What harm can it do to teach creationism?

The argument

This argument approaches the question of teaching creationism by shifting attention to the alleged harm of doing so. Much of the resistance to presenting creationism alongside evolution rests, implicitly or explicitly, on the worry that exposing children to a contested or non-scientific account will damage them in some way — confusing them, misleading them, or undermining their grasp of science. Proponents of teaching both ask the challenge directly: what harm can it actually do? If no genuine harm can be identified, they argue, the strongest objection to including creationism in the classroom falls away. The answer offered rests on a claim about how children learn. On this view, children's brains are extremely porous: they absorb ideas readily and in great quantity, and they routinely hold many ideas at once. Crucially, this capacity extends to theories that disagree with one another. Encountering conflicting accounts of the world is not an exceptional or hazardous event in a child's intellectual life but an ordinary part of it, and children can easily cope with learning multiple ideas and theories simultaneously. Presenting evolution and creationism side by side, then, does not overload or destabilise a young mind; it simply gives that mind more material of the kind it is naturally equipped to handle. The argument's second step concerns what children do with that material. Advocates hold that children are not passive receptacles who uncritically adopt whatever they are told; they are able to reason about competing theories and make up their own minds. A child taught both accounts is therefore not being indoctrinated into either, but invited to exercise judgment. Since exposure causes no harm and children can evaluate what they hear, proponents conclude that there is no good reason to withhold either account: creationism and evolution should both be taught.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Whilst a questioning approach is a desired outcome of education, instilling a disbelief in science is perniciously dangerous. Encouraging children to disbelieve scientific theory may appear innocuous for ideas such as creationism or a flat earth. But the increase in climate change deniers and anti-vaxxers threaten the welfare of society and the environment. Giving a story like creationism equal credibility with scientific theory in an educational establishment has significant repercussions. This is especially noteable in the USA. In contrast to being at the forefront of a lot of scientific discoveries and innovation “the United States (also has)… some of the most backwards proponents of superstitious nonsense in both our electorate and at the highest levels of politics. It is an embarrassment to host laboratories that are at the forefront of scientific research in the same country where presidential candidates are discussing whether Earth is really 6,000 years old as some Bible scholars say, or whether they believe in evolution.” Scientists face a dilemma – if they engage the proponents of creationism and intelligent design in direct debate, they risk giving further credence to anti-evolutionary arguments by inferring that the ideas are worthy of discussion. Authorities such as Richard Dawkins state it is futile to debate with creationists as this lends their ideas credibility. This same process has led to an immunisation “debate” that has resulted in unnecessary deaths. To teach creationism alongside evolution would undermine scientific endeavour and inquisitiveness. The biosciences are integrating our understanding of the natural world from ecosystems to viruses. This understanding and the new opportunities it brings are timely given global threats like climate change. As scientific inquiry is increasingly undermined, ultimately “scientific rationalism (may) be overthrown once and for all.” “Knowledge of history, like knowledge of science, is won with difficulty, and by moral virtues as well as purely intellectual ones. To throw them away dishonours our ancestors and cheats our descendants.”

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P2] Giving credence to creationism fosters anti-scientific ideas which threaten society.

Further reading

Miller, K. (2008) Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul. Viking ISBN: 0-670-01883-X Pennock, R.T. (2002) Should Creationism be Taught in the Public Schools?. Science & Education 11, 111–133 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014473504488