A Note of Critical Thinking

Supporters of Academic Freedom bills use the educational buzz words, "Critical Thinking".  They do this to present themselves as neutral participants, looking out for the best interests of the students.  However, critical thinking is one of the last things the neo-creationists want.

Educators love for kids to learn critical thinking skills.  We design lessons, activities and projects hoping to promote these skills in our students.  Students who can think critically will become well-rounded, independent citizens.  Specifically as science teachers, we foster critical thinking through problem-based learning activities and open-ended laboratory assignments.  We bring in the data from famous, historical discoveries or from student-completed experiments.  From there, we lead our students through scientific thinking teach them how to reach logical conclusions.  This is modern science teaching.

After losing every major legal battle, creationists have hit on a new strategy with critical thinking as a disguise.  Their new Academic Freedom bills advise teachers to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of "controversial" scientific theories.  The 2008 Louisiana Law specifically mentions evolution, abiogenesis, global warming and human cloning.  Interestingly, these proposals never specify the weaknesses that teachers should actually address.  These bills simply provide cover for bringing creationism or creationist materials into the classroom.

One clue to their dishonesty comes from the implications of their bills.  By specifying evolution, abiogenesis, and global warming, advocates imply that these are the only areas of science that require critical thinking skills.  Last time I check, every scientific discipline (and really every subject in school) provide opportunities for critical thinking, including but not limited to: the nature of science, ecology, cell biology, genetics, and classification.  Science itself requires the development of these skills, not just evolution.

Another clue comes from their focus.  By saying that teachers should teach the weaknesses of evolution they open the door to creationism and intelligent design.  But if they are intellectually honest, then they would want us to also teach the weaknesses of creationism.  They would want us to explain why Intelligent Design fails as a scientific theory.

Maybe I am wrong about their intentions (probably not).  If their bills actually promote critical thinking, then they should be aware that the skill will also be applied to Creationism/Intelligent Design.  If so, then maybe students would gain a deeper understanding of why evolution is the unifying theory of biology.  MAybe its not such a bad idea after all.