No open-access location is known for this record yet.
No open-access location is known for this record yet.
Some fundamentalist groups continually seek to remove evolution from the school curriculum, and in the course of doing so, they assault the integrity of science, the professionalism of science teachers, and the scientific literacy of all students. Many in the science education community ask, “What should we do?” In the past, scientists and educators have responded with direct attacks on the positions and arguments of those proposing to eliminate evolution from school programs. Individuals have pointed to the logical and evidential flaws in creationist arguments, the differences between science and religion, and the Supreme Court decisions that uphold the First Amendment of the US Constitution, especially the establishment clause. With the media's complicity, the history of this conflict is characterized as evolutionists versus creationists. Creationists have consistently and relentlessly sought to deny, counter, or eliminate biological evolution from school programs, and the method of countering their tactics and pointing out their lack of scientific evidence generally has caused them only to mount new efforts in different forms (see, e.g., Padian and Gishlick 2002). In “Dobzhansky's Dangerous Epigram” (BioScience 52: 614–615), John Edwards presents his solution to the continuing problems with creationists: Eliminate evolution and human origins from the high school curriculum and present it at the college level. Although he suggests that this is not a strategic retreat, it is, in fact, a retreat—one that the creationists will use to great advantage in their protean efforts to insert their beliefs and values into the biology curriculum. Although I respect Dr. Edwards's right to express his views, the unintended negative consequences of his proposal may far exceed any positive value of the recommendations. The educational position he advocates, and the potential consequences for those defending the integrity of biology, challenges the moral boundaries of free speech. Edwards is shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater. He may mean well, but an evaluation of his position must include a consideration of his intention, the context, and an understanding of the consequences. The evaluation, in my view, fails on the latter count. He presents little understanding of biology education and the consequences of his position. As an individual deeply interested in biology education, I have several concerns about articles of this nature. A general proposition to review the objectives of biology education and initiate reform without demonstrating an awareness of any scholarship about biology education, past efforts at reform, current policies, curricular programs, or current practices in schools exposes an arrogance that simply would not be tolerated in any other discipline. Along with the elimination of evolution and other topics, such as molecular biology, Professor Edwards also proposes a reexamination of biology teaching and increased emphasis on topics that might help students understand the contemporary world, for example, diversity of the biosphere, reproductive and population biology, fossils and extinctions, and antibiotic and pesticide misuse. This reform agenda rests on the assumption that evolution is not the only way to understand life on Earth and that many things in biology do make sense without the light of evolution. Thus Edwards refutes Dobzhansky's statement that “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” Edwards proposes that Dobzhansky's proposition is overworked, needs a rest, and is wrong. I agree that the statement may be overworked and doubtless needs clarification and elaboration. I could not disagree more with Edwards's assertion that Dobzhansky was wrong. I believe John Edwards misses the point that evolution provides the major conceptual idea that organizes the many and diverse components within the life sciences, including the aforementioned topics of study that he proposes. An historical review of biology education shows that the proposed benefit of eliminating evolution—defusing the tiresome maneuvering of creationists and proponents of intelligent design—simply will not occur. From about 1925 until the early 1960s, biology textbooks, and thus most school science programs, did not include evolution. Although biology textbooks published in the early 20th century included presentations of Darwin's ideas, the impact of John Scopes's conviction in 1925 was the elimination of evolution from the school curriculum as the unifying idea for biology (Mayer 1986, Moore 2001a, 2001b, Randolph 2002). So, one may ask, did this result in a creationist retreat? Indeed it did not. There is no reason to expect that removing evolution from contemporary programs would result in a creationist retreat. Proposing a reevaluation of high school biology so that students will better understand the contemporary challenges facing Earth is, on the face of it, an idea that many biologists and educators support (Hurd et al. 1980). However, one has to pause and ask about the limits, possibilities, and realities of such a proposal (Rutledge and Mitchell 2002). Indeed, several groups, including the National Research Council, have proposed reforms of biology education. I would note Fulfilling the Promise: Biology Education in the Nation's Schools (NRC 1990) and Developing Biological Literacy (BSCS 1993) as prominent examples. One might also review the National Science Education Standards (NRC 1996), in particular the content standards on “science on a personal and social perspective” and “life sciences.” From a scientific point of view, my concern regarding Edwards's proposal is not so much about presenting the triumph of evolution as it is about defending the integrity of science as presented in biology education. From a political point of view, the issue of maintaining evolution in the curriculum is a question of power and control. Who makes decisions about what students should learn? I propose that those who not only know biology but also understand education should be involved in decisions about what students should know and be able to do. We should not yield such decisions to those with agendas that would omit or reduce evolution. Stated another way, we have an obligation to maintain the integrity of science and not substitute contemporary issues for a deep understanding of the conceptual ideas that form scientific disciplines. Postponing the introduction of evolution until college fails on several counts. Not all students go to college, many who do go do not take a biology course, and not all introductory biology courses include evolution. We also know from a recent synthesis of research on learning (Bransford et al. 1999) that students learn best when they have a foundation of factual knowledge and a conceptual framework to help organize (and retrieve) that knowledge. The theory of biological evolution is among the most powerful and significant scientific contributions of the 19th and 20th centuries. This, it seems to me, provides a clear, if not compelling, reason to help students develop basic ideas such as the potential for a species to increase in numbers, the genetic variability of offspring due to mutation and recombination of genes, the consequence of a finite supply of resources, and the ensuing selection by the environment of those offspring better able to survive and, in turn, produce their own offspring. I propose that we teach the theory of evolution using the approach of historical case study. This narrative or explanatory story provides students with a unique form of science education and affords science teachers the opportunity to integrate the nature of science and the theory of evolution. Explanations related to the theme of evolution have a long and rich history and center on interesting questions such as, Why are there so many different kinds of plants and animals? and How can the similarities among organisms be explained? Building a portion of the biology curriculum on the historical development of answers to questions such as these could serve to make the theory of evolution coherent and meaningful for students. This approach may even be memorable enough for students that as adults they will possess an antidote that counteracts the continuous assaults by creationists. To be clear, I am not recommending the presentation of fictional accounts of scientific advances. I am recommending the use of narrative to help students understand the historical and scientific development of the theory of evolution. This view counters the emphasis on memorizing facts about details and single propositions by emphasizing the interrelated facts, propositions, and inferences that form a theory such as evolution. Using this approach in the science program could illustrate the formulation and development of a theory, thus helping students understand one of the most important activities in the growth of scientific knowledge. Presenting the formulation and development of the theory of evolution provides a logical structure for established knowledge, articulates the logical relationships among the facts and inferences of a theory, and illustrates the role of human imagination in the processes of science. Students begin with a set of postulates and then continually encounter questions about evidence supporting the postulates, the development of an explanation, the ability to predict, and the lines of reasoning that connect the evidences, explanations, and predictions. In biology education we have only begun to tap the potential of educational technology. We can use this medium to simulate Darwin's voyage, to introduce concepts of biological evolution, and to provide students with opportunities to experience science as inquiry across time and space in ways that traditional laboratory investigations cannot. The recommendations expressed in this essay are not necessarily new (see Lewis 1986, 1987, 1988), and excellent resources exist to help teachers implement them. For example, John A. Moore's Science as a Way of Knowing (1993); Ernst Mayr's One Long Argument (1991), This Is Biology (1994), and What Evolution Is (2001); and I. B. Cohens's Revolution in Science (1985) each have sections that provide background and knowledge for the science teacher. One document that will be especially helpful is Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science (NAS 1998). In conclusion, I cannot imagine a better place to introduce the advice Thomas Jefferson gave to Charles Jarvis in a letter written on 28 September 1820: I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a whole-some discretion, the remedy is not [to] take it from them, but to inform their discretion. In these words, Thomas Jefferson has clearly described the orientation, if not the obligation, of our work as biologists and educators. We should not eliminate evolution from the high school biology curriculum. We should support the efforts of biology teachers who have a commitment to and understanding of both biology and education and who strive to provide an education of scientific integrity and value for all students.
Loading…
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 11 citations exist upstream.
Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.