School science teachers cowed by multiculturalism

The final part of Richard Dawkins's Channel 4 series The Genius of Charles Darwin has been posted on YouTube.

In this episode he confronted a group of science teachers about their reluctance to challenge the creationist views of some school children. He blamed multi-culturalism:

The compromised values of multi-cultural Britain mean that teachers hesitate to offend the religious beliefs of their pupils, even when these directly contradict scientific fact.

The exchange with the teachers is illuminating, if somewhat depressing. Cowed by the fear of what might happen to them if they offended religious pupils, they had clearly given up the fight.

One teacher, trying to explain how difficult it is to change the mind of someone brought up to believe creationist myths as truth, revealed just how far multi-culturalist language has seeped into schools.

All we can do is present this as a way of thinking. It's one way of interpreting life. We believe this is the way because we are scientists.

Dawkins was incredulous. His voice rising, he asked:

We believe it because we are scientists?! Do you really mean that? Or do you mean you believe it because the evidence is there. Their evidence is not there. It's just made up.

There was an embarrassed silence as the penny dropped. Indoctrinated by years of multi-cultural relativism, these scientists had found themselves saying that science was just one way of understanding how the world was created. Whether or not they believed that was beside the point. Judging by their faces, I don't think they did but they knew what they had to say to survive in today's classrooms.

As Dawkins said:

You don't believe that the world is round only if you are an astronaut. You don't believe that Napoleon existed only if you are a historian. You believe these things because they are facts proved by evidence.

It was while I was doing my master's degree in the mid-1990s that I first noticed the 'Speaking as' prefix being attached to people's comments. On discussions about equal opportunities, for example, it was only a matter of time before someone interjected with, "Speaking as a woman....", as if that somehow made her more of an expert on the subject. The sub-text goes something like 'Speaking as a woman, I have a unique perspective on equal opportunities, so whatever evidence you bring to bear in this discussion, I have the right to ignore it because I feel strongly about this.'

'Speaking as..' is nearly always followed by the substitution of feelings for logical argument and evidence. Because someone feels strongly about something, challenging them with evidence can be labelled as offensive. Some black activists use similar tactics when discussing the slave trade. The pain felt by their ancestors removes anyone else's right to present objective arguments on the subject.

And now the ultra-religious are at it too. 'Speaking as a Muslim, I reject your science as Western infidel propaganda' is a legitimate stance. Sadly, scientists respond by adopting the same language. 'Speaking as a scientist, I believe that the world is millions of years old and that life evolved and continues to evolve.'  That's fine then. Never mind the overwhelming evidence for evolution and the complete lack of any evidence for creationist myths, we'll all pretend that they have the same validity.

When the far-sighted began to warn about the dangers of multi-culturalism in the 1970s, I doubt whether many of them thought that, for fear of giving offence to religious minorities, science would be consigned to the same status as any other mumbo-jumbo religion in our schools.

Anyway, watch the discussion. It starts at about 5.20 on this clip. I warn you, it's very depressing.

Comments

[Tu S. Tin]

The thing that bothers me about science taking over, is that it removes all that is human in us, almost giving an excuse to behave like animals. Mammals we are! but animals? There are things that set us apart as unique in the scheme of things. I always think it's funny people who want to use the evolution argument will try to compare people to some majestic creature like lions... what if we are more like squirrels? In reality we act more like rats or worse yet a virus!
If you prove "god" out of the picture your left with a void to fill. I DOOOO think there can be morals without "religion"... but whats the motivation and how do you enforce it? what if I can use science to prove there is a god?
Something also worth looking into or thinking about at least.... (without being apart of the conspiracy theory group)is can science take over the role of religion as an establishment? Someone controls it and we as society just go along with out question .....We live in the age of free information, via Internet mostly .. and no I don't believe everything I read.... but a quick search brings up loads of discoveries that fall outside mainstream thought which are quietly swept under the rug.... and how/ when do you combine other branches of science into the teaching of evolution?

[Wolfie]

By George I think you have it at last Steve, even forgetting science for a moment, its not religion : cultural relativism = encroaching ignorance.

[Steve]

Whaddya mean "at last", you old git?

[Tu S. Tin]

I really need to look more into what Dawkins actual beliefs are .... I find him quite arrogant!
to say :cultural relativism = encroaching ignorance
goes both ways....
using it as an excuse to keep separating people or fan any flames proves or solves nothing.
I think in this post maybe we are saying the same thing ..
but the lines you have quoted from the clip I don't understand ...
what is wrong with what the scientist say ?
yes we do have certain evidence ... the earth is round that is easy to PROVE as fact!
but what exactly has evolution proven?
and how can he say...
Their evidence is not there. It's just made up.
It not just made up..it's also part of history and human evolution.
If all this is to have another -"look at the bad (insert group)" debate and how they are screwing everything up argument ...
count me out!

[marvin]

These teachers are obviously well intentioned, and I can't really hold it against them that they say it's not their place to correct this magical thinking.

Correcting magical thinking is a mammoth task - but combine that with fear of aggressive or even legal attacks (where *does* the EU stand on this? Or this country?). I am not confident that the state or the EU would back up a teacher in this noble challenge.

[alison]

"these scientists had found themselves saying that science was just one way of understanding how the world was created"

They are right . It is. Or rather several ways of thinking.

Are you assuming the religiously educated are all so thick that they cannot marry up their personal beliefs or what is fed to them in a religious context with science - at any point? Is Dawkins/are atheists really so arrogant?

Science is a lot of magic. Some of it is believable some of it sounds crazy and it cannot always be backed up by empirical fact. We are still linking finds to prove Darwin but it all sounds credible enough to this Catholic. Common sense more often prevails when humans weigh up what they believe or want to believe.

And contrary to the hysterical ravings of one Mr Dawkins, the devout are able, more often than not, to marry up the two. Especially here in the UK.

Increasingly the ultra religious are often on a level with ultra atheists. Stamping their feet in one corner and shrilly calling everyone else idiots for not following lockstep with their line of thought.

[Cabalamat]

A good response would not be "Speaking as a scientist..." but rather, "Speaking as a rationalist, who holds things to be true of false based on the evidence, and not on superstitious mumbo-jumbo or wish fulfillment fantasy, the evidence points to the earth being billions of years old, and that species have evolved hy natural selection. And if you reply that science like religion is just one of a number of equally valid ways of knowing the world, I'd reply that science is the only one that's brought us antibiotics, anesthetic dentistry, airlines, power stations, copmuters, and all the good thing we take for granted in the modern world. And what's religion brought us? Hatred, genocide, ethnic cleansing, bigotry, intolerance and wilful stupidity."

[alison]

And what's religion brought us? Hatred, genocide, ethnic cleansing, bigotry, intolerance and wilful stupidity."

So has bloody communism. The religious shoved into the gulags of atheist North Korea could tell you a thing or two about bigotry, cleansing and intolerance. As if free of religion the word wouldn't find another system to fuck each other over with.

What has religion brought us?

The body of concepts and values which are thought to be held in common by Judaism and adapted by Christianity, and considered, often along with classical Greco-Roman civilization) a fundamental basis for Western legal codes and moral values. In short - an invaluable legal system.

[Tu S. Tin]

a fundamental basis for Western legal codes and moral values. In short - an invaluable legal system
I'm sorry Alison, I am not being mean I swear! .. but that made me lol! Please feel free to explain how you came to that conclusion. Remembering some history I don't think religion deserves any credit for that at all!
I am positive - if "religion" never existed something more along the lines of humanism would have taken hold, still with it's own problems I'm sure. All those legal codes (western and otherwise) don't seem to mix well with moral values if you know what I mean. How do you even put the words legal and morals together? it becomes a condemnation from the start?
Some other things you said and seeing your comments before kinda make we wonder what you actually do worship then if not the establishment itself? anyway ...
I'm glad you are able to think for yourself , but obviously there are some who can't or there would be no problem here , I think those are the ones Dawkins is targeting. I have only read one of his books so I can't say much about him right now.
I might not agree with him or at least how he says it in this clip alone...I don't blame the teachers or multiculturalism, but what you can point to is maybe the whole process of how things are done starting with some organization.

[AgainsTTheWall]

This is a nice post PP. But I wonder when you make this point "Because someone feels strongly about something, challenging them with evidence can be labelled as offensive", what is your reaction when confronted with chemical, engineering, forensic and documentary evidence that the Germans did not murder people in gas chambers?

[Moggsy]

A Really interesting post and makes some telling points.

[alison]

Well if it made you laugh Tu S Tin then cool. Maybe just google judeo christian values as a basis for the western legal CODES in social justice for more information. I'm afraid to inform you at the risk of causing you much merriment :) that those religiously derived values did have an input.

And how do you NOT link morals and legal? Do you suppose we formed a legal code, the human basis of wrong from right, without any morals at all? Fact is religious morals were stamped all over society when we were busily devising them.

Thou shalt not kill (murder by law is illegal). And

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are *endowed by their Creator* with certain unalienable *rights*, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness..."

Honestly, I don't understand your leap into me worshipping the establishment and your last paragraph so i cannot comment. Don't understand you there.

As for Dawkins and his targets in your view. What makes him so sure his own challenge of their views will take hold any more or less than anyone else's? Pretty arrogant of him if your portrayal is correct.

I think he, most atheists and dogmatic religious hypocrites are all the same breed and should stop patronising people and let them figure things out for themselves.

Education doesn't cease at school. Life and learning and constant flow of information comes at you from all angles. As humans it's how we have progressed all this time.

I have met very very few people with a belief system in God, that they have been taught even from an early age, who cannot balance their beliefs with science in a sensible fashion. They've never worn their offence on their sleeves. Instead of having a dig at the devout (again) perhaps the science teachers could grow some balls, accept some differences and Dawkins could take a chill pill. Science is just one way of understanding the world at the end of the day.

[marvin]

Science is a lot of magic. Some of it is believable some of it sounds crazy and it cannot always be backed up by empirical fact. We are still linking finds to prove Darwin

This magical thinking. The problem with magical thinking is the mystification of reality, fuzzing the facts.

Science is based on scientific method, the definition of which is:

A method of discovering knowledge about the natural world based in making falsifiable predictions (hypotheses), **testing them empirically**, and developing peer-reviewed theories that best explain the known data.

Alison, do you think school children should be led to believe that creationism is an equally valid explantion for the beginning of life? That it's equally valid to say the earth was created in 6,000 years - even though there is absolutely no evidence for this at all?

[marvin]

Ok, if you would like children to be taught everything is all equally valid, then fine, but let's be consistent and present the case for the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and the Church of Jedi, Satan, etc.

Why the hell not? Surely they're you can't PROVE that the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist, so surely it's an equally valid view point?

[Umbongo]

Darwinism may or may not be true - it's only a theory. FWIW I believe that it is true or, at least, is nearer the truth than any alternative theory. But, unfortunately, it's not falsifiable. There is nothing - apart from God appearing on Mt Sinai telling us all that it was him - that can falsify the theory. Why? Because there is no predictability experiment that can be carried out - even by Dawkins. And if you can't predict what is going to happen and replicate it by experiment then it might be a theory but it isn't a scientific one.

In the same way creationism isn't science. Similarly, the Gore/IPCC flim-flam isn't science (unless a number of very dodgy computer projections based on very dodgy - and in many cases manifestly falsified (sorry "adjusted") - data count as falsifiable conjectures).

In short, the Darwinian-Creationist dispute is barren. Neither are science. For my part I believe that evidence produced by scientists in favour of Darwin is more convincing than assertions made in old books. The real dispute concerns whether getting at scientific truth is either done via scientific method through free conjecture and open criticism or by appeal to authority - religious or otherwise. I prefer the route of conjecture and refutation to reach scientific truth.

[Tu S. Tin]

alison what made me laugh was - someone had said bad about religion and the response was...
As if free of religion the word wouldn't find another system to fuck each other over with.
followed by the good religion had brought in the form of "an invaluable legal system"
as if free of religion the world wouldn't find another system to create a fundamental basis for Western legal codes and moral values - minus all the nonsense.
The attack here is not on having a belief, it is on "religious beliefs"
and if the morals instilled by religion were as simple as do not murder, steal or lie .. it would be fine but they go far deeper than that don't they and they get personal and cause hate.
if you want to continue I will.
I love the line you quoted from the US constitution .. to me after that nothing ever be written again... but used in defense of religion ...no.
In your first comment you said...And contrary to the hysterical ravings of one Mr Dawkins, the devout are able, more often than not, to marry up the two.
How is that possible to do and remain devout?
If someone will attack dawkins attack, I will have to question them on theirs, which is why I ask what exactly the devout you are defending really worship if everything else you say is true.
As arrogant as I find him, Dawkins actually trys to give a good definition of what "god" is.
The idea of creationism is different from ID .... I do think and have always thought the topic of origins should be taught as philosophy mixed with science but the actual subject of study here is evolution which isn't really the same and as our knowledge has increased since darwin maybe genetics should be added .

[alison]

Marvin

Darwinism is a magical theory They are still trying to empirically test Big Bang. I think its all fascinating and I enjoy it all and believe most of it. I personally don't believe in Adam and Eve if that is what you are asking me. I was taught of it at school though. In fact so were a good number of my peers who went on to study physics at university. What is your point? That were all thick and you are smart?

You don't believe in God or creationism. Um. So what?

If you want to believe in God and raise your kids accordingly fine. There are some very nice morals that come with that education. As opposed to say communism, religiously devoid as it is. Cruel and bigoted as we can plainly be in the ABSENCE of religion. So again what is your point?

That human beings can be failures, stupid, cruel, bigoted, hypocritical and narcissitic? They can also be progressive, open minded, charitable, good natured and neighbourly following their chosen creed. I'm sure all that Jesus's core teachings are simply terrible eh. What wholly dreadful messages the religious bothered to transcribe.

My father is a very devout Catholic man and an avid fan of science. He isn't pompous or antagonisic about either. And more humbly open minded than some atheists I can think of. In fact the vast majority of people with religious leanings I know balance religion and science quite reasonably.

A blanket critique of them, indeed this sneering silliness that accompanies so much of criticising peoples beliefs on this level (as opposed to the religious right and pro lifers in the US) smacks of a crazy obsession in itself. If not outright jealousy. I don't view that wild eyed obsession too much differently to those who INSIST you believe in a God. Learn to be a little more open minded and a little less condescending please.

[Tu S. Tin]

Alison,
I never understand anything you are saying!
and this is not a personal attack on you ..but on your argument!
I am a Christian! Which means I do follow the core teachings of Jesus. As the personal philosophy it should be and can even see it as a science itself !
which is also why I get so furious at the establishment of religion!
Like I said this is not an attack on having a belief- its on religious beliefs.
If you wanna be catholic who cares! and I'm happy for your father and everything else you offer here but what of this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZVVbGEOoCM
http://pewforum.org/events/index.php?EventID=102
I'm sure at the same time these people are all very - progressive, open minded, charitable, good natured and neighbourly following their chosen creed in their own way.
What was so closed minded and condescending about anything that has been asked of you here?