Is Creationism Child Abuse?

From Wikipedia

From Goodreads

When Michael Shermer surveyed people about their religious beliefs, asking them why they believed in God and why they thought other people believe in God, he found that people tend to invoke intellectual causes for their personal beliefs and assign emotional causes for the beliefs of others.  While this trend may not be true for all people, a majority of the people sampled exhibited this textbook attribution bias.  I am certainly guilty of this, even to the point where I can’t help but question if my reading of this book is evidence of a further bias, the confirmation bias--a prejudice in which I form an opinion and seek out information that supports my already held beliefs thus reinforcing my supposed intellectualism on the topic.  

I can partly blame Mr. Shermer for my acute neuroticism.  It was, after all, his book, The Believing Brain, that introduced me to most of the concepts that now affect my thinking.  But, I don’t think this is a bad thing.  Skepticism is a healthy attribute.

From Goodread

Shermer’s book, Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design (download a free sample of the audiobook at Shermer's website) does a much better job expounding on its subtitle than it’s primary title.  It is not until the last page that Shermer reveals why Darwin matters (it’s because evolution matters, which matters because science matters, so there you go).  The entire book is dedicated to dispelling the myths surrounding both sides of the creationism vs. evolution debate.  Its longest chapter breaks down the ten best arguments for intelligent design (ID) and exposes them as unscientific religious propaganda.  Shermer argues with tact, for the most part, avoiding the hyperbole one might expect in a book of this nature.

The chapter covering ID in American public schools is particularly compelling for me because I have worked in a conservative school district where a dominant religion plays a huge role in what is taught in school.  Shermer, a proud libertarian, would want a privatized school system where parents can choose to send their kids to whatever school they want, but he lays out his defense of evolution only science classrooms since most Americans are publicly schooled.  He summarizes several court cases, and builds his defense primarily on the legal justification for evolution in the classroom.  He explains that creationism can not be understood as science when we understand what science is.

This concept of teaching ID in schools is an contentious idea for a lot of people.  This certainly isn’t helped by scholars who state, with a deliberate air of controversy, that teaching intelligent design is child abuse.  Take for instance Lawrence Krauss’ recent bigthink video, in which he says, “Somehow saying that, well, anything goes, we shouldn’t offend religious beliefs by requiring kids to know--to understand--reality; that’s child abuse.”  I think Krauss means well with this comment, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t a loaded statement.  Is he really equating well meaning Christians who simply want to train up their children in the way they should go so that when they are old, they will not depart from it with people who commit the utterly heinous act of beating a child? Probably not. Maybe it’s more akin to neglect, a form of abuse in which certain necessities are withheld from children.  But this raises a question in me: is it necessary for human children to be scientifically literate?  Bill Nye (you know, the science guy) seems to think so in his bigthink video.  I tend to agree with Nye, but I can’t help but think that maybe the rhetoric is a little loaded.

Shermer and (assumably Krauss and Nye) are talking about public education.  And certainly Shermer would respect an individual’s right to teach their children whatever they want.  Richard Dawkins would not be so accommodating.  Take his 2006 BBC documentary, The Root of all Evil, in which he argues that it’s wrong to label a child according to their parents’ religion.  So, if teaching ID in schools is wrong, what about in the home?  

Recently a concerned family member showed me an op-ed piece from my hometown’s newspaper that called for stricter government regulation on homeschooling.  This author, like Krauss, drew a connection between a Biblical education (or the primary source for creationist theories) and child abuse, asking the following rhetorical questions: 

Is the right to practice one’s religion also the right to impose it upon children? Aren’t society’s legitimate interests in education adversely affected by educational practices, which fail to prepare its citizens for productive participation in a multi-cultural, scientifically oriented society? And, aren’t children’s rights violated by parents who deprive them of exposure to more than one way of conceiving of the world — by parents who teach children that the only criterion of truth is a book written two thousand years ago by men who knew far less about how the world works than the average fifth grader? In other words, isn’t there such a thing as intellectual abuse?  

My family member, a strong advocate for homeschooling was somewhat outraged by a few of the remarks and reacted with a few rhetorical questions of their own, saying:

I guess that the government (the apparent giver and taker of inalienable rights) shouldn't even give the right to parents to have children anymore unless they agree to party-line, infallible government education.  Is this the prerogative of the state? To determine WHAT children should believe and what they shouldn't believe?  Don't parents have a say?  Don't parents have the right to be wrong?  The intellectuals know so much more than parents do ... and apparently they care more too.

I wasn't sure how to respond to this.  I mean, part of my sympathizes with Krauss and Dawkins and the author of that editorial.  I think it's healthy to question things. For me, it's one thing for parents to have the right to be wrong and to teach their children to be religious, but it's another thing to homeschool children and teach that the earth is less than 10,000 years old.  Parents have the right to be wrong. Parents have the right to influence their children, of course.  But this does't mean that they are incapable of committing intellectual abuse, even unintentionally.  For me, the difference between the religious approach and the secular approach is precisely what my family member termed "infallible."  

That being said, I think, my family member misallocated the supposed infallibility.  Educators often have tendencies to support the status quo and to be pro government, this is true; however, science--be it social science, biological science, or whathaveyou--is founded on the principles of evidence, reasoning and trial and error.  There is no implied infallibility in science.  Every theory is necessarily fallible.  This is why scientists are not shaken to the core when Pluto loses its planetary status.  The evidence changes.  Even in the application of social science and educational philosophy new theories are constantly being put to the test because of changes in the evidence.  This is why standards for education change.  There is the constant hope of improvement when we acknowledge our infallibility and work towards solutions.  Public educators, more than most, are deeply aware of their fallibility--at least the public educators I worked with.  But we are trying.  I suggest that, more often, it is the religious homeschooler who believes they are infallible, not the public educator.

From Rationalwiki

Nowhere is this supposed infallibility more evident than in the evangelical movement of "young earth creationism."  These are deniers, not only of evolution, but of the earth's scientifically measured age.  They believe the bible is infallible--which doesn't make sense because most of them don't even know who wrote it, when it was written, or the historical context from which it arose, let alone how to read it in its original language (or even in the King's language; often they prefer a further bastardized translation in to 'modern English,' and they fail to comprehend that the translators of each subsequent edition are likely changing things to fit an agenda that may not align with that of the original writer's intention)--and they teach their children not to question "The Word of God."  They do not encourage open discussion of ideas; rather, they suppress curiosity and stifle thought.  

Do all homeschoolers do this? No.  But some do.  In that regard, some public educators don't foster free thinking, out of laziness, dogmatic secularism, or even personal religious beliefs.  But, they are not teaching to the established standards of the state.  They are rogue educators doing their own thing and they shouldn't be held to represent the opinions of public educators en masse.  Those homeschool teachers and public school teachers who suppose they are infallible are the ones that are guilty of intellectual abuse.  Nothing is more innocent than the curiosity of a child, and to deny a child of that innocence in the name of a supposedly infallible belief is to deny an essential element of human nature.  In other words: teaching intelligent design as an unquestionable fact is intellectual abuse.  Plain and simple.

Bright Sided

I, like Barbara Ehrenreich, do not understand America's fixation on its own perceived exceptionality. I mean, it's a nice place and all, but having lived abroad for nearly half of my adult life, I don't quite grasp the justification for calling America "The Greatest Nation on Earth." Growing up in a conservative, religious family, I went through most of my adolescence in a state of blissful, solipsistic ignorance about my country, believing that we were the freest, most blessed people on God's green (albeit somewhat smoggy) earth. I never stopped to question if this view was good or healthy or even remotely true. I just accepted it as a fact because that's what my friends said, that's what my church said, and that's what my teachers said.

America, however, is not the only free country in the world--far from it. Sure America leads the world in a number of areas, most notably militarily, and American contributions to art and science have greatly enriched humanity, but as Ehrenreich points out in this book's preface: "some of the measures by which we do lead the world should inspire embarrassment rather than pride: We have the highest percentage of our population incarcerated, and the greatest level of inequality in wealth and income. We are plagued by gun violence and racked by personal debt." Now, personally, I think Ehrenreich's comments are a little heavy-handed. America isn't perfect, but no country is perfect. (Not that that obviates us). That being said, I think the premise of this book, summarized succinctly in its subtitle, "How the Relentless Promotion of Positive Thinking Has Undermined America," is a topic much deserving of consideration. 

Ehrenreich begins by chronicling her diagnosis of breast cancer and the subsequent onslaught of cute, "look on the bright side" messages and mementos she received thereafter. It seems like she's making the assertion that cosmetic companies and other corporations are attempting to capitalize on the disease by selling quaint little tchotchkes and teddy bears to "raise awareness" about the issue, pointing out how these companies may be creating dependent consumers by initially donating makeup and other products that make the women feel beautiful (as though they aren't already). This is a valid concern, but it is fraught by the possibility that these companies are being genuine.

I realize at this point that I am being far too longwinded, and at this rate, this review will be a small book, so I'll just say that I think the idea behind this book is wonderful but the execution is deplorable and jump to my main criticisms of the book. For starters, c'mon, Barbara! If you don't like when self-help books use cherry picked data and relate carefully crafted personal anecdotes to sell product and so forth, then don't do that yourself. Every person she disagree with is painted in such a, dare I say negative, light that it undermines a lot of what she is trying to say. I did not appreciate her portrayals of "other" people, most notably right-wing conservatives and religious types who Ms. Ehrenreich disagrees with. Not even because I am those people, but because I am not comfortable with someone creating an "us vs them" kind of argument. I felt like this book subtly attempted to create neotribalist factions antithetical to the groups she describes, the promulgators of this corruptive brand of positive thinking. This was especially apparent in the book's conclusion, where she seemed to commit the Richard Dawkinsesque fallacy of deifying science. Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with science--it's wonderful and great and everyone should be more scientifically literate, myself wholeheartedly included--but we have a big problem if your understanding of science turns you away from essential human qualities like empathy and patience. 

In conclusion, let me say this: skepticism is healthy, and I think that's part of what Ehrenreich was driving at. I stand firmly behind the belief that we should do everything we can to understand why we believe the things we believe. We should look at our most basic assumptions and challenge them from time to time. Self-reflection is good, honesty is good, and if you are lying to yourself by saying things are better than they are, or, if you are lying to others about the actual state of things, then you should check that behavior and rectify it. What we need is honesty, critical thinking, and cooperation, and that is not what I got out of this book.