At the heart of the debate surrounding the teaching of creationism in schools lies two issues that each side wants the other to focus upon. \u00a0On the anti-creationism debate lies the “problem of demarcation” as it has been called wherein we wish to determine what is and is not science. \u00a0On the pro-creationism side lies the issue of democracy wherein we wish to determine who does and does not have a say in what children are taught in schools. \u00a0This post will discuss the relationship between science, education and democracy.<\/p>\n
Within the last couple decades the demarcation problem has lost much of its poignancy, due in no small part to the failure of all attempts\u00a0to “solve” it. \u00a0There is no single scientific method, nor is there any single definition under which all and only science can be found. \u00a0The question becomes, at this point, what does it matter? \u00a0Why is demarcating science from non-science so important? \u00a0Intelligent Design Creationism is as good an answer as any to this question. \u00a0If there is no distinction between science and non-science, then what is to prevent pseudo-science like IDC from being taught in the schools? \u00a0Honestly though, what is the answer to this question? \u00a0Two answers that immediately come to mind are 1) ideological reasons having to do with the purity of truth and the pollution of superstition and 2) the\u00a0struggle for and efficient use of limited resources. \u00a0These two explanations are not unrelated to each other, for each has to do with securing and maintaining a certain position of authority within our society.<\/p>\n
With regards to (1), truth and superstition are things that must be measured by some person(s) and efforts at preventing superstition from creeping into the truth of the scientific curriculum is itself a way of preventing the students from measuring such things for themselves. \u00a0(Ironically, this “what are you afraid of?” line of reasoning is exactly that of\u00a0many intellectuals who criticize churches for discouraging the teaching of evolution and other such heterodoxies within their Sunday schools.) \u00a0The attempts by philosophers of science to answer the demarcation problem is perhaps even more obnoxious, they being their own attempts to measure such things for the students and the scientists themselves. \u00a0These approaches by both the scientists and the philosophers are basically attempts by Plato’s philosopher kings to limit or do away with a democratic process in\u00a0which the polluted ideas of the masses might corrupt the purity that the more enlightened legislators have to offer. \u00a0\u00a0(Appeals to the separation of church and state seem pretty flimsy since the most recent forms of\u00a0IDC no more establish any religion than the Declaration of Independence or the Pledge of Allegiance.)<\/p>\n
Unlike the first reason, (2) isn’t concerned with preventing\u00a0pseudo-science from polluting\u00a0the minds of students\u00a0so much as it is with excluding pseudo-science from siphoning time, money, personnel and other such resources from science within educational institutions. \u00a0There are only so many classroom hours and so much funding within any academic department, and we should make sure that such things are spent wisely. \u00a0The demarcation of science from pseudo-science is thus more a matter of efficiency in education, not to mention job security for the ‘real’scientists, than anything else. \u00a0Again, however, we are left to wonder why we should allow scientists, philosophers of science or any other elite minority such power over an\u00a0education system that we are compelled to pay for and submit our children to? \u00a0By what right does\u00a0any such minority tell us what is best or wisest for us or our children? \u00a0Once again, demarcation becomes a self-serving attempt by a small minority to limit or constrain democratic processes that might otherwise work against them.<\/p>\n
Now for the obligatory caveats. \u00a0I am convinced that IDC is not a fruitful or productive science. \u00a0I am not, however, convinced that this is enough to prohibit it from being taught in our schools. \u00a0Similarly, I am not convinced that it necessarily *ought* to be taught in our schools either, or that the public ought to push against scientists in other ways. \u00a0Rather, my argument is that scientists or philosophers of science should not have exclusive control over such\u00a0decisions and that attempts at demarcation\u00a0are just such attempts. \u00a0While it might be a cliche, I am convinced that the unilateral and compulsory sovereignty\u00a0of a majority, imperfect though it\u00a0always, is still better than the unilateral and compulsory sovereignty of any minority. \u00a0I am not arguing for IDC or against science per se. \u00a0Rather, I am saying that inasmuch as science and democracy come apart (and IDC happens to be a case where they do), compulsory education should side with the latter at the expense of the former.<\/p>\n