetic-drift.html
2)http://www.bautforum.com/science-technology/33861-evolution-creationism-2.html
3)http://forums.astronomydaily.com/viewtopic.php?t=4789&highlight=pranab
But which creation myth are you going to discuss in these ‘astronomy/cosmology’ lessons (which, presumably, are but a small sub-set of physics lessons, if at all)? There are an awful lot of them: practically every religion has one. Indeed, if you were looking to start a new proto-religion, then a creation myth would be a pre-requisite, no?
So, you would be limited to teaching the one or few dominant myth(s). That strikes me as potentially complicated, when an offended group demands equal time for their own faith’s (version of that) creation myth. (And, as Stephen points out, some will likely object to their’s being taught as mythology.) And we’re stuck in a vicious circle.
The problem is that as long as you go down that road and maintain that EVERY single group has the right of having their theories/beliefs/worldview represented in the classroom, you get stuck in a vicious circle. In practical terms, there’s always a limit to the contents you can teach, and someone has to select which ones are useful and which ones are less useful (and therefore better left out), no matter if you’re talking about science, history, philosophy, or whatever. Ideally, you’d like this someone to reflect the opinion of the majority, but there will always be some group claiming that they (and their theories/beliefs/worldview) are being unfairly marginalized. It’s time to realize that this is a necessary evil, after all.
Brian, what Stephen said (first comment). Creationism isn’t about the Christian creation myth, it’s an attempt to make the myth look like science. It’s not, so it shouldn’t be taught in science lessons. Teaching about different creation myths in a cultural context however – outside of science lessons – great. I think you’re mixing up creationism and creation myths unnecessarily.
And I would think that there are plenty of other angles teachers can use (and do use) to try and make science accessible.
I don’t think there’s an issue with which myth(s) to use – this isn’t an attempt at religious representation, it’s an example, so rights don’t come into it. So I would use the one of the dominant religion of the culture plus one of the old ones like Ancient Egypt. Should take all of two minutes in a lesson – but context is important.
Steffi – I still think you are collectively missing the point because you so go into automatic defensive mode as soon as the ‘c’ word is mentioned.
Creationism only makes sense if you don’t understand the nature of Genesis as two (not one) creation myths. My main point of getting them in is the cosmological context, but they can also be used to lay the ground for understanding this. I KNOW this isn’t really about teaching creationism – see my comment above. But it is, to the extent it’s teaching what creationism is really based on – a creation myth.
Brian, to me what you say (teaching creationism as a phenomenon that emerges from a misunderstanding of the nature of creation myths) only makes sense outside of science lessons. Anything else would, I think, confound the issue.
I KNOW this isn’t really about teaching creationism – see my comment above. But it is, to the extent it’s teaching what creationism is really based on – a creation myth.
Hmm – then why the inaccurate title? Oh yes, ‘shameless attention grabbing’. Here’s a challenge for you Brian: come up with an attention-grabbing title that isn’t misleading…! ;-)
Life’s too short, Stephen.
Steffi – it is very difficult to teach the history of cosmology (unless you are revisionist) without including creation myths.