Skip to comments.Now evolving in biology classes: a testier climate - students question evolution
Posted on 05/03/2005 2:12:35 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
Some science teachers say they're encountering fresh resistance to the topic of evolution - and it's coming from their students.
Nearly 30 years of teaching evolution in Kansas has taught Brad Williamson to expect resistance, but even this veteran of the trenches now has his work cut out for him when students raise their hands.
That's because critics of Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection are equipping families with books, DVDs, and a list of "10 questions to ask your biology teacher."
The intent is to plant seeds of doubt in the minds of students as to the veracity of Darwin's theory of evolution.
The result is a climate that makes biology class tougher to teach. Some teachers say class time is now wasted on questions that are not science-based. Others say the increasingly charged atmosphere has simply forced them to work harder to find ways to skirt controversy.
On Thursday, the Science Hearings Committee of the Kansas State Board of Education begins hearings to reopen questions on the teaching of evolution in state schools.
The Kansas board has a famously zigzag record with respect to evolution. In 1999, it acted to remove most references to evolution from the state's science standards. The next year, a new - and less conservative - board reaffirmed evolution as a key concept that Kansas students must learn.
Now, however, conservatives are in the majority on the board again and have raised the question of whether science classes in Kansas schools need to include more information about alternatives to Darwin's theory.
But those alternatives, some science teachers report, are already making their way into the classroom - by way of their students.
In a certain sense, stiff resistance on the part of some US students to the theory of evolution should come as no surprise.
Even after decades of debate, Americans remain deeply ambivalent about the notion that the theory of natural selection can explain creation and its genesis.
A Gallup poll late last year showed that only 28 percent of Americans accept the theory of evolution, while 48 percent adhere to creationism - the belief that an intelligent being is responsible for the creation of the earth and its inhabitants.
But if reluctance to accept evolution is not new, the ways in which students are resisting its teachings are changing.
"The argument was always in the past the monkey-ancestor deal," says Mr. Williamson, who teaches at Olathe East High School. "Today there are many more arguments that kids bring to class, a whole fleet of arguments, and they're all drawn out of the efforts by different groups, like the intelligent design [proponents]."
It creates an uncomfortable atmosphere in the classroom, Williamson says - one that he doesn't like. "I don't want to ever be in a confrontational mode with those kids ... I find it disheartening as a teacher."
Williamson and his Kansas colleagues aren't alone. An informal survey released in April from the National Science Teachers Association found that 31 percent of the 1,050 respondents said they feel pressure to include "creationism, intelligent design, or other nonscientific alternatives to evolution in their science classroom."
These findings confirm the experience of Gerry Wheeler, the group's executive director, who says that about half the teachers he talks to tell him they feel ideological pressure when they teach evolution.
And according to the survey, while 20 percent of the teachers say the pressure comes from parents, 22 percent say it comes primarily from students.
In this climate, science teachers say they must find new methods to defuse what has become a politically and emotionally charged atmosphere in the classroom. But in some cases doing so also means learning to handle well-organized efforts to raise doubts about Darwin's theory.
Darwin's detractors say their goal is more science, not less, in evolution discussions.
The Seattle-based Discovery Institute distributes a DVD, "Icons of Evolution," that encourages viewers to doubt Darwinian theory.
One example from related promotional literature: "Why don't textbooks discuss the 'Cambrian explosion,' in which all major animal groups appear together in the fossil record fully formed instead of branching from a common ancestor - thus contradicting the evolutionary tree of life?"
Such questions too often get routinely dismissed from the classroom, says senior fellow John West, adding that teachers who advance such questions can be rebuked - or worse.
"Teachers should not be pressured or intimidated," says Mr. West, "but what about all the teachers who are being intimidated and in some cases losing their jobs because they simply want to present a few scientific criticisms of Darwin's theory?"
But Mr. Wheeler says the criticisms West raises lack empirical evidence and don't belong in the science classroom.
"The questions scientists are wrestling with are not the same ones these people are claiming to be wrestling with," Wheeler says. "It's an effort to sabotage quality science education. There is a well-funded effort to get religion into the science classroom [through strategic questioning], and that's not fair to our students."
A troubled history Teaching that humans evolved by a process of natural selection has long stirred passionate debate, captured most famously in the Tennessee v. John Scopes trial of 1925.
Today, even as Kansas braces for another review of the question, parents in Dover, Pa., are suing their local school board for requiring last year that evolution be taught alongside the theory that humankind owes its origins to an "intelligent designer."
In this charged atmosphere, teachers who have experienced pressure are sometimes hesitant to discuss it for fear of stirring a local hornets' nest. One Oklahoma teacher, for instance, canceled his plans to be interviewed for this story, saying, "The school would like to avoid any media, good or bad, on such an emotionally charged subject."
Others believe they've learned how to successfully navigate units on evolution.
In the mountain town of Bancroft, Idaho (pop. 460), Ralph Peterson teaches all the science classes at North Gem High School. Most of his students are Mormons, as is he.
When teaching evolution at school, he says, he sticks to a clear but simple divide between religion and science. "I teach the limits of science," Mr. Peterson says. "Science does not discuss the existence of God because that's outside the realm of science." He says he gets virtually no resistance from his students when he approaches the topic this way.
In Skokie, Ill., Lisa Nimz faces a more religiously diverse classroom and a different kind of challenge. A teaching colleague, whom she respects and doesn't want to offend, is an evolution critic and is often in her classroom when the subject is taught.
In deference to her colleague's beliefs, she says she now introduces the topic of evolution with a disclaimer.
"I preface it with this idea, that I am not a spiritual provider and would never try to be," Ms. Nimz says. "And so I am trying not ... to feel any disrespect for their religion. And I think she feels that she can live with that."
A job that gets harder The path has been a rougher one for John Wachholz, a biology teacher at Salina (Kansas) High School Central. When evolution comes up, students tune out: "They'll put their heads on their desks and pretend they don't hear a word you say."
To show he's not an enemy of faith, he sometimes tells them he's a choir member and the son of a Lutheran pastor. But resistance is nevertheless getting stronger as he prepares to retire this spring.
"I see the same thing I saw five years ago, except now students think they're informed without having ever really read anything" on evolution or intelligent design, Mr. Wachholz says. "Because it's been discussed in the home and other places, they think they know, [and] they're more outspoken.... They'll say, 'I don't believe a word you're saying.' "
As teachers struggle to fend off strategic questions - which some believe are intended to cloak evolution in a cloud of doubt - critics of Darwin's theory sense an irony of history. In their view, those who once championed teacher John Scopes's right to question religious dogma are now unwilling to let a new set of established ideas be challenged.
"What you have is the Scopes trial turned on its head because you have school boards saying you can't say anything critical about Darwin," says Discovery Institute president Bruce Chapman on the "Icons of Evolution" DVD.
But to many teachers, "teaching the controversy" means letting ideologues manufacture controversy where there is none. And that, they say, could set a disastrous precedent in education.
"In some ways I think civilization is at stake because it's about how we view our world," Nimz says. The Salem Witch Trials of 1692, for example, were possible, she says, because evidence wasn't necessary to guide a course of action.
"When there's no empirical evidence, some very serious things can happen," she says. "If we can't look around at what is really there and try to put something logical and intelligent together from that without our fears getting in the way, then I think that we're doomed."
What some students are asking their biology teachers Critics of evolution are supplying students with prepared questions on such topics as:
The origins of life. Why do textbooks claim that the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment shows how life's building blocks may have formed on Earth - when conditions on the early Earth were probably nothing like those used in the experiment, and the origin of life remains a mystery?
Darwin's tree of life. Why don't textbooks discuss the "Cambrian explosion," in which all major animal groups appear together in the fossil record fully formed instead of branching from a common ancestor - thus contradicting the evolutionary tree of life?
Vertebrate embryos. Why do textbooks use drawings of similarities in vertebrate embryos as evidence for common ancestry - even though biologists have known for over a century that vertebrate embryos are not most similar in their early stages, and the drawings are faked?
The archaeopteryx. Why do textbooks portray this fossil as the missing link between dinosaurs and modern birds - even though modern birds are probably not descended from it, and its supposed ancestors do not appear until millions of years after it?
Peppered moths. Why do textbooks use pictures of peppered moths camouflaged on tree trunks as evidence for natural selection - when biologists have known since the 1980s that the moths don't normally rest on tree trunks, and all the pictures have been staged?
Darwin's finches. Why do textbooks claim that beak changes in Galapagos finches during a severe drought can explain the origin of species by natural selection - even though the changes were reversed after the drought ended, and no net evolution occurred?
Mutant fruit flies. Why do textbooks use fruit flies with an extra pair of wings as evidence that DNA mutations can supply raw materials for evolution - even though the extra wings have no muscles and these disabled mutants cannot survive outside the laboratory?
Human origins. Why are artists' drawings of apelike humans used to justify materialistic claims that we are just animals and our existence is a mere accident - when fossil experts cannot even agree on who our supposed ancestors were or what they looked like?
Evolution as a fact. Why are students told that Darwin's theory of evolution is a scientific fact - even though many of its claims are based on misrepresentations of the facts?
Source: Discovery Institute
LOL! 'Some of my best friends are Lutherans...'
The solution: Gould, Gould, Gould, and more Gould. Augment (or even replace) the dry, insipid, boring poorly-written textbooks with:
Just to name a few.
Many of these books contain lively discussions of the points brought up by Creation Scientists and proponents of Intelligent Design, while continuing to teach extremely interesting details of biology.
If teachers have the right material, the challenges brought into the classroom by doubters-of-evolution can be fun, interesting, and rewarding for all students.
But teachers for the most part lack imagination and the textbooks are leaden, heavy, boring, poorly-written and dull.
Why are students told that Darwin's theory of evolution is a scientific factWhoever wrote this sentence has no idea what a fact is. Or what a theory is. Or why facts and theories aren't in competition with each other. The dry leaden textbooks try to explain it, but Gould explains it brilliantly, in a way that students of any persuasion will remember.
I am an MIT graduate and I have never believed the Darwinian model of ecolutionary development. I am glad that the students referenced do in fact have the proper requisite for scientific understanding, the ability to challenge a scenario that lacks fundamantal proof.
He [Richard Feynman] was asked to participate on a California textbook selection committee that was charged with evaluating textbooks for use in California public schools. He agreed, thinking it was a worthwhile use of his time.
When the book depository called and asked where to send the 300 pounds of books, they told him not to worry, they could send over someone to help him read the books. Feynman said he wasn't quite sure how that would work and declined the offer of an assistant.
During the weeks that he was reading texts, he kept getting calls from the publishers. They wanted to take him out to dinner, lunch, wherever he wanted. They wanted to talk over the advantages of their textbook. He kept fending them off, saying he was confident he would be able to read the texts. Moreover, he knew that the teachers wouldn't be receiving this kind of attention so he felt the books should be judged on their own merits.
One book in particular drew his attention. It was one out of a three book series. During a meeting he was asked by some of the other committee members what he thought of the book. He responded that he really couldn't say, that he hadn't received it. One of the members continued to press for an answer. After Feynman repeated himself a second time, a book depository employee piped up and explained that he had elected not to send the book on to the committee members. The publisher had missed the deadline and substituted a book with blank pages instead. They had included a note explaining that the book would be ready in time and hoped it could still be considered.
The amazing part of this story is that several of the committee members had nominated the book for inclusion on the approved list!
Feynman went on to talk about the unsolicited gifts he received from the publishers. He kept sending them back but one incident took him completely by surprise. He had arrived in San Francisco the evening before a committee meeting. He left his hotel room, intending to wander the streets to find a place to eat. As he walked into the lobby, two men popped up, greeted him by name and asked him if they could help him in any way. He explained that he was just going out and no thank you. They persisted. He said, "Look, I'm just going out to get into a bit of trouble." They responded, "Maybe we can help you with that too." He demurred and then later kicked himself for not seeing just how far they would go and documenting the evening.
The source for this story is Feynman's autobiography, "Surely you're joking Mr. Feynman..."
Where you went to school and what you choose to believe has absolutely no bearing on what I was saying. I'm confused that you addressed your post to me.
I'm saying something regarding the process in biology class, how to cope with these new challenges while continuing to teach biology in the classroom in the context of increasing doubt about evolution among a large sector of the population.
Doubt is always good, but in a biology classroom, the ongoing study of biology is extremely important. I think teaching biology with Gould's help will not only answer many of the questions of the doubters, but continue to allow those doubters their rights of free expression by encouraging lively discussions on the subject. But all the time, keeping biology in the picture.
Try reading one of those books I just listed and then telling me that the current biology textbooks are adequate.
Try reading one of those books I just listed anyway. Try one. You'll like it.
Thanks for including that example of the utter corruption of the whole textbook procurement process.
The NEA has turned an entire generation of teachers into lazy, self-pleasuring leftists.
The textbook "process" --- which includes "professional educators" as well as the textbook "manufactures" (I refuse to call them writers) --- has provided students with tons of books that are virtual blank pages... or in some cases, actual blank pages.
And one more thing about Gould: he doesn't put scientists up on a pedestal. He's just as critical of "conventional wisdom" among scientists --- past and present --- as he is of the nabobs who think they are saying something meaningful when they declare "evolution is a theory, not a fact".
How heartening to know kids these days aren't afraid to question evolution. I predict evolution will eventually go the way of the dinosaurs!
I found that very interesting too.
Text book publishing is big money.
And most publishing houses are very LIBERAL.
Thanks for the interesting post.
Which is another reason (besides violence in schools) why so many teacher leave. There is little intellectual simulation from their fellow teachers.
It's a good lesson to look up lesson plans on the Internet. You'll be surprised how "easy" they make it for teachers to pass along a point of view.
Are you saying you don't believe in evolution, or you don't believe in the Darwinian model of evolution?
And what was your degree from MIT in? Engineering?
Scientists are human (shhh - some don't know that) and too often, will defend a pet theory regardless of new information.
What I didn't like about this article was the apparent view that teachers should never be challenged. The little mush-heads should just sit there an absorb whatever information the teacher provides and never question it in any way.
One learns from asking questions and challenging conventional wisdom.
That way you learn how to think.
The thing about "pet theories", however, is they have a way of cancelling each other out, and whithering away, especially over a time-span of decades. Someone once said that old scientists never change their mind, they just die off. Something like that. But anyway, the process of science is as important to understand as the subjects of science themselves, and Gould is excellent at putting the process in the spotlight, and the practitioners in the hot-seat.
You'll be surprised how "easy" they make it for teachers to pass along a point of view.Which is why I welcome critics amongst the students, even though, in the case of evolution, I disagree with the doubters. But students asking questions in class is always a good thing.
You must have interesting classes.
It certainly seems so.
It's not possible to be objective and I'm so tired of the msm saying they are.
The average thoughtful teenager has more commonsense in his little finger than pointy-headed teachers mouthing evolutionary mush.
That growling sound you hear are believers in God at last taking positions against the evolution-idiots.
The truth will prevail for it is stronger than fiction.
Charles Darwin tried to circumvent God, but ole Charles is dead, and God still lives and 90% of Americans still believe he lives and is our Creator and Organizer of the earth.
Religionists as well as Darwinists have illogical explanations for the existence of the earth and life. For too long now, we have tolerated egotistical rantings from both camps. Now, commonsense begins to replace babblings. We will not be satisfied with explanations that are senseless anymore--no matter who spouts them.
The truth is that no one knows much about the creation/existence of life because God, who does know, has chosen not to reveal it yet. So what we have is the blind leading the blind or the five blind men describing an elephant by touching one part of an immense being.
God doesn't reveal to us much of anything it seems, either because we couldn't handle it or we couldn't make money off it, so likely we'd reject it.
But the teenagers may be signaling the beginning of change. And thinking people see no contradiction between pure science and intelligent design. Intelligent design makes more sense than all that crafted, phony and false evolutionary goobly-gook.
The truth is marching on!
But he died. So it's time to evolve a new punctuation. Instead of "!" for Gould it should be "!?".
I agree with your tagline, dimmer-rats stealvotes, but nothing of what you just wrote.
Sidney Sheldon -- now there's a pop artist whose works are timeless.
Never believed? The texts must have been poorly written, or the teachers incompetent. We cannot blame the lack of evidence or an incoherent theory on your unbelief! Normally, your intelligence would be doubted but since you are an MIT grad...
I wish I had never believed in evolution. I once believed those poorly written texts and incompetent teachers. Once I learned how to think for myself, I abandoned the evolutionary superstition.
Another child is prepared to bring her father's religious beliefs to school.
thanks for the ping, SM.
What are they whining about? Having a list of questions they might be asked makes it easy for the teachers. They can prepare and will not be put on the spot. If they have answers for the questions, they will be ready. If they don't have answers, they can research them. A teacher should not be afraid of a few questions. If the theory cannot survive questions, it is not much good as a theory.
Religion and history have been tied together since the beginning of time.
If you follow the money for this movement it will lead you to the Rev. Moon and the Unification Church.
That in itself doesn't bother me. Indeed, the same can be said of the Washington Times. It might bother many creationists, though.
There's a world of difference between a student asking a teacher because he wants to learn the answer, and a disruptor arguing with a teacher because he wants to prevent others from learning the answers.
Are you an MIT grad in biology?
Well samtheman You have it correct. The problem is that books must be read and students don't read, at least the students with the problem don't read.
They've been force fed Creationist dogma and developed a thick rind around their brains.
The things that got me into trouble were the ones like "Stick your wallet in the mouth of someone having a seizure". My father worked as a medic in the Army, and he taught us to clear the area around the patient, and then tilt the head after the seizure subsided. I brought that up in class and all hell broke loose!
Students are waiting with bated breath for other cabals of nitwits to invent similar objections to math, physics, history (OK, that one is already happening in the name of "political correctness), grammar, etc. Then, they can spend their days smack-talking and not have to learn a damn thing.
Do you have any good refs on "unification Church" stuff?
I continue to be worried about the funding and purposes behind this movment. There seems to be so much deliberate lying I have trouble believing there is anything truly religious about it.
I had a few disruptor types the time I taught "biology for non-science majors".
My response was standard:
"this is a course about what scientists conclude from the evidence we analyse. I will be happy to talk to you after class about anything else. My office hours are posted."
High school science teachers need to be trained to do the same.
Thanks for the ping. I donno if we need to ping the list for yet another "Kansas against evolution" thread. We've had a few lately. But I guess I'd better do it. Cranking up the ping machine ...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.