What Is Teaching Evolution All About?
Sarah Chaffee
In Education Week, Adam Laats and Harvey Siegel offer a seemingly humane and generous compromise on teaching evolution in public schools. "Teaching Evolution Isn't About Changing Beliefs," says the headline.
Authors of a new book from the University of Chicago Press, Teaching Evolution in a Creation Nation, they argue that students should learn about evolution, but not be indoctrinated in it. Students, they say, simply need to understand the theory, but teachers should not force them to believe it.
While I agree with part of their approach, their propositions are obvious -- almost too much so. They write:
By teaching comprehensive science curricula that includes evolution and teaching students to confront subjects they may not agree with, schools are not trying to change beliefs. Understanding is enough.
On one level, this makes a lot of sense. Students do need to understand evolution. It is important that teachers educate them on the evidence for neo-Darwinism.
This approach is also a big improvement on recent National Science Foundation-supported research aimed at investigating ways to get students to accept -- not just understand -- evolution.
However, Laats and Siegel leave out some crucial information. For one thing, they seem to believe that only parents who think "the world is only 6,000 years old" would have a problem with teaching evolution as unquestionable dogma. Not so.
Many parents and educators who value critical thinking and, frankly, honesty in education advocate that students be exposed to the fascinating ambiguities of current knowledge about biological origins.
The authors, however, simply ignore that there is a major scientific debate over evolution. They say:
Evolutionary theory is a building block of our understanding of life. As the best existing scientific explanation of the way our species came to be, how evolution works is vital for all students to understand. Students should not have the right to opt out of learning about a central tenet of contemporary science. But if students have religious objections to the theory's implications, the public school has no right to insist that they believe it -- that is, to regard evolutionary theory as true.
Much of this is very close to correct, as far as it goes. They neglect to mention, though, that some scientists are currently questioning whether Darwinian evolution is "the best" explanation -- and therefore if it is indeed foundational to our "understanding of life."
Researchers are asking whether natural selection acting on random mutations is able to account for the complexity of life. If Darwinian theory with its proposed mechanism of change is in need of a major reevaluation, as substantial mainstream scientific opinion now concedes, that should not be concealed from young people. Not if education is about seeking the truth.
The real issue isn't "creationism" or religion versus evolution. I should add too, for the umpteenth time, it's not about intelligent design either. (See our Science Education Policy.) It's about whether students will be introduced to a fair picture of mainstream research on a vital subject of scientific inquiry.
This brings us to the second part of Laats and Siegel's argument: Teachers should require students simply to understand -- not accept -- evolution. Again, this is true. A teacher should not try to make a student internalize any theory of evolution. They can simply require that the student learn the proposition -- which should mean analyzing it intelligently not just spitting it back on command -- if they want to achieve a certain grade. But students may not be gaining an accurate understanding of evolution if they learn only the scientific strengths, and not the weaknesses, of the theory.
Laats and Siegel try to outline what teaching evolution is not about. But they do not address what it is about. The goal of scientific instruction, ultimately, is not to confirm or upend any religious teaching.
It is partly about how information is presented. But it is mostly about the information itself -- interacting with it, and drawing conclusions based on critical reasoning and examining the evidence.
Sarah Chaffee
In Education Week, Adam Laats and Harvey Siegel offer a seemingly humane and generous compromise on teaching evolution in public schools. "Teaching Evolution Isn't About Changing Beliefs," says the headline.
Authors of a new book from the University of Chicago Press, Teaching Evolution in a Creation Nation, they argue that students should learn about evolution, but not be indoctrinated in it. Students, they say, simply need to understand the theory, but teachers should not force them to believe it.
While I agree with part of their approach, their propositions are obvious -- almost too much so. They write:
By teaching comprehensive science curricula that includes evolution and teaching students to confront subjects they may not agree with, schools are not trying to change beliefs. Understanding is enough.
On one level, this makes a lot of sense. Students do need to understand evolution. It is important that teachers educate them on the evidence for neo-Darwinism.
This approach is also a big improvement on recent National Science Foundation-supported research aimed at investigating ways to get students to accept -- not just understand -- evolution.
However, Laats and Siegel leave out some crucial information. For one thing, they seem to believe that only parents who think "the world is only 6,000 years old" would have a problem with teaching evolution as unquestionable dogma. Not so.
Many parents and educators who value critical thinking and, frankly, honesty in education advocate that students be exposed to the fascinating ambiguities of current knowledge about biological origins.
The authors, however, simply ignore that there is a major scientific debate over evolution. They say:
Evolutionary theory is a building block of our understanding of life. As the best existing scientific explanation of the way our species came to be, how evolution works is vital for all students to understand. Students should not have the right to opt out of learning about a central tenet of contemporary science. But if students have religious objections to the theory's implications, the public school has no right to insist that they believe it -- that is, to regard evolutionary theory as true.
Much of this is very close to correct, as far as it goes. They neglect to mention, though, that some scientists are currently questioning whether Darwinian evolution is "the best" explanation -- and therefore if it is indeed foundational to our "understanding of life."
Researchers are asking whether natural selection acting on random mutations is able to account for the complexity of life. If Darwinian theory with its proposed mechanism of change is in need of a major reevaluation, as substantial mainstream scientific opinion now concedes, that should not be concealed from young people. Not if education is about seeking the truth.
The real issue isn't "creationism" or religion versus evolution. I should add too, for the umpteenth time, it's not about intelligent design either. (See our Science Education Policy.) It's about whether students will be introduced to a fair picture of mainstream research on a vital subject of scientific inquiry.
This brings us to the second part of Laats and Siegel's argument: Teachers should require students simply to understand -- not accept -- evolution. Again, this is true. A teacher should not try to make a student internalize any theory of evolution. They can simply require that the student learn the proposition -- which should mean analyzing it intelligently not just spitting it back on command -- if they want to achieve a certain grade. But students may not be gaining an accurate understanding of evolution if they learn only the scientific strengths, and not the weaknesses, of the theory.
Laats and Siegel try to outline what teaching evolution is not about. But they do not address what it is about. The goal of scientific instruction, ultimately, is not to confirm or upend any religious teaching.
It is partly about how information is presented. But it is mostly about the information itself -- interacting with it, and drawing conclusions based on critical reasoning and examining the evidence.
No comments:
Post a Comment