An open letter to the British Humanist Association

Many people believe that creationism or intelligent design are scientific theories.
They are wrong. They are religious dogma trying to foster the pretence that they are science.
Will you encourage children to reach their own conclusions on the matter?
Only if they are presented with accurate information. Mind you, for children to reach their own conclusions they need a thorough grounding in the evidence on which evolutionary theory is based, something which is usually achieved at University. It's not the job of schools to teach at this level. We have recently learned that some subatomic particles may travel faster than the speed of light - which would be a serious challenge to relativity theory. Do you think children should be allowed to reach their own conclusions on the validity of Einstein's theories?

Creationist sources - which includes ID, of course- rely on misrepresentation, distortion and outright falsehoods to promote their claims for scientific legitimacy. I do not want children to be exposed to outright falsehoods masquerading as science.
If you don't think I'm accurate in my characterisation of creationism, here is my analysis of several creationist web sites showing their deep and fundamental dishonesty:
http://plesiosaur.com/creationism
You can show that I'm wrong by producing evidence that I'm wrong. If you can't, why should we not conclude that creationism is fundamentally dishonest, and that this in itself is sufficient reason for not teaching it in our schools?

Are you saying that teachers should dogmatically assert the (philosophical, not scientific) claim that "creationism and 'intelligent design' are not scientific theories", without needing to provide any evidence to substantiate that claim?
I'm saying that creationism does not offer any scientific theory because
1) It is not built from empirical evidence
2) It does not present any model which explains how biological systems originate
3) It offers no evidence to support any theory, only supposed falsifications of evolutionary theory
4) It explicitly attacks naturalism, which is the fundamental assumption which makes science possible (and if you think otherwise, please tell us how one can engage in a scientific investigation other than under the assumption of naturalism)
5) It promotes it cause by dishonestly misrepresenting the views of scientists, by dishonestly presenting this as a conflict between science and religion, and promoting outright falsehoods about science and religion.

This is not a philosophical dispute over the nature of science, and even if it were, the school classroom is not the appropriate forum in which to engage in such a debate. It is a simple issue of honesty: creationists promote their cause by misrepresentation, distortion and outright falsehoods, as I have demonstrated with my analysis of several creationist sites. If you think I'm wrong, address the evidence I present. Or produce a link to any creationist site which you consider to be honest.
I've challenged creationists many times to do so, but none has even attempted to demonstrate that I am wrong. From this, I conclude that creationists know that their cause is being argued dishonestly, but find such dishonesty acceptable provided it comes from one of their own.

I don't, and I don't want children to be exposed to the misinformation and outright falsehoods of creationists. Coming as it does from those claiming the moral high ground, it is utter hypocrisy.

Note that the discussion is not about whether creationism or ID are true, but only about whether they are scientific theories.

Oh, and no, creationism is not a scientific theory. Scientific theories set constraints on possible outcomes. That's what makes them testable. All scientific theories are held to be provisional and subject to revision or rejection if that is what the evidence demands - and note that currently both of Einstein's theories of relativity, both of which are extremely robustly supported by evidence, are being challenged by data which they cannot explain.

Creationism explains everything by "God did it" - though ID creationism dissemble. Their "theory" is that "GodIMeanAnIntelligentDesigner did it". It offers nothing in the way of mechanism, no constraints on possible outcomes and therefore no way in which their "theory" can be tested - unless you can propose a potential observation or measurement which can't be "explained" by the intervention of a possibly supernatural entity, possibly using supernatural methods. The fact that ID proponents are specifically demanding that we redefine the nature of science to accommodate the supernatural shows that their agenda has nothing to do with science. It's political, religious, and in some cases I suspect simply pecuniary. Creationism is big business, which, because of US laws, can be fiddled so as to be free of taxation.

So I think you agree with me: teachers should give philosophical reasons why creationism and ID should not be regarded as scientific theories, and should not simply dogmatically assert that view.
No, I think that they should give creationism no more time than they give to crystal healing or to astrology. This is not an issue of philosophy. It's an issue of religious dogma masquerading as science, and promoting itself by utterly dishonest means.
School science classes are not the place to discuss philosophy of science. They are the place to teach children mainstream science, which gives them the opportunity to go on to a University education if they are interested in science. They can go into the details of the philosophy of science if they are interested in an institute of higher learning, not at school. You wouldn't expect a history teacher to talk about the philosophy of historical investigation, or a mathematics teacher to go into the philosophical underpinnings of their discipline. I would no more expect children to reach their own conclusions (as you demand) on the nature of historical enquiry than I would on the basic underlying philosophy of science, especially as the "alternative" view presented is a concatenation of falsehoods.

Oh, and I didn't give any philosophical reasons for rejecting ID. I gave entirely pragmatic reasons, not the least of which is that it's a bunch of falsehoods. Philosophy is something that follows science, worked out by philosophers after the event. Scientists define the nature of science by what they do, and how they go about it. The value of science is demonstrated by the fact that it works very well indeed, not by any philosophical revelation. As a scientist, I may occasionally find that philosophy gives some insight into the nature of what I'm doing, but it is largely something which doesn't concern me and has no impact on what I do or how I do it.

So you go from
"Note that the discussion is not about whether creationism or ID are true, but only about whether they are scientific theories."

To
"And I still don't think you've grasped the difference between the statements "ID is not science" and "ID is not true"."

So what the hell are we discussing?

I understand the difference perfectly well.

This is not a discussion about philosophies of science. It's is about the validity of ID as science. I have no particular interest in philosophies of science because, as I explained, they are at best post hoc rationalisations of what scientists actually do, not the drivers of the process. Labelling the pragmatic view that we use science because it works as "instrumentalism" is just such a post hoc rationalisation. Attaching that label to it makes no difference whatsoever for the reasons why we accept the findings of science as useful.