Evolution in Kindergarten: Now Brought to You by the National Science Foundation
Sarah Chaffee
I wrote here the other day about UK developmental psychologist Nathalia Gjersoe who supports reeducating kids as young as five years old to reject "promiscuous teleology" -- that is, the intuition that life reflects purpose and design ("Evolution in Kindergarten"). She drew on the research of Deborah Kelemen at Boston University who "published a promising, child-friendly intervention: illustrated storybooks about natural selection."
Now your taxpayer dollars will be going toward research on preconditioning young minds to accept evolution.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) just awarded Boston University a grant of just under $1.5 million for their project, "Evolving Minds in Early Elementary School: Foundations for a Learning Sequence on Natural Selection Using Stories."Yes, the principal investigator is Deborah Kelemen. This research focuses on students in grades K-2. The NSF abstract for the study notes:
Research shows that world-wide, despite its importance to the life sciences, natural selection remains one of the most widely misunderstood processes in biology. Specifically, studies reveal that scientific misconceptions about natural selection not only persist among high school students and undergraduates who are usual targets of instruction on evolution by natural selection, but, disturbingly, also among many of the teachers trained to teach them. Research further reveals that the origin of many of these misconceptions can be traced to intuitive cognitive biases found at the elementary school level. This project will address this problem by building and testing a learning sequence on natural selection at the early elementary grades before intuitive theoretical misconceptions are likely to have become entrenched. This effort will expand existing infrastructure for research and education currently supported through a university, to school partnership involving elementary educators, curriculum developers, professional development providers, interdisciplinary academic researchers and cognitive development expert consultants.
...The two central aims will be to: (1) develop the core architecture and explore the feasibility of an expanded elementary school learning sequence on natural selection; (2) examine the educative professional development benefits to elementary school teachers of the developed story-based intervention materials....Materials and products (storybooks, animations and assessment tools) will directly benefit schools, teachers, children and parents in the State of Massachusetts and nationally.
Wow. One-sided promotion of neo-Darwinism, to disrupt natural human biases in K-2 students, with effects at least in one state if not across the country.
What's wrong with that? First, this research project ignores ongoing scientific debate about the creative limits of natural selection acting on random mutations. The controversy is not limited to advocates of intelligent design. Very mainstream scientists associated with The Third Way of Evolution reject ID, but question the ability of natural selection and random mutations to generate diverse biological species. The late biologist and member of the National Academy of Sciences Lynn Margulis stated, "New mutations don't create new species; they create offspring that are impaired." Over 950 PhD scientists have signed the "Scientific Dissent from Darwinism" list, affirming that they are "skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutations and natural selection to account for the complexity of life."
For a summary of weaknesses along with links to scientific articles challenging the major mechanisms of neo-Darwinism, read Casey Luskin's article, "The Top Ten Scientific Problems with Biological and Chemical Evolution."
Second, the idea of interfering with children's thinking processes to inculcate a pre-determined opinion is disturbing. Kelemen would like to disrupt children's understanding of teleology and essentialism before they "have coalesced into a coherent theoretical framework that gets in the way of contradictory scientific explanations."
Her previous research used a storybook, aimed at kids between ages 5-8, to describe a fictional animal and its evolution. The story has to do with the survival of those of the species with thin trunks that, as a result, can gain access to an underground food source. While Kelemen's book about the made-up "Pilosas" touched just on microevolution, this research goes further. The NSF notes, "Six interventions will be conducted...to explore the viability of mechanistically teaching K-2 children about within- and between-species adaptation by natural selection." Indoctrinating young children with macroevolution? This seems like a group with an agenda to push.
No matter which side of the debate you're on, it's important to have an accurate understanding of the scientific evidence. There may indeed be teachers who do not fully understand that evidence. However, if you don't completely buy into evolution, that doesn't mean you are the victim of false representations of the theory. Many thoughtful adults are skeptical precisely because they've looked into the subject so carefully.
To train a new generation of thinkers, evolution must be taught objectively, presenting both its scientific strengths and weaknesses. This approach helps students to practice scientific inquiry -- to think critically and examine the evidence. Yes, that carries the risk that a student might emerge from her studies as an evolution skeptic. That's the way it goes when you think for yourself.
As the American Association for the Advancement of Science's document Science for All Americans notes:
In science classrooms, it should be the normal practice for teachers to raise such questions as: How do we know? What is the evidence? What is the argument that interprets the evidence? Are there alternative explanations or other ways of solving the problem that could be better? The aim should be to get students into the habit of posing such questions and framing answers.
Avoid Dogmatism
Students should experience science as a process for extending understanding, not as unalterable truth. This means that teachers take care not to convey the impression that they themselves or the textbooks are absolute authorities whose conclusions are always correct. By dealing with the credibility of scientific claims, the overturn of accepted scientific beliefs, and what to make out of disagreement among scientists, science teachers can help students to balance the necessity for accepting a great deal of science on faith against the importance of keeping an open mind.
The AAAS generally does not extend its emphasis on scientific inquiry to neo-Darwinism. They should reconsider. Dogmatic teaching of evolution and brainwashing young children doesn't foster scientific literacy. America's future scientists must be able to examine data and come to informed conclusions.
To propel our technology and engineering industries and to fuel medical advancement, we need innovators. That means being willing to question the status quo. When it comes to evolution, promoting inquiry-based methods -- not funding research into preconditioning K-2 students to reach a favored conclusion -- is a good place to start.
Sarah Chaffee
I wrote here the other day about UK developmental psychologist Nathalia Gjersoe who supports reeducating kids as young as five years old to reject "promiscuous teleology" -- that is, the intuition that life reflects purpose and design ("Evolution in Kindergarten"). She drew on the research of Deborah Kelemen at Boston University who "published a promising, child-friendly intervention: illustrated storybooks about natural selection."
Now your taxpayer dollars will be going toward research on preconditioning young minds to accept evolution.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) just awarded Boston University a grant of just under $1.5 million for their project, "Evolving Minds in Early Elementary School: Foundations for a Learning Sequence on Natural Selection Using Stories."Yes, the principal investigator is Deborah Kelemen. This research focuses on students in grades K-2. The NSF abstract for the study notes:
Research shows that world-wide, despite its importance to the life sciences, natural selection remains one of the most widely misunderstood processes in biology. Specifically, studies reveal that scientific misconceptions about natural selection not only persist among high school students and undergraduates who are usual targets of instruction on evolution by natural selection, but, disturbingly, also among many of the teachers trained to teach them. Research further reveals that the origin of many of these misconceptions can be traced to intuitive cognitive biases found at the elementary school level. This project will address this problem by building and testing a learning sequence on natural selection at the early elementary grades before intuitive theoretical misconceptions are likely to have become entrenched. This effort will expand existing infrastructure for research and education currently supported through a university, to school partnership involving elementary educators, curriculum developers, professional development providers, interdisciplinary academic researchers and cognitive development expert consultants.
...The two central aims will be to: (1) develop the core architecture and explore the feasibility of an expanded elementary school learning sequence on natural selection; (2) examine the educative professional development benefits to elementary school teachers of the developed story-based intervention materials....Materials and products (storybooks, animations and assessment tools) will directly benefit schools, teachers, children and parents in the State of Massachusetts and nationally.
Wow. One-sided promotion of neo-Darwinism, to disrupt natural human biases in K-2 students, with effects at least in one state if not across the country.
What's wrong with that? First, this research project ignores ongoing scientific debate about the creative limits of natural selection acting on random mutations. The controversy is not limited to advocates of intelligent design. Very mainstream scientists associated with The Third Way of Evolution reject ID, but question the ability of natural selection and random mutations to generate diverse biological species. The late biologist and member of the National Academy of Sciences Lynn Margulis stated, "New mutations don't create new species; they create offspring that are impaired." Over 950 PhD scientists have signed the "Scientific Dissent from Darwinism" list, affirming that they are "skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutations and natural selection to account for the complexity of life."
For a summary of weaknesses along with links to scientific articles challenging the major mechanisms of neo-Darwinism, read Casey Luskin's article, "The Top Ten Scientific Problems with Biological and Chemical Evolution."
Second, the idea of interfering with children's thinking processes to inculcate a pre-determined opinion is disturbing. Kelemen would like to disrupt children's understanding of teleology and essentialism before they "have coalesced into a coherent theoretical framework that gets in the way of contradictory scientific explanations."
Her previous research used a storybook, aimed at kids between ages 5-8, to describe a fictional animal and its evolution. The story has to do with the survival of those of the species with thin trunks that, as a result, can gain access to an underground food source. While Kelemen's book about the made-up "Pilosas" touched just on microevolution, this research goes further. The NSF notes, "Six interventions will be conducted...to explore the viability of mechanistically teaching K-2 children about within- and between-species adaptation by natural selection." Indoctrinating young children with macroevolution? This seems like a group with an agenda to push.
No matter which side of the debate you're on, it's important to have an accurate understanding of the scientific evidence. There may indeed be teachers who do not fully understand that evidence. However, if you don't completely buy into evolution, that doesn't mean you are the victim of false representations of the theory. Many thoughtful adults are skeptical precisely because they've looked into the subject so carefully.
To train a new generation of thinkers, evolution must be taught objectively, presenting both its scientific strengths and weaknesses. This approach helps students to practice scientific inquiry -- to think critically and examine the evidence. Yes, that carries the risk that a student might emerge from her studies as an evolution skeptic. That's the way it goes when you think for yourself.
As the American Association for the Advancement of Science's document Science for All Americans notes:
In science classrooms, it should be the normal practice for teachers to raise such questions as: How do we know? What is the evidence? What is the argument that interprets the evidence? Are there alternative explanations or other ways of solving the problem that could be better? The aim should be to get students into the habit of posing such questions and framing answers.
Avoid Dogmatism
Students should experience science as a process for extending understanding, not as unalterable truth. This means that teachers take care not to convey the impression that they themselves or the textbooks are absolute authorities whose conclusions are always correct. By dealing with the credibility of scientific claims, the overturn of accepted scientific beliefs, and what to make out of disagreement among scientists, science teachers can help students to balance the necessity for accepting a great deal of science on faith against the importance of keeping an open mind.
The AAAS generally does not extend its emphasis on scientific inquiry to neo-Darwinism. They should reconsider. Dogmatic teaching of evolution and brainwashing young children doesn't foster scientific literacy. America's future scientists must be able to examine data and come to informed conclusions.
To propel our technology and engineering industries and to fuel medical advancement, we need innovators. That means being willing to question the status quo. When it comes to evolution, promoting inquiry-based methods -- not funding research into preconditioning K-2 students to reach a favored conclusion -- is a good place to start.
No comments:
Post a Comment