Since this is Part 2,
first you should read Part 1 of
Critical
Thinking (about worldviews, evolution & design)
in Public Education, which
is much shorter than this page.
Part 1 has
four sections and a transition:
1) Worldview Balance in Education explains
why absence does not produce balance;
2) Potential Dangers of
Worldview Education looks at the benefits and dangers of critical
thinking;
3) Teaching Science in
a Climate of Controversy is about empathy for teachers in tough situations;
4) Origins Education in
Public Schools (a sub-area homepage in the ASA Science Ed Website)
outlines basic principles for science education, constitutional law, and
public
policy,
and describes
web-resources with different perspectives and proposing different answers
when we ask important questions about Freedom and Responsibility, Legality
and Constitutionality, Methods of Teaching, Educational Policies, and Young-Earth
Views.
Part 1 ends with Views and Questions, which
is an introduction to Part 2 in the page you're now reading.
Questions and Challenges
This page describes principles
and problems, and asks questions but does not claim to
provide The
Answers. A search for satisfactory answers is difficult for a variety
of reasons, including the challenges outlined in Part 1: definitions
of desirable goals for education vary widely, especially when some people
(or all) think worldviews are involved, so instruction that is satisfactory
for some will be unacceptable for others; describing a theistic perspective
requires explicit statements, but "not theism" is implicitly communicated
when the possibility of divine action is always ignored; there is disagreement
about how to interpret the "no establishment" and "free exercise" clauses
in the U.S. Constitution; teachers are expected to perform tricky balancing
acts, if we want them to provide strong intellectual guidance, but not exert "too
much influence" on students, and to avoid religious "conclusions" in
the public classroom, but not encourage religious relativism in students'
private lives; interactive discussions about controversial issues,
with critical thinking and logical evaluations, can be (at its best) excellent
for motivation and education, or (at its worst) it can be an effective way
for a teacher to persuade and to impose personal opinions on students.
Views and Questions
My educational views, summarized
in the final section of Part 1, raise
questions. For
example,
A. When we look at evolution, are there
any scientific reasons for questions?
B. What should a teacher do when
critical evaluations of evolution raise questions in the minds of students,
when
they ask (either silently or aloud), "If it wasn't produced by
natural evolution, then how was it produced? Is there an alternative?" / How
can we teach about "scientific support" in
a "neutral, unbiased way"? When
we ask "what is the support?" and "what is neutral?" the
answers aren't easy or simple, because the scientific questions are difficult
and complex, and ideas about worldview-neutrality vary widely.
C. I propose "teaching the
controversy" about chemical evolution and biological evolution,
where I think scientific questions are justified. But I think the
situation is different when we ask, "How old is the universe?" How
should we teach astronomical evolution
and geological evolution, where controversy exists because many parents
and students believe (mainly for nonscientific reasons) that the universe
is young, even though scientific support for an old universe seems extremely strong,
and questions don't seem scientifically justified?
These questions, and others, deserve
a deeper treatment than is possible in this page, so my goal is to share a
few ideas that I hope will be educationally productive, and I won't claim to "tie
it all up" in a neat package with no loose ends. But my goal is
limited, not just by the size of this page (so it will be a reasonable size
for you
to read) but because the problems cannot be solved in a way that is totally
satisfactory for everyone. If our goal is optimally satisfactory education — with "the
greatest satisfaction for the greatest number" plus integrity in respecting
the evidence and logic of science — then people with differing views
must be willing to flexibly abandon some demands and gracefully accept some
compromises, to respect other ideas and other people (even when we disagree),
and to live with the reality of unresolved tensions.
Each question above is
examined below: A B C .
A — Reasons
for Questions (in science and education)
The first question is: When
we look at evolution, are there any scientific reasons for questions? Let's
look at
two areas: biological evolution
and chemical evolution.
Are there any
reasons for questions about biological evolution?
Based on a logical evaluation of theories
about biological evolution, are there any scientific reasons to question their
truth? Some scientists think there are reasons for questions about some
aspects of biological evolution. But prominent organizations for scientists
and educators claim that the status of neo-Darwinain theories is extremely
high, and there are no reasons for any doubt. Why is there disagreement? One
reason involves the logical principles of scientific evaluation.
the way it often is: Much of the
high status usually given to biological evolution (E)
is due to an illogical shifting of support from strongly supported aspects
of evolution — such as the micro-evolution of finch beaks or drug-resistant
bacteria, or the small-scale macro-evolution of species that are new yet
similar, or changes through time in the fossil record — to other aspects — such
as a claim for Total
Macro-E (for a large-scale totally natural production of all biocomplexity) — that
are not as well supported.
the way it should be: Instead of
viewing evolution as a "package deal" that must be completely accepted
or completely rejected, we should avoid an illogical
shifting of support so we can critically evaluate each sub-theory of evolution
and give it the status it has earned based on the evidence. For example,
when we hear a claim that "evolution is a fact" we should ask whether "evolution"
refers to some of the many meanings of evolution (if so, I agree)
or all of the meanings (then I disagree, since I think there are
reasons for questions about some aspects of evolution). When
making claims about evolution, clarity is important.
{details
about "how
it should be" are
in the
appendix}
When there are
scientific reasons for questions, what happens?
In an attempt to explain the origin
of life, scientists propose a two-stage process of natural chemical
evolution: 1) formation of organic molecules, which combine to
form larger biomolecules; 2) self-organization of these molecules into
a living organism. For each stage , scientists are learning that what
is required for life is much greater than what
is possible by natural process. The huge difference has motivated
scientists to creatively construct new theories for reducing requirements and
enhancing possibilities, but none of these ideas has progressed from speculation
to plausibility.
How is this question taught in public
schools? Usually, biology textbooks make two statements about the origin
of life: A) Since there are reasons to be humble about our current
scientific knowledge, they say "we don't yet know how life began
by natural process." * B)
They assume and imply that, of course, "life did begin by natural
process." In the second statement, the science textbooks are refusing
to be appropriately humble about naturalism when they declare that "it
happened by natural process" despite the scientific reasons for doubt. For
example, the National Academy of Sciences confidently asserts (in Science
and Creationism, 1999) that "For those who
are studying the origin of life, the question is no longer whether life could
have originated by chemical processes involving nonbiological components. The
question instead has become which of many pathways might have been followed
to produce the first cells." Despite the waffle-words ("could
have" and "might have been")
that avoid technical falsity, the implication that "it did happen naturally" is
strong and clear.
* But
textbooks often do "spin doctoring" by describing the science
in a way that makes the support for chemical evolution seem stronger
than it actually is.
Should
we ever question the authority of scientists?
In science education we accept the claims of physicists
about theories of motion. Therefore, shouldn't we also accept the analogous
claims of biologists about theories of evolution? A physics teacher feels
a responsibility to persuade students that current theories are true, so why
shouldn't a biology teacher also do this? Why should the authority of scientists
be accepted (and used as a justification for persuasion) in one case, but questioned
in the other?
Because this argument for evolution depends
on analogy between two situations that are similar in some ways but different
in others, we should logically analyze the similarities and (especially) the
differences. In this case there is an important difference when we ask, "Are
there scientific reasons for caution?" For some aspects of evolution,
but not motion, a logical analysis of evidence seems to provide reasons for
critical questions.
But are these questions really justified? Most
evolutionary biologists claim that their only questions are about HOW, but
not WHETHER, Total Macro-E occurred. To support their
claim that doubts are not scientifically justified, they point to the absence
of serious questioning in their own scientific journals. But is the
absence of questions due to an absence of evidence, or a reluctance to look
at the evidence? One illustration of reluctance is the experience of
a scientist whose questions were rejected by an editorial board because "our
journal... believes that evolutionary explanations of all structures and
phenomena of life are possible and inevitable." {Mike
Behe's Adventures with Science Journals}
If there are reasons to suspect
that cultural-personal factors are hindering the objectivity
of evaluations within the community of biological scientists, there are reasons
to wonder whether we should uncritically accept everything this community
claims. If internal self-checks are hindered, it seems wise to listen
with an open mind to critics of the majority. Of course, even if most
biological scientists have a strong bias in favor of neo-Darwinism, this
bias does not mean that neo-Darwinism is false. But it does provide
a reason for caution.
If we don't uncritically accept the
majority consensus, what is the alternative? We can be open-minded
when listening to critics of the majority, and by using careful analysis
we can try to determine what the evaluation status of Total Macro-E would
be with an unbiased science based on pure logic.
Will critical thinking hinder learning?
Advocates of critical thinking about
evolution want students to learn more about evolution, not less. We
want students to understand the sub-theories of evolution and their inter-relationships. This
understanding will serve as a foundation for careful evaluation. And
if this leads to a humility about the biological evolution of
biocomplexity (or a chemical evolution of the
first life) it might be educationally useful.
By encouraging students to think that
MAYBE (not just YES or NO) is an acceptable outcome for a scientific evaluation,
is a teacher advocating a postmodern relativism which asserts that "because
scientists cannot claim certainty, they can claim nothing"? No. The
concept of rationally justified confidence is
useful in helping us avoid the extremes of arrogant overconfidence or silly
skepticism, as explained in a page that asks, Should
Scientific Method be EKS-Rated? {EKS has replaced X, to fool
the filtering programs}
But will critical thinking about evolution
decrease its usefulness as a unifying concept in biology? No. This
usefulness will remain if students understand the sub-theories of neo-Darwinian
evolution — such as natural selection, macro-E speciation, fossil progressions,
and common descent — but are willing to think critically about a grand
theory of Total Macro-E by undirected natural process because, even though
Total Macro-E is essential for a naturalistic worldview, it is not essential
for biology.
Would nothing make sense if...? We
should critically examine the famous statement of Dobzhansky, that "nothing
in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." What
are the intended meanings of the two key words? Does "evolution" refer
to some combination of evolutionary sub-theories, or Total Macro-E? And
does "nothing" mean that in every
area of biology (from biochemistry to local ecology), nothing makes any sense
if we question any aspect of Total Macro-E? If this is the
claim, I think it is claiming too much.
B — Worldview
Implications in Origins Education
In the second question above,
I say "WHEN students ask..." not "IF they ask..." because,
no matter what teachers do, worldview questions will arise in the
minds of students. If teachers try to "teach only science" and
they adopt the conventional naturalistic view of science by assuming
that "everything happened by natural process," the implications
will not be worldview-neutral. But a teacher who describes
non-naturalistic alternatives will move explicitly into worldview
territory. Since there are problems with every approach, what
should a teacher do, and how? Let's look at some problems and
options.
What about theistic
evolution? "Even though I'm not a proponent
of theistic evolution, I think... so I'm a questioner and a defender."
As described earlier, I think "a
Judeo-Christian theist has a wide range of options — in the many variations
of theistic evolution (evolutionary creation), old-earth
creation (my view), or young-earth creation — and
is free to follow the evidence and logic of science wherever it leads." How
are the scientific and theological components of these theistic views — TE,
oeC, yeC — typically treated in public education (by teachers
and in textbooks, and in policies recommended by educational organizations)
and are these treatments worldview-neutral? The first section below
(about natural process and theology) shows how instruction can treat all
of these views (but especially TE) unfavorably, and the second (about naturalism
and miracles) is about the treatment of oeC and yeC.
Does "natural" mean "without
God"?
A normal-appearing natural event
can be interpreted theistically, atheistically, or in other ways: deistic, pantheistic,
animistic,... For a theist, natural does not
mean "without God" (because God designed and created nature,
and constantly sustains nature) and it does not
mean "without control" (because God can guide nature so
one natural result occurs instead of another natural result). A theist
believes that a supernatural God is involved in natural process,
so an atheistic claim that "only nature exists" should be called naturism,
not naturalism.
When scientists discover that natural
properties are "just right" for life-allowing natural processes — such
as the production of sunshine (due to the size of nuclear and gravitational
forces, mass-energy conversions,...) and the chemistry of DNA and proteins — a
theist (TE, oeC, or yeC) proposes that God is responsible for this clever design
of nature. A theory of TE proposes that God designed nature so it would
naturally produce not just stars (in astronomical evolution) but also life
(in chemical evolution) and complex life (in biological evolution), so nature
would be totally self-assembling by natural process. A theory of oeC
proposes that God designed nature to be totally life-allowing, but only partially
self-assembling.
A scientific theory of neo-Darwinist
biological evolution can be combined with differing interpretations,
including an atheistic interpretation (claiming
that nature was not designed by God, and evolution was not guided by
God) or a theistic interpretation (proposing
that nature was designed by God, and natural process might have been
guided by God). / Why do I say "might have been" guided? A deist thinks
God designed the universe but then took a "hands off" approach
and has not influenced its history. A theist thinks God has influenced
history in ways that appear natural and/or miraculous, and a Christian
believes in miracles during salvation history, but a theistic evolutionist
(who thinks there were no miracles during formative history) can think
that formative history either was or wasn't guided by God, partially
or totally.
If we define natural as normal-appearing,
we cannot distinguish between natural process that is guided and unguided. Our
theories about divine guidance of natural process — does guidance occur
always, usually, occasionally, or never? and is it partial or total? — are
theological, not scientific.
Despite this limitation on scientific
knowledge, the National Association of Biology Teachers (NABT) recently
declared that "natural" does mean "without God." In
their Statement on Teaching Evolution, adopted in April 1995,
NABT stated that natural evolution was an "unsupervised,
impersonal" process. In the first board meeting at
their annual convention in October 1997, a request to remove these
two words was unanimously rejected. Later in the convention,
the board met again and removed the words. These actions lead
to an interesting question: How could intelligent educators and
scientists adopt this statement (for more than 2 years) and reaffirm
it (in a board meeting when it was called to their attention) without
realizing that they were making a logically unjustifiable theological
statement when they declared that natural process is "unsupervised" and
therefore "without control and without God"? These
decisions indicate a lack of understanding (about theology and science *),
and perhaps even some hostility toward religious perspectives.
The NABT statement was especially
hostile toward a theory of theistic evolution, because it affirmed
a claim that "God doesn't do anything during the process
of natural TE," although deism (with God designing nature so
E would occur and then letting it occur without supervision) is a
possibility. This theological criticism of TE is made by many
who propose yeC and by some (but not me) proposing oeC or intelligent
design. But if theistic evolution is impossible, then evolution
is atheistic (or deistic), and teaching it is equivalent to teaching
atheism or deism. Because of this, the National Center for
Science Education (NCSE), whose primary goal is to promote pro-evolution
education, supports TE as a valid theological option. And in
1997, Eugenie Scott (director of NCSE) played a major role in persuading
the NABT board members to remove "unsupervised,
impersonal" from their statement. {NABT
stories}
* The
dangers of scientism — of using science
to answer questions that cannot be answered by science — are described
in a page about the
compatibility of science and Christianity.
Educational Naturalism
When students learn, from a teacher
and textbook, that "science says everything happened by a natural evolutionary
process," is this conclusion — which says oeC and yeC are false — based
on science (with evaluations based on evidence
and logic) or naturalism (with methodological
naturalism requiring that "natural evolution" is the only
acceptable conclusion)? Are there any reasons for scientific
questions?
When a teacher and textbook claim
to "teach only science" and they adopt a naturalistic methodology
for science, do they "teach more than science" due to an
implication that "nothing but natural process in formative history" implies "nothing
but natural process in all of history"? Some connections
between science/methodology and worldviews are summarized
in these excerpts from another
page:
There are two rational ways to
view historical science and miracles. Among scientists and philosophers
who are Christians, some support one approach and some think the other
is better. In one approach,... Christians view MN-Science as
one aspect of an open search that considers
all possibilities without imposing restrictions on theorizing... [and
they] adopt MN-Humility by recognizing
that a non-naturalistic theory might be correct. In another approach,
proponents of open science... replace rigid-MN (which
requires a naturalistic conclusion) with testable-MN by
treating MN as a theory that can be tested, not a conclusion that must
be accepted. With either approach, Christians can view science
as a valuable resource that should be respected as an "expert
witness" in our search for truth, but should not be the "judge
and jury" when we're defining the way the world is, what is and
isn't real, what can and cannot happen.
In principle, an open search (with
MN-Science plus MN-Humility) is logically acceptable. In practice,
usually the result is not satisfactory because even when MN-Humility is
acknowledged (which is rare) it is not effective. Why? Think
about what happens when a "non-scientific" design theory and
a "scientific" non-design theory both claim to describe the same
event, such as the origin of life. Due to the cultural authority
of science, the nonscientific theory is not respected because most people
assume that, for a theory about nature, "not scientific" means "probably
not true." Instead, the scientific theory (which must be a naturalistic
theory) is assumed to be more plausible, even if the scientific evidence
does not support it. And in a classroom where "only science
is taught," only naturalistic theoris are taught, and these are taught
as "the conclusion of science."
In principle, methodology and philosophy
can be independent. In practice, they are interactive and each
influences the other. In principle, an open search (conducted with
MN-humility) can prevent the naturalistic methodology of MN-science from
influencing our philosophical views of "the
way the world is, what is and isn't real, what can and cannot happen." In
practice, methodology often influences our thinking because naturalistic
assumptions automatically become naturalistic conclusions about "the
way the world is according to science," and many people are influenced
by science. Are young students especially vulnerable to this influence?
an application in education: If,
by their silence (*), teachers and
textbooks allow the worldview-implications that "no miracles in
formative history" (which is the only possible conclusion in naturalistic
science) implies "no miracles in all history including human history" so "religions
which claim miracles are wrong," then for students there
can be an implication that Christianity is wrong (since it claims many
miracles, especially the resurrection of Jesus), and the public education
is not worldview-neutral. {* Teachers
and textbooks allow these worldview-implications by their silence, when
they don't explain why the implications are unjustified. }
If naturalism is true, there is
no miraculous-appearing divine action in history. An elimination
of divine action (in our worldview-theories about reality) is more
thorough when it is extended to natural-appearing events, when teachers
and textbooks allow an implication that "natural" means "without
God" and "without control," as discussed below.
Implicit Arguments and Explicit Explanations
Occasionally an atheistic worldview is explicitly stated,
as when Carl Sagan (winner of awards for science education) opened Cosmos by
asserting that "The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be." And
atheism (or deism) can be expressed more subtly, as in the NABT's statement that
natural process is unsupervised. More often, however, atheism/deism is
implicitly communicated, even if this is not intended, when "no theistic
action in scientific descriptions of the universe" implies "no theistic
action in the universe." Due to these implications, ignoring religious
perspectives (as in a simplistic policy of "teaching only science")
does not produce a neutral balance. Implicit arguments can be intentional
or (as is usually the case) unintentional.
Whether implicit arguments are
intentional or unintentional, these arguments can be persuasive because
only one view is presented, with no opportunity for counter-argument. Usually,
a student is not even aware that an argument has been made. Because
the arguments are hidden, they are not critically analyzed, so fallacious
reasoning can survive and thrive. To minimize the impact of implicit
arguments, teachers (and textbooks) need to provide explicit
explanations.
The five paragraphs above explain why "teaching only science" will not achieve worldview-neutrality, and the section below explains why teachers (and textbook producers and policymakers) face pressures from many directions. In my opinion, explicit explanations are necessary if education is to be worldview-neutral, but a teacher who does this may become involved in controversy (and expensive lawsuits by the ACLU if instruction is not sufficiently pro-evolution) so for self-protection there is a strong incentive to avoid the explicit worldview-explanations that might decrease implicit worldview-arguments.
The remainder of this part of the page (re: Worldview Implications in Origins Education) will: describe Perceptions and Pressures; explain why a Design Theory is not a Creation Theory; share some ideas that might be useful in constructing origins education that is more balanced and worldview-neutral.
Perceptions
and Pressures
A Christian has a wide range
of options — in the many variations of yeC, oeC, and TE — and
is free to follow the evidence and logic of science wherever it leads. But
scientific freedom is limited for a person who thinks Christianity
requires that the earth is young, or evolution is false, or that
miracles in formative history are theologically impossible. Similarly,
an atheist (or an agnostic who wants to remain agnostic) has no options
and no scientific freedom, since only one conclusion is acceptable:
some type of natural evolution (chemical and biological) somewhere
in the universe, with no action by God. And even among scientists
who have scientific freedom, there are differing views about the
results of scientific evaluation and the status of evolutionary theories.
Sometimes people with one view
become concerned about public education when they think their own view
is not treated favorably enough, or that other views are treated too
favorably. Since some people holding each view are concerned
about education, pressures to change education (or not change it) come
from many directions, from people with differing views. When
there are multiple sources of pressure, it can be confusing for educators
(for teachers, policy makers, and textbook producers), and trying to
please everyone can be a difficult challenge. Teaching Science
in a Climate of Controversy (which is the title of a 64-page booklet
published by ASA in 1986) is an accurate description of the situation.
a Design Theory
is not a Creation Theory
If you receive a radio signal — 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13,
17,... — and you think, "probably this long string of prime numbers
was not produced by undirected natural process," you
are proposing a theory of intelligent design.
Four types of DESIGN-action are: (A0)
design-and-creation of our universe (at "time = 0") with its natural
process, (A1) undetectable guidance
of natural process during history, (B)
detectable design-action during history, by a supernatural agent (B1)
or natural agent (B2). Most
people define a design
theory as "B", the claim that a particular feature (an object,
organism, system, situation,...) was produced by empirically
detectable design-directed action during history, and this is
the "design" that is controversial in education. {
Definitions of DESIGN and design are
broad and narrow, respectively. }
The most common concerns about design
are religious. But a design theory is not a creation theory. A
basic design theory can be supplemented with details (about the designer
and design-action) to form theories about supernatural creation (by
God or...) or natural non-creation (as in a
theory proposing that evolution on earth was intelligently designed and directed
by space aliens who evolved before us). A basic design theory — which
does not propose divine action, but does acknowledge it as a possibility — does
not try to distinguish between creation and non-creation. Instead,
it just claims that "design-directed action did occur."
A basic (non-supplemented) design
theory is limited to claims that can be scientifically evaluated. For
example, Michael Behe says: "Most people (including
myself) will attribute the design to God, based in part on other, non-scientific
judgments they have made. ... From a scientific point of view, the question
[who is the designer?] remains open. ... The biochemical evidence strongly
indicates design, but does not show who the designer was." As
a person, Behe says "I think the designer was God." But
as a scientist, he says "the evidence doesn't show who the designer
was."
Options for Instruction
So far, with the exception of one suggestion — that "to
minimize the impact of implicit arguments, teachers (and textbooks) need to provide
explicit explanations" — this part of the page (about worldviews
in origins education) has simply described problems. Are there any totally
satisfactory solutions? Not in the near future, in most schools, because "instruction
that is satisfactory for some will be unacceptable for others," and
vice versa. Therefore, I'll simply share ideas that might be productive
when we're thinking about ways to improve the neutrality of our educational philosophy
and the quality of our thinking and teaching, but I don't claim to have "solutions" for
the tough problems. Here are some of my personal reflections about origins
education:
In my summary of Worldview Balance in Public Education I say that "effective teaching... depends on the integrity and skill of individual teachers who think carefully, with wisdom and courage, about desirable goals, who build a solid foundation by adequate preparation and planning, and who carry out their plans with sensitivity and respect." In origins education, part of the "adequate preparation and planning" is to think very carefully about what to say — and what not to say — about worldview implications. This part of the teaching process is extremely important, even though in the science classroom it shouldn't take a long time or be a central theme.
One approach is to simply use critical
thinking about evolution, without mentioning design, and this may be the safest
approach (as a self-defense strategy to avoid controversy) for a teacher or
school district.
But in a more rational societal
context, if our primary goal was a high quality of education, teachers
would help students learn more. In origins education, worldview
implications are unavoidable, and students will ask (either silently
or aloud) important worldview questions. As explained above,
clear explanations (done very carefully) can be a useful approach.
Another approach — mere
science — would focus on accurate understanding and logical
evaluation of two origins theories: mere naturalistic
evolution and mere intelligent design,
where "mere" indicates that a "metaphysically stripped
down" version of each theory, with minimal religious implications,
is discussed. In doing this, a teacher should be aware of the
wide range of implications (psychological, sociological, theological,...)
associated with every origins theory, and then make a decision that — although
a brief-and-neutral "explanation without evaluation" may
be legal and educationally useful — these nonscientific implications
will not be emphasized in the classroom. Instead, the focus will
be on scientific evidence and logical evaluation.
But in a "mere science" approach, what
should a teacher say about evolution that is naturalistic (and possibly atheistic)
and intelligent design that may be non-naturalistic (and possibly theistic)? Although
mere evolution and mere design are not explicitly religious, they may have
religious implications for students. Many students, whether or not
they are vocalizing their internal questions, will be curious about the religious
implications of evolution and design,
which can be (but don't have to be) associated with atheism and theism. How
can a teacher handle these questions in a way that is informative — so
students are not forced to "fill in the blanks themselves" by guessing what
they think a teacher is intending — without crossing over the line
into persuasion?
Of course, a public school teacher
should avoid persuasion for (or against) the religious beliefs of
students. And the goal of instruction can be a maximum understanding (by
students) of evolution, rather than a maximum persuading (of
students) about evolution. Either with or without explaining
the concept of intelligent design, maybe a teacher can adopt a "some
but not too much" approach by carefully describing the
components of evolution and explaining that within each religion
there are differences of opinion about each component, and that these
debates (although interesting and important) will not be part of
the classroom discussion, which will focus on science.
The concepts of MN-science, MN-humility, testable-MN, nondesign and design, open search, and open science (summarized above) can be introduced by waiting for a topic, such as the origin of life, when humility is scientifically justified, and then explaining how MN-science ignores the possibility of design-action, and why occasional design-action (either natural or supernatural) is compatible with nondesign (involving only undirected natural process) for most events. Or, as discussed above, a less educational but safer alternative (for teachers and school districts) is to just have an objective evaluation of naturalistic nondesign theories without mentioning design.
In a public school in the U.S.,
a teacher/textbook cannot TEACH religion, but can TEACH ABOUT religion. Teaching
About Religion
in Public Schools explains this important distinction, and
what teachers can and cannot do, and how they can do it in a way that is educational
and legal.
But teaching about religion can
be controversial even when it's legal. For example, I think that
more than one position (yeC, oeC, TE) can be compatible with Christianity,
but this is A Christian View (my own), not The Christian View, and
some Christians think only one position (typically yeC) is allowed
by the Bible. Therefore, even saying "you're free to think
flexibly and follow the evidence where it leads" can cause trouble
for a teacher.
A discussion of controversial questions
can be motivating and educational, but we should also consider The
Potential Dangers of Worldview Education in Public Schools and the
personal consequences that may occur for teachers who become entangled
in controversy.
During explanations (or discussions),
important ideas from major viewpoints should be expressed accurately
(with no weak, distorted "strawmen") so the ideas can be understood
and evaluated.
A respect for religious perspectives,
with an absence of "faith versus reason" implications, is
important. Without respect, a discussion of important ideas can
be harmful. With respect and wisdom, it can be helpful and educationally
productive.
Finally, here are two ideas that
may be useful to consider:
Design of the Universe? When scientists discover
that
natural properties are "just right" for important natural processes,
a theist proposes that God is responsible for this clever design of nature. But
this does not prove that God designed the universe, and to explain a universe
that is "just right" for life there are two
currently plausible to explain fine tuning and "anthropic principle" observations:
a
single
universe
(that
was
designed)
or
an immense number of universes (that may or may not be designed).
Why isn't God more obvious? Why
is there any evidence... that might lead some rational people to propose "atheistic
evolution" as an explanation? Perhaps..... Or maybe..... Or
maybe a "veiling of miracles" during the creation process is one aspect
of a state of uncertainty intended by God, who seems to prefer a balance
of evidence, with enough logical reasons to either believe or disbelieve,
so... we have freedom to choose what we really want, and an opportunity
to develop the "living by faith" character that is highly valued by
God, with a trust in God serving as the foundation for all thoughts
and actions in daily living. { These ideas might be useful to
accompany an explanation of why "natural" does not necessarily
mean "without control and without God," to explain why God
might choose to use natural process rather than miracles. }
In this page, the focus is on
education in public schools. But many of the questions and ideas are
also relevant for Christian education, in private schools or home schools,
as you can see in ORIGINS EDUCATION and
CHRISTIAN EDUCATION.
C — How
should we teach about "age of the universe" questions?
• The third question is: How should we teach astronomical evolution and geological evolution, where controversy exists because many parents and students believe (mainly for nonscientific reasons) that the universe is young, even though scientific support for an old universe seems extremely strong, and questions don't seem scientifically justified?
Here
is another statement of the problem, from the home-page
for Origins Education:
4E. Young-Earth Views
When trying to design instruction
that is responsible, legal, and balanced, how can educators cope with questions
about young-earth creationism and the tensions that arise due to a mismatch
between its strong popular support (mainly
in some parts of the Christian community) and weak
scientific support (across a wide range of fields, from astronomy
and geology to physics and biology)?
I haven't begun work on this section yet, but here is an excerpt from my page asking How old is the universe?
The Educational Results of Young-Earth
Creationism
In the past four decades, since the
revival of flood geology in 1961, prominent advocates of young-earth views
have framed the origins question as "Christianity versus atheism" with
Christianity represented by only young-earth creation, with old-earth creation
excluded from consideration. In American education, the practical
results have been:
1) an increase in the perceived
plausibility of evolution, because in a scientific competition that includes
only two models (old-earth evolution and young-earth creation) evolution
will "win points" simply because it proposes an old earth, and the abundant
evidence for an old earth becomes evidence for evolution;
2) a decrease in the willingness
of science teachers to criticize evolution based on scientific evidence
and logical evaluation, because teachers don't want to give credibility
to the young-earth (and young-universe) theories that have usually
accompanied criticisms of evolution, and because they assume that the
legal prohibitions against teaching young-earth creationism also apply
to any serious questioning of evolution.
Young-Earth Views in Christian
Education
In many Christian private schools and
most Christian home schools, students are taught that a young-earth view is
the only acceptable
view. There is little opportunity for educationally valuable "Monday
and
Tuesday" discussions in which students hear the best evidence and arguments
for different views, and learn how to logically evaluate these views. Yes,
there are Potential Dangers with Worldview Education in Public Schools but
in a Christian school (private or home) a teacher can provide spiritual support. As
explained in Christian
Education for the Whole Person,
"Exploring
ideas is especially interesting when, in an effort to get accurate understanding,
you get the best information and arguments that all sides of an issue can claim
as support. A conflict of ideas is inherently dramatic, and the evaluative
thinking it stimulates is an opportunity to learn valuable skills for life. In
contrast with protective isolation (by trying
to avoid contact with all non-approved ideas), supported
exploration will help children learn the skills they need for intellectual
self-defense. They will be confronted with many challenging ideas from
peers, authorities, and media, while living in the modern world. Although
you cannot protect children from exposure to ideas, you can protect them against
indoctrination if you help them develop skill in evaluating the merits of different
ideas. Compared with protective isolation, supported exploration is more educational
because there is more learning and thinking. But exploring ideas is educationally
useful and spiritually edifying only when it is done wisely and well, in a
secure environment with adequate support. The level of exploration should
be adjusted for a child's maturity, since topics and resources that are useful
and edifying for an older child might not be appropriate for younger children. You
should provide emotional and spiritual support through love and prayer, and
intellectual support by showing that Christian perspectives are rational and
are useful for improving
quality of life."
More (an I.O.U.)
Eventually, these ideas (and others)
will be explored in the area for Christian
Education in the Church, School, and Home:
Many people
in your church will find "origins" a fascinating topic, but
it could be emotional and controversial, and maybe even divisive. We'll
look at what you can you do to make origins education an edifying experience
for more people, to help them improve their understanding and attitudes,
to put the WHEN and HOW questions in proper perspective so they can
focus on WHO.
In principle, private Christian
schools can teach any way they want. In practice, it can be difficult
to decide which principles and methods will produce the most effective
educational experience for students. What resources, frameworks,
attitudes, and techniques are useful for origins education in Christian
schools?
Compared with other types of schooling,
instruction in the home allows more freedom. In what ways can parents
take advantage of this opportunity? What origins information is provided
in the textbooks commonly used in home schools, and what supplements are
available? What are the advantages — in searching for truth,
defending the faith, and living by faith — of two educational approaches:
protective isolation and supported exploration?
The expanding-and-revising of this section
will continue later,
including Two
Perspectives on Design (Logical and Sociological) that will be written later.
APPENDIX
Methodological Naturalism
(rigid and testable) in our Search for Truth
Currently, most scientific inquiry is restricted by methodological
naturalism (MN), which requires that scientific
theories must propose only natural causes. With this restriction, the inevitable
conclusion — no matter what is being studied, or what is the evidence — must
be that "it happened by natural process."
Is MN the best way to do science? It
depends on what really happened in history. Imagine two possible worlds:
one has a history of nature with all events caused by natural process, while
the other has a history that includes both natural and non-natural events. In
one of these worlds a closed science, restricted
by MN, must inevitably reach some wrong conclusions. By contrast, in
either world a non-MN open science will allow,
although it cannot guarantee, reaching correct conclusions.
Imagine that we're beginning our search
for truth with a logically justifiable humility, by refusing to decide that
we already know — with certainty, beyond any doubt — which kind
of world we live in. If we don't know whether history has been all-natural,
maybe scientists should: (a) begin by assuming, consistent with MN,
that "it happened by natural process," and (b) consider this
MN an assumption to be tested (testable-MN)
instead of a conclusion that cannot be questioned (rigid-MN). With
this open-minded approach, scientists are free to follow the evidence-and-logic
wherever it leads, and if it leads to a non-MN conclusion this is allowed.
What is design? Is it religious?
If you receive a radio signal — 2,
3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17,... — and you think, "probably this long string
of prime numbers was not produced by undirected natural
process," you are proposing a theory of intelligent
design.
Four types of DESIGN-action are: (A0)
design-and-creation of our universe (at time = 0) with its natural process, (A1)
undetectable supernatural guidance of natural process during history, (B)
detectable design-directed action during history, by a supernatural agent
(B1)
or natural agent (B2). Most
people define a design
theory as
(B), the claim that a particular feature (an object, organism, system, situation,...)
was produced by empirically detectable design-directed
action during history, and this is the "design" that is
controversial in education.
The most common concerns about design
are religious. But a design theory is not a creation theory. A
basic design theory can be supplemented with details (about the designer and
design-action) to form theories about supernatural creation (by
God or...) or natural non-creation (as in a
theory proposing that evolution on earth was intelligently designed and directed
by
space aliens who evolved before us). A basic design theory — which
does not propose divine action, but does acknowledge it as a possibility — does
not try to distinguish between creation and non-creation. Instead, it
just claims that "design-directed action did occur."
A basic (non-supplemented) design theory
is limited to claims that can be scientifically evaluated. For example,
Michael Behe says: "Most people (including myself) will
attribute the design to God, based in part on other, non-scientific judgments
they have made. ... From a scientific point of view, the question [who is the
designer?] remains open. ... The biochemical evidence strongly indicates design,
but does not show who the designer was." As a person, Behe says "I
think the designer was God." But as
a scientist, he says "The evidence doesn't show who the designer was."
The usual questions about the controversial type of design — is it testable, is it productive, is it scientific, is it religious, can it be proved? — are discussed in a page asking, Can a design theory be scientific?
Are there any reasons
for doubts about biological evolution? (Part 2)
Earlier, Part 1 of
this section summarized the basic ideas:
Based
on
a
logical
evaluation
of
theories about biological evolution, are there any scientific reasons to question
their
truth? Some scientists think... but prominent organizations for scientists
and educators claim that... there are no reasons for any doubt. Why is
there
disagreement? One
reason involves the principles of scientific evaluation.
the way it often is: ...
the way it should be: ...
And now it continues,
I suggest that you read more about "the way it should be" in Logical Evaluation of Origins Theories which has five sections; the first four are Comparisons and Definitions, The Many Meanings of Evolution, The Many Meanings of Creation, and Logically Valid Comparisons; and it ends with Shifts of Meaning:
How to Produce a Shift
evolution-shifts: Often,
support is illogically shifted from a strongly supported meaning of evolution — such
as basic "old earth" progressions in the fossil record, small-scale micro-E
changes (like those that produce drug-resistant bacteria), or minor macro-E
(that produces "new yet similar" species) — to a less strongly
supported meaning (like a large-scale natural production of all biocomplexity
and biodiversity,
a Total Macro-E).
creation-shifts: Evidence
against young-earth creation is often shifted onto old-earth creation,
and the important scientific differences between two old-earth theories
(independent creation and genetic modification) are ignored.
With an evolution-shift the implied
support for evolution increases, and with a creation-shift the implied
support for creation decreases. But in each case the shift (and
associated implication) is not logically justified.
How to Avoid a Shift
minimizing evolution-shifts: Each
evolutionary sub-theory (as described in Section 2) is supported by different
evidence, and should have different plausibility. We need conceptual
clarity. The sub-theories of evolution should be precisely defined
and their relationships should be carefully analyzed, because if there is
only "evolution" it is easy to assume that evidence for some aspects of evolution
necessarily provides strong support for other aspects. When we estimate
the plausibility of an extrapolation from micro-E to Total Macro-E, there
should be a rigorous evaluation for each step connecting the intermediate
levels. This evaluation should be based on tight logic, not loose language
that allows a transfer of support from one level to another. { Perhaps
advocates of evolution can make a strong case, based on the mechanisms
proposed in neo-Darwinian theories, for moving from lower levels
of E to Total Macro-E, but the process of "extrapolating between levels" should
be explicitly acknowledged. }
minimizing creation-shifts: We
should understand what each creation theory proposes, then compare these
theories with each other and with theories of evolution, to see where they
agree and disagree. In a comparative evaluation we should focus on
the differences between competitive theories, instead of wasting time on
questions where both theories agree. When we ask, "Does this evidence
really matter?", we see that most of the evidence typically proposed in
support of evolution is irrelevant when comparing Total Macro-E with old-earth
creation by genetic modification, or with a basic theory of intelligent
design.
Strong support for Total Macro-E
requires strong answers for tough questions: 1) How many mutations
and how much selection would be required, how long would this take, and
how probable is it? 2) Could a step-by-step process of evolution
produce systems that seem irreducibly complex because
all parts seem necessary for performing the system's function, and there
would be no function to "select for" until all parts are present. {details
about irreducible complexity}
Another question, related to irreducible
complexity, is even more challenging: Could a nonliving system
naturally achieve the minimal
complexity required
to replicate itself and thus become capable of changing, in successive
generations, by natural selection in neo-Darwinian evolution? {
This question is independent from neo-Darwinian theory, which simply
assumes
the existence of an organism that could reproduce, and doesn't try
to explain how the first life became alive. }
As explained above, some of the perceived support for evolution comes from creation-shifts. To avoid this, we should avoid combining questions about evolution into an all-or-nothing package deal. Instead, each question should be evaluated on its own merit. Is evolution impossible because the earth is too young? Is it implausible because "irreducibly complex" biochemical systems could not be produced in a step-by-step process of natural selection? These two criticisms are independent. But even though the extremely strong evidence for an old earth should have no effect on our evaluations of irreducible complexity, there is a tendency for advocates of "evolution as fact" to ignore logical principles — by saying "it's just those silly creationists again, and we've already falsified their young-earth theories of geology and biology" — and avoid tough questions about the mechanistic details of Total Macro-E.
Explaining and Evaluating
According to the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution,
the government should not "establish" religion or prohibit the "free exercise" of
religion. In American public schools, is it legal to explain theories
in which divine action is either proposed (as in young-earth creation, old-earth
creation, or theistic evolution) or allowed (as in intelligent design)? Yes. Even
the National Center for Science Education — a group that defines its goal
as "working to defend the teaching of evolution against
sectarian attack,... to keep evolution in the science classroom and 'scientific
creationism' out" — seems to agree, when they say that legally "a
teacher can teach about religion (though not advocate it)... one can discuss
controversies involving religion, but it would not be proper to take sides. (source)"
As usual in origins education, however,
things aren't this simple. Does the legal status change if, as recommended above,
the sub-theories of evolution are being evaluated? Although only
creationary theories are explicitly religious, all origins theories (including
intelligent design and naturalistic evolution) can have religious implications. When
a component is evaluated, theories taking a position on this component (either
affirming or denying it) are being evaluated. Does this mean that the associated
religious implications are also being evaluated? This is a difficult question.
One approach — which was recommended in Ohio by the pro-design Discovery Institute — is to simply allow critical evaluations of evolution.
Legal Questions
Recent court rulings about how to apply principles from
the U.S. Constitution limit what teachers can be required to
do in the classroom, but place far fewer restrictions on what a teacher is allowed to
do. Saying that a school (or school board or state legislature) cannot
require creationist teaching is not the same as saying that schools must forbid
the discussion of any creationist concepts in the classroom. And the definition
of "teaching creationism" (which can be prohibited in the classroom)
is narrower than is usually assumed, and should not be expanded to include every
type of critical thinking about evolution.
To learn more about origins education in American public
schools, in the context of the U.S. Constitution and recent legal decisions,
I suggest reading Intelligent
Design in Public School Science Curricula: A Legal Guidebook (by David
DeWolf, Stephen Meyer, and Mark DeForrest, 1999). Their long page — which
is actually a short book, graciously made available for free — offers a
wealth of useful information about public education. It is carefully written,
and a careful reading will help you develop an increased depth of understanding. Here
is their
basic conclusion, summarized (and oversimplified) in my own words: Yes,
it is legal for a teacher to provide evidence and to encourage critical thinking
about evolution, when this is done with wisdom and skill.
A home-page for Origins Education in Public Schools summarizes legal/constitutional principles and interpretations, and provides links to useful web-resources.
Cultural-Personal
Factors
During all scientific activities, including
theory evaluation, scientists are influenced by cultural-personal factors. These factors include psychological
motives and practical concerns (such as desires for respect and recognition,
employment and funding), metaphysical worldviews (about
the nature of reality), ideological principles (about "the
way things should be" in society), and opinions
of authorities (who are acknowledged due to expertise, personality,
and/or power). These factors interact with each other, and operate
in a complex social context that involves individuals, scientific communities,
and society as a whole. Science and culture are mutually interactive,
with each affecting the other.
Recognize
and Minimize: We should recognize the
influence of cultural-personal factors in science, and (in an effort to
maximize the effectiveness of science in a search for truth) we should
try to minimize the influence of these factors. In
science and education, we should want scientific theories to be evaluated
by thinking that is unbiased and logical.
Are evaluations of evolution being
influenced by cultural-personal factors?
There are reasons to suspect that three
types of cultural-personal factors are influencing evaluations
of naturalistic evolution: A) currently, the scientific community accepts methodological
naturalism so — no matter what the evidence indicates — every
accepted theory must be a naturalistic theory; B) for each person, an
uncritical acceptance of evolution offers professional advantages in getting
employment, funding, publications,...; C) for some people — for
atheists and rigid agnostics (who want to remain agnostic) — achieving
personal
consistency between nonscientific worldviews and scientific
conclusions requires accepting some type of naturalistic evolution.
Critical
Thinking about Critical
Thinking
The National Science Teachers Association
offers resources for evolution
education (online and in print) that include The
Creation
Controversy & The
Science Classroom, in which Craig Nelson describes "Effective Strategies
for
Teaching Evolution
and Other Controversial Topics." And the ENSI program
(the "Evolution and the Nature of Science" Institute) is described
by Nelson (and Martin Nickels & Jean Beard) in another
paper that says, "Critical thinking skills should
be the most fundamental part of any science course. There are teaching
techniques that emulate the critical thinking skills (the "scientific methods")
which scientists use in evaluating the relative merits of alternative explanations." Their
program is based on sound principles of science and education. I respect
the quality their work, and I agree with most of what they say about the nature
of science, principles for learning and teaching, goals of education, and methods
of instruction. But not all of it.
For example, ENSI offers "Fair
Tests: A Basic Model for Critical Thinking in Science (How Do Scientists Pick
the Best
Explanation?)" which is based on a valid principle of science: we should
be impressed when different types of evidence lead independently to the same
conclusion. But the instructional activity they recommend ignores another
important principle of logic: we should compare strong versions of all
competitive
theories, not weak "strawman" versions. (*) In
this activity, they compare evolution with only young-earth creation and a weak
version of old-earth creation that proposes independent creations and — even
though old-earth creationists don't propose this — no subsequent change. By
including only these theories, they exclude the two scientifically strongest
alternatives to evolution: old-earth creation by macromutational genetic
modification (followed by natural evolutionary changes), and a basic "minimal
claims" version of intelligent design. These omissions are a serious
logical
and pedagogical weakness.
* This
logical principle is one theme in my page about "the way
it should be" when we evaluate origins theories.
And even though they encourage
teachers to "emphasize the tentative nature
of all science" and to offer "open-ended
activities where there is no teacher-imposed right answer at the end," one
of their main goals is to persuade students that evolution (broadly
defined, without precision) is true.
an IOU: Later, but not until 2011, my analysis of this program — which
illustrates the typical approach (teach only evolution, and defend
it vigorously)
that now dominates origins education in public schools — will
be done more thoroughly, and maybe other programs will also be analyzed.
Do my views make sense? Another page asks "Is old-earth creation logicaly inconsistent?" because it questions one consensus theory (about biological evolution, as explained above) but accepts another consensus theory (about age of the earth and universe). I explain why old-earth creation is consistent because in a comparison of the two areas, re: evolution and age, we find major differences in: 1) views about the reliability of historical science, 2) scientific evidence supporting the consensus theory, 3) relationship between consensus and challenger theories, and 4) potential bias due to cultural-personal influences inside and outside the scientific community.
This website for Whole-Person Education has TWO KINDS OF LINKS:
an ITALICIZED LINK keeps you inside a page, moving you to another part of it, and a NON-ITALICIZED LINK opens another page. Both keep everything inside this window, so your browser's BACK-button will always take you back to where you were. |
Critical Thinking (about evolution & design) in Public Schools: Part 1 homepage for Origins Education
in Public Schools |
This page is
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/oried2.htm
Copyright © 2004 by Craig Rusbult
all rights reserved