Creationists against science: the situation in France
In our first article, we discussed the difficulties associated with training teachers to effectively convey knowledge about evolutionary theory. Unfortunately, there is another practical difficulty, this one related to creationism.
Marc-André SELOSSE, National Museum of Natural History (MNHN) – Sorbonne Universities and Bernard GODELLE, University of Montpellier
Carpeaux/Wikimedia, CC BY
Christian creationism has become less prominent, particularly since John Paul II wrote that "new knowledge leads us to recognize that the theory of evolution is more than just a hypothesis," followed by Pope Francis in 2014: "evolution in nature is not incompatible with the notion of creation." Even if these positions are not particularly divisive, the impact of Christian prejudices persists in more or less visible forms, and it is extremely difficult for science to completely free itself from them.
With the stated aim of promoting dialogue between science and religion, associations and foundations support creationist scientists or those who develop somewhat marginal points of view. Thus Anne Dambricourt-Malassé Did she see her anti-Darwinian ideas spread by a self-proclaimed "Interdisciplinary University of ParisIn a more subtle way, but for millions of dollars, the wealthy Templeton Foundation funds a variety of research projects, promoting positive moral values and dialogue that are difficult to criticize. Beyond "Christian" objections to Darwinism, the fact that the Templeton Foundation's funded projects are rooted in positive morality illustrates how uncomfortable Darwinism is for anyone who naturally wants human life to have meaning. This explains the funding of
work on altruism by Martin Nowak, with slightly different positions in this field of research.
YouTube
Creationism in France is mainly practiced by Muslims, which is surprising given that the Old Testament usually has little influence on this religion. Beyond Koranic texts and schools preaching against evolutionism, a notable attack was led by Arun Yahya, a Turkish preacher (who has also been prosecuted several times in his country): starting in 2006, he sent two volumes of the Atlas of Creation free of charge to thousands of schools and universities in Europe. These large-format, richly illustrated color books, which are riddled with factual errors, explain the deception of evolution and how the truth can be found in the Koran.
A major argument is the absence of intermediate links in the continuum of life, demonstrated with forceful "morphing" illustrations of hypothetical intermediates between fish and frogs, reptiles and birds, etc., which of course do not exist. However, according to the theory of evolution, there is no need for "missing links" (because evolution can make leaps), nor for them to still exist today (because they may be extinct)! It is symbolic that creationism exploits a misunderstanding of the mechanisms of evolution, in short, a flaw in teaching...
Need to teach
The publication of this creationist book brought together academic and secondary school teachers around the need to teach evolution. This led to a national conference at La Villette in November 2008 on "Teaching Evolution." Alas! With some indoctrinated students, the task sometimes turns into a nightmare: some students pretend to listen while rejecting the teaching itself, others ostensibly refuse to listen. Some teachers avoid using the word "evolution" because stating the facts and reflecting on them presents fewer difficulties.
It is worrying that educational research currently provides very little support and few methods to help teachers who are left to their own devices in difficult educational situations. Thus, despite teaching efforts, a dual society is emerging, where those who accept evolution receive more in-depth training on its mechanisms, while others reject it, often as a prelude to rejecting other values.
What should we do tomorrow?
One possible solution directly concerns education, and goes beyond that of evolution. There is concern about excessive mistrust of vaccines and biotechnology, or consumer credulity in the face of dubious products or pseudo-scientific practices: the reactions of citizens (and even politicians) are not always rational. But isn't all this due to a single lack of education?
NASA JSC Features/Wikipedia
Rather than worrying about each of these problems separately, shouldn't we provide more solid scientific training and ensure that the next generation has greater reasoning skills? To do this, we need more teaching of experimental sciences. Rather than debating how to allocate hours between disciplines, it would make more sense to consider how all hours are used. If scientific thinking and critical thinking about issues affecting living organisms and the environment are only developed during the weekly Life and Earth Sciences class (or not at all, in programs where this subject is not taught), we may have cause for concern about the choices tomorrow's citizens will make about food, healthcare, environmental management, and raising their children. This derisory knowledge explains some of the absurd decisions made by citizens and individuals.
But where can we save time? Today, French and math are taught too separately: couldn't these two subjects be partially integrated into science education? It makes no sense to study music theory before playing music, when you also study music theory while playing... Writing a biology essay or doing math in physics is also a way of practicing French and math.
The current introduction of interdisciplinarity in secondary education may provide an opportunity for such innovation. In the future, teaching more scientific method in biology would address many shortcomings: it would bring the public's view of the world closer to that of science and enable us to grasp the challenges of the world with a global vision, particularly in terms of evolution.
Marc-André SELOSSEProfessor at the National Museum of Natural History, Visiting Professor at the Universities of Gdansk (Poland) and Viçosa (Brazil), National Museum of Natural History (MNHN) – Sorbonne Universities and Bernard GODELLEProfessor of Human Evolutionary Biology, University of Montpellier
The original version of this article was published on The Conversation.