Creationists vs. Science: The Situation in France
In our first article, we discussed the challenges associated with training teachers to effectively convey knowledge about the theory of evolution. Unfortunately, there is another practical challenge, 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, especially since John Paul II wrote that “new knowledge leads us to recognize the theory of evolution as more than just a hypothesis,” a view echoed by Pope Francis in 2014: “evolution in nature is not incompatible with the concept of creation.” Even though 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 free itself from them entirely.
With the stated aim of fostering dialogue between science and religion, various organizations and foundations support scientists who are creationists or who hold somewhat fringe views. Thus Anne Dambricourt-Malassé has seen her anti-Darwinian ideas spread by a self-proclaimed “Interdisciplinary University of Paris“. In a more subtle way, but involving millions of dollars, the wealthy Templeton Foundation funds a wide range of research, promoting positive moral values and a spirit of dialogue that is hard to criticize. Beyond “Christian” objections to Darwinism, the fact that projects funded by the Templeton Foundation are rooted in a positive moral framework illustrates just how much Darwinism is a source of discomfort for anyone who naturally desires human life to have meaning. This helps explain the funding of
works on altruism by Martin Nowak, with perspectives that are somewhat unconventional in this field of research.
YouTube
The creationist movement active on the ground in France is predominantly Muslim: this comes as a surprise, since the Old Testament typically has little influence on this religion. Beyond Koranic texts and schools that preach against evolutionism, a notable campaign has been led by Arun Yahya, a Turkish preacher (who has also been convicted multiple times in his home country): beginning in 2006, he sent the two volumes of the Atlas of Creation free of charge to thousands of schools and universities across Europe. These large-format books, richly illustrated in color but riddled with factual errors, explain the deception of evolution and how the truth is found in the Quran.
A major argument is the absence of intermediate links in the continuum of life, forcefully demonstrated through “morphing” illustrations depicting the 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” (since evolution can make leaps), nor for these to still exist today (since they may be extinct)! It is telling that creationism exploits a misunderstanding of the mechanisms of evolution—in short, a flaw in education…
The Need to Teach
The publication of this creationist book brought together university and secondary school faculty around the need to teach evolution. This led to a national conference at La Villette in November 2008 on “Teaching Evolution.” Alas! Faced with some indoctrinated students, the task sometimes turns into a nightmare: some students pretend to listen while inwardly rejecting the lesson, while others openly refuse to listen. Some teachers avoid using the word “evolution” because stating the facts and reflecting on them presents fewer difficulties.
It is troubling that educational research currently provides very little support or methodology to assist teachers left to their own devices in navigating these difficult pedagogical challenges. Thus, despite teaching efforts, a divided society is emerging, where those who accept evolution receive a more in-depth education 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 the issue of evolution. There is indeed concern about excessive mistrust of vaccines and biotechnology, or about consumers’ gullibility regarding dubious products or pseudoscientific practices: the reactions of citizens (and even politicians) are not always rational. But isn’t all of this due to a single, underlying lack of education?
NASA JSC Features/Wikipedia
Rather than worrying about each of these issues separately, shouldn’t we provide a more solid scientific education and ensure that the next generation has a greater capacity for critical thinking? To achieve this, we need more instruction in the experimental sciences. Rather than debating how to allocate class time among subjects, it would make much more sense to consider how to make the best use of all available class time. If scientific inquiry and critical thinking regarding issues related to life and the environment are developed only during the weekly Life and Earth Sciences class (or not at all, in programs where this instruction is absent), there is cause for concern regarding the choices tomorrow’s citizens will make regarding nutrition, healthcare, environmental management, and child-rearing. This meager foundation explains absurd civic and personal decisions.
But where can we find the time? Today, the teaching of French and math is too separate: couldn’t we partially integrate these two subjects into science education? It makes no sense to study music theory before playing music, when you’re also learning music theory while playing… Writing a biological argument or doing calculations in physics is also a way to practice French and math.
The current introduction of interdisciplinary approaches in secondary education could provide an opportunity for such innovation. In the future, placing greater emphasis on the scientific method in biology would address many shortcomings: it would help bridge the gap between students’ everyday understanding of the world and scientific knowledge, and enable them to grasp global challenges—particularly those related to evolution—from a broader perspective.
Marc-André Selosse, Professor at the National Museum of Natural History, Visiting Professor at the Universities of Gdańsk (Poland) and Viçosa (Brazil), National Museum of Natural History (MNHN) – Sorbonne Universities and Bernard GODELLE, Professor of Human Evolutionary Biology, University of Montpellier
The original version This article was published on The Conversation.