Teachers Who Won't, Don't, or Can't Teach Evolution Properly: A Burning Issue

Abstract

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED] Flames have way of concentrating the attention. In 2002, high school biology teachers in Dover, Pennsylvania, were horrified to learn that student's mural depicting hominid evolution (Figure 1) had been torched on the orders of school administrator. A creationist member of the school board boasted that he gleefully watched it burn. Reluctantly, the teachers started to downplay their treatment of evolution, but to no avail. In 2004, after efforts to have creationist textbook adopted were stymied, creationist majority on the school board passed policy describing evolution as a theory ... not fact and recommending intelligent design as scientifically credible alternative. The teachers were subsequently ordered to read corresponding statement to their students--which, citing their professional responsibilities as educators, they courageously refused to do. Not every controversy over teaching evolution in the public schools becomes as famous as Dover's, which ultimately resulted in major lawsuit (Kitzmiller v. Dover, 400 F. Supp. 2d 707 [M.D. Pa. 2005]) that occasioned at least four books and two-hour documentary on public television. But due to pervasive climate of ignorance of, skepticism about, and animosity toward evolution, biology teachers are far too often not teaching evolution effectively--whether because they are creationists themselves, or because (like the Dover teachers) they are experiencing pressure from their communities, or simply because they are not confident about their knowledge of and ability to teach the subject. In short, there are too many biology teachers who won't, or don't, or can't teach evolution properly--as central, unifying, and well-tested principle of biology. The figures are appalling. In survey of Oklahoma biology teachers, for example, 12% favored omitting evolution from biology classes and teaching creationism in its place (Weld & McNew, 1999). Teachers who aren't creationists may nevertheless be cowed by people who are: In recent informal survey among members of the National Science Teachers Association, 30% of respondents indicated that they felt pressure to omit or downplay evolution and related topics, while 31% indicated that they felt pressure to include nonscientific alternatives to evolution in their classroom (NSTA, 2005). And over half--52%--of Minnesota biology teachers surveyed regarded their undergraduate methods coursework as not preparing them to teach evolution effectively (Moore & Kraemer, 2005). How can individual biology teachers and the profession as whole respond? Clearly, teachers ought not to espouse creationism in the classroom, whether in the form of creation science or intelligent design. Equally clearly, they ought to be teaching evolution properly, not omitting it, downplaying it, or teaching it in such way as to instill scientifically unwarranted doubts about it (Petto & Godfrey, 2007; Scott, 2007). But it is not always easy to detect and dissuade those who won't teach evolution properly. Such teachers are often unaware of the relevant case law that protects the integrity of evolution education (Moore, 2004a). Occasionally they are reassigned, as was Rodney LeVake (Moore, 2004b); often, though, they continue to teach creationism, or not to teach evolution properly, without any consequences. Administrators are sometimes complicit: It is not uncommon for students to be assigned to evolution-friendly or evolution-unfriendly biology classes depending on the school's assessment of their proclivities. Confronting colleague who won't teach evolution properly is not necessarily unproblematic, and citing the case law--implicitly threatening legal action--may not be the most tactful way to begin. Educating such colleagues may be more effective. Such teachers need to know that the scientific community regards evolution as vital part of education (NAS, 2008). …

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 13 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.