Letting the kids decide for themselves

A common argument for teaching Creationism (or Intelligent Design) in public schools is that we should let the kids decide for themselves which seems correct, so we would respect their intelligence and freedom and so on. This seems to be what the Republican Governor of Texas Rick Perry - also a presidential candidate - believes.

There is one problem. Evolution is the prevailing theory explaining the origin of species and it is backed by science. If other scientific theories (and the scientific method in general) should be challenged in the classroom by non-scientific (or scientific but very unpopular) theories, the curriculum would be pretty absurd. This is actually the easy part.

But what about things that are not exactly science but questions of ethics, politics and so on? I would assume that Texans take certain things for granted - for example that you are allowed to defend yourself and your property or that you are allowed to start your own business, or marry whoever you wish. What if these "beliefs" would be required to be challenged in the classroom?

Consider these debates:

• Socialism vs. Free market economy: Even though USA is generally in favor of free markets, why should the children be taught that this is the default or the best system? Why not Communism? Many things are better in Cuba than in United States, and Soviet Union's society had many advantages over the American one.
• Militarism vs. Pacifism: There is a considerable amount of known thinkers in favor of non-violent resistance, pacifism and generally peaceful conflict resolution. I think Jesus, Mahatma Gandhi and John Lennon would be among these. Still, the situation where U.S. military conducting combat operations around the world does not seem to be challenged. Where is the challenge of this prevailing view, that violence can be justified?
• Consumerism vs. Environmentalism: People consume and produce trash and pollution. That's very natural in United States and it is not going to change. Why not? The natural resources are not infinite and climate seems to be shifting - so why is this not taught at schools, challenging the traditional ways of the society?
• Government vs. Anarchy: Americans seem to be proud of their country, their flag, their liberty and independence. But shouldn't other options be discussed in the classroom, too? The philosophy of anarchy, despising governmental control and authority, could be very interesting to kids. Most Texans also know Jesus, who has often been described as an anarchist thinker of some kind. 

If evolution should be challenged, why shouldn't other models about how the world work? You know, we should not feed "the American way" to the kids, we should let them decide for themselves if they want to follow the teachings of Martin Luther King, Mao Zedong, Adolph Hitler, Ron Paul, Robert Heinlein, Jesus, Vladimir Lenin or George Washington, right?

How far would you go letting them decide for themselves?

Miss USA Pageant Contestants Discuss Teaching of Evolution

As part of the Miss USA 2011 beauty contest, the contestants were interviewed on a variety of subjects. One question was about teaching of evolution: should evolution be taught in public schools? There is still a lot of debate about this matter around United States, especially in the Southern states, where conservative Christian views dominate.

There was a good variety of answers by the very pretty contestants and they speak in a clear and smart manner. Most of them, however, approached the problem with the idea that evolution is a belief or that a student's personal belief's should dictate what is taught at school.

Many of the contestants stress that they personally do not believe in evolution. Because it is a matter of belief, it should not be taught in classroom, or "both sides" should be presented so that children could make their own decisions about which is true.

While I find it worrying that these ladies confuse science with personal beliefs, let us think why they are in this contest in the first place. They are not competing to become science teachers. They are trying to convince the judges that they are not only good-looking but also gentle, friendly and good to present themselves, in a clear and positive manner. They probably aim to work in a profession related to publicity: as a model, actor, presenter.

In what they were expected to do, they did well. They presented themselves as caring, gentle and friendly. The question was presented as a challenge, not as an inquiry about their scientific and theological knowledge. They had no problem speaking their mind and answering the question and many of them extended a hand to "both sides".

At the same time, they present honest and dangerous misconceptions about what science and beliefs mean and what should be taught in the classroom in general. The theory of biological evolution is the prevailing scientific theory about the origin and development of species. There are no other significant theories, so if you want to present the children "the alternative" or "both sides", what should you tell them? Also, should the kids' own (or the parents') conceptions about the matter affect what they are taught?

At the same time, kids should be taught what a theory is and how science is done. They should understand that while there is a theory of evolution, it is not "just" a theory and while you can criticize it like any other theory, it prevails. Creationism, on the other hand, is a religious belief and while some of its claims could be assessed like other details, as a theory it should not be taught in a biology or physics class. Generally, I believe, that it is important to know that people have conflicting views about the origin of the world, but that is not a matter of physics or biology but sociology, philosophy and ethics.