In a comment about the earlier post on this blog, Evolution Might be a Law, But Student Ideas are Important, Dr. Robert Lattimer, President of Citizens for Objective Public Education, raised an important idea about science teaching.  When evolution is taught in our schools, it should be taught objectively.

In context, here is what Dr. Lattimer wrote:

You say “there is now no alternative explanation of evolution….” That is only true if you accept methodological naturalism (an unproven assumption) and ignore the lines of evidence listed above.

You say that science teaching “should not be dogmatic.” I agree. But right now it is dogmatic – by employing MN (methodological naturalism) and offering only materialistic explanations for origins.

You say “multiple sides of an issue ought to be part of teaching,” but you apparently agree with current teaching methods that present an evolution-only view of origins.

Mine is not an argument that the teaching of evolution should be removed from the science curriculum. My plea is simply that it be taught objectively. The use of MN should be disclosed and explained, and the evidence challenging evolution and inferring design should be included along with the evidence supporting unguided evolution. Only then, quoting your article, will student learning “take place in an environment of openness….”

I responded to Dr. Lattimer’s comment.  Here are my comments.

Thank you for your comment, and that you to read my blog. I visited your organization’s website, http://www.copeinc.org/, and understand your point of view, and the philosophy that undergirds your position on evolution, and the teaching of evolution in America’s classrooms.

Although Darwin used the word evolve only once in his On the Origin of the Species (he did not use evolution), his theory of natural selection or descent with modification is the definition that I would use for evolution. I also refer to the UC Berkeley Museum of Paleontology which describes evolution as descent with modification, and this encompasses small-scale (micro) and large-scale (macro) evolution.

I am not sure why historical science (such as paleontology, paleoclimatology) does not have the same validity as lab science. Findings in the field are based on data and observations,  just as finding in lab science, and are in the world of science, not considered inferior, or any more tentative. At least that is what I think. See, Carol Cleland, Historical Science, experimental science, and the scientific method.

I do not accept yours or Ken Ham’s notion that science findings that are based on any sense of scale, in particular, historical scale are more questionable than bench or lab science. Nor, as you would say, does mainstream science.

The Big Bang theory posits that there was a Big Bang. It doesn’t imply pre-Big Bang, nor does it imply a creator. See The First Three Minutes: A Modern View of the Origin of the Universe by Steven Weinberg. Weinberg describes the the universe including pre-first second.  

I am not sure if most biology teachers in American high schools would accept the points you list and include them in their biology curriculum. There is also the issue of what you mean by objectivity. Does it only apply to concepts that have some connection to religion. Too what extent is any learning objective? Emotions, subjectivity, and motivation are all important constructs to embrace as a teacher, and a learner. So, we are left with what is the meaning of objectivity, and does it make any sense to try to purify learning in this way.

Much to talk about here. I do appreciate your comments, and welcome them always.

Teaching Evolution Objectively?

What is objective  (or balanced? science teaching?  In some people’s mind, public school science teachers should tread carefully when they teach evolution.  According to some, objective teaching of evolution means that science teachers include supernatural, teleological and intelligent design principles along with the natural selection or descent with modification.

Is the idea of teaching objectively trying to impede, limit, or block the freedom to teach science based teachers’ professional knowledge of the content pedagogy of science.  As you will see here, there is some evidence trying to “objectify” teaching does this.

For example, Citizens for Objective Public Education (COPE) have filed a legal complaint against the Kansas State Board of Education (COPE, Inc., et al. v. Kansas State Board of Eduction, et al. In the Federal District Court of Kansas).  In particular COPE’s complaint is about the adoption of the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS).  According to the COPE complaint, the NGSS takes students into the religious sphere by asking question about the cause and nature of life, e.g. “where did we come from.”   According to COPE, the NSGG pose an indoctrination to establish a “religious world view” based on what they call methodological naturalism or scientific naturalism.  According to the Complaint, the orthodoxy of the NGSS is an atheistic faith-based doctrine.  Finally, the Complaint alleges that the NGSS will infringe on the student’s rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

Plaintiffs’ Complaint attempts to transform the Framework and Standards into implements of religious indoctrination. To do this, Plaintiffs rely on conclusory allegations, none of which are tied to specific standards. It also contains numerous words and phrases in quotation marks , many of which do not appear anywhere in the Framework or Standards. See, e.g. , Complaint (Doc. #1) ¶¶ 12, 15, 66, 89, 91, 105.

As pointed out in the Motion to Dismiss, the key question raised by the Plaintiff, e.g. “Where did we come from” is not asked in the NGSS.  But surely it is an important question.  Studying science might lead kids to want to ask such a question.

Social Impacts of Evolutionary Teaching

It may be that orthodox science teaching may be more balanced than what COPE is asking for.  What happens when you bring people together representing different religious affiliations and raise the question, What does it mean to be human?

The Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History has established a committee, Human Origins Initiative, Broader Social Impacts Committee.  One of the committee members is Dr. Wes McCoy, biology teacher and Science Department Chair, North Cob High School, Kennesaw, GA.  I know Dr. McCoy from our work together while he was a doctoral student at Georgia State University.  He is a leading science educator in Georgia, and in particular is a mentor to many science teacher, especially biology teachers.  As a Smithsonian committee members, he shares his insights about how to teach evolution in today’s high school classrooms.

Another committee member is Dr. Connie Bertka, an astrobiologist, theist and Unitarian Universalist.  In her edited book, Exploring the Origin, Extent, and Future of Life, she asks questions such as Where did we come from?  Are we alone?  Where are we going?  As she says, an important driver for astrobiologists is evolutionary theory.   From the introduction of the book is this:

In this book, philosophers, historians, ethicists, and theologians provide the perspectives of their fields on the research and discoveries of astrobiology. A valuable resource for graduate students and researchers, the book provides an introduction to astrobiology, and explores subjects such as the implications of current origin of life research, the possible discovery of extraterrestrial microbial life, and the possibility of altering the environment of Mars.

We don’t need a debate between natural selection and intelligent design.  We need to talk about how to improve the teaching of natural selection in American high schools, not put barriers in front of professional science teachers and their students.  Teaching by its very nature is subjective, emotional, communal and personal, and to regulate teaching by insisting on some form of “objectivity” misses the mark with me.

What about you?  What is your view of objective science teaching?