Should Creationism be Taught in Science Class?

The short answer is, "No." If you're a creationist don't get mad check out my reasoning first.

Creationism is based on faith and science is not. The scientific method is the basis for all of scientific thought. The scientist is required to observe natural phenomena, come up with a hypothesis that describe the phenomena and make predictions that can be tested based on what would be observed if the hypothesis is true. The hypothesis must either be discarded or modified if it is found through experimentation or observation to be untrue. Thus a scientist must be prepared to discard his hypothesis based on the evidence. In other words, the possibility of being wrong must be admitted and accepted by all scientists.

Creationism, on the other hand, is based in faith. Its proponents can never admit the possibility of being wrong. Therefore, it is automatically contradictory to the scientific method and is outside the realm of science as a result. If it is not science then it shouldn't be taught in a class that is supposed to be about science. It is not on topic. The only exception that might logically exist would be in the context of explaining the difference between a science and a faith as I have just done. Note that I'm not claiming that creationism is necessarily wrong. I'm just claiming it is not science.

There are theology classes in many schools. How much science do they teach?

The $#!^ They Teach to Kids in School

Everyone has an idea about what they feel should be taught as part of a well rounded education. The problem is that if you ask fifty different people this question you are likely to get fifty different answers. The problem gets even worse when you not only require that everyone go to school but you also require that everyone be taught a certain set of things at a minimum. No one agrees on what that minimum should be and some are morally or even religiously opposed to certain topics.

One perennial favorite topic of controversy is the dispute as to whether creationism should be taught in science class. I will leave aside my opinion on what I feel is the right answer to this for now and focus instead on the implications that arise from the fact that this controversy and others like it exist at all.

The fact that public schools are regulated by the government means that the government decides what is taught. Thus the curriculum becomes politicized and the only thing that is taught is that which is government sanctioned. This leads to endless battles that no one ever truly wins. The battle is refought constantly and much bitterness is created. There is also the danger that the government may usurp education for the purposes of teaching whatever political and social ideology it feels will guarantee its continued power. Many would argue that this has already happened here in the U.S. The only real solution to this sort of thing is to get the government out of the equation and let people decide what their children are taught in school for themselves.

I know what some of you are thinking. We can't have people just learning anything they want! They might skip something important and learn something else that is totally useless! They won't be ready for the real world! I say, "That is a crock of crap!"

First, who said you were the last authority on what knowledge is useful and what is not. This line of reasoning assumes that students and their parents are incapable of deciding for themselves what the student should learn. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have faith in people to make the right choices for themselves most of the time if given the chance. What does it say about you if you do not?

Second, stop and think for a minute about what it would've meant to you if someone had told you that you could go to school and learn anything you wanted and little that you didn't. To me it would have been Heaven. Of course, I did like most people and tuned out the classes I didn't want to learn anything about and paid good attention in the classes I liked. The end result was nearly the same as if I had never attended the bad classes other than the huge waste of my time and the school's resources. I would've been better off if I had learned something interesting during those times.

So let's just skip all of the drama and let people have the freedom to learn what they want.

Economic Games

Capitalism is usually portrayed by its champions as a positive sum game. A positive sum game is one in which both parties to a transaction benefit from it. Under this sort of model no one needs to force either party to participate. They just do it naturally because they both perceive a benefit to themselves in the transaction. Opposition to this model usually arises from people who either insist that one or the other party is being cheated or that the two parties are adversely effecting third parties who are outside the transaction. This, they say, gives rise to the need for the government to regulate business transactions. Let's address these two possibilities separately and see if they have any merit that justifies third party intervention. Note that I'm not considering environmental effects in this post but am only looking at things from an economic perspective. I'll look into environmental concerns later.

It is indeed true that someone is occasionally cheated in a free market transaction. The question that must arise then is whether the cheated party has any recourse to rectify the situation. Such a recourse does exist within the court system. If anyone ever feels cheated they can take the other party to court in order to be compensated for their loss. If the matter is too small to justify even a small claims case then chances are the offended party will take their business elsewhere while complaining to anyone who will listen about how they were treated. They may also take their complaint to the Better Business Bureau for help. If the other party cheats enough people then sooner or later they will be out of business or perhaps even in jail. So several mechanisms already exist to deal with cheaters that work in the vast majority of cases. What's more, the people involved in the transaction are the best ones to judge whether they were cheated or not and initiate action to resolve the problem. No outside meddling that is not chosen by the parties involved is necessary.

Third party complaints are usually complaints because that third party either didn't get chosen to participate in the transaction or they feel that their is a forth party that is more deserving of the business. For example, they might say something like, "That company is putting me out of a job because they've moved their manufacturing overseas." This sort of complaint is really just sour grapes because someone wasn't competitive enough to win the deal. If it is expensive to run a company in one place and cheap to run it in another then where would any rational person put the company? If you would put your company in the more expensive place then what are you really doing? I think you are most likely fooling yourself. You don't go out and find the most expensive products possible for your personal use. Why should you expect a company to be any different? You are only being hypocritical if you do. The correct reaction to losing business this way is to look for more ways to be competitive instead of trying to force other people to pay more than market value for your products or your time.

Another potential third party effect touted by the interventionists is the effect arising from the scarcity of resources. We are running out of oil, for example, so everyone must now buy high gas mileage cars and use florescent light bulbs to conserve oil. Or we are running out of fresh water so everyone must use toilets with smaller tanks and low flow shower heads. This line of thinking neglects the fact that the rising prices of scarce resources alone should be enough to encourage their rationing. If oil prices go up, people automatically try to do things in a more energy efficient way. Back in the 70's when oil prices rose rapidly millions of people started buying fuel efficient cars without any government coercion at all. In recent years, when gas prices have spiked people have started demanding hybrid cars to further conserve. I was buying florescent bulbs long before the government mandated them precisely because they are cheaper in the long run.

Similarly, if the price of water rises enough people will automatically start trying to conserve. The problem with water though is that its price is usually directly controlled by the government and its price doesn't rise even if an area is hit with a long drought. If the prices are allowed to rise people will find ways to conserve and entrepreneurs will be inspired to try to find new and innovative ways to get water to the stricken area. Their efforts may even result in new ways of producing fresh water that can increase the supply for everyone everywhere.

See Thomas Sowell's excellent book "Basic Economics" for a crystal clear explanation of how prices in a free economy automatically signal scarcity of resources and encourage rationing and conservation.

Thus third party complaints seem to me to be unjustified in the cases I've presented here. If you can think of any cases I haven't covered let me know.

Winners and Losers

I saw an article today entitled, "Who Will be the Winners Under Obama's Jobs Plan?" Apparently, the winners are going to be teachers, union labourers and other political friends of the President's. At least according to the article anyway. This started me thinking. Does the fact that only some citizens are going to be winners under this plan mean that others will be losers? I suspect that the answer is yes. After all, if some people are winners it follows that others must be losers. That's really the only other category that exists if you start classifying some people as winners and others as not.

I'm sure that if you asked Obama he would say that the intent of the Jobs Bill is to benefit everyone by creating a stronger economy. I have no reason to believe that he would be lying if he did. It probably really is his intention to improve the economy. However, we all know what paves the road to Hell. It is the actual effects of economic policy that are what really matter.

Given that the language used to promote the Jobs Bill is pretty much the same as the language that was used to promote every other round of economic stimulus recently, is it unfair to suspect that this bill is really just another stimulus bill except with a different name? The word 'stimulus' has become a rather dirty one in public circles of late. Perhaps, this bill is being marketed differently to avoid that stigma. The bill also has the same objectives as the previous rounds of stimulus; to improve unemployment, rebuild our infrastructure and improve education. If this really is just more of the same thing that has already failed, why are we doing it again? Are we really stupid enough to keep banging our heads against the same brick wall?

The mere fact that an article that was obviously slanted in favour of the bill could find winners under the bill goes a long way toward proving that the bill does favour some people over others. If the bill helps some and just as much as it harms others, what good is it? If it merely takes money out of one person's pocket and puts it in the pocket of another, how is it helping? Presumably the person who was taxed so another person can spend would have spent the money on something. Odds are it would've been something that they felt would improve the quality of their own lives. Instead they are forced to pay someone to build some public works project that might or might not be useful. There has been more than one project that turned out to be as useful as Alaska's famous 'bridge to nowhere.' Sure after the project is done everyone can see the new structure, but no one sees all of the things that the people who were originally taxed would've done with the money. If they had been able to keep their own money they would've bought myriad other products and services that are much more likely to be beneficial to them personally. But, since this is spread over millions of people all across the country, it is much harder to see the impact than it is with something that is large and easily located like a bridge or a road. At best, this bill is playing a zero sum game. Some must lose so that others might gain and there is no net improvement in the economy. This is why none of the other stimulus bills worked and it is why this one will also fail.

Offshoring of Jobs

I've read a lot lately about how the off shoring of jobs to China and other countries is hurting America. Most seem to feel that the corporations are greedy and unpatriotic for leaving. They feel that the issue can be addressed by passing laws that tax imports or otherwise punish such companies are the way to solve the problem. It seems they blame the free trade agreements that have been enacted in the last 20 years or so for the problem. I suspected that, as usual, the problem is more complex and the solutions are less obvious than the general populous thinks. So, I decided to examine the issues involved.

First, are corporations greedy? The answer is obviously that they are for the most part. After all, No one founds a corporation to lose money. In fact, the kind of people that start corporations are usually out to make as much money as they can. To stay in business they must achieve a number of goals. They must provide a product that people want. The price and quality of the product must be as good as or superior to those of its competitors. And, perhaps most important, they must be able to make money. Money is the life blood of any business and the business will not survive without it. Thus the desire to maximize profit is as fundamental to the nature of any business as self preservation is to the survival of any animal.

Are corporations unpatriotic? I think that the answer is that they are at least somewhat patriotic. After all, a company founded in a country is going to be composed of employees and stock holders that are mostly citizens of that country. They are therefore not likely to make decisions that they feel are likely to be a danger to their home or to their own jobs. However, patriotism is not necessary to a company for its survival. If a company cannot make a profit in one country it only has two choices, either move to another country or go out of business. Moving to another country is the only choice that allows the company to survive by fulfilling its fundamental purpose of making money. Likewise, if a company cannot compete with a foreign company that for whatever reason has advantages it may have no choice if it is to survive but to relocate to an area where it can pick up either the same advantages or others that are just as effective.

Given that corporations are greedy and at least somewhat unpatriotic, what are we to do? We can either accept them as they are or try to change them.

A powerful way to change them would be by changing their fundamental goal. We could put a cap on greed. We could say that you can only go into business if you agree to make a certain percentage profit and nothing more. Everything over the cap could be paid as tax. However, this option is fraught with dangers. It is not uncommon for a company to lose money for several years in a row. If potential profits are capped it may take much longer to recover from the losses. There may be extended periods of low or no hiring during the recovery. Some companies will shy away from innovations that would endanger whatever profits they are allowed to make further damping hiring. Once a company is making all of the money that it is allowed to make it will be unlikely to hire new people as there will be no benefit from it. Many people might even decide that they don't want to start a business at all because of the extra risk created by the profit cap. Capping business profit would thus most likely cap both business growth and new hiring. This may be perfectly acceptable price to pay for removing the greediness of corporations, but we must ask ourselves if the risks are worth the rewards. Capping business growth may result in as much or more unemployment as off shoring.  Also, capping profit still doesn't address the fact that business will be free to leave. Few businesses will stay around after the cap goes into effect.

Maybe we should recognize that the goal of business is to make money and try to use that goal to bring business back home. We could put high tariffs on imports. In this way companies might be artificially forced to move back to the U.S. in order to optimize their profits. What are the results of high tariffs likely to be? First, the price of every item that we import now will immediately go up. The items won't be any cheaper to make in their native land and someone will have to pay the tariffs. This will also mean that unemployment will increase among our trading partners around the world. This will mean that less money is available to buy U.S. exports. U.S. companies will have to fire workers. Second, most countries will immediately raise tariffs on goods from the U.S. This will quickly result in an additional drop in U.S. exports. Fewer exports will mean even more unemployment. One also must bare in mind that other countries are perfectly free to trade amongst themselves. The U.S. is not the only market on Earth and for many items it is not even the largest market. Companies that relocated manufacturing outside the U.S. are therefore not likely to relocate all of their foreign manufacturing back to the U.S. precisely because of the high tariffs that are likely to be placed on U.S. exports. The result will almost certainly be a world wide decline in the standard of living and the tariffs may destroy more U.S. jobs than they create. Furthermore, it is widely (though not universally) recognized among economists that tariffs do result in lower living standards and higher unemployment. See Henry Hazlet's "Economics in One Lesson," Chapter 11. Given all of this, are the risks of this course of action worth the potentially non-existent rewards?

Perhaps the solution is to recognize that companies are leaving for a reason. We should also recognize that the reason has to do with the fundamental goal of business to make money. Money cannot be made in the U.S. as easily today as it was in the past. We must re-examine the changes that we have made since the hay day of American economic might with an eye toward removing the ones that have made doing business here less profitable. Not all of the changes need to be eliminated. Some, such as clean air laws, may still be necessary. When it becomes possible for an American businessman to make a good profit staying in the country he grew up in you can bet that he will.