Secularism and Science Education

Overall recommendation

The government should set standards in education to ensure that public school science classrooms are free of religious dogma, including the latest incarnation of Creationism known as Intelligent Design.

1. The CSA supports methodological naturalism in science education.

Science is a constantly expanding and self-correcting body of knowledge based on a controlled experimentation, deduction, and logical inference. “Methodological naturalism” is the principle underpinning the modern scientific method. As philosophy professor Michael Ruse notes, “the methodological naturalist is the person who assumes that the world runs according to unbroken law; that humans can understand the world in terms of this law; and that science involves just such understanding without any reference to extra or supernatural forces like God. Whether there are such forces or beings is another matter entirely and simply not addressed by methodological naturalism” [1]. In other words, scientists must proceed under the assumption that there are no supernatural forces at work – this is the only rational means of adding to our knowledge of the universe, regardless of whether a deity actually exists or miracles actually occur. Methodological naturalism is distinct from “metaphysical naturalism” – the philosophical position that the universe is composed of matter and energy, and that supernatural phenomena do not exist. As philosophy professor Barbarra Forest puts it: “Methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism are distinguished by the fact that methodological naturalism is an epistemology as well as a procedural protocol, while philosophical naturalism is a metaphysical position” [2]. Methodological naturalism does not necessarily imply atheism – a point misunderstood by much of the general public, and exploited by religious fundamentalists seeking to misrepresent scientific opposition to their claims [3].

2. The CSA opposes the teaching of religious dogma in science classrooms.

Religious dogma posing as scientific knowledge (for examples, see [4]) does students a disservice by blurring the distinction between two fundamentally different ways of arriving at a conclusion: reason and faith. Critical thinking skills — the cornerstones of a modern education — are undermined by presenting evidence-based and faith-based beliefs as equivalent in a science classroom. The CSA maintains that instruction in various religious beliefs and practices is not inappropriate in several areas of education. Courses in world religions, history, and literature would be remiss if they did not include the contribution of numerous religions and its practitioners. However, unfalsifiable claims and supernatural interventions are utterly inappropriate in the science classroom.

3. The CSA opposes the promotion of Creationism/Intelligent Design as a viable scientific alternative to evolution.

Despite claims to the contrary, evolution is currently the only scientific explanation that can account for the complexity of life observed on our planet. Evolution underpins all of the biological sciences, and has been strengthened and supported by a massive volume of scientific evidence uncovered in the last one and a half centuries. As the consensus view of the scientific community, evolution is widely supported by religious, educational, and civil liberties organizations [5]. The Canadian Secular Alliance applauds the work of organizations like McGill University’s Evolution Education Research Centre (EERC), which aims to advance the teaching and learning of evolution in Canada through research [6].

The latest incarnation of Creationism, known as Intelligent Design [10], maintains that the complexity of life cannot be accounted for by natural evolutionary processes, and necessitates the existence of a “designer”. Although not explicitly stated, this designer is implied to be the deity of Christianity. Intelligent Design is aggressively championed by a small number of vocal activists who seek to attach scientific legitimacy to their religious beliefs, but is rejected by the overwhelming majority of the scientific community. Even the Vatican’s chief astronomer has clearly stated that Intelligent Design is not science and does not belong in the science classroom [11,12]. Even so, Intelligent Design appears to enjoy some support in Canadian academic circles. In a 2005 decision to reject a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) grant application, the peer review panel criticized the applicant for failing to supply “adequate justification for the assumption in the proposal that the theory of evolution, and not intelligent design theory, was correct” [13,14].

Creationism/Intelligent Design does not meet the minimum requirements of a scientific theory. It is unfalsifiable and offers no testable predictions. The claims of Intelligent Design proponents have been comprehensively and repeatedly refuted by the scientific community [15-48]. Creationism/Intelligent Design does not qualify as ‘science’ without a complete, wholesale re-definition of the word as we currently understand it.

4. Background note: Canadians’ views on evolution.

Public opinion polls of Canadians’ attitudes toward evolution provide a nuanced picture. In a poll conducted by Angus Reid in July 2008, 58% of Canadians said they believe human beings evolved from less advanced life forms over millions of years, while 22% said think God created human beings in their present form within the last 10,000 years [7]. However, a Canadian Press-Decima Research poll conducted in June 2007 asked a more detailed question that also probed respondents beliefs about how they believe evolution occurs. In this poll: 26% of respondents said they think God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so; 29% said they think human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process; and 34% said they think human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but that God guided this process [8]. Thus, the position most accepted by Canadians seems to be that of “theistic evolution” – a concept that has been criticized as non-scientific because, by invoking the intervention of a deity, it violates the premise of methodological naturalism that underlies all of modern science [9]. As biochemistry professor Laurence Moran notes: “There is widespread agreement among philosophers of science that adherence to methodological naturalism is one of the features that distinguishes science from non-science. If your explanation of the natural world allows miracles or supernatural beings, then it may or may not be correct but it isn’t science” [9].

References

    1. Ruse, M, 2001. Methodological Naturalism Under Attack. In Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics: Philosophical, Theological, and Scientific Perspectives (Pennock, RT, ed.) Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 2001. http://books.google.com/books?id=CIFM67GkCyMC
    2. Forrest, B, 2000. Methodological Naturalism and Philosophical Naturalism: Clarifying the Connection. Philo 3, 7-29. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/barbara_forrest/naturalism.html
    3. Pigliucci, M, 2005. Science and fundamentalism. EMBO Reports 6, 1106-1109. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1369219&blobtype=pdf
    4. Canadian Secular Alliance. Ontario taxpayers finance science teaching materials containing religious doctrine. Accessed 30 May 2009. http://www.onessn.org/catholic_science_curriculum.pdf
    5. National Center for Science Education. Voices for evolution. Berkeley, California: National Center for Science Education, 2008. http://www.lulu.com/items/volume_63/1709000/1709901/9/print/1709901.pdf
    6. Alters, B, Asghar, A, Wiles, JR, 2005. “Evolution Education Research Centre”. In Humanist Perspectives, issue 154, Autumn 2005. http://www.humanistperspectives.org/issue154/EERC.html
    7. Angus Reid Strategies, 2008 August 5. Canadians Believe Human Beings Evolved Over Millions of Years. Accessed 1 Jun 2009. http://www.angus-reid.com/uppdf/2008.08.05_Origin.pdf
    8. Decima Research, 2007 July 3. Evolution v Creationism? Accessed 1 Jun 2009. http://www.harrisdecima.com/en/downloads/pdf/news_releases/070706E.pdf
    9. Moran, LA, 2006. Theistic Evolution: The Fallacy of the Middle Ground. Accessed 1 Jun 2009. http://bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca/Evolution_by_Accident/Theistic_Evolution.html
    10. National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine. Science, Evolution, and Creationism. Washington DC: National Academies Press, 2008. http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11876
    11. Associated Press, 2005 Nov 18. Vatican official: ‘Intelligent design’ isn’t science. Accessed 1 Jun 2009. http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2005-11-18-vaticanastronomer_x.htm
    12. Holden, C, 2005. Vatican astronomer rebuts cardinal’s attack on Darwinism. Science 309, 996-997. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16099953
    13. Hannah Hoag, 2006. Doubts over evolution block funding by Canadian agency. Nature 440, 720-721. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v440/n7085/full/440720b.html
    14. Curran, P, Boswell, R, 2006 April 5. Prof denied grant over evolution. The Montreal Gazette. Accessed 1 Jun 2009. http://www2.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=0a8fac12-185a-445f-a463-5d127eaa40f2&k=11346
    15. Padian, K, Matzke, N, 2009. Darwin, Dover, ‘Intelligent Design’ and textbooks. Biochemical Journal 417, 29-42. http://www.biochemj.org/bj/417/0029/4170029.pdf
    16. Padian, K, 2009. The evolution of creationists in the United States: Where are they now, and where are they going? Comptes Rendus Biologies 332, 100-109. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19281943
    17. Ayala, FJ, 2008. Science, evolution, and creationism. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 105, 3-4. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=2224205&blobtype=pdf
    18. Cornish-Bowden, A, Cárdenas, ML, 2007. The threat from creationism to the rational teaching of biology. Biological Research 40, 113-22. http://www.scielo.cl/pdf/bres/v40n2/art02.pdf
    19. Greener, M, 2007. Taking on Creationism. Which arguments and evidence counter pseudoscience?. EMBO Reports 8, 1107-1109. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=2267227&blobtype=pdf
    20. Coalition of Scientific Societies, 2008. Evolution and its discontents: a role for scientists in science education. FASEB Journal 22, 1-4. http://www.fasebj.org/cgi/reprint/22/1/1
    21. Forrest, BC, Gross, PR, 2007. Biochemistry by design. Trends in Biochemical Sciences 32, 301-310. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17570673
    22. Scott, EC, Matzke, NJ, 2007. Biological design in science classrooms. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104 Suppl 1, 8669-76. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1876445&blobtype=pdf
    23. Sober, E, 2007. What is wrong with intelligent design? The Quarterly Review of Biology 82, 3-8. http://philosophy.wisc.edu/sober/what%27s%20wrong%20with%20id%20qrb%202007.pdf
    24. Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, 2006. FASEB opposes using science classes to teach intelligent design, creationism, and other non-scientific beliefs. FASEB Journal 20, 408-9. http://www.fasebj.org/cgi/reprint/20/3/408
    25. Wilkins, AS, 2006. “Intelligent design” as both problem and symptom. Bioessays 28, 327-329. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16547955
    26. Zuckerkandl, E, 2006. Intelligent design and biological complexity. Gene 385, 2-18. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17011142
    27. Pallen, MJ, Matzke, NJ, 2006. From The Origin of Species to the origin of bacterial flagella. Nature Reviews Microbiology 4, 784-90. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16953248
    28. Doolittle, WF, Zhaxybayeva, O, 2007. Evolution: reducible complexity – the case for bacterial flagella. Current Biology 17, R510-512. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17610831
    29. Attie, AD, Sober, E, Numbers, RL, Amasino, RM, Cox, B, Berceau, T, Powell, T, Cox, MM, 2006. Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action. The Journal of Clinical Investigation 116, 1134-1138. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1451210&blobtype=pdf
    30. Bottaro, A, Inlay, MA, Matzke, NJ, 2006. Immunology in the spotlight at the Dover ‘Intelligent Design’ trial. Nature Immunology 7,433-435. http://www.nature.com/ni/journal/v7/n5/pdf/ni0506-433.pdf
    31. Annas, GJ, 2006. Intelligent judging – evolution in the classroom and the courtroom. The New England Journal of Medicine. 354, 2277-2281. http://content.nejm.org/cgi/reprint/354/21/2277.pdf
    32. Lombrozo, T, Shtulman, A, Weisberg, M, 2006. The Intelligent Design controversy: lessons from psychology and education. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 10,56-57. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16368260
    33. Scott, EC, 2006. Creationism and evolution: it’s the American way. Cell 124, 449-451. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16469687
    34. Mervis, J, 2006. The Dover ID Decision. Judge Jones defines science–and why intelligent design isn’t. Science 311, 34. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16400124
    35. Neill, US, 2005. Don’t be stupid about intelligent design. The Journal of Clinical Investigation. 115, 2586. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1236706&blobtype=pdf
    36. Nature, 2005. Keeping religion out of science class. Nature 436, 753. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v436/n7052/pdf/436753a.pdf
    37. Leshner, AI, 2005. Redefining science. Science 309, 221. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16002582
    38. Raff, RA, 2005. Stand up for evolution. Evolution & Development 7, 273-275. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15982362
    39. Nature Cell Biology, 2005. Creating controversy. Nature Cell Biology 7, 99. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15689972
    40. Nature Structural & Molecular Biology, 2005. Theory, fact and the origin of life. Nature Structural & Molecular Biology 12, 101. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15702065
    41. Frazzetto, G, 2004. Who’s afraid of Darwin? EMBO Reports 5, 662-665. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1299106&blobtype=pdf
    42. Pennock, RT, 2003. Creationism and intelligent design. Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics. 4, 143-163. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14527300
    43. Scott, EC, Branch, G, 2003. Evolution: what’s wrong with ‘teaching the controversy’. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 18, 499-502. http://www.cell.com/trends/ecology-evolution/abstract/S0169-5347(03)00218-0
    44. Pennock, RT, 2002. Should Creationism Be Taught in the Public Schools? Science & Education 11, 111-133. https://www.msu.edu/~pennock5/research/papers/Pennock_Teach%20Creationism.pdf
    45. Sober, E, 2002. Intelligent design and probability reasoning. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 52, 65-80. http://www.springerlink.com/content/k9p03767854103n7/
    46. Peterson, GR, 2002. The intelligent-design movement: science or ideology? Zygon 37, 7-23. http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118919557/abstract
    47. Petsko, GA, 2001. Design by necessity. Genome Biology 2, comment1010.1–comment1010.3 http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=138947&blobtype=pdf
    48. Pennock, RT, 1996. Naturalism, evidence and creationism: the case of Phillip Johnson. Biology and Philosophy 11, 543-559. http://www.springerlink.com/content/n8w0681217044285/

Revision date: 29 June 2009

Mixx Delicious Digg Facebook Twitter