Here is a short video by A. C. Grayling on the question of whether there is a pedagogical obligation to teach both creationism and evolutionary theory in science classes:
I tend to think that Grayling is right. Teaching creationism next to evolution does seem to treat as worthy of serious consideration a view that simply isn’t–at least not in the domain of science. (That’s not to say that creationism and it’s implications might not be worthy of serious consideration in different domains–perhaps in religious studies courses.) I wonder, however, what this says about the teaching of opposing viewpoints in general. It is hard to deny the intuitive pull towards the idea that we are morally–and rationally–obligated to hear all sides of a controversy before making up our minds. Call this the “equal consideration norm.” When all the standpoints at issue are feasible it seems a sensible enough norm to follow. However, there are several controversies in contemporary public life where at least one side seems to trade on this otherwise intuitive principle to get it’s standpoint into debates where those standpoints might have a tougher time getting serious consideration on their own merits. The climate change controversy comes to mind as another example, apart from the one Grayling discusses in the video, that fits this pattern. I’m sure the reader can think of others.
What do we teach our students about navigating between the “equal consideration norm” and judging standpoints on their merits? Do we do our students a disservice when we neglect a particular “side” in controversies like these, in violation of the “equal consideration norm”? If not, when are we licensed to say that a particular standpoint in a controversy doesn’t merit serious consideration? Under what conditions do we allow the even stronger judgment that it would it be wrong to accord to a standpoint the honor of serious treatment of a controversial issue (the way that Grayling thinks it is wrong to include the creationist standpoint in scientific discussions of human origins or cosmology)?
Supposing we can work out satisfactory answers to the above questions, what ought we to teach our students about how to draw the line between views that merit serious discussion and those that do not without falling prey to prejudiced or biased modes of thinking?
RAIL 