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
Thanks for that Ichneumon post. Awesome.Yes, it IS awesome, like many of his posts (check his FR page - it's full of links to his posts). Darwin Centraltm should make him high priest or something ;)
Almost. There are actually a few species who have alternate readings of the DNA code. However, the differences between the kingdoms are so vast, that the existence of the DNA-code-reading mechanism has not been shown to salvage the common ancestry path, and some are believing that it is the result of "convergent evolution".
Of course, note that each instance of "convergent evolution" is an addition to the theory that similarity need not imply common origins.
"Evolution actually predicts a nested hierarchy."
And creation predicts multiple.
I wish I were home today to answer well, but ping PatrickHenry (one word) and Ichneumon and you should get some follow-up and other potential pingees
All a mutation is is a change that is inherited. There are different ways that it can happen, some very technical to explain. The most basic aspect is that the chemical DNA has many subunits that are similar. Sometimes in replicating (copying itself) one or more of these subunits doesn't get copied correctly.
That's a mutation. It just happens. Sometimes it doesn't matter because the changed DNA doesn't do very much. Sometimes it messes things up for the critter, a little or a lot. Sometimes it makes things better.
Mutations do not happen "for" continued survival. They can help with continued survival when the environment changes and the mutation happens to match (say a mutation for thicker fur at the beginning of an Ice Age.
For general purposes you can say all species have mutations occurring.
A pesky fact in trying to teach just about anything in biology is that there are exceptions and elaborations all over. If something doesn't seem to track, or square with what you've heard, just ask. In particular, PatrickHenry maintains the ping list and will know who to refer you to, and Ichneumon has several articles I've seen that are extremely clear. There are many others who will be glad to jump in and help.
Thanks. Makes me wish I would have paid more attention in school!
Likewise, the breeding experiments were done by Mendel showed that in instances where we were able to change the species, we could also breed back the original species, meaning no permanent, irreversable change had taken place.
Many don't know this, but his paper is actually anti-evolution. Here's the next to last paragraph:
"Gärtner, by the results of these transformation experiments, was led to oppose the opinion of those naturalists who dispute the stability of plant species and believe in a continuous evolution of vegetation. He perceives in the complete transformation of one species into another an indubitable proof that species are fixed with limits beyond which they cannot change. Although this opinion cannot be unconditionally accepted we find on the other hand in Gärtner's experiments a noteworthy confirmation of that supposition regarding variability of cultivated plants which has already been expressed."Baraminology is the study of the continuities and discontinuities to determine an approximation of what is the created kind. It's very interesting stuff. Breeding experiments are a large part of it, but other factors are used as well.
Later, as genetic data became available, similarity of genomes began to be used to compare various groups of living beings. The groupings from genetic data are in essential agreement with just looking at superficial features.
A short discussion of taxonomy is available online here.
do you not know what a simile is?
http://teenwriting.about.com/library/glossary/bldef-simile.htm?terms=simile
Just to clarify things, although I maintain the ping list, I'm not running a clearinghouse or a referral service. People pinged to a thread are quite capable of leaping in when they feel they have a contribution to make, without further prodding from me. I do, however, maintain The List-O-Links, which I've been compiling over five years. It's a good, general introduction to the subject, and to most of the objections we usually encounter around here.
Ichneumon's freeper homepage is a trove of information. Unlike my links, which lead you to the work of others, Ichneumon's links are to his own work, plus numerous footnotes. You can do a word-search on his page and usually find what you're looking for.
Many of the other regulars have further resources, are glad to share them, and frequently do so. But we do expect people who have some curiosity to do a little bit of the work for themselves. Looking at my homepage, and Ichneumon's, or using Google, and visiting Talk.Origins.com, are all excellent ways to get up to speed.
The study of Science is not only about the study of the past.
The study of Science is the study of fact and of readily observable phenomena.
Science can study, though not exclusively, the events of the past using evidence which survives in the present. The evidence of the past which is present within an article is a readily observable phenomenon. This is called forensic science. It is a subset of Science, a discipline within Science, not the defining element of Science as you have errantly claimed it to be.
Factual and truthful conclusions may be made from examining evidence of a past event in the present.
Biology and geology have large branches devoted to history. These cannot ever produce an absolute, complete and final truth.
Statements regarding observations made about each of these branches may be subjected to the scientific method. The method answers questions as "Yes," "No," or a number. If the scientist is honest his answers to the questions posed by the scientific method will be truthful.
Absolute and final truths about scientific observations are made regularly. Ask any analytical chemist. Or you can just ask me, since I have been one for years.
Forensic science is a subclass of Science itself -- the study of factually sound, truthful and honestly made observations, about a tangible item which exists in the present, as one views this item, and which bears readily observable evidence of a past event(s).
Because no one from what we today consider to be scientifically accredited institutions of learning was present in that "past," you claim therefore that one can't know "truth" because "one" wasn't there. Then you errantly extrapolate that flawed thinking to say that the study of science and the search for truth are mutually exclusive.
The honest pursuit of science seeks truthful answers to questions posed by the scientific method. The study of science cannot legitimately be divorced from the search for the truth.
What they attempt is the kind and quality of investigation seen in a first rate criminal investigation, a reconstruction of the important features of the past that can survive any new evidence. Each new piece of evidence that is consistent with the reconstruction adds to its credibility.
Again, you describe forensic science, not Science, itself.
I gave you two challenges and you responded to neither:
Try saying something reliable about a readily observable phenomenon that must not at the same time be truthful to make it credible.
The opposite of false is true. The opposite of true is false. The opposite of credible is not credible, the opposite of reliable is not reliable.
The opposite of fraud is integrity. Integrity is the result of one's consistent and unwavering demonstration of trustworthiness. Trustworthiness may only be established by unwavering demonstration of one's truthfulness and honesty.
Do we agree with all the above statements, beginning with the statement, the opposite of false is true?
You said Science "debunks fraud,"
Next Challenge: try saying something false which debunks fraud.
Then answer: "How can one rationally say that they can divorce the concept of truth from the concepts of either reliability or credibility?"
You may not realize it, but your attempt to divorce the study of Science from the search for truth reveals why evolutionists who have also consistently tried to do what you are doing have lost all credibility in the process by definition.
Truth, in your minds, is whatever you want it to be, not the result of an honest objective study of the facts and evidence thereof which is available. If the facts don't fit with your evo-premise, the facts be damned (we're not in the search for truth anyway!)
And that's why you guys are the perpetual suckers for likes of Haeckel, of Piltdown Man, of Peking Man, of Nebraska man, of today's von Zeiten. You love to be lied to, so long as you think it promotes the evolutionary premise, which is at odds with a search for truth. And you call that science, do you?
If you're not in the search for truth through discoveries made by science, why should anyone be surprised that evolutionists so willingly believe lies and the charlatans who peddle them?
If you don't have hard data for anything, or real data points the other way, your evolutionary premise supposedly trumps the data. What you do instead is you substitute your conclusions, based upon a false premise -- evolution -- for readily observed facts.
Darwinism is a faith, based in a religion called scientism. It is the religion of the self-ordained, and allegedly intellectual. It is upon whose alter these "intellectuals" have sacrificed their morals, their intellects, their objectivity and their common sense. The search for truth has nothing to do with spouting the platitudes of Darwinism. You've admitted as much. However, readily observable facts speak to truth. The facts and the truth they hold are at odds with your faith.
That's why evolutionists don't want to debate points regarding readily observable facts -- ID being the most readily observed fact for anyone with one ounce of common sense to appreciate. It's against their religion. The honest study of facts reveals flaws in the Darwinist's premise. It is why a discussion regarding intelligent design turns into a spitting match about religion, because the notion of ID is at complete odds with their religious beliefs and it offends their belief system and the entire world view that the evolutionist has constructed around it.
Truth is truth. Facts are facts. Science is science.
Evolutionary dogma is at odds with all three, and its religious cult followers don't seem to care.
That which one calls science that is neither grounded in facts nor in truth, quite simply is not Science.
A simple explanation is that in general, no process of replication is exact. Even crystals do not duplicate exactly. In living things, copying of genetic material isn't exact. Most of these changes don't do anything so the change propagates. Offspring are not exactly like their parents.
Mostly, mutation is just a consequence of the inexactness of large scale chemical processes.
An effect of this is that the offspring react to their environment differently (and exist in differing environments) so that they in turn have offspring in differing conditions.
They rusted away? They were all converted into euphonia by ancient man?
I hardly think you question merits a reply. However, my version doesn't say tubes but if it did, I would logically assume it to be a metaphor. Why would you want to argue an insignificant point like that? I would think there are bigger issues here.
"The groupings from genetic data are in essential agreement with just looking at superficial features."
That's what I would assume as it is the most logical way for quick identification.
Reading that rant, and then comparing it to the link of Ichneumon's in post 393, it's just amazing that you can say that stuff with a straight face.
Evolution has such hard core DNA evidence, that to disbelieve it is ... just unbelievable.
I really think that some "creationists" are merely atheist trolls attempting to embarrass Christians by making them look stupid.
"Mostly, mutation is just a consequence of the inexactness of large scale chemical processes."
Does it become less exact on a larger scale than a smaller scale? Or less exact in more complex life forms or does that make a difference? Would you expect more variation in humans than say, fruit flys? I know - fruit flys have a lot of similar DNA to humans (or so I've heard). Thanks.
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.