 |
|
|
 |
| |
Last Issue:
Tuesday,
December
18
2007
|
|
|
|
|
Struggling to Teach the Science of Biology
By Monette Bailey
Published on 14-Feb-06
A sticker on biology textbooks in Cobb County, Ga. that included material on evolution stated, "Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered." It took a court decision to have it removed and the school board has filed an appeal.
This is just one example of the challenges facing science and those who teach it, according to Jay Labov, senior staff member of the National Research Council's Center for Education. He says proponents of intelligent design have pushed to have legislation introduced that calls for the teaching of both explanations for creation.
Labov spoke during a recent Center for Teaching Excellence seminar titled "The Evolution of the Evolution Debate: Recent and Continuing Challenges, New Realities." He said that most states in the country experienced a challenge to teaching evolution between 2001 and 2003. Most of the challenge came from those wanting intelligent design to be taught as a scientific alternative. A reference point for his talk was last year's Tammy Fitzmiller et. al. vs Dover Area School District case. "This was a landmark case...I think it has implications for the entire country," he said.
In Dover, some ninth grade biology teachers refused to read—and walked out of class when a superintendent read—a required statement that said, in part, "The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin's Theory of Evolution ... Because Darwin's Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations. Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view ... ." Federal Judge John Jones ruled for the plaintiffs.
Labov said that other legislative challenges contain wording that states that teachers must provide a "critical analysis of the origins of life" or that teachers must "help students understand the full range of scientific views that exist." These are euphemisms for intelligent design, he said. He adds that intelligent design is another phrase for creationism, which proponents have not been able to get taught in public schools.
He argued that teaching intelligent design as a valid scientific theory is doing a disservice to educators and their students. "A textbook with overwhelming evolution evidence may not be accepted as a biology textbook" in some school systems, he said. Also, the way "theory" is used in the Georgia example, and many others, undermines the validity of the scientific process, says Labov.
"It plays on a common belief that theory is not science based. Theory in science is not only explanatory, but predictable," he said. "[The Georgia sticker] implies that everything else in the book is fact."
He said that intelligent design lacks the body of evidence present for evolution. Teaching in a science course what he said is basically a re-tooled version of creationism is wrong. A philosophy or religion course is a better platform.
"It would be more helpful if people could understand the nature of science...," he said, "so that people don't have to make a decision between their faith and science."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
