Christian Right Wants Bigfoot, UFO's, Elvis in Science Curriculum?

Posted by Bruce Wilson at 1:09 PM on April 6, 2007.

[ note: this weekend, April 6-9, is the blogswarm against theocracy ]

Aired last Wednesday and scheduled again for the 10PM to Midnight slot this evening, a segment entitled "God, Faith, and Hard Science" on CNN's Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees show featured Robert Boston of Americans United For The Separation of Church and State and Charmaine Yoest of the Family Research Council sparring over what should be included in the science curriculum of American public schools [ here's a transcript ] The segment has gotten fair play in the blogosphere, on PZ Meyers' Pharyngula and elsewhere, and I would like to highlight an aspect of what Dr. Yoest said that intrigues me. Now, I want to preface this by saying that I haven't been able to reach the Family Research Council to verify that Dr. Yoest was actually speaking as an official representative for the FRC ; today is Good Friday and the FRC offices shut down today at noon in observance of the religious holiday. But Dr. Yoest's statements on Anderson Cooper seemed to indicate that Yoest advocates including discussion about the existence of Bigfoot and UFO's, or whether Elvis is still alive and in hiding or not, in America's public school science curriculum: will "teaching the controversy" ruin public schools with pseudoscience, or does it amount to an exciting new pedagogical approach to making education more connected to American public belief ?

Bigfoot, UFOs, and Elvis ? In science classes ? Yup.

That's the logical implication of what Dr. Yoest said to Andersoon Cooper. Here's the relevant part of the discussion:

COOPER: Do you want your children -- Charmaine, do you want your children to be exposed to a belief which the scientific community has disproven? I'm not saying that they have disproven all of this. But, in certain cases, I mean, some things clearly...

YOEST: Sure.

COOPER: ... have been disproven.

YOEST: Sure.

COOPER: Things which have been clearly scientifically disproven, do you still want them taught?

YOEST: Well, absolutely. That would -- that would come in, in a history of science, in a philosophy of science.

That's why I'm saying, there's different kinds of classes. So, we're talking about kind of a broad array of things. Your kids need to know what opinions are out there and -- and -- and see what the evidence is, consider the evidence.

(CROSSTALK)

COOPER: So, for other subjects in a science class that people disagree on, but that have been disproven, the kids should be taught those as well?

YOEST: Sure.

COOPER: They should -- they should -- they should know that there are other people who disagree on... YOEST: Absolutely.

COOPER: ... just about every scientific issue?

YOEST: I'm not afraid of my kids knowing about any controversy that is out there, as long as you put the evidence on the table and consider what -- what the debate is. That's what education is all about, is having a vigorous debate. [emphasis added]

Now, I'm quite sure this never crossed Charmaine Yoest's mind, but her position on "teaching the controversy" could be interpreted to mean that American public school science curriculum should include treatment of the "controversy" over the standard figures cited for estimated death tolls in the Holocaust. Or, on a lighter or even somewhat comical note, on the 'controversy' over whether Copernicus might have been wrong such that the Earth really does lie at the center of the Universe !

I don't think Yoest wants to advocate that Holocaust denial be taught in America's classrooms, even to be disproved ; I'll venture that assumption, bearing in mind that I still need to clarify that point with Dr. Yoest herself, and even if so I won't ascribe that position to the Family Research Council until I can get through to an FRC spokesperson who can clarify the FRC's position on these matters.

So, provisionally for now, I'm assuming that the FRC doesn't advocate that "controversies" over the Holocaust death toll or about Geocentrism, how the Sun really revolves around the Earth, should be taught in public schools or included in science curriculum. I'm going to apply some common sense reasoning here in th form of a "fringe theory" dictum that controversies which get included in science curriculum must at the very least be held by substantial minorities of Americans. I'll pick an arbitrary cutoff : 10%.  If fewer than 10% of Americans hold a view, then the controversy is too "fringe" to merit inclusion in school curriculum

OK, now that I've got that one cleared up, we can proceed :

If simply asked whether they believe in God or not, 90% of Americans will answer that they do believe in God. But, when asked if they're sure God exists or not, only 58% say they're sure. So, it would seem to me that a logical extension of Charmaine Yoest's ( and maybe the FRC's ) position would be that any science curriculum chapter addressing the controversy over "Intelligent Design" should also include a subsection entitled "Does God Exist ? : Weighing the Evidence".

Moving right along, let's look at some other controversial subjects.


About 35% of Americans believe the following :

Bigfoot is real

UFO's exist

Elvis Presley is still alive ( "The King, the King !" )

So, based on Charmaine Yoest's reasoning, it would seem appropriate to include treatment of the controversy over those beliefs in public school science curriculum, and there's no question whatsoever that the curriculum should address the controversy on whether ESP is real or not - a hefty 60% of Americans believe in Extra Sensory Perception (according to a 2002 National Science Foundation poll). Case closed.

But, there's one controversial area that merits, without a doubt, inclusion in the Nation's science curriculum for the fact that a higher fraction of Americans believe in the idea than the percentage of Americans who believe God does, without a doubt, exist:

About 84% of Americans now believe there has been a conspiracy, by the US government and the Bush Administration, to either hide foreknowledge of the impending September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks or actively lie about the the US government role in those attacks.

That's a pretty whopping percentage, and so by Charmaine Yost's logic September 11 conspiracy theories should get lots and lots of class time. A whopping majority of Americans, distributed across the entire political
spectrum too, believe in various versions of 9-11 conspiracy theory. Who are we to keep that out of the classroom ? If the subject is on so many people's minds, why not work it into curriculum in creative ways ?

For example, students in high school physics classes could translate the physics involved in the crash of a large commercial passenger jet head on into the Pentagon into both kinetic energy equations and into more challenging considerations involving applied materials science : where did the plane wings go ? Did they vaporize on impact ? Could the jet engines on the plane wings possibly have vaporized too ? What about the size of the entrance hole ?

Indeed, relegating such a pervasive national belief system merely to the realm of science and physics classes could be deemed inadequate; why not interject 9-11 conspiracy theory into other classes too ? Psychology classes could weigh the testimony of witnesses who thought they saw a missile or a small plane hit the Pentagon, in light of research on the reliability of crime scene witnesses and the known ability of human memory to change in response to suggestion. And, English or literature classes could feature sections entitled "Folk narrative of the Twin Tower's collapse" and so on. The possibilities are endless.

Moreover, since millions of Americans, probably tens of millions even, believe in some form of apocalyptic Christian dispensationalism ( enough, apparently, to justify a national lobby to bring on the apocalypse ) maybe the "Left Behind" books of Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins should provide inspiration for science classes too. After all, the series has sold probably close to 70 million copies and has even inspired a video game- so why should we exclude apocalyptic end-times beliefs from public schools ? Themes from these books could easily be integrated into fairly simple lessons on physics and biology : x hundred million soldiers, horsemen and horses suddenly blown to bloody bits by the word of Jesus Christ, at the battle of Armageddon = an ocean of blood and gore y wide, y2 long and y3 deep. Or, what sort of heat would be necessary to melt the eyes of unbelievers right out of their heads ? Could it be done with microwaves or x-rays ? Why, or why not ?


The goal of making education more relevant and connected to the nation's underlying, core beliefs certainly seems, in the abstract at least, to be a laudable one. Was Charmaine Yoest really advocating for such an ambitious, novel overhaul of the nation's educational system ? And, if so, does the FRC concur ?

As I've mentioned, the good staffers at the FRC's Washington offices knocked off early today, in acknowledgment of Good Friday, and I wouldn't presume to bother Dr. Yoest on a holiday, so these fascinating pedagogical possibilities will have to wait, at least, until next Monday for clarification.

Stay tuned !

Tagged as: education, intelligent design, public schools

Bruce Wilson writes for Talk To Action, a blog specializing in faith and politics.