There’s an oft repeated claim that, if kids are taught creation, they won’t be able to understand science. Bill Nye has made this very point. In his own words, he claimed the following (source):
[T]here are more people in the world — another billion people all trying to use the world’s resources. And the threat and consequences of climate change are more serious than ever, so we need as many people engaged in how we’re going to deal with that as possible. And we have an increasingly technologically sophisticated society. We are able to feed these 7.2 billion people because of our extraordinary agricultural technology. If we have a society that’s increasingly dependent on these technologies, with a smaller and smaller fraction of that society who actually understands how any of it works, that is a formula for disaster.... My biggest concern about creationist kids is that they’re compelled to suppress their common sense, to suppress their critical thinking skills at a time in human history when we need them more than ever.... There are just things about evolution that we should all be aware of, the way we’re aware of where electricity comes from.
Nye certainly paints a bleak picture. We live in a world, supposedly becoming overcrowded, where billions of people have to compete for limited resources. We need new technologies. We need alternative sources of fuel – cleaner burning fuel. We need new medicines. We need science! But if kids are being taught creation, they won't be able to contribute anything to science. We're losing our best resource – the potential of the next generation – at a time “when we need them more than ever!”
Huh?
There are several things wrong with statements like this. First, it's a tangle of logical fallacies. Let's see... it's non sequitur in the sense that there's no link between believing creation and understanding technology. What, I can't use a computer because I'm a creationist? There is nothing that connects understanding science to understanding evolution. Can anyone name even one invention in the last century that hinged upon evolution being true? Life improving technologies - made by real scientists - are made every day without a single thought being given to evolution. Nye thinks we need to understand evolution just like we understand electricity. Why? Electricity is fundamental to our everyday existence. Evolution is the trivial pursuit branch of science!
The claim that students can’t understand science unless they believe evolution is also an example of a No True Scotsman argument. Think about it. It invents a qualifier for understanding science – that is, “everyone who truly understands science believes evolution.” Major fields of science were founded by people who believed in creation. I could provide quotes from people like Newton, Mendel, or Kepler that show they believed in a Divine Creator but that’s not necessary because I’m not saying that creation is true because people like Newton believed in a Creator. I'm saying that their belief in a Creator did not affect their ability to make contributions to science or invent life improving technologies.
Finally, it's an appeal to consequences. Nye would have us believe that students who believe creation can’t understand science. Even assuming that were correct, how would that prove that evolution is true or that creation is false? It would do neither. It’s simply a gimmick that asserts, “bad things will happen if you believe this so don’t believe it!” It’s not evidence for anything - it’s simply a fear tactic. That’s why we call it a fallacy.
But besides its weak philosophical footing, I don't believe Nye, or anyone else, can even establish a causal link between believing creation and lower academic performance. If somebody knows of some scientific survey showing this, I would love to see it because, to this day, I've seen nothing – not one thing – that evolutionists can point to that supports their assertion. It's a tired scare tactic used by evolutionists to claim that kids can't understand science if they believe creation yet they have nothing beyond their flapping gums to support this claim. In fact, a case could be made for the opposite; kids who are home-schooled or who attend private, Christian schools – places where creation is more likely to be taught – generally perform better on standardized tests than kids in public schools where creation is not taught.creation) tend to outperform public school students (where only evolution is taught).
Look, if Nye really wants to better prepare kids to contribute to society, evolution would be very low on the list of where education needs improvement. According to Wikipedia, 54% of adults in the United States have prose literacy below the 6th-grade level. Here’s a video you might find interesting.
I've seen dozens of videos just like this one – videos where kids can't answer basic questions about science or politics or geography or history. If evolutionists were truly worried about preparing kids for the future, they would be alarmed that these young people don’t know how many dimes make a dollar! But no, they think we need to devote more energy and resources to teaching them evolution! I truly believe they are more interested in indoctrinating kids rather than educating them.
No comments:
Post a Comment