|
New
Orleans
Secular Humanist Association |
|
Evolution and Creationism: One Long Argument Ron Good Curriculum & Instruction, Physics Departments, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA 70803, USA; email: rgood@lsu.edu Paper presented as part of a panel with the same title at the Sixth International History, Philosophy & Science Teaching Conference, Denver, CO, November 7-11, 2001. Other panel participants: Michael Ruse, Florida State U. & Harvey Siegel, U. of Miami, FL. This paper describes a recent (April, 2001) attempt by Louisiana lawmakers to pass a resolution declaring the writings of Charles Darwin "racist,’ thereby impeding the teaching of scientific evolution in the public schools of Louisiana. A brief history of the evolution vs. creationism struggle in Louisiana is presented first, in order to place the recent actions of certain LA lawmakers in perspective. Then the anti-Darwin resolution passed by the LA House Education Committee and a response by the scientific community at Louisiana State University are presented and discussed. Finally the long argument between evolutionists and creationists is discussed, with recommendations for biology teachers and others who want to ensure a solid science education for all students. A Brief History Ever since Darwin published Origin of Species in 1859 the creationists have argued against the scientific theory of evolution. The creationists do not want God’s hand to be removed from the creation of species and they see Darwin’s dangerous idea (Dennett, 1995) doing just that. In The Creationists, Numbers (1993) provides an excellent history of the creationist movement, with emphasis on the so-called "scientific creationists" in the U.S. A more recent book by Alters & Alters (2001) also looks at the creation-evolution controversy, with more emphasis on ideas for biology teachers. Many other books, including those by Dawkins (1987, 1996), Eldridge (2000), Futuyma (1995), Gould (1989, 1999) Kitcher (1982), National Academy of Sciences (1998, 1999), Numbers (1992, 1998), Pennock (1999), and Ruse (1982, 1989) document the creation-evolution controversy. Related to the evolution-creationism struggle in Louisiana, the Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) decision of the U.S. Supreme Court held unconstitutional the "Creationism Act" of the LA legislature. This law prohibited the teaching of evolution in public schools except when it was accompanied by instruction in "creation science." A decade after this decision, Don Aguillard, the biology teacher named in the Edwards v. Aguillard case, was researching the factors influencing the teaching of biological evolution in LA public schools, as part of his doctoral degree requirements at Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge. As his major professor I encouraged Don to follow his political activities with a careful analysis of the state of evolution education in Louisiana. Among his findings are the following (Aguillard, 1998):
A decade after the Edwards v. Aguillard U.S. Supreme Court decision another court, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, rejected a school board policy requiring teachers to read to students a disclaimer saying evolution is ‘only a theory’ (Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish Board of Education, 1997). The decision recognized that the disclaimer policy identified ‘intelligent design’ dogma as equivalent to ‘creation science’ dogma, both promoted by religious fundamentalists known as ‘creation scientists.’ Further legal appeals by the Tangipahoa School Board were unsuccessful. Louisiana, like many other states in the U.S., has tried repeatedly to suppress the teaching of evolution and the latest effort is described in some detail in the following section. Darwin Ideology Is Racist The daily newspaper (The Advocate, April 15, 2001)) in Baton Rouge, LA included on p. B-1 an announcement that LA State Representative Sharon Weston Broome wanted lawmakers to pass a resolution rejecting "the core concepts of Darwinist ideology." According to Rep. Broome evolution promotes racism because Hitler and others have used Darwin’s writings to justify mass murder and other heinous crimes. Despite efforts by supporters of evolution education, the LA House Education Committee passed the following resolution: LA House Education Committee Resolution On Teaching Evolution WHEREAS, America’s fundamental document, "The Declaration of Independence," expresses the self-evident truth that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, and that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness; and WHEREAS, the Constitution of the State of Louisiana of 1974 declares that the only legitimate ends of government are to secure justice for all, preserve peace, protect the rights, and promote the happiness and general welfare of the people; and WHEREAS, empirical science has documented an indisputable commonality among all people groups, or races, and has demonstrated that normal variations in the human gene pool account for our differences, of which racial differences are a trivial portion; and WHEREAS, the writings of Charles Darwin, the father of evolution, promoted the justification of racism, and his books "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection: or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" and "The Descent of Man" postulate a hierarchy of superior and inferior races; and WHEREAS, Adolf Hitler and others have exploited the racist views of Darwin and those he influenced, such as German zoologist Ernst Haekel, to justify the annihilation of millions of purportedly racially inferior individuals. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislature of Louisiana does hereby deplore all instances and ideologies of racism, does hereby reject the core concepts of Darwinist ideology that certain races and classes of humans are inherently superior to others, and does hereby condemn the extent to which these philosophies have been used to justify and approve racist practices. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Legislature does also hereby urge and request the public education system of Louisiana, as appropriate in the curriculum, to address the commonalities of people groups and the weaknesses of Darwinian racism. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a suitable copy of this Resolution be transmitted to the commisioner of administration, who will make its contents known to the heads of each Louisiana state department and agency; to the Board of Regents, who will make its contents known to each college and university president or chancellor; and to the state superintendent of education, who will make its contents known to the superintendents of each city, parish, or other local public school system. Following the action of the LA House Education Committee, I developed a resolution on teaching evolution that was meant to represent the scientific community at Louisiana State University. The resolution was reviewed by several of my colleagues in various science departments at LSU and by other supporters of evolution education and various suggestions were offered to strengthen the resolution. The resolution was then circulated among the scientific community and signed by about 100 faculty members and graduate students. The resolution in its final form is as follows: LSU Resolution On Teaching Evolution WHEREAS, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the National Science Teachers Association, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Association of Biology Teachers have continuously and strongly supported the teaching of modern evolutionary theory in our schools; and WHEREAS, the U.S. Supreme Court and lower courts have ruled repeatedly that creationism in its various guises is religion, not science; and WHEREAS, House Concurrent Resolution 74 is recognizable as an effort to discredit the teaching of evolution in Louisiana public schools and universities by incorrectly linking it to racism; and WHEREAS, the LSU Scientific Community encourages the best possible science education opportunities for Louisiana students; and WHEREAS, teaching biology without evolutionary theory is comparable to teaching physical science without atomic theory; and WHEREAS, Charles Darwin stated in Voyage of the Beagle that "It makes one’s blood boil, yet heart tremble, to think we Englishmen and our American descendents, with their boastful cry of liberty, have been and are so guilty" [of being involved in the slave trade], and WHEREAS, evolutionary biology more than any other area of science has undermined racism by showing the universal biological kinship of ALL humans; and WHEREAS, the misuse of scientific knowledge has nothing to do with its validity; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that we members of the LSU Scientific Community are firmly committed to the teaching of evolutionary theory, atomic theory, and other scientifically valid knowledge in Louisiana’s public schools. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that we members of the LSU Scientific Community are firmly committed to the elimination of racism, sexism, and other forms of bigotry in our society by educating our citizens to understand that tolerance not censorship of science is the preferred path to enlightenment. The signed copies of the resolution were collected and preparations were made to present them to key members of the LA House of Representatives as they considered the Broome resolution. However, the Broome resolution was changed on the floor of the House, deleting all references to Darwin and Darwinist ideology, so the final version became simply a resolution to eliminate racism and other forms of bigotry in LA public education. Even in Louisiana few legislators will publicly oppose such a resolution. Attacking evolution by calling Darwin a racist is just one of many tactics used by those opposed to teaching evolution in our schools. At the local, state, and national levels religious fundamentalists and others opposed to evolution education continue to try to suppress the teaching of evolution and support school prayer and the teaching of their vision of religion in our schools. It is not just in the South or in Kansas that these battles are fought; all over the U.S. fundamentalists target evolution as the main enemy of their visions of God/religion. The long argument continues between evolutionists and creationists and how supporters of a sound science education should proceed is discussed in the next section. Taking History and Philosophy of Science Seriously One would think that 142 years after Darwin published Origin of Species the most scientifically-advanced nation on Earth would understand and embrace his ideas as important to a sound science education. However, science education research and polls by Gallup and others reveal widespread ignorance among U.S. citizens regarding scientific evolutionary theory. Among the results are these:
Both cognitive and religious obstacles to evolution education are real, persistent, and often interrelated. Trying to deal only with the cognitive obstacles (e.g., misconceptions) while ignoring the religious/political obstacles is likely to be less effective than taking both into account. Fortunately, there are many good resources for biology teachers and others who want to help students understand the basics of evolutionary theory and its implications. As I write this paper, an 8-hour PBS television special on Evolution is being broadcast for 2 hours each evening, M-Th (Sept. 24-27). From what I have seen so far, this series may be the best instructional resource of its kind ever produced. From the opening 2-hour program "Darwin’s Dangerous Idea" to the final 1-hour program "What About God" the viewer is presented with important, thought-provoking ideas that cover both cognitive and religious obstacles to understanding evolution as a believable scientific theory. In the hands of a biology teacher who wants to do a good job teaching evolution as the central organizing theme in biology, this series will almost certainly become a valuable instructional tool. For parents and religious leaders who want to help students understand the relationship between evolutionary theory and religious belief, Evolution will be just as valuable. The current position of the National Association of Biology Teachers (NABT), the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA), and similar professional groups is that religion and religious beliefs should be kept out of science classroom discussions of evolution and other scientific topics. This is also the position of our courts. The current PBS special on Evolution complicates this position because it recognizes that a major obstacle to evolution education is fundamentalist religious belief. From Darwin’s day to the present, there has been widespread opposition to evolution education in our public schools. Taking history and philosophy of science seriously, where evolution is concerned, means that one must include adequate coverage of the role religion has played in the development of the theory of evolution. The developers and producers of the PBS special on Evolution realized this, beginning their 8-hour television series with a 2-hour program entitled "Darwin’s Dangerous Idea" and ending with a 1-hour program entitled "What About God?" Historical facts about the development of Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection automatically include religion and religious beliefs. Two of the expert commentators in Evolution are Daniel Dennett and Stephen Gould, both well-known academics who have written widely about evolution and the nature of science. Dennett (1995) has taken the position that science and religion are deeply incompatible but Gould (1999) disagrees and the Evolution special seems to side with Gould. Although history suggests that Dennett is correct, the current public position among most scientific and science education organizations is that science and religion are separate spheres of activity with separate goals. In other words, science tells us about the heavens and religion tells us how to get to Heaven. When it comes to science education and religion a strong case can be made for Dennett’s position (see Good, 2001; Mahner & Bunge, 1996; and Martin, 1997 for supporting arguments), but the question here is - Should history and philosophy of science be taken seriously where evolution education is concerned? The answer is an unequivocal yes! Just as Galileo’s conflicts with the religious powers of his time should be a central part of physics education, Darwin’s conflicts with religion should be a central part of biology/evolution education. This is what Evolution does and it is the educationally correct (although perhaps not politically correct) thing to do. Helping students see the personal struggles Darwin had with religion, including his own beliefs, humanizes the development of his theory of evolution and places it within a real social context. It may be the best and most important story science has to tell. There are many other useful instructional resources for evolution education, including the National Academy of Sciences 1998 document Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science. It combines ideas about the nature of science with important ideas about evolution, and it includes many activities for students that are designed to help them better understand evolution. This guide plus the PBS Evolution series are two very useful resources for the science teacher. A third instructional resource is the BSCS (2000) document Genes, Environment, and Human Behavior. This guide, by the best producer of evolution education materials since its beginning in 1958, introduces the reader to ideas and issues about the genetic components of human behavior. The authors explain the relationship between genetics and evolution: "Because genetics is the study of the root source of biological variation, which is central to evolutionary mechanisms, an understanding of basic principles in genetics is central to an understanding of evolution itself" (p. 11). Religious fundamentalists’ opposition to this area of study, behavioral genetics, is similar to their opposition to evolutionary theory because they do not want to believe that humans are closely related to chimpanzees and other living things. And of course the ‘evils’ of homosexuality are placed in a different light when the genetic components of human behavior are considered (Good et al., 2000, Hamer & Copeland, 1998). The habits of mind associated with science are not only different than those associated with religion (and especially fundamentalist religion), they are basically incompatible. Most religions encourage believers to accept without evidence the authority of holy books and leaders while science encourages a respect for real evidence and a questioning attitude toward authority. Nature is the final authority in science. When young children are indoctrinated into believing that for which there is no evidence (God, Heaven, Hell, etc.) a habit of mind is being developed that is inconsistent with the open, inquiring mind needed for scientific study. The habits of mind are not merely different, they are incompatible between science and religion, especially where an unseen God or angels or other agents intervene into people’s lives. The fact that some scientists believe in a God that intervenes into our world causing things to happen that otherwise would not, in no way ‘proves’ that science and religion are compatible. It simply shows that some people are able to separate their lives as scientists from their religious lives. Of course Einstein’s God (Jammer, 1999) and similar conceptions of God are not incompatible with a scientific outlook, but few people develop this kind of God belief. Most believe in a personal God who listens to prayers and occasionally answers them in some way. The long argument between science and fundamentalist religion will continue because the habits of mind promoted by the two domains are basically incompatible. The PBS television program Evolution got it right. The story of evolution must include the history of the struggle between religion and science, not just the facts of evolutionary science. Understanding how scientific ideas are developed is just as important in science education as understanding the idea itself. One kind of knowledge without the other is insufficient to attain the goal of real scientific literacy. References Aguillard, D.: 1998, An Analysis of Factors Influencing the Teaching of Biological Evolution in Louisiana Public Secondary Schools, Dissertation, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA. Alters, B. & Alters, S.: 2001, Defending Evolution: A Guide to the Creation/Evolution Controversy, Jones and Bartlett, Sudbury, MA. BSCS: 2000, Genes, Environment, and Human Behavior, author, Colorado Springs, CO.Dawkins, R.: 1986, The Blind Watchmaker, Norton, New York. _______: 1996, Climbing Mount Improbable, Norton, New York. Eldridge, N.: 2000, The Triumph of Evolution and the Failure of Creationism, W. H. Freeman, New York. Futuyma, D.: 1995, Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution, Sinauer, New York. Good, R.: 2001, ‘Habits of Mind Associated with Science and Religion: Implications For Science Education’, paper presented at the November 7-11 Sixth International History, Philosophy & Science Teaching Conference, Denver, CO. Good, R., Hafner, M., & Peebles, P.: 2000, ‘Scientific Understanding of Sexual Orientation: Implications for Science Education’, American Biology Teacher, 62, 326-330. Gould, S.: 1989, Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History, Norton, New York. _______: 1999, Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life, Ballantine, New York. Jammer, M.: 1999, Einstein and Religion, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. Kitcher, P.: 1982, Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Mahner, M. & Bunge, M.: 1996, ‘Is Religious Education Compatible with Science Education?’, Science & Education, 5, 101-123. Martin, M.: 1997, ‘Is Christian Education Compatible with Science Education?’, Science & Education, 6, 239-249. National Academy of Sciences: 1998, Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science, author, Washington, DC. Numbers, R.: 1993, The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. Pennock, R.: 1999, Tower of Babel: The Evidence against the New Creationism, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Ruse, M.: 1982, Darwinism Defended: A Guide to the Evolution Controversies, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA. _______: 1989, The Darwinian Paradigm: Essays on its History, Philosophy, and Religious Implications, Routledge, London.
|
|
Home |
|
Contact
Info: Website
comments: |
