Draft: "Why We Should Teach About Creationism in Science Classes"

Still trying to track down some references (and pointers from those in
the group would be appreciated). References are linked on the web site
version (see bottom of the main page).

=======
Why We Should Teach About Creationism in Science Classes
W.T. Bridgman, Ph.D.

"Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy",
http://homepage.mac.com/cygnusx1/

Draft

In recent years, the proponents of teaching "Intelligent Design" and
it's precursor "Scientific Creationism" have redoubled their efforts to
impose their pseudo-science in the classrooms of our public schools.

Yet, in all the turmoil created by these battles in the school boards
and courts, there is one solution that has been overlooked, or perhaps
avoided. In the true spirit of turning a problem into an opportunity,
if we wish to improve the critical thinking skills of our students,
"Scientific Creationism" provides many examples of a pseudo-science
that can be analyzed in detail to teach students why it just doesn't
work.

My particular field is astrophysics, and over the past ten years I've
examined a number of claims by the "Young Earth Creationists" (YEC) who
object to modern cosmology's evidence that the universe is on the order
of 14 billion years old. Creationist "theories" such as claims that
the speed of light was significantly higher in the recent past (to
solve the light-travel time of seeing galaxies billions of light-years
away in a less than ten-thousand year old universe) have errors so
obvious that they can be addressed by students with a high school (or
advanced middle school) understanding of physics or mathematics. YEC
claims using general relativity might have to be dealt with in
undergraduate to graduate-level physics classes, but nonetheless will
better prepare future physicists for dealing with these issues. Many
amateur and professional scientists have analyzed creationist claims
and the results are available through a number of resources such as
Talk.Origins.

In college level physics classes, many Creationist claims can be
examined directly. Gigabytes of astrophysical data are already freely
available online to support such a project. For primary and secondary
education, curriculum developers need to be able to convert the
analyses of pseudo-science claims into workable lesson plans and then
deliver the resources and necessary training to the schools and
teachers. This is not an easy task, but the price of NOT doing it is
the loss of American leadership in science and engineering. I have
done some work from the astrophysical side of the problem, but
geologists and biologists need to take a similar approach.

Advocates of "Creation Science" and "Intelligent Design" fear such an
approach. While it's not received much attention, some have publicly
admitted that their 'theory' (actually a hypothesis) has had no success
in the laboratory. That's why they fall back to "teaching the
controversy" as it is an easy way to avoid this problem while they try
to maneuver other components of their agenda into the classroom (this
is why the Discovery Institute describes it as the "Wedge Strategy").
"Intelligent Design", as a real scientific theory, failed a century
ago, and belongs in the dustbin of failed theories with the
luminiferous aether and the plumb-pudding model of the atom. The claim
that "Evolution is a theory, not a fact" is just playing games with
words. Electromagnetism is a theory. Quantum mechanics is a theory.
Even gravity is a theory. I've yet to see anyone demonstrate a useful
better antenna design, a better semiconductor component design, or
develop a trajectory to send a spacecraft through the Solar System
without using these "theories". We've sent spacecraft to distant
regions of our own Solar System, but I've yet to see a Biblical
geocentrist compute the trajectory to send a spacecraft to the Moon or
Mars. This might be an important issue for human crews in the
not-to-distant future.

Creationists like to claim that we can't "know" what's happening or
what happened in distant regions of the cosmos or far back in time,
yet physicists have done this from the time of Galileo with great
success. Newton's theory of gravity was explaining how planets and
stars move in empty space nearly three centuries before machines and
humans could travel in space to test it. Einstein's revision to that
theory was explaining observations in the distant cosmos years before
some of the predictions could be tested in Earth-based experiments
and decades before it's effects were incorporated into the Global
Positioning System (GPS). Quantum theory was explaining atomic
behavior in rarefied regions of distant space and the incredible
high-density structure of stellar remnants such as white dwarf and
neutron stars decades before the conditions could be even partially
reproduced in the laboratory, even before it became a key component in
the development of microelectronics. When astrophysicists discovered a
deficit in the number of neutrinos emitted from the Sun in the late
1960s, called the Solar Neutrino Problem, Creationists touted this as
evidence that the Sun was not powered by nuclear reactions and the 4.5
billion year age of the Sun was not possible. Real scientists checked
their calculations and concluded that a neutrino mass (up to that time,
the neutrino was assumed to be massless), far smaller than was possible
to measure at the time, could explain the deficit. In recent years,
we've been able to confirm this effect in Earth-based experiments.
We've even discovered properties in the atomic nucleus based on
cosmological constraints. Cosmology isn't just something that happens
'out there' - it has often provided guidance on physical phenomena
years before controlled laboratory experiments were possible. There
have been no similar successes or utility from Creation "science" or
"Intelligent Design". Cosmology has real implications for our
technology and life on Earth.

Since the dawn of the atomic age in WWII, science has enjoyed the
grateful generosity of taxpaying public. Scientists have used this
generosity to unlock the tiniest secrets of the atom to the most
distant regions of the cosmos and has generated useful products and
methodologies in the process.

In spite of all this advancement, the American scientific community has
left behind an intellectual vacuum in the education system that
crackpots and con-artists have been all too willing to fill. The
scientific community has ignored this growing problem and now it
threatens to infect our society. Our nation would not be the first to
take this self-destructive path. Stalin dismissed Darwinian selection
in favor of Lysenko's theories on adaptation, allowing the political
process, instead of the scientific process, define the science. When
they applied Lysenko's ideas to Soviet agriculture, crop failures
ensued. This was the reason for the U.S. grain sales to the Soviet
Union in the 1970s. Their resulting inability to feed their own people
was a contributor to their collapse. The Nazis despised "Jewish
Physics" and touted their own "Aryan Physics". The famous "Einstein
Letter", advocating the development of the atomic bomb, was sent to FDR
in August of 1939. At that time, all the research with nuclear energy
weren't much more than tabletop experiments. The only indication that
the energy release would extrapolate to levels necessary for an atomic
bomb were the successes at that time of explaining the energy
production in the Sun and other stars. "Aryan Physics" touted the
superiority of experimentalists over the 'extrapolations' of theorists,
and (thankfully) may have hindered their own thinking on such a weapon
..

And we don't need to limit the debunking to creationism. There are a
plethora of pseudo-science claims with their adherents, many who post
their ramblings on the World Wide Web. A perusal of Crank dot Net
yields a cornucopia of pseudoscientific claims from free-energy scams
to "proofs" that relativity is wrong, with a broad range of
sophistication. Teaching students how to analyze these claims with
real science gives them a valuable tool not only for their professional
future but also for their role as citizens in a
technologically-advanced society.

I've raised this issue with scientists and teachers who express
reluctance to address debunking pseudo-science in the classroom.
However, the scientific community can no longer afford the luxury of
letting this battle play out in the courts and hoping for the best.
Over the past five years, this problem as grown from a single state to
challenges all over the United States. The approach I propose gives
the scientific community the chance to take control of the issue rather
than continuing in this guerilla war strategy of the Creationists.

The scientific community holds all the cards in this debate, it's time
we play them.
---
Acknowledgements: The author would like to express appreciation to all
those who reviewed drafts of this document and provided citations.
======
Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy
http://homepage.mac.com/cygnusx1

"They're trained to believe, not to know. Belief can be manipulated.
Only knowledge is dangerous." --Frank Herbert, "Dune Messiah"

Cygnus X-1 wrote:
Still trying to track down some references (and pointers from those
in
the group would be appreciated). References are linked on the web
site
version (see bottom of the main page).

=======
Why We Should Teach About Creationism in Science Classes
W.T. Bridgman, Ph.D.

"Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy",
http://homepage.mac.com/cygnusx1/

Draft

In recent years, the proponents of teaching "Intelligent Design" and
it's precursor "Scientific Creationism" have redoubled their efforts
to
impose their pseudo-science in the classrooms of our public schools.

--------------------------
the answer to the above tile (which i definitely agree)
is

1 to make young sudents realise how much is missing

2 to create as much as possible uncurable parrots as we see
too many of them all around

ie to make them know that realy there are many achievenents
but those were not done by parrots and not by parasites
but by creative people. who didnt fear of not to be
on the main stream paradigma.
------------
all the best
Y.Porat
------------------

----------------------

"Cygnus X-1" wrote in message
t...
Still trying to track down some references (and pointers from those in
the group would be appreciated). References are linked on the web site
version (see bottom of the main page).

=======
Why We Should Teach About Creationism in Science Classes
W.T. Bridgman, Ph.D.

"Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy",
http://homepage.mac.com/cygnusx1/

Draft

In recent years, the proponents of teaching "Intelligent Design" and
it's precursor "Scientific Creationism" have redoubled their efforts to
impose their pseudo-science in the classrooms of our public schools.

Pretty much knee-jerk reactionary sloganeering.

1. Scientific Creationism (i.e. the Henry Morris cult) is not a "precursor"
to Intelligent Design. The major players of ID did not come out of the
Morris camp.

2. Consequently, there is no "they". Bridgman is simply witch-hunting.

snip more of the same vague, broad assertions and snobbery, without any
real analysis of science

There aren't going to be any Intelligent Design researchers shaking in their
shoes at Bridgman's approach.

You have some extra words in your final sentence that are superfluous.
It should read...
" There aren't...any intelligent Design researchers..."

Steven Pirie-Shepherd

wrote in message
oups.com...
You have some extra words in your final sentence that are superfluous.
It should read...
" There aren't...any intelligent Design researchers..."

Steven Pirie-Shepherd

They don't hang around the trailer park, Cletus.

The cast iron pot calling the stainless steel kettle black...

"Chris Devol" wrote in message
ink.net...
wrote in message
oups.com...
You have some extra words in your final sentence that are superfluous.
It should read...
" There aren't...any intelligent Design researchers..."

Steven Pirie-Shepherd

They don't hang around the trailer park, Cletus.

Were there any such things, that's precisely where one would expect to find
them, doofus.

W.T. Bridgman, Ph.D. wrote:

"And we don't need to limit the debunking to creationism. There are a

plethora of pseudo-science claims with their adherents, many who post
their ramblings on the World Wide Web."

The inherent problem with this approach rests in the realization of
where "the rubber hits the road" regarding implementation. Many of the
teachers will be pressured by school boards or parents, either directly
or indirectly, to avoid debunking creationism. The teaching of good
science will be viewed as someone teaching their children that their
religious beliefs are wrong. Oddly enough the tables may be turned and
this may cause legal issues that are unanticipated. First of all it
should be illegal for a government sponsored school to teach (and
therefore advocate) a particular religious view. However, it is
probably illegal as well for that government sponsored school to teach
that creationism is false (and therefore oppose) a certain religious
view. In a sociology class or a philosophy class you don't have to
debunk these beliefs or state a position regarding whether or not
creationism is false. This belief exists as a cultural phenomenon and
therefore can be studied as such. Therefore, it is obvious that
implementation of Dr. Bridgman's proposal creates problems for the
science teacher and subsequently problems in providing the best
education to the students.

The way to avoid the problem will be to avoid debunking religious
views. The way to avoid debunking religious views is to avoid teaching
religious views in the classroom as science to begin with!

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 10:31:13 -0500, Homer Sapiens wrote
(in article .com):

W.T. Bridgman, Ph.D. wrote:

"And we don't need to limit the debunking to creationism. There are a

plethora of pseudo-science claims with their adherents, many who post
their ramblings on the World Wide Web."

The inherent problem with this approach rests in the realization of
where "the rubber hits the road" regarding implementation. Many of the
teachers will be pressured by school boards or parents, either directly
or indirectly, to avoid debunking creationism. The teaching of good
science will be viewed as someone teaching their children that their
religious beliefs are wrong. Oddly enough the tables may be turned and
this may cause legal issues that are unanticipated. First of all it
should be illegal for a government sponsored school to teach (and
therefore advocate) a particular religious view. However, it is
probably illegal as well for that government sponsored school to teach
that creationism is false (and therefore oppose) a certain religious
view. In a sociology class or a philosophy class you don't have to
debunk these beliefs or state a position regarding whether or not
creationism is false. This belief exists as a cultural phenomenon and
therefore can be studied as such. Therefore, it is obvious that
implementation of Dr. Bridgman's proposal creates problems for the
science teacher and subsequently problems in providing the best
education to the students.

The way to avoid the problem will be to avoid debunking religious
views. The way to avoid debunking religious views is to avoid teaching
religious views in the classroom as science to begin with!


Perhaps I could clarify that you only approach the issues which *are*
scientifically testable - like consequences of large changes in the
speed of light, conservation of energy issues and downright
computational errors in Gentry's NRI, etc.

We don't cover religious issues currently in science class, even though
many of the scientists discussed had/have religious views. Why should
this case be any different?

Tom
--
Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy
http://homepage.mac.com/cygnusx1

"They're trained to believe, not to know. Belief can be manipulated.
Only knowledge is dangerous." --Frank Herbert, "Dune Messiah"

Cygnus X-1 wrote:

"Perhaps I could clarify that you only approach the issues which *are*
scientifically testable - like consequences of large changes in the
speed of light, conservation of energy issues and downright
computational errors in Gentry's NRI, etc."

My point still remains however. Those that are advocating ID have a
religious motivation as an ulterior motive. Even if a teacher
restricted themselves to testable components and made a point of
showing them false, by association the religious parents would feel
that their religion had been challenged. If these testable components
are so easy to refute they should never be given creedence in the
classroom.

Hell, there are crackpots out there with all kinds of ridiculous claims
regarding science. Will the teachers in Roswell, NM have to teach UFOs?
What about the Global Flood, or the age of the Earth, or the timeline
for organisms on the planet (Did mankind and dinosaurs exist at the
same time?) ? Should a science teacher have to teach these as viable
alternatives to modern science? Well, why not? These have just as much
credibility as Intelligent Design. Can you refute these without raising
the ire of the religious parents?