A comment on
Alberts & Labov,
2004.
There
are many ways to confront the deeply anti-scientific attitudes inherent in
"creation science" and "intelligent design theory". The efforts of the National Academies
of Science, pointed out by Alberts and Labov (2004), as well as those of other
groups, e.g. NCSE, NABT,
The Talk.Origins Archive, The Panda's Thumb1 are to be applauded. That said, a major cause of the
problem, and a primary reason that it remains an issue at the beginning of the
21st century, is the failure of colleges to adequately educate either the
general student, or more critically, future biology teachers. Only when students leave biology
courses with a clear understanding of the basic observations upon which
evolution theory is based, as well as a realistic understanding of how science
works, will the problem fade back to the status of
eccentricity, on
the level of hollow earth proponents and perpetual motion machine
builders.
Unfortunately,
it is possible (and depressingly common) for students to graduate with a degree
in biology without possessing a confident or accurate understanding of the
basic observations upon which the scientific theory of evolution is based. This leaves them unable to hold their
own in a basic discussion of evolutionary theory with either their students or
with anti-science advocates willing to distort the facts. In addition, many curricula focus on
molecular and cellular biology to the exclusion of their evolutionary
foundations; in the molecular, cellular, and developmental biology degree
program at the University of Colorado, Boulder, most students are never exposed
to the basics of evolutionary theory, much less a rigorous discussion of
evolutionary mechanisms3. Moreover, the bulk of the teaching methods used at the
undergraduate level, such as large and passive lecture classes, are
demonstrably inadequate in producing a working knowledge of even simple
concepts such as genetic linkage2, much less the multifaceted body
of knowledge that is conceptualized in the theories of evolution (e.g., natural
selection, sexual selection, sampling effects, linked traits,
developmental/life-cycle constraints, population dynamics)(Wood & Gentile,
2003). The end result is a rather
remarkable and reproducible observation, ~30% of high school biology teachers
nation-wide think creationism is a topic that should be addressed in their
classes (see table); I wonder how this compares to the percentage of high
school physics teachers who believe that alternatives to the second law of
thermodynamics should be critically discussed?
Percentage of Teachers Advocating Equal
Time for Creationism*
|
Illinois (1983) |
35% |
|
Georgia (1983) |
30% |
|
Ohio (1987) |
39% |
|
South Dakota (1989) |
39% |
|
Pennsylvania (1997) |
39% |
|
Louisiana (1999) |
29% |
|
National (1989) |
30% |
* This table is
adapted from Scott (1999) and does not take into account the impact of the "intelligent design" movement.
The
problem is rather worse for the typical non-major student; while they many take
an introductory or survey course in biology, few become comfortable enough with
the basic concepts required to appreciate the power of evolutionary theory or
to critically evaluate often slick anti-evolution videos, books, and public
presentation produced by groups such as The Discovery Institute (Evans,
2002). Our educational system
leaves them defenseless in the face of such anti-science propaganda. As we have argued before (Klymkowsky et
al., 2003), the solution begins with a recognition that the current educational
system leaves the majority of students biologically illiterate. A number of recent proposals, such as
Bio2010, recommend more quantitative skills for biology students -- clearly a
worthwhile goal. Unfortunately,
they fail to address the more fundamental issue, the efficacy of common
teaching methods (Wood and Gentile, 2003). If students receive a passing grade without attaining a
valid conceptual understanding of the materials presented, they suffer a
disservice. Adding more materials
to the syllabus (or the curriculum) produces little gain, and is likely to
distract from the basic ideas upon which a robust scientific understanding of
biological principals must be based.
An accurate and confident understanding of how science in general, and
the theory of evolution in particular, works is the best defense against anti-
and pseudo-scientific distortions.
Mike Klymkowsky
Professor,
Molecular, Cellular & Developmental Biology
Bioliteracy Project
University of
Colorado, Boulder
T: 303.492.8508; F:
303.492.7744; E: klymkowsky@bioliteracy.net
W:
http://bioliteracy.net
Footnotes:
References:
Alberts,
B. & J.B. Labov. 2004. From the National Academies: Teaching the science of
evolution. Cell Biol. Edu. 3:75-80.
Evans,
S. 2002. webref: http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/9763_doubting_darwinism_through_cre_4_8_2002.asp.
Handelsman,
J., Ebert-May, D., Beichner, R., Bruns, P., Chang, A., DeHaan, R., Gentile, J.,
Lauffer, S., Stewart, J., Tilghman, S.M., & W.B. Wood. 2004. Education.
Scientific teaching. Science 304:521-2.
Klymkowsky,
M.W., K. Garvin-Doxas & M. Zeilik. 2003. Bioliteracy and teaching efficacy:
what biologists can learn from physicists. Cell Biol Edu. 2:155-61.
Scott,E.
C. 1999. Problem Concepts in Evolution: Cause, Purpose, Design, and Chance. from
Paleontological Society Papers, Vol. 5, October 1999, The Evolution-Creation
Controversy II: Perspectives on Science, Religion, and Geological Education,
Edited by Patricia H. Kelley, Jonathan R. Bryan, and Thor A. Hansen. http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/695_problem_concepts_in_evolution_10_1_1999.asp.
Wood,
W.B & J.M. Gentile. 2003. Education: Teaching in a research context.
Science. 302:1510.