Models for the Teaching of Origins: Case Studies and Pedagogy
This education symposium, at the ASA
Annual Meeting in 2006, was organized and moderated by
• Dorothy Chappell, Dean of Natural & Social Sciences at
Wheaton College (and Professor of Biology),
• Uko Zylstra, Dean of Natural Sciences & Mathematics at
Calvin College (and Professor of Biology).
Talk-Abstracts
are below, plus links to pages published in the ASA journal (Perspectives on
Science and Christian Faith) or in this website.
Sunday, July 30, 2006
1:30 PM
Developing and Implementing an
Interdisciplinary Origins Course at a State University
Keith B Miller
As part
of the mission of the new
“Center for the Understanding of Origins” at Kansas State University, a new
undergraduate general education course entitled “Origins:
Humanity, Life, and the Universe” was developed and implemented in Fall
2005. The objective of the course was to provide students with a truly
interdisciplinary learning experience in which the conclusions of modern
science were taught in their historical and cultural context. The
course would emphasize the dynamic and historically embedded processes by
which new scientific views are proposed and ultimately accepted.
A major goal was also to help
students understand the nature and limitations of science, and
the similarities and differences between scientific investigation and
other ways of knowing. Philosophical and literary reflections on the scientific
enterprise were a critical part of meeting this goal.
For nearly a year, faculty from both
the sciences (Physics, Biology, Geology) and the humanities (Philosophy and
English) met regularly to discuss the objectives and structure of the course.
Much of the early discussion among the faculty focused on understanding our
diverse perspectives and pedagogical approaches. This was critical in helping
us better understand each other, and the institutional and professional
barriers to cross-disciplinary learning. We had to learn first from each other
before we could attempt to teach an interdisciplinary course.
The most challenging aspects of
implementing the course were overcoming the inherent problems with a
team-taught course (six teaching faculty), and helping students see connections
between the diverse topics and ideas presented. Assessment of student learning
proved to be the biggest practical difficulty.
2:00 PM
Sean M Cordry
In this presentation, I will compare my experience having taught two different “stand-alone”
Science/Faith/Origins classes with my experience at trying to integrate
Science/Faith/Origins issues into my introductory physics courses. Each setting
has its own unique goals and challenges. (Both sets of experiences have been in
the context of Christian liberal arts colleges.)
The “integration” setting has proven
to be far more challenging; I have tried several approaches to meet this
challenge: the assignment of readings from an auxiliary text, having
students collect Science/Faith articles from various sources and then “journal”
about them, and simply presenting a limited number of topical lectures. This
third approach has been the most “successful” by far. Part of the success of
these topical lectures has been due to their intriguing and nonthreatening
nature; in the order of presentation they are:
1. What do we do with biblical
descriptions of nature that we know to be factually wrong?
2. Tohu wabohu and the search for order
and pattern in Genesis One and physics;
3. Transitions
to chaos
and parameter sensitivity;
4. The great “anthropic
coincidences” of nature;
5. An infinite
number of
unobservables or a single infinite unobservable? and
6. Layer by layer,
decay
by decay—or The Physicist’s Guide to Dating a Planet.
I will present a synopsis of each
lecture, when each occurs during the physics course, the pedagogical structure
of the presentation order, and reasons why I think this approach has been the
most successful of those I have tried.
2:30 PM
Religion and
Science in Modern
America: An Interdisciplinary Course on Origins
Edward B Davis
For several years, I have taught
a general education course at Messiah College called “Religion and Science
in Modern America.” Designed for a 3-week January term, the course focuses on
biblical, historical, and theological issues related to origins. This
presentation explains how the syllabus and the most important assigned
readings are designed to cause students to reflect critically on their own
beliefs, while helping them to understand in some depth a range of approaches
to origins issues. The course is always over-enrolled, and student
interest and enthusiasm are unusually high.
3:00 PM
Using Case Studies to Teach
Evolutionary Biology
Robin Pals-Rylaarsdam
Evolutionary biology is a difficult
topic for many students at Christian colleges. The very term
“evolution” raises defenses for many, and misconceptions for nearly all. In an
effort to help students better grasp the true
methods, observations, and working hypotheses in evolutionary biology, I have
turned to using case studies in my introductory majors’ biology course.
One case, focusing on speciation,
asks students to develop field and laboratory experiments that can address
whether two populations of stickleback fish are a single species, in the
process of becoming reproductively isolated, or two species. Students are given
the experimental data, asked to interpret it, and to refine their hypotheses.
The populations are behaviorally isolated but the hybrids are not yet
infertile, illustrating the difficulty of defining them as separate populations
or species.
The second case study puts students
in the role of a high school biology teacher who is asked by her principal to
consider including intelligent design into the biology curriculum. Students
learn about the intelligent design movement, gather arguments for and against
its merits, and develop a position statement describing the propriety of
its inclusion in their curriculum. Advanced students follow this activity with
a team-based debate about Behe’s irreducibly complex flagellum. This case
study is currently being used as part of an educational research project to
determine if using it affects students’ knowledge of and attitudes toward
intelligent design differently than standard lecture sessions.
Students from a Christian college
(Trinity Christian College) and a state university (Western Illinois
University) are participating in this work. Preliminary results from these
surveys will be described.
Sunday, July 30, 2006
3:45 PM
Students Formulate Views on Viruses
and Their Place in Creation or the Fall
Arlene J Hoogewerf
When were bacteria and viruses
created, and for what purpose? Based on microfossils in rocks and examination
of highly-conserved genes, scientists suggest that bacteria were the first
living organisms on earth. Scientists have found less physical evidence for
viral origins, and currently hypothesize that viruses are derivatives of
intracellular parasites or subcellular components, or that viruses co-evolved
with cells. Genesis does not describe the creation of microbes.
Because we understand the beneficial
role of bacteria in nutrient cycling, decomposition, food production, and
digestion of foods in the gastrointestinal tract of animals and humans, it is
easy for many Christians to assign a God-ordained purpose for bacteria and view
them as part of the original good Creation. For many, placement of viruses in
the original Creation is not as easy. Many think of viruses and the diseases
they cause as a direct consequence of the Fall. But if viruses are part of the
original, good Creation, then we dishonor God if we malign this aspect of
creation.
I desire for students in a Medical
Microbiology course to wrestle with how viruses fit with their Christian world
view. In 2005, as part of a larger writing assignment on viral diseases,
students were asked to write about whether viruses were part of a good Creation
or part of the Fall. Students were instructed to include at least one outside
source for this part of their paper. 74% of students (n = 66) stated that
viruses were part of creation, and that the Fall has perverted their
beneficial, God-ordained purpose to a pathogenic one. 26% of students indicated
that viruses were of the Fall, stating that viruses are always pathogenic and
produce negative consequences. 73% of students used the Bible as their outside
resource. Students either emphasized God as sovereign Creator of things, or
used verses to support the idea that God uses pathogenic viruses to punish
sinful people.
Based on these observations,
the assignment in 2006 will include a pre-paper small group discussion of
some positive roles of viruses and the dynamic nature of host-virus
relationships. Changes in student responses will be examined.
4:15 PM
• Teaching Christian Students about an
Old Universe
Deborah B Haarsma
Some students at Christian colleges and universities enter their
science courses with deeply held opinions about the age of the universe,
often deeply intertwined with their Christian faith. This makes issues of
age
different from other course topics (students typically don’t arrive with a strong,
faith-based opinion about star colors or galaxy collisions!). If students’ views
about age and time-scales are ignored, they may resist learning the scientific
information about age, distrust the teacher’s faith commitment, and/or feel forced
to choose between their faith and a career in science.
4:45 PM
• Theories
of Origins: A Multi-
and Interdisciplinary Course for Undergraduates at Wheaton College
Stephen O Moshier, Raymond J Lewis,
Larry L Funck, William R Wharton, and John H Walton
Theories of Origins is an upper division science
course for undergraduates at Wheaton College, designed to explore a range
of theories for the origin of the cosmos, earth, life and diversity of life
and
humankind. It is a four-credit, full semester, nonlab course in the general
education curriculum, intended to follow completion of a lab course (e.g.,
freshman geology, biology, chemistry, or physics). Most students in the course
are non- science majors.
Scientific origins theories are
controversial, indeed often considered antagonistic to biblical faith, for many
people in the evangelical subculture. Surveys of students entering the class
reveal a range of positions on origins questions, often tracking the
results of national polls. Mainstream scientific approaches to origins are
emphasized in the course, but alternative or “anti-establishment” approaches
such as creation science and Intelligent Design are presented in the
course because of their influence among Christians. Science and Bible
professors present models for relating scientific and biblical accounts of
creation.
A course objective is to give
students a background for evaluating the merits of scientific and theological
claims for origins theories. Students’ understanding of scientific content is
measured by exams and homework assignments. Students’ critical thinking on
matters of faith- science integration is assessed by their work on study
questions relating lecture and assigned reading material. This course
embodies the educational purpose of Wheaton College to “combine faith and
learning in order to produce a biblical perspective needed to relate
Christian experience” to the needs of contemporary society.
5:15 PM
Teach the Controversy over
Darwinism: Sample Curricular
Modules
Mike N Keas
Since 1999 I have worked with
Discovery Institute to develop AP and college biological origins curriculum.
Some of this curriculum will be published in 2006. I would like to demonstrate
samples of this new curriculum and explain why this supplementary material is
critical scientifically and pedagogically.
One way to motivate students
to study science and to think critically is to examine case studies of
scientific controversy. Through case studies, students will gain insight into
the standard scientific procedure of inferring the best explanation from among
multiple competing hypotheses. Charles Darwin argued: “A fair result can be
obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both
sides of each question” (Origin of Species, p. 2).
In today’s climate of public
educational policy, this would mean, at a minimum, teaching not just the
strengths of Darwin’s theory, but also the evidence that challenges it. For
example, any complete theory of biological origins must examine fossil
evidence. The fossils of the “Cambrian explosion” show virtually all the basic
forms of animal life appearing suddenly without clear precursors. It is not
merely the geologically sudden appearance that is notable, but the observation
that major categories (animal phyla) appear before the multiplication of small
differences among species. Darwin’s theory predicts the opposite: small
differences multiplying, and by means of natural selection, later giving rise
to major anatomical differences. Students ought to know about this evidential
challenge to Darwinism, but few biology textbooks mention it.
A “teach the controversy” approach
presents biology in a livelier and less dogmatic way. Students will learn
science as it is actually practiced. Scientists often debate how to best
interpret data and they even argue over what counts as legitimate “scientific
explanation.” Controversy is normal within science (not just
an intrusion). Students will learn to distinguish better between evidence
(factual data) and inference (reasoning to conclusions). Students need these
skills as citizens, whether they choose careers in science or other fields.
Teaching multiple sides in an “issues approach” to science has, of late, been
recognized as a superior educational approach.
Monday, July 31, 2006
9:45 AM
• Using Survey/Response Writing
Assignments to Stimulate Classroom Discussion
Loren D Haarsma
In general physics courses for
science majors and education majors at Calvin College, some time is dedicated
to perspectival issues. Because of the limited time available, it can be
difficult to induce many students to participate in classroom discussion—or
even to share their opinions.
For the last several semesters,
I have used brief survey/response writing assignments on topics such as
methodological naturalism, Scripture and nature, determinism and chance,
historical science, philosophical interpretations of science, looking for
scientific evidence of miracles, and the development of first life on earth.
Students are presented with statements or questions (e.g., whether they would
prefer that abiogenesis of life on earth would ultimately be shown to be scientifically
explainable, or would ultimately be shown to be scientifically impossible) and
asked to write their opinion in one or two short paragraphs.
The statements and questions are crafted to induce a substantial amount of
disagreement amongst the students. I have found that when students begin
discussion with their own writings in front of them (I don’t collect the
writing assignments until the end of class), many of them are far more likely
to share their ideas and opinions, and they seem more engaged with the
subsequent discussion and lecture.
10:15 AM
• Using
Galileo to Teach Darwin
Craig A Boyd
Professors at Christian Colleges and
Universities often dread teaching Darwinian theory of evolution because it has
the potential to cause distress among students, parents, faculty and
administrators. Theories of evolution, it is assumed, challenge Christian views
of creation— and maybe more importantly— the idea that the
Bible is the uniquely inspired Word of God. However, Darwin’s advocacy of
evolution was not the first great crisis to confront people who were both
scientifically literate and deeply religious. Galileo’s famous encounter with
the Church provides a helpful model for faculty members in negotiating the
science-religion terrain since there are so many similarities in the two cases.
Ernan McMullin’s use of the “principle of accommodation,” “the
principles of the priority of scripture,” and “the principle of prudence” help
us to understand Galileo’s principles of interpretation but we can also apply
them to the Darwinian controversy. Since the geo-centric model of
the cosmos is no longer widely accepted, it presents a fairly safe
starting place for professors who wish to discuss issues concerning the broader
science-religion relationship but also the
more specific issues of
evolution and the Christian faith. This approach to teaching Darwinian
evolution has the following advantages: (1) it considers the issue within
its historical context (2) it helps faculty and students attempt to see that both religious texts as
well as the natural world require interpretive tools, and (3) it introduces the
materials in an appropriate developmental manner.
10:45 AM
Teaching the “Science and Theology
of Origins” at Montreat College
Lloyd J Davis
“The Science and Theology of Origins” course was
taught at Montreat College in the spring 2005 semester for the first time.
While student interest was high, only 16 students from a wide variety of
majors were able to fit the course into their schedules. Lloyd Davis (physics/
mathematics) was the lead professor but was accompanied by Dr. Brad
Daniel
(life sciences) and Dr. Darwin Glassford (Bible). All three met with the
class for all sessions which were once a week for three hours.
The main goal of the course was to
demonstrate the complexity of the issue and cause the students to think
more deeply about how to understand and interpret nature and Scripture. To
this end, the students were required to read two books, one by a scientist and one
by a theologian, and write a review of each. One of the major components of the
grade for the course was a research paper expressing and defending the
student’s position on origins. These papers were submitted in writing and read
before the class with discussion ensuing.
At the end of the course, the
students were grouped into debate teams and a debate was held between the three
main Christian views and one made up by the fourth group. In an effort to
ensure the engagement of the students, another major factor in grading was
class participation. While we were moderately successful at reaching our goal
for the course, there were some obvious ways that it can be improved
before it is taught again. My presentation will provide the details of the course
and what we would do to improve it in the future.
11:15 AM
The Coming Demise
of Intelligent
Design and Implications for Teaching About Origins
Richard P Aulie
The increasing public approval of Intelligent
Design (ID) prompts questions about the best way to teach origins. For many,
it is
an antidote to secularism and a synonym for God. The public exerts
pressure, and numerous biology teachers skip evolution altogether. Life is so
complex, we are told, that it cannot be explained by evolution, but by
an inner, nonmaterial agent. All the same, ID will inevitably fade
away, and it is instructive to remind ourselves why. This is because it
stands outside and contrary to the rich heritage that flows fruitfully to us
from the Christian Renaissance. Science arose when our Christian forebears, among
them Kepler, Galileo, Bacon, and Newton, piously believing that nature is created,
believed that nature therefore is wholly material, entirely separate from God.
Today, biological evolution is a logical consequence because Darwin was
an intellectual descendant of the Christian Renaissance.
The best way for a biology teacher
to deal with origins is to teach good biology. To do this, one should remember
that (1) modern science arose in the Renaissance, (2) science arose when
our Christian forebears, believing devoutly that God creates nature, understood
that to invoke God or a nonmaterial agent would get a person nowhere in
understanding the material connections that explain how nature works, (3)
evolutionary theory, arising from biblical roots, released biology from its
Aristotelian sources, and (4) ID stands contrary to this tradition, and for
this reason cannot survive.
11:45 AM
Evolution Wars: A Failure to
Communicate
Uko Zylstra
It is my contention that a major contributing
factor to the “evolution wars” as Time magazine refers to the ongoing debate
about the teaching of evolution and Intelligent Design is a failure to
properly define the meaning of evolution. The term evolution really has
multiple meanings. Yet, when people talk or write about evolution or even the
theory of evolution, they seldom distinguish between the various meanings of
evolution. So when someone asserts that “evolution is a fact,” it is
not clear in what sense evolution is a fact. Further probing will generally
make obvious the different degrees of empirical evidence that supports the
different meanings of evolution. The result is a deep failure to communicate
because the different parties talking about evolution do not always use the
same meaning of evolution.
In addition, and independent of the
symposium, the meeting hosted these talks about education:
Pedagogy: Teaching the Whole Is
Greater than the Sum of the Parts
Robert M Bartholow
It is well-established pedagogy to give an
overview of the topic before breaking the subject into smaller elements. Yet
academics, western medicine, and news reporting attempt to reduce the overall
picture to a single element. What are some of the consequences of this
approach?
Consider an academic discussion of the origins
of life. A chemist may begin with the basic in an area of expertise, and
develop one possible sequence:
•
properties of elements
• formation of amino
acids
• formation of proteins
• random formation
of
life.
Given a partial understanding
in any one step, is it any wonder that subsequent steps become more difficult
and speculative?
An alternative is to speculate
on the overall picture, then an examination of elements may provide a
better understanding of the whole. One possible sequence is:
• intelligent design
• formation of building
blocks
• formation of designed
building blocks
• formation of a
designed,
complex whole.
An accompanying poster session gives
a specific example of ends-directed research. A typical hydrolytic protein must
incorporate both acidic and basic amino acids to react correctly. However, the
two specific types of amino acids cannot be explained by random formation
of amino acids.
The typical justification of
reducing questions to the lowest common elements has been defended by Stephen
Jay Gould. He pictures reality separated into two domains, like oil and water.
Gould maintains that theology has nothing to do with science. However,
separation of reality into compartments is flawed. Both oil and water obey
the same rules, and an investigation of one helps with an understanding of the
other. Fill a bottle with cooking oil and dyed water. Cap and shake. In a
turbulent world, you cannot see the dividing line between the science of
elements and the theology of the bigger picture. Looking at the whole helps to
teach that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.
The Impact of In-Class Devotions
About a Christian Worldview on Student Views of Science and Faith
Bryan J Isaac
Students entering college commonly have strongly
held views on science-faith issues. More often than not, those views are
shaped
by their parents and by their own faith background—not by any direct study
of the issues involved. At conservative Christian colleges, this can make coverage
of certain essential topics, such as the Big Bang Theory,
a challenging and sometimes divisive undertaking. Some students want to
know more about such theories, and some close their minds to any possible consideration
of them. Others ask questions to probe the elegance and intricacies of these
theories, while others seek to undermine the theory before
it has been presented.
One underlying framework
I impose on these discussions is that they do not focus on advocating
for or against any specific view (especially since a large majority of
those in my classes hold to a single view of origins), though we occasionally
probe the merits and implications of certain arguments. Instead, I aim for
the perspective that the natural evidence can be used as a witness for the
presence and character of God, and work to illustrate the use of the natural
evidence as such a witness.
Data showing students’ responses
have come from assigned written papers and more recently from surveys
administered both on the first day of class and at the end of the term.
These illustrate the success of this method in increasing students’
willingness to explore the issues at the intersection of science and
faith.
Teaching a Christian Engineering
Ethic
William M Jordan
Teaching engineering ethics in a Christian
university has some unique opportunities and challenges. Students need to
be exposed to issues that all engineers face. At a Christian university,
we have the opportunity to add additional insights into the analysis process.
This paper
describes the author’s efforts to teach a Christian Engineering Ethic.
Each week the students read
about one chapter in each book. The lectures for the two books are
interweaved so that the students see how a Christian ethics perspective can
relate to engineering practice. Many different ethical theories, such as virtue
ethics, respect for persons ethics, and utilitarian ethics are presented in
both books, but with obviously different perspectives. As one of their
assignments, the students are asked to write a paper on their personal ethical
system. They also are required to use some Christian ethics insights when they
write about different engineering ethics dilemmas that have been presented to
them.
Ethics is also related to all of
an engineer’s life, not just the part done during the working day. As
part of this class, the students watch videos where the main character faces
one or more serious ethical issue. Sometimes the character responds well, and
sometimes poorly. The students use the insights they have gained from this
course in this analysis. Some of the movies analyzed include: Citizen Kane,
Chariots of Fire, Crimes and Misdemeanors, Out of Africa, and Quiz Show.
Stewardship
of Creation:
The ASA Meeting of 2006 also included many talks about
ways for colleges to help students learn the knowledge, attitudes, and
strategies that can help them improve our stewardship of what God has created.
Questions
about Creation in Christian Education