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
That's why critiques of scientific explanations for human origins and the rise of various forms of life, which incorporate the supernatural, should not be ridiculed for being unscientific. The subject matter is broader than the natural sciences. Science is too narrow a tool for the study of these subjects.
Big sigh placemarker
Before I respond, let me suggest that you try using the spell checker button. I say this not as a put-down -- I'm a really bad speller and a worse typist -- but because your errors are chronic and detract from your argument.
Now to the argument.
ID is not wrong because I say it is wrong. It is simply not science. It does not argue scientifically; it does not engage in scientific research; it does not employ scientific methodology or scientific assumptions.
Science is not truth, nor is everything said by scientists necessarily true or correct. What science is, is a set of methodologies and assumptions, together with a history of facts, theories, codified regularities (laws), hypotheses, rules of thumb, instruments, uncodified observations.
The central hypothesis of science is that relationships between and among phenomena are regular and unchanging over time. You might detect in this statement an assumption that miracles don't happen. this assumption is not based on a proved fact that miracles don't happen; it is based on the fact that miracles are outside the bounds of what science can study.
It is also based on the experience that when phenomena such as disease, earthquakes, etc are studied, they turn out to be regular phenomena. And when psychic phenomena, spood bending, mind reading and such are studied carefully they turn out to involve fraud or misapprehension.
Getting to the central question of design -- it is obvious that living things have the appearance of design. The question is how to study the history of this appearance. One could make the assumption that every detail is specifically manufactured in the shop of some hyper-intelligent alien, or some omniscient being.
But some of the smaller details appear to be the result of observable processes. Dogs, for example, can be conformed to arbitrary shapes merely by breeding the closest approximations. From this we can derive the hypothesis that those variations of a species that result in the most offspring will be the dominant, or most frequent shape of the species.
The next question might be, how far can this shaping go, and can we find any mechanism in biology that would limit the range of variation. This is a scientifically posed question. It can be studied; it leads to testable hypotheses. No statement can be considered scientific unless it suggests questions that can be answered by experimentation or by observation and quantitative analysis.
How did "spood" slip through?
I'm getting a PhD and lurk on a lot of higher ed forums. What I find is, the profs give lip service to wanting to be challenged, but many of them don't believe that being questioned by students who believe in intelligent design are offering valid criticisms. They bemoan having religious or intellectually inferior students who won't think - because as we all know, thinking only occurs when in it is in conformity to secular, leftist views.
I think there are arguments to be made for Darwinism and intelligent design, and therein lies the debate, but I don't think you get anywhere by considering your students intellectually inferior if they question your pet theory, no matter what the field.
While you are at it, add earthquakes tornados, and all the other things science hasn't mastered.
If there's a gap in our ability to predict these phenomena, then they must be sent by God to punish the wicked.
I have no idea what you are trying to say. Could you try again?
8-) Not exactly comparable.
If evolution was gradual, the fossil record should as a rule be marked by transitional fossils. There seem to be none. Creatures appear in and disappear from the fossil record fully formed.
If evolution occurred in great leaps, there must exist a plausible mechanism for these drastic changes. No plausible mechanism has been identified.
These aren't gaps in knowledge. They're chasms. Believe the theories if you want. But don't confuse the theories with observed natural phenomena, like tornadoes.
Philosophy legitimately includes the idea that "intelligent design" i.e. creation is a means to existance. This is a metaphysical question, though. It is not a scientific one. "Creation science" and "intelligent design" ask questions that science is ill equipped to answer. Where did life come from? Where did the universe come from? Why are we here? Is there a purpose to existance? These are all valid, interesting questions. However, they are merely not the kind of questions that science is able to answer. You are confusing science and philosophy, physics and metaphysics for the purpose of supporting your opinion that "intelligent design" deserves scientific study. These questions belong in philosophy class, not biology class.
In a nutshell:
Impericism by itself is not to be accepted as fully-knowing (or even attempting to be such). Other philosophies must be employed in conjuction with science if one wishes to actually "know"
This would be in opposition to being a witness to things. The witness knows what they saw, but do they, by default, know what happend? No, they have an incomplete picture.
I'm not sure what you mean by bitter resentment. Science doesn't address questions that can't be studied with scientific methodologies. It is not bitterness to point this out.
"However, they are merely not the kind of questions that science is able to answer."
Quite true, and fitting of my point.
"You are confusing science and philosophy, physics and metaphysics"
On the contrary. Science (as I argue) IS a philosophy. Physics is the study of nature through observation. This method of study has roots in ancient Greece, and gave reason to quote "Natural events have natural causes, and Man can know them!"
This is a school of thought. Not wrong regarding it's own limited view, but it must recognize that it IS a limited view (as you have done, to your credit)
"These questions belong in philosophy class, not biology class."
Biology is a study of a particular methodology of imperical philosophy (read: science)
A hippo? Have you seen a hippo's tail?
"Behemoth, from Job 40:15-24, was a dinosaur. Job 40:17 says, "His tail sways like a cedar." Such tails only existed on dinosaurs."
Nice try.
Nothing but a huge fossil and DNA file of evidence. But I'm sure you will reject them with no thought whatever. Creationists always do.
"The problem: dry, poorly written textbooks that are an easy target for the pseudo-science crowd."
Spot on. THe same could be said for almost any subject. Textbooks are the bane of good learning: A good textbook is a reference book, which a student refers to only seldomly. Teaching should be done from books with arguments!
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.