A Free Man

Some of you probably know that one of my jobs right now is teaching Biotechnology at one of Adelaide’s universities. I’m currently working on my next lecture, which is supposed to cover Comparative Genomics and Human Origins - evolution. By working on my lecture, of course, I mean working on a blog post about working on my lecture. This is not meant to be a controversial post. It is not a post about evolution vs. creationism, I’ve been there and done that and have the scars to prove it. Nor is this a post  about Sarah Palin and her fundamentalist beliefs, that all got a bit controversial. Nope, this post was inspired by my predilection to procrastination and stumbling on this post from Genomicron about evolution and creationism in the classroom. My interest piqued and justified by the vaguely topical nature of the post led me to this special issue of Integrative & Comparative Biology which in turn sucked up the bulk of my afternoon.

Before we get too far into this, let’s get some things straight. Science and religion, as Linda Kondrick points out in her ICB paper, are ways of knowing, ways of interpreting human experience, ways of defining ‘truth’. However, the two disciplines rely on entirely different logical approaches. Religion is deductive, beginning with a “known” - a sacred text or divine revelation - to explain what we see around us. Science is inductive, beginning with observations of the human experience and building a model to explain those observations. I’m not making a judgment on which approach is better, but I’m guessing most of you know where my allegiances lie.

Evolution at its most basic is descent with modification, the theory that the common ancestor of life on Earth gave rise to the fantastic diversity that we see documented in the fossil record and around us today. Evolution is not “just a theory” but a critical principle of biology. As Lovely and Kondrick eloquently put it in their ICB paper, it “is the backbone, the beautiful and efficient explanation for why organisms today are different from organisms in the past and why there is such an amazing diversity of fascinating biological organisms with awe inspiring lifestyles and body plans.” Evolution is basically the same kind of theory as gravity.

Creationism and intelligent design are effectively and legally identical. According to the creationist Discovery Institute, ID is the assertion that “certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.” The courts have recently ruled that ID is essentially the offspring of “creation science”, which was outlawed from American public schools by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1987. Effectively, they are the same theory - that an Intelligent Designer (a Christian God) is responsible for the variation that we see in life. As Barbara Forrest reports in her ICB paper, despite claims by proponents that “ID is not based on religion”  they freely admit that their ”natural constituency” is Christians. Despite couching ID in pseudo-scientific language and making a cursory attempt to include some scientific data (generally taken out of context), ID is at its heart dependent on a literal interpretation of Genesis.

Science educators are increasingly finding it difficult to effectively teach evolution. The challenge that is presented to scientists and to science educators is that we are not effectively teaching and communication the principle of evolution to students and the lay public. As I wrote in my previous post, a shocking percentage of the American public doubt that evolution has occurred at all. Lest you think its an American problem, a 2006 Ipsos MORI survey in the UK found that only 48% of Britons thought that evolution best explained their origin and the variation of life that they see around them. High school and university educators increasingly report problems when it comes to covering evolution in their courses. Lovely & Kondrick write of a “wedge effect” among college students who come into a semester long Biology course undecided about evolution. At the end of the course, about half of the students shifted to a scientific viewpoint but the other half shifted towards a creationist viewpoint. So, despite being presented with overwhelming evidence supporting the principle of evolution, students are as likely to choose the invalid creationist viewpoint, even moreso when dealing with questions of human ancestry.

Clearly we are failing as educators when it comes to teaching evolution and we’re failing as scientists in communicating about evolution to the lay community. We can not assume that because we know that something is true and not a matter for debate that everyone believes that something is true and not a matter for debate. Forrest correctly points out that as scientists, parents and citizens it is our duty to counteract ID whenever and wherever possible. Our expertise is valuable whether it be in working with teachers, testifying to school board or local councils or wherever the opportunity arises. Scientists who are also educators bear a bigger obligation. The consensus of the ICB papers was that our current teaching methods, particularly in terms of evolution are dated and ineffective. Craig Nelson proposed the most sweeping changes, stating his belief that “traditional ways of teaching are inferior” and proposes the alternative approach of combining extensive use of interactive engagement and a focus on critical thinking in science to help students compare their initial misconceptions with scientific conceptions. Nelson supports a peer driven approach, with lots of student interaction and replacing “recipe” practicals with “inquiry labs”. This all sounds a bit chaotic to me, particularly if you’re unfortunate enough to be a high school teacher, but his point is well made and Nelson offers extensive resources to make changes toward “interactive learning”.

Kevin Padian proposes similar sweeping curriculum changes in his ICB paper. Padian feels that the biggest problem we face is with the textbooks available. For general biology in both high school and college, the most popular texts do not dedicate much space to evolution as a whole and even less to macroevolution. These texts often use non-controversial language such as “many paleontologists think that birds are close relatives of dinosaurs.” The fact is that virtually every biologist has known for at least a decade that birds evolved from carnivorous dinosaurs in the Late Jurassic period. The use of “many paleontologists” and “think” introduces artificial uncertainty. Padian also proposes a change in the way that evolution is graphically presented and suggests a move to “evograms” (see below and click to enlarge) that show fossil, morphological and molecular evidence in a single illustration.

I’m not likely to make a major shift in teaching style between now and my next lecture nor find a perfect new textbook, but one suggestion that Nelson and others make can be incorporated immediately. Many of us take the approach of ignoring creationism and the controversy and conflict between science and religion when teaching evolution. Fair enough, astronomers don’t have to address astrology, chemists don’t have to address alchemy. But a couple of the ICB authors have proposed addressing science, religion and the controversy head on. Now, this is ground that needs to be trodden upon lightly. If we’re derisive or supercilious about religion then we do more harm than good. We reinforce religious students preconceptions of arrogant, godless scientists. Equally important, however, is not giving any credence to creationism as a valid alternative to evolution. It is not and should not be treated as one. Michael Reiss, writing in Studies in Science Education errs too much in the direction of giving creationism undue credibility.

So when teaching evolution, there is much to be said for allowing students to raise any doubts they have (hardly a revolutionary idea in science teaching) and doing one’s best to have a genuine discussion. The word ‘genuine’ doesn’t mean that creationism or intelligent design deserve equal time. However, in certain classes, depending on the comfort of the teacher in dealing with such issues and the make up of the student body, it can be appropriate to deal with the issue.

I think that Reiss’ proposals go too far, as too much discussion on the merits (or lack thereof) of creationism would just help to drive that metaphorical wedge. Nelson proposes teaching that rather than the false dichotomy of atheistic evolution versus religious creationism that there is a broad interfaith consensus that acceptance of evolution is compatible with faith. Kondrick proposes taking this discussion even further by exploring the historical philosophical divide between religion and science going back to a compromise brokered by Thomas Aquinas in 1252. Aquinas devised a system for resolving the disparities between the two by showing them to be philosophically complementary.

Now, Thomism may be a bit of a stretch for your average hormone riddled teenager. But the most positive feedback that I’ve gotten from my students this term is when we came of the rails a bit in a lecture about medical genomics. We started talking, in a bit more casual way, about the ethics surrounding the topic. That deviation from the standard lecture and foray into philosophizing got the students really interested, really engaged. I haven’t tested that material yet, but I’d be willing to bet that they do better on it than on anything else. Maybe breaking up a dry lecture on molecular evolution and the origin of the human species with a discussion about science and religion and the nature of truth would wake up those laggards in the back row.

Or maybe the best way to teach evolution is for me to stop fannying about and write the lecture.

Web Resources:

Understanding Evolution

Panda’s Thumb

The Butler Letter

PBS Evolution

ICB: Evolutionism vs Creationism in the Classroom

————————

A Free Man favorites The Black Angels’ latest record is available from .

 

 The Black Angels - "Science Killer" [4:46m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Popularity: 60% [?]