In this post I am going to claim that evolution is a law, no different from the accepted laws of gravitation or motion.  However, as science teachers, we know that students can be helped to build their own meaning and understanding of evolution, or gravity, or motion if we connect with their prior-experiences, their community understandings, and their personal beliefs.  Not to do so, flies in the face of what we know about human learning.

If you are a legislator or a citizen who thinks that if we teach evolution, then students should be exposed to an alternative explanations of evolution, please do not misunderstand me.   In the scientific sense, there now is no alternative explanation of evolution that science teachers would accept and make part of the science curriculum.  If you do think so, then what are the alternative explanations for gravity, motion, or plate tectonics?

Figure 1. Book cover of James Watson’s edited collection of four of Charles Darwin’s books.

A few years ago, James Watson edited a collection of four of Charles Darwin’s books (library copy), including The Voyage of the Beagle (library copy), On the Origin of Species (library copy), The Descent of Man (library copy), and The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals (library copy).  In the forward of the book, Watson provides an overview of the work Darwin did, how he became aware of Darwin at a young age, and how central Darwin’s ideas about evolution play in biology. One statement he made, which was a quote from Theodosius Dobzhansky was:

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.

But the Evolution Debate Rages On

Yet, in the year 2014, the debate about teaching evolution is still front and center, especially in the minds of legislators who think that students should be exposed to alternative explanations of evolution.  Their favorite choices include creation science, creationism, and intelligent design.  In some state legislatures, science standards are coming under scrutiny, especially the sections that mention words or phrases such as evolution or natural selection.  In South Carolina, Sen. Mike Fair thought that the language about evolution and natural selection in state’s new science standards should be altered and replaced with intelligent design.  He dropped his opposition this week.

But perhaps the most newsworthy example of the teaching of evolution controversy was the Great Debate between Bill Nye, the Science Guy, and Ken Ham, the Creation Story guy.  The debate still goes on, and one wonders what effect such a nationalized debate really had on classroom teaching.  Personally, I believe Nye and Ham missed the point, and showed little regard for what science teachers know about student learning.  For teaching to be successful with children and teenagers, it should not be dogmatic.  Student learning needs to take place in an environment of openness in which student ideas are freely released into the conversation, and buttressed with scientific knowledge, experiences, and thoughtful discussion.

The mistake made is trying to use dogma to decide the nature of science curriculum.  We know that some politicians and concerned citizens spend a great deal of time and money trying to convince everyone that evolution is a controversial idea–so much so that they insist that if their children learn about evolution then the other side should be presented.  Governors, former Presidents, some school board members try to influence the science curriculum by saying that both sides of an issue should be presented.  Well, of course multiple sides of an issue ought to be part of teaching, but what I am claiming is that there is not an alternative scientific explanation to evolution. It’s simply not there.

A Lesson from the Field

Science teachers need support from administrators and curriculum directors to apply their professional knowledge of pedagogy and student learning.  The academic freedom that teachers should have would enable them to work in such a way that they actually travel back and forth between the world of science on the one hand, and the world of their students on the other.  Teachers are virtuosos at coordinating scientific ideas and student world-views.

Terrill L. Nickerson, who commented on a post in which I discussed the Bill Nye and Ken Ham debate on evolution, deepens our understanding of teaching science.  Terrill provides a powerful example of how he handled “clashes” that occurred when the scientific paradigm and the Native American paradigm entered his classroom at the same time.  Here he talks about how he embraced the Native culture while teaching ideas about the Big Bang and/or evolution.

I knew that there would be times when I would encounter a clash between the scientific paradigm, and the Native paradigm. Among the problem areas that arose (as I anticipated), were the theories of cosmology (Big Bang) and evolution.

I handled these events by offering the students a choice. I assured my Native students that I was not there to tell them how, or what to believe, and I was definitely not their to get them to abandon their traditional culture and traditions.  Instead, I was there solely to explain what mainstream science believed, based on the principles prescribed by the scientific method. They were welcome to take away whatever was comfortable to them: none of it, some of it, or all of it. It was their choice to make.

However, there was a caveat involved. At the end of the unit, they had to demonstrate a mastery of what the scientific explanation was, and why, on an assessment. They did not have to believe in it, just be able to explain the concept and explain why scientists derived their understanding. The sharing of Native explanations were welcomed and encouraged during the unit, as long as they realized that ultimately they would be assessed on the scientific explanations.

This approached reduced the fear that I was there to replace the traditions and beliefs of their culture and elders. Surprisingly, the majority chose to believe the scientific explanations I offered, and still found a way to rectify them with their own belief systems. I spent 15 years teaching science in the Native community and used this approach the entire time. In fact, many of my students went on to get BS’s, MS’s, and PhD’s in some field related to science. I have also used it throughout the last eleven years teaching in the Hispanic community with success.

The only time that I found any resistance to this approach was two years that I spent teaching in an affluent, upper middle class, predominantly Anglo, highly religiously fundamental, Christian community (and I’m Anglo). Parents and students were intractable and intransigent regarding evolution and cosmological theories.  (Terrill L. Nickerson on The Art of Teaching Science blog post, What Would the Russian Scientist, V.I. Vernadsky Say to Deepen the Debate Between Bill Nye and Ken Ham?)

Science teachers need great flexibility in determining the nature of the experiences that they design to help students learn. We know that some politicians and concerned citizens spend a great deal of time and money trying to convince everyone that evolution is a controversial idea–so much so that they insist that their students learn about the other side.  We don’t need Governors, former Presidents, philanthropists, and extremists telling educators how and what to teach in the science classroom.  Professional science educators are able to do that among themselves.

Let’s Not Be Dogmatic

Let’s return where we started.  With James Watson.

For Watson, the debate should be over. Near the end of his forward in the book, The Indelible Stamp: The Evolution of an Idea (public library), Watson said this about Darwin’s ideas:

Let us not beat about the bush—-the common assumption that evolution through natural selection is a “theory” in the same way as string theory is a theory is wrong. 

But, as teachers, we know it’s not as simple as that.  In fact, one might argue that Watson might be a bit dogmatic about this.   Terrill L. Nickerson provides convincing evidence that science teachers who take a holistic and interdisciplinary view of science learning will create an atmosphere that is accepting of student ideas, and provides a pathway to understanding science.

What is your view on the teaching of evolution and other so-called controversial ideas in the curriculum?