Angels, demons and complaining creationists (Ryan)

I just saw Dan Brown’s Angels and Demons on the big screen. Its OK, if you like that sort of thing, but I shouldn’t rush. It mainly action adventure of course, but it is also about a clash of Science and Religion.

That theme has special relevance for me right at the moment, for I have recently been involved in a Science/Religious clash of my own.

I’m a psychiatrist with the University of Sydney and this year I was to give a new lecture called “Introduction to Mental Illness” to second year medical students. The brief was to try to get med students interested in and excited about psychiatry.

I decided it might be fun to provide an introduction to philosophy of mind, providing a sort of basic introduction to the science that might underlie our assumptions about our mental life.

The lecture was nothing special and simply ranged over a number of different approaches to the mind including dualism (which I gave reasonably short shrift), identity theory, functionalism and eliminative materialism. In introducing the final “ism” I followed a fairly well worn path of pointing out that adherents to eliminative materialism call our general understanding of human mental life, folk psychology and that they then question the likelihood of this folk theory surviving in the face of advancing science.

As many will know, eliminative materialists support their case by giving other examples of folk theories that have eventually been proved to be bankrupt, and I also took this tack. It is a fifty minute lecture, but it only took one utterance to provoke one of the students to launch a three page complaint to the sub-dean:

“In the past, say Eliminative Materialists, numerous folk theories have bitten the dust, under the advance of science: the celestial sphere theory of astronomy, the phlogiston theory of combustion, the demon theory of disease, the creationist theory of speciation. All were once seen as the truth; all our now historical relics.”

It was that last example that was the offending one. My complainant did not appear to favour the demon theory of disease – which is reassuring in a trainee doctor, but she was outraged at my suggestion that the creation theory of speciation was dead. It may be relevant that the complainant was from North America.

The sub-dean took the complaint seriously (as he should) but there was (of course) no suggestion I should alter my lecture in the future.

Creationists have not had near the influence in Australia that they apparently have in the US. I had briefly thought this throw away line might provoke some response, but I did not anticipate the vituperative attack that it inspired.

I would love to hear, especially from US colleagues, who may have similar experiences.

Comments

[ohwilleke]

Notably, I've had some estate planning course students with very conservative religious backgrounds who expressed no problem doing hands out projects involving estate planning issues for same sex couples.

[Neil Levy]

Hi Chris,

The problem is certainly not confined to North America. There was an interesting study conducted at Monash a few years ago. Surveys had found that a reasonably large proportion of first year science students were creationists: in fact, a significantly higher proportion than humanities students (reflecting, I think, the proportion of Malaysian and Indonesian students in the intake). In a follow up, some of the students professing creationist views were given extra classes in evolutionary biology (for credit). After the course, they were retested. A higher proportion than previously reported believing in creationism!

Clearly we shouldn't alter the content of our courses in response. There are two remaining questions: should we attempt to present this kind of material sensitively, so as to avoid implying (for instance) that the students are stupid? Should we make an effort to confront them?

[Michael M.]

It would be worth making it clearer whether your student's outrage at the notion that creationism is dead also implies a rejection, in whole or in part, of evolutionary principles. I can think of religious people I know who accept evolutionary theory and view it as the mechanism through which God created humans. On the face of it, these people might take umbrage at a plain statement of creationism having bitten the dust because they would take it as an assertion that God had nothing to do with the creation of humans.

As with many terms, the scientifically or technically accurate meanings of "creationism" or "intelligent design" aren't always precisely the same meanings the average person might ascribe to them. Many, at least here in the U.S., tend to view "creationism" not so much as a specific theory about how humans were created, but more as an acceptance of the principle that man was created deliberately by a deity. It's a stand-in for their faith. Of course, there are plenty of others who do reject evolutionary theory and do buy into the specifics of creationist theory, and your student could easily have been one of those. But to Neil Levy's question, I think the "sensitivity" required might just be clarity -- about what you mean, and about what you don't mean.

[Christopher Ryan]

It is quite hard to know exactly what my student objected to, and the specifics probably matter little. It was a long and rather ramblingly complaint, ranging over numerous sins. (My lecture also contained a swear word used an adjective. A pretty common practice among Australian lecturers, but not appreciated by my correspondent).

I think the main thrust was that my out of hand rejection of creationism as a theory to explain the development of species was "disrespectful" to those who believed that creationism was a successful theory in this regard.

My reply was that I had no desire to offend, but the fact is creationism is a lousy explanatory theory and if some medical students thought otherwise they were just plain wrong.

To tackle Neil's point: being wrong about one thing, hardly makes you stupid. Presumably I am wrong about heaps of things, possibly this thing, but I'd think it unfair to be characterised as stupid on that evidence alone. (We just don't let any old body into medicine; I assume she ain't stupid).

It also seems to me to be more disrespectful not to take up this point head on. We know creationism is a stupid theory. To pretend we might think otherwise, or to pussy-foot around, in this context at least, seems to me to smack of a sort of paternalistic head-patting, implying that the other person is "stupid" - too stupid to see what most smart people can see.