[Catalist] Belief in Creationist Pseudoscience in Australia

[Leon Harris]

I am glad that this stand has been taken on teaching Creationism - it 
always was a wedge, aimed at legitimising and reinforcing a religious 
position, and has no place in the teachings in a science curriculum.

I think it is important to acknowledge the place of faith in peoples 
lives, and to recognise that even atheist scientists run most of their 
lives on heuristics, rather than on scientific method. It is only the 
scientific method(s) that give science its power and validity - there 
isn't the equivalent of a special "God Button" that is there for those 
who align to the majority views of the scientific community. The 
application of those methods and that process is wearying and time 
consuming. We take short cuts, and we draw conclusions that are 
suggested by data that we have observed, but not often formally and 
rigorously re-tested. Look at all the "junk" antioxidant papers out 
there, or the paper two years ago that laid to rest the 100+ year old 
assumption that the exploding hydrogen is what causes the bang when 
sodium is thrown into water. Look at the low rate of repeatability of 
peer-reviewed published scientific work (well under 50% (as in 47/53) 
according to a recent issue of Nature 
https://www.nature.com/news/cancer-reproducibility-project-releases-first-results-1.21304).

Science must be tentative in its conclusions - always open to review. We 
never prove (except in some highly constrained mathematical situations), 
our data simply supports conclusions. As scientists, we are most danger 
when we elevate the consensus of our fields to the status of a religion.

With this in mind, and given the impossibility of formally disproving 
the existence of a God or gods, it seems to me to be a reasonable 
extension of the tolerance we extend to ourselves as scientists - that 
is, we don't require a rigorous scientific justification of every aspect 
of our lives - because we don't have the brain processing power to turn 
all of that analytical method to everything that we do, simultaneously. 
If it is not required of me that I formally analyse whether I would be 
better off not getting out of bed, whether I should start first with my 
left or my right leg, whether I should inhale first, or reach standing 
position, and a zillion things that are beyond my capacity to do and 
carry out the tasks of my life - perhaps it would be reasonable to 
accept that those of the religious persuasion amongst us need not have 
to justify that position. It should be enough to say "I believe" and 
leave it at that. Mind you, I would expect in return to be not subject 
to proselytising. Faith is a private thing, and mine suggests that this 
collection of scientific methods that we have developed over the past 
few centuries will in the end, if followed rigorously, reveal the truth 
and self-correct it self. The evidence is that it does, but that 
conclusion is tentative, and subject to modification in light of any new 
data.

Finally, education is not a science. It isn't even "evidence-based" in 
my opinion. Fragments of research, generally with statistically 
unreliably small samples, poorly controlled test instruments, and 
parametric tests applied to often quite non-parametric data, makes most 
of the education papers junk, and definitely in need of interpretation 
with a big pinch of salt. We don't operate in a science domain.
We just do the best with what we have.

In this context, we run on teacher faith. Faith that, despite all it's 
flaws, its pain, its massive workload and depressing inertia, what we 
are doing is both worthwhile and needed. The kind of faith that I hold, 
that makes me believe that our students and our country will be much 
worse off, and in danger of destruction and loss if we don't 
scientifically educate the next generation. It is faith, it is not 
evidence based. My evidence base suggests that the best off, happiest 
and most wealthy of my students are the ones who go into real estate or 
pursue an MBA. My faith tells me science is essential to who and what we 
are, and that is why I do it.  This is faith as reason applied to sparse 
data.

Much of the talent base in both public and private schools in this 
country is Christian. Much of their motivation is linked to their faith 
- the idea of a kind of community good arising from service to the 
community. This linkage is not uniquely Christian - all the best old 
socialists have it too, but because it exists in these people, they are 
(I believe, based on a head count taken over a beer with some friends a 
few years ago, and with no appropriate p value calculated) more strongly 
represented in education than in other sectors. I don't buy the idea 
that "say" should solely be based on effort in this system, and I 
certainly don't wish to see faith intrude into science, especially when 
it masquerades as science in the intellectually flawed and fabricated 
creation science. However, in deference to the enormous contributions 
that christian teachers make every day to our schools, I think it is 
humane and decent to look for a way to make the environment a bit less 
toxic to them. No proselytising, but a recognition of entitlement to 
faith, and even a removal of the subject of faith from science.

In conclusion, and in a religion-neutral kind of way, enjoy the break 
and may the Djeran lagomorph ovulate profusely and in abundance for you!
Cheers,
Leon