Posted on 03/30/2005 6:51:07 PM PST by PatrickHenry
Even teachers call it the E-word.
Evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology, yet many teachers face disapproval and even anger for teaching it, more so than for any other lesson plan. Nearly one-third of science teachers say they feel pressured to teach creationism or other nonscience-based alternatives along with evolution in their classrooms, according to a new study by the National Science Teachers Association.
How to face that pressure - and defuse it - is the topic of several major lectures at the group's annual convention, which starts Thursday at the Dallas Convention Center and downtown hotels.
Among the 12,000 attendees will be Luciana Lang, a biology teacher at Lake Highlands High School in the Richardson school district. One student recently called her un-Christian for trying to teach evolution.
"I get a lot of, `Why are we learning this, that's not what my pastor told me, this is wrong, this is of the devil,'" says Lang. "You hear it all before you actually get into the topic."
Her classes are a microcosm of daily discussions - and a few battles - that take place in classrooms nationwide. Like many teachers, Lang doesn't fear talking about evolution but knows she has to prepare herself for potential confrontations with students or parents who question the topic.
Surveys indicate that many teachers give short shrift to evolution because they worry about provoking such reactions. But the state science curriculum, as required by the Texas Education Agency, includes direct reference to evolution, and students must learn it in order to pass the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills.
"Whether or not you use the E-word, you're inevitably teaching evolution if you teach biology," says Kimberly Bilica, a science education specialist at the University of Texas at San Antonio.
Bilica is one of the few researchers to study the factors that affect teachers' attitudes toward evolution. For her 2001 doctoral dissertation at Texas Tech University, she surveyed 175 high school biology teachers in the state.
More than half of the teachers reported substituting the words "change over time" - an incomplete description of evolution - in the classroom to lessen conflicts. One-quarter reported that parents pressured them to avoid some evolution topics.
Teachers also said they devoted less time to each of the seven concepts about evolution than they would have done if they had unlimited freedom to teach.
"In every single category, we found that teachers would prefer to teach evolution to a greater extent but they can't," says Bilica.
The pressure to downplay evolution generally came from parents, her survey found. Strong support from principals and other teachers helped counteract that pressure.
The National Science Teachers Association survey also found that 30 percent of teachers said they felt "pushed to de-emphasize or omit evolution or evolution-related topics from their curriculum." Again, the teachers felt most of the pressure coming from students or parents, not administrators or principals.
In general, teachers say, evolution suffers from a stigma that no other aspect of biology does.
"There is considerable evidence that evolution often is not emphasized in a manner commensurate with its importance in explaining the natural world," says Gerald Skoog, a noted Texas Tech expert on science education.
The most successful teachers address the controversy head-on, says Leslie Jones, a science education researcher at Valdosta State University in Georgia. They begin by clarifying what evolution is and what it is not.
At its most basic, evolution is descent with modification - the notion that new species emerge over generations as their genetic makeup changes, so that all life forms on Earth share a common ancestor. Many different lines of evidence support biological evolution.
But students often enter the classroom with powerful misconceptions about evolution - that Charles Darwin said that man comes from monkeys, or that evolution is a pitch to deny God, says Jones. Experts sometimes advise teachers to begin by talking about these misperceptions.
One commonly heard idea is that evolution is "just a theory." In popular terms, "theory" is used to describe a hunch, or something someone suspects might be true. In science, a theory is a well-developed, well-tested explanation that describes observations of the natural world. Evolution may be "just a theory," but so is gravity.
Evolution's newest challenge comes in the form of "intelligent design," which holds that certain features of living organisms are best explained by the existence of an intelligent designer rather than by the process of natural selection. Proponents stop short of naming who or what that designer might be, but say that intelligent design provides an alternative explanation for the diversity of life on Earth.
Although intelligent design is not scientific, it has staked new ground in the long-simmering feud between scientists and creationists.
In 1925, Tennessee teacher John Scopes was convicted in the famous "monkey trial" of teaching evolution against state law. Not until 1987 did the U.S. Supreme Court rule that teaching creationism was a violation of the separation between church and state.
Now, in Kansas, the state board of education is considering revising the state's science standards to include intelligent design. In Dover, Pa., teachers were told to read an evolution disclaimer in their biology classes; they refused. In Cobb County, Ga., biology textbooks were labeled with stickers questioning evolution until a U.S. district judge recently ordered them removed.
Many activists from the "creation science" movement of the 1980s have now rallied under the banner of intelligent design, led mainly by the Seattle-based Discovery Institute.
William Dembski, a leading proponent of intelligent design, recently said at a seminar at the University of Texas at Dallas that the idea was treated unfairly in public discussions.
"Usually what happens in these debates is that design is ruled out of court," said Dembski, of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky.
But not in the classroom. Data suggest that about one-third of biology teachers give class time to discussing creationism and/or intelligent design, says Skoog of Texas Tech. Most of them do so because of student interest, because they want to be perceived as fair, or because of the historical significance of creationism.
Many students are reassured to discover that learning evolution doesn't mean they have to deny their faith, says Lang, the Lake Highlands teacher. Her students usually leave the classroom more relieved than when they started.
That idea is borne out, time after time, by leading scientists and science educators who are also deeply religious.
"Belief is not the issue - understanding is the issue," says John Staver, a professor of science education at Kansas State University and a key player in the Kansas debate.
Beyond the classroom, other public arenas face their own challenges with evolution. The Fort Worth Museum of Science and History drew criticism this month over media reports that it had chosen not to show the IMAX movie "Volcanoes of the Deep Sea" because of brief references to evolution.
Charlie Walter, the museum's chief operating officer, says the decision was based on the film not rating well in audience tests, not on any controversy over evolution. The museum has since decided to take advantage of the public attention and is showing the film for a month this spring and for a longer period in the fall.
Teachers hope that their students will come to the same kind of understanding.
"The most important thing is to teach evolution," says Jones, "and teach it well."
|
Great. You know what you just started?? Shame. (just kidding)
This is one area where I'm conflicted.
I generally accept the idea of evolution but at the same time, I can't rule out creationism.
I'd like to see both sides taught together but if creationism is taught, then people are gonna say "Well, what kind of creationism? Buddhist? Christian?"
Other than completely obliterating the subject from the school cirriculum, there's no middle ground here that'll make much of anyone happy.
The article's link to the source takes you to a registration page for the The Charlotte Observer. I don't know what the problem is. I got to the article from Google news, so that must be the clear route. Anyway, the entire article is posted, so you're not missing anything by being shut out.
And then we wonder why science education in the United States is slipping lower and lower versus other nations..
Perhaps this thought will help: evolution is a 'model,' not a theory. To the extent it explains some phenomena it is a useful model. But a model is just that: a "model" -- a somewhat narrow view of a particular aspect of reality.
Think about something less controversial: light. Light can be modeled as particles, and light can be modeled as waves. But both particles and waves are models, not reality.
Creationism takes 30 seconds to teach. All the teacher has to do is say: "Read Genesis." That's the entire content of creation "theory." All the rest is nit-picking the theory of evolution.
If you believe in Adam and Eve, keep it in religion class, not in the hard sciences.
"Model" is a good synonym for a scientific theory. It certainly removes the perceived uncertainty the word "theory" carries to the lay public.
While true, that's not exactly the point I was trying to make.
I use "model" more in the sense of the ideal gas law: PV = nrT. The ideal gas law is a model of the statistical behavior of a bazillion gas molecules bouncing around. It is a useful model in that it allows us to predict the behavior of all those molecules en masse.
Does that make sense?
1/3 down. 2/3 to go.
Why and how creationists don't know evolution but know that evolution is not what happened.
Very interesting. It's nice to see that the fear and apprehension that some people have regarding the teaching of evolution can be alleviated.
Our problem is the exact opposite. If you even mention the word "Creation" in school you are liable to end up in the principal's office and escorted out of school for a week or more because you see "creation" is a "religious term", and ZER MAZT ALVAYS BEE A SEPARAZION OV CHURCH UND SHTATE, YAVOHL!!
Our former Govenor revoked an already issued scholarship fund to a High School Graduate for his high scholastic achievement in High School. It was revoked because this student chose to use it for, dare I say it............divinity studies (gulp).
Out of the ignorant comes stupidity. You have taken the prize on your statement
You mean "not in the hard to prove evolution junk sciences."
You forgot one:
Evolution: the theory that the brain dead blindly accept as fact, even though it can't be "scientifically" proven using the "Scientific Method".
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.