Evolution Education:
To Help You Cope with Complexity,
A Multiple-Positions Website from
the American Scientific Affiliation
by Craig Rusbult, Ph.D.
for the National Science Teachers Association
conference in Anaheim, California — April 8, 2006
This web-page shrinks the original powerpoint
file into a
smaller space so you can more easily see the "big picture" overview.
It looks
best when font-size is small enough to let full lines of text fit in table
cells.
I'm chair
of the ASA Science Education Commission
and editor of the ASA Science
Education Website,
but the views in this presentation are my own,
not those of the American
Scientific Affiliation.
Potential Causes of Conflict: conscientious teachers can feel EXTERNAL PRESSURES to • teach unconventional theories, or • avoid questioning conventional theories. INTERNAL TENSIONS between compassion (for student with personally meaningful beliefs about origins), responsibility (to teach scientific evidence and logic that might affect these beliefs). |
Who
are we? |
ASA is a community
of scientists — and
engineers, and scholars in fields related to science, such as the history
and philosophy of science, and science education — who are Christians.
Although ASA doesn't "take positions" we are not postmodern relativists. Most members of ASA have old-earth views, some type of evolutionary creation (theistic evolution) or old-earth creation. Young-earth views are clearly expressed in the website, in the best pages we can find, but we also have counter-arguments from an old-earth perspective, so the overall result is a website that may be unsettling for those who don't want their views to be critically examined. Thus, citing us might be a cause for concern by some students and parents, and a source of controversy for teachers. And it could be a cause for opponents of "multiple positions" who don't want to include any ideas about creationism or intelligent design, or any critical questioning of evolution. ASA says "yes, God intelligently designed nature," but takes no position on the controversial claims for detectable "intelligent design-directed action in history." The ASA's journal & websites include papers from both pro-ID and anti-ID perspectives. |
What it is and is not — the ASA Science Education Website is an educational resource, an organized collection of useful information, but is not a declaration of policy. Our website examines Origins Questions (for theology, science, and education) but does not claim to offer The Origins Answer (for theology, science, or education). Our goal is accurate understanding with respectful attitudes. |
Theology
in Public Schools? ASA is an organization for scientists who are Christians, promoting quality thinking about theology and science, and this website is about "Whole-Person Education for Science and Faith." But how can a "science and faith" resource, exploring relationships between science and theology, be useful in public schools where the curriculum should not include theology? a short answer: Even though theology should not be taught in public schools, teachers should understand it, and they can explain religious perspectives (carefully, with wisdom and sensitivity) without teaching them. Teachers can USE the religious perspective of ASA, and also our resources for education, science, philosophy. Religion in Public Education looks at what teachers can and cannot do legally, and the meaning of "establishment" and "free exercise" and their applications for education. For a tighter focus on questions about evolution, design, and creationism, read Origins Education in Public Schools. |
Using the ASA Science Education
Website Or teachers can use it more directly
in two ways: |
The site-map for Origins
Questions can be viewed in two ways.
|
Our website-goal is a quick
education on
two levels: INTRODUCTION: We'll begin with a condensed overview, an organized "essence of important ideas" as in Cliffs Notes. EXPLORATION: To help you explore, we'll select pages that examine the ideas and their relationships in more depth. But our selectivity is not censorship. This is a multiple-position website that includes people with different perspectives, so you can be well informed while you develop your own perspectives. An I.O.U. This website is under construction. Plans for the future are in Developing the ASA Science Education Website. So far, as editor I've made most decisions about content, style, and links. * But soon, the responsibility will widen and "we" will include more members of ASA. (* views in the website don't necessarily represent views of ASA) |
REVIEW
- SUMMARY Although I do express opinions about issues, my main feeling is not "the issues" but is empathy for conscientious teachers who must Teach Science in a Climate of Controversy. (from my Origins Education) Teachers can "feel conflict" in a climate of controversy due to External Pressures (teach unconventional, don't question conventional), Internal Tensions (compassion for students, responsibility for science). Multiple Views: for Accurate Understanding & Respectful Attitudes, but doing this well (to maximize learning, minimize controversy) is difficult. ASA: no official positions, but "quality thinking" in theology & science. Religious Perspectives: understand, explain (teach about, don't teach). Use RP-Website: indirect (learn & share), cite for students or assign pages. Web-Structure Sitemap: perspectives (theology, science, education), questions (When we disagree? How old is the earth? Was it all-natural?) Quick Education: Overviews + Exploration, selectivity not censorship. ASA is scientists & scholars, mainly old-earth, not pro-ID or anti-ID. Our "multiple positions website" offers an exploration of Origins Questions instead of claiming The Origins Answer. |
ABSTRACT |
The remaining slides are a The intended goal of these slides
is to convince you that |
Origins Questions that are mainly RELIGIOUS |
a possible Theological Misconception by students: Does "natural" mean "without God"? NABT said YES with "unsupervised" nature! In a Judeo-Christian theistic worldview, "natural" does not mean "without God" because we believe that natural process is designed, created, and sustained by God, and also guided by God, although views vary about divine guidance, re: control (none, partial, total), frequency (never, rarely, usually, always), and context (formative history vs salvation history). |
If some students are reluctant to learn evolution |
Three Types of
Divine Design 1a) Design of Natural Process (before history began) 1b) Undetectable Guidance of Nature (during history) 2) Detectable Design-Directed Action (during history) Design of Natural Process (of the Universe): Sunshine warms our bodies, grows our food, and lets us see. But why do we have sunshine? It occurs because natural processes — which depend on the mass of particles, mass-to-energy conversion (by e = mc2), rate of nuclear reactions, sizes of nuclear & gravity forces,... — produce a cosmic tug-of-war balance between opposing forces lasting billions of years, with nuclear explosions pushing outward and gravity force pulling inward. The relationship between 1a and 2 (A Design of Nature and Design-Directed Action) is a controversial question in theology, science, and education. If nature was designed (one question), was it designed to be totally self-assembling by natural process (the usual "intelligent design" question)? |
Most
scientists agree that nature is "fine
tuned" — imagine that dozens
of dials on a console all tuned to the "just right" settings
required to allow life — but disagree about
thestatus of competing
explanations: 1) designed universe, Theists who think the universe was designed don't agree when we ask — Was nature designed to be totally self-assemblingby natural process? It seems to be partially self-assembling,with stars forming in a cosmic tug-of-war (nuclear vs gravity)and heavy nuclei forming in stars (we're made of stardust!),but is it TOTALLY self-assembling by only natural process or did God — who in conventional theology can do miracles— use miracles during the formative history of nature? Maybe there is an essential tension, and a universe that isoptimal for OPERATION (with sushine and life) cannot betotally self-assembling. Walter Bradley asks, "Should we try to design a car that can change its own spark plugs?" Why? |
Origins Questions
that are mainly SCIENTIFIC |
How strong is the scientific
support for evolution? This is a "trick question" that is too broad to be properly answered. Instead, we should ask about four (or more) natural evolutions: Most scientists are very confident about major current theories for ASTRONOMICAL evolution and GEOLOGICAL evolution, but not current theories for a CHEMICAL evolution of life because "what is required" seems less than "what is naturally available." With BIOLOGICAL evolution, scientific support varies for: • micro-evolution in a species (plus minor macro-evolution), • fossil evolution (and an old earth) in the geological record, • universal ancestry (with all organisms related thru descent), • a natural Total Macro-Evolution of all complexity & diversity. This is examined in Principles for Logical Evaluation of Evolutions. Is a theory that "Joe is an Olympic Weightlifter" supported if we see Joe can lift his hat? Is it falsified if he cannot lift a 10-ton truck? What crucial-experiment evidence lets us compare competing theories? Unfortunately, neo-Darwinism is often viewed as a "package deal" with all aspects of evolution having similarly high status. Questions like those of Mike Behe (re: irreducible complexity) are rarely asked |
A table from Principles for Logical Evaluations
of Evolutions:
We should avoid an illogical shifting of support from one aspect of neo-Darwinism to another. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
As
you can see in the table above, the degree of scientific questioning
varies: young-earth creationists challenge all historical science, in biology and in geology & astronomy; but other scientists, including Michael Behe and myself, are wondering if the history of nature is 100% natural (not just 99.99999...% natural) so our questions are about "the other .00...01%". |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Policy decisions in education are complicated by the fact that questions
span such a wide range, |
What is scientific method? and Integrated Design Method is a strategy for doing almost everything! |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
REALITY
CHECKS
are the logical foundation of SCIENTIFIC METHOD: The essence of scientific method is a skillful use of evidence-and-logic. One way to use evidence-and-logic is described below. Testing Design by using "Mutual Exclusion" Logic:
|
Is rigid
methodological naturalism useful and wise in a scientific search
for truth about the history of nature? Do scholars ask questions? You
can see arguments (logical & practical) for both
rigid-MN and testable-MN. |
Origins Questions
about relationships between RELIGION and SCIENCE |
Coping with Complexity in Relationships
|
What are the similarities and differences
between |
Michael Behe says: What are the mutual science-religion
interactions |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The two tables below are identical, but different conclusions With atheism, science conclusion is determined by worldview. (but the "only acceptable conclusion" could still be true)
Natural Evolution can be consistent with different worldviews; but Miraculous Creation cannot, so it strongly implies theism.
|
Evolutionary Creation (Theistic
Evolution) can be For some theists (especially young-earth
creationists),
evolution = atheism, and science is determined by worldview:
And for some atheists, evolution strongly implies atheism, and is necessary for it:
|
Origins Questions
that are mainly EDUCATIONAL |
Educational questions began earlier in the presentation: • How can teachers cope with external pressures and internal tensions? • How can a "theology resource" (e.g. ASA Sci Ed Website) be useful in public schools where the curriculum should not include theology? • How can teachers use ASA Science Ed, either indirectly or directly? Will it improve the quality of education, will students be motivated to use it, and will it increase or decrease a climate of controversy? • How is the website structured, so a teacher can easily find topics? Other questions — about Freedom & Responsibility, Constitutional Legality, Methods of Teaching, Education Policies, and Young-Earth Views — are at the beginning of Origins Education in Public Schools which will be a good starting place for your explorations. Later there will be two more sub-areas within Origins Education: for Christian Education (in church, home, school) and Informal Education (in popular books and magazines, newspapers and websites, radio and television, movies and music). |
And the final slide contains some leftover questions: In the
United States Constitution, the 1st Amendment (Bill of Rights) states
that "Congress shall make no laws concerning an establishment of religion or preventing the free
exercise." Interpretations
differ for each of the bold-words, leading to arguments about legal principles
and their practical educational applications in the classroom. |
some post-talk
reflections: During the question-and-response part of my talk on April 8, most questions were what I had anticipated. But two people asked, "What policy do you recommend?", and — oops! — due to my inadequate planning in not anticipating this, I didn't have a good response. As often happens, at least for me, I think about "what I should have done" afterwards, and now I'm sharing my thoughts with you on the day after, April 9: What I should have done and said was to show the slide about A Problem and A Resource and say "here are the two goals, Accurate Understanding and Respectful Attitudes," and explain that I don't have a satisfactory SOLUTION (as explained earlier in the slide) but I think an improved understanding (more accurate) and attitude (more respectful) will help. The goals are limited to "understanding with respect" because the ASA Science Education Website IS an educational resource, an organized collection of useful information, but IS NOT a declaration of policy. Our website examines Origins Questions (for theology, science, and education) but does not claim to offer The Origins Answer (for theology, science, or education). In other talks at the NSTA conference, I heard very little recognition of any reasons (intellectual, ethical, or educational) for considering any instructional strategy except "evolution as fact with no questions allowed." As a scholar and educator, I think this is not the best approach for a prestigious educational organization like NSTA, and one goal of my talk was to explain why — instead of all speakers repeating the same theme, claiming there are ZERO reasons to consider any alternatives to "declaration of fact" as the method of instruction, since no alternatives (including intelligent design) have any rational basis — perhaps more "understanding and respect" would be useful, to see that "even if we have good reasons for our view, others may have good reasons for their views." { Slides 19-20 outline some reasons for why teaching evolution as "a fact" is logically justifiable in many ways but not all ways. } |
HOMEPAGE for Origins Questions
This page is
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/nsta.html
Copyright © 2006 by Craig Rusbult, all rights reserved
Whole-Person
Education for Science and Faith
|
||||||||