The Washington Post’s Jay Matthews offered a provocative new approach to the debate over the role of intelligent-design creationism in public school science classes. In a nutshell, Matthews thinks lessons on IDC would make science classes a little more interesting.
I am as devout a Darwinist as anybody. I read all the essays on evolution by the late Stephen Jay Gould, one of my favorite writers. The God I worship would, I think, be smart enough to create the universe without, as Genesis alleges, violating His own observable laws of conservation of matter and energy in a six-day construction binge. But after interviewing supporters and opponents of intelligent design, which argues among other things that today’s organisms are too complex to have evolved from primordial chemicals by chance or necessity, I think critiques of modern biology, like [high school teacher Al] Ladendorff’s contrarian lessons, could be one of the best things to happen to high school science.
Drop in on an average biology class and you will find the same slow, deadening march of memorization that I endured at 15. Why not enliven this with a student debate on contrasting theories? Why not have an intelligent design advocate stop by to be interrogated? Many students, like me, find it hard to understand evolutionary theory, and the scientific method itself, until they are illuminated by contrasting points of view.
I think I understand Matthews’ point here. He seems to realize that intelligent-design creationism is nonsense and shouldn’t be taught as science in any classroom that takes education seriously. Instead, Matthews appears to believe debunking pseudo-science might make for engaging lessons. At face value, this is not utterly ridiculous.
The problem I have with this approach is a practical one. In general, classrooms are not the ideal location to expose students to lessons we know are untrue. When teaching students about heliocentrism, we don’t usually invite critics who believe the earth is at the center of the galaxy in for a presentation. When teaching students the value of pi, we don’t encourage those who’d like to see it changed to just 3.0 to make their best pitch.
In other words, public school classrooms are not episodes of Mythbusters.
Matthews notes John Stuart Mill’s belief that good ideas should be questioned and challenged. Fine. But the question then becomes who should be doing the questioning.
When it comes to science, there’s an equal and open playing field. Advocates of intelligent-design creationism can submit their ideas to journals, endure the peer-review process, and engage in a substantive debate with colleagues in their field. If their ideas withstand scrutiny, good for them — they’ll be part of the scientific canon and students will be exposed to their theories. If not, then their ideas need more work.
The answer, however, is not to skip this process altogether and have ideas come from right-wing think tanks and go directly to the high schools.
Sometimes lessons in math and science are challenging; why confuse students by exposing them to bogus claims?