What is Balanced Treatment? Balancing Evolution & Creationism
Although not heard quite as often today, calls for "Balanced Treatment" were once a fundamental aspect of creationist attempts to insert their beliefs into science classes across the country. According to creationists, school science classes needed to balance evolution against creationism. Through such efforts creationists hoped that not only would scientific creationism receive more widespread acceptance, but also that evolution would slowly wither away and die.
Today, there is little hope for any sort of Balanced Treatment program incorporating creationism and evolution, but that doesn't mean that creationists have abandoned the idea entirely. Instead, they have shifted the focus away from strict creationism and on to what they hope will be more constitutionally acceptable: Intelligent Design.
Whenever you hear a call for "Balanced Treatment" in the teaching of evolution, what you are hearing is an ostensible call for fairness. Whenever one theory about the origins of species is taught (normally evolution), schools should also teach the "other" theory about the origins of species, either scientific creationism or some descendant like Intelligent Design.
Calls for Balanced Treatment tend to get a very favorable reception - after all, who is opposed to being fair? Who is opposed to giving both sides of a disagreement? Americans have a strong self-image of fairness in debates and there is the perception that anyone trying to shut out one side in a disagreement is not only being unfair, but even bigoted as well.
As a consequence, Balanced Treatment programs have been popular at various times. Some science text publishers have included information on creationism alongside evolution, and two states, Arkansas and Louisiana, have required that any public schools which discuss evolution must also discuss creationism. Although support for balance between evolution and creationism has withered for a number of reasons, it has often been replaced by demands for balance between evolution and Intelligent Design.
The problem, however, is that the initial perception of Balanced Treatment is quite mistaken. The idea that it is more "fair" to present creationism and evolution together rather than evolution alone is wrong because it assumes that there are only two sides to the debate. In reality, there are many "sides" to how life has developed and instruction would only be "balanced" if all were presented. Creationists, though, only want their own side — a traditional, fundamentalist Christian side — added to science classes. In other words, they want their Christian beliefs to be granted the privilege of being presented as if they were scientific.
Even if all "sides" could be presented, it wouldn't be valid to present them all because they aren't all scientific - and creationism definitely isn't scientific - which means that they don't belong in science classes. Presenting them alongside a genuinely scientific theory as if they were equivalent misrepresents science and gives students a faulty education in science.
Finally, any "balanced" presentation would entail explaining open questions in evolution and all the problems in creationism, but that's very difficult to accomplish. Students are ill-equipped to understand many of the finer points about what makes evolution a valid scientific theory while creationism is just pseudoscience — that would be better suited to an advanced class, perhaps on the college level.
There are only two categories of reasons which can exist for wanting Balanced Treatment: genuine scientific reasons and non-scientific reasons (political, religious, social, etc.). Genuine scientific reasons would involve the goal of improving the quality and accuracy of science education in public schools over and above what science texts currently offer with their focus on evolution to the exclusion of other ideas.
This raises the question, however, of whether and why such improvement is necessary. In this context, support for Balanced Treatment requires arguing either that the scientists and publishers are incompetent for failing to see that there are scientific alternatives to evolution, or that they are involved in a deliberate conspiracy to hide scientific alternatives to evolution. Neither argument is plausible because there is no evidence supporting them. It is surely no coincidence that both arguments are common canards of creationists.
That leaves non-scientific reasons to push for Balanced Treatment programs and legislation: pursuit of social, political, and/or religious goals. Such goals are made evident by the fact that even creationists who call for Balanced Treatment programs often don't really believe in the value of Balanced Treatment as a general principle. Their actual purpose is to end the teaching of evolution entirely and, if possible, replace it with teaching about creationism. They don't want Balanced Treatment, they want only the teaching of creationism - Balanced Treatment is merely one step in the path towards that end.
Regardless of the specifics of what they hope to achieve, the simple fact remains that only science belongs in science classes. The teaching of science may be a means to wider non-scientific goals, but teaching pseudoscience as if it were science in pursuit of such goals is another matter entirely. Balanced Treatment programs are sought through legislation because creationists are unable to make their case to the scientific community; that, however, is exactly why their alternatives do not belong in science classes, balanced or not.
Today, there is little hope for any sort of Balanced Treatment program incorporating creationism and evolution, but that doesn't mean that creationists have abandoned the idea entirely. Instead, they have shifted the focus away from strict creationism and on to what they hope will be more constitutionally acceptable: Intelligent Design.
Balanced Treatment as Fairness
Whenever you hear a call for "Balanced Treatment" in the teaching of evolution, what you are hearing is an ostensible call for fairness. Whenever one theory about the origins of species is taught (normally evolution), schools should also teach the "other" theory about the origins of species, either scientific creationism or some descendant like Intelligent Design.
Calls for Balanced Treatment tend to get a very favorable reception - after all, who is opposed to being fair? Who is opposed to giving both sides of a disagreement? Americans have a strong self-image of fairness in debates and there is the perception that anyone trying to shut out one side in a disagreement is not only being unfair, but even bigoted as well.
As a consequence, Balanced Treatment programs have been popular at various times. Some science text publishers have included information on creationism alongside evolution, and two states, Arkansas and Louisiana, have required that any public schools which discuss evolution must also discuss creationism. Although support for balance between evolution and creationism has withered for a number of reasons, it has often been replaced by demands for balance between evolution and Intelligent Design.
Balanced Treatment as Special Privilege
The problem, however, is that the initial perception of Balanced Treatment is quite mistaken. The idea that it is more "fair" to present creationism and evolution together rather than evolution alone is wrong because it assumes that there are only two sides to the debate. In reality, there are many "sides" to how life has developed and instruction would only be "balanced" if all were presented. Creationists, though, only want their own side — a traditional, fundamentalist Christian side — added to science classes. In other words, they want their Christian beliefs to be granted the privilege of being presented as if they were scientific.
Even if all "sides" could be presented, it wouldn't be valid to present them all because they aren't all scientific - and creationism definitely isn't scientific - which means that they don't belong in science classes. Presenting them alongside a genuinely scientific theory as if they were equivalent misrepresents science and gives students a faulty education in science.
Finally, any "balanced" presentation would entail explaining open questions in evolution and all the problems in creationism, but that's very difficult to accomplish. Students are ill-equipped to understand many of the finer points about what makes evolution a valid scientific theory while creationism is just pseudoscience — that would be better suited to an advanced class, perhaps on the college level.
Balanced Treatment, Science, and Ideology
There are only two categories of reasons which can exist for wanting Balanced Treatment: genuine scientific reasons and non-scientific reasons (political, religious, social, etc.). Genuine scientific reasons would involve the goal of improving the quality and accuracy of science education in public schools over and above what science texts currently offer with their focus on evolution to the exclusion of other ideas.
This raises the question, however, of whether and why such improvement is necessary. In this context, support for Balanced Treatment requires arguing either that the scientists and publishers are incompetent for failing to see that there are scientific alternatives to evolution, or that they are involved in a deliberate conspiracy to hide scientific alternatives to evolution. Neither argument is plausible because there is no evidence supporting them. It is surely no coincidence that both arguments are common canards of creationists.
That leaves non-scientific reasons to push for Balanced Treatment programs and legislation: pursuit of social, political, and/or religious goals. Such goals are made evident by the fact that even creationists who call for Balanced Treatment programs often don't really believe in the value of Balanced Treatment as a general principle. Their actual purpose is to end the teaching of evolution entirely and, if possible, replace it with teaching about creationism. They don't want Balanced Treatment, they want only the teaching of creationism - Balanced Treatment is merely one step in the path towards that end.
Regardless of the specifics of what they hope to achieve, the simple fact remains that only science belongs in science classes. The teaching of science may be a means to wider non-scientific goals, but teaching pseudoscience as if it were science in pursuit of such goals is another matter entirely. Balanced Treatment programs are sought through legislation because creationists are unable to make their case to the scientific community; that, however, is exactly why their alternatives do not belong in science classes, balanced or not.
Source...