SUBJECT: Creationism and Evolution
DATE: 1/97
Dear Colleagues:
I am a neophyte general bio. instructor (using Starr's Basic Concepts in
..) at a small, private midwestern college, and new to the biolab list.
I
really enjoy it! It is for the latter reason (along with the nature of my
question), that I hesitate in asking. I searched the archives for previous
threads and found none, so here goes. How do you handle the
concepts/questions concerning creationism and/or scientific creationism
when teaching evolution? My Chairman mentioned this issue would
eventually come up in class, and suggested my answer should be simply that
creationism isn't part of the curriculum of this course, seek answers in
a
religion or philosophy course. Frankly, as a veterinary pathologist by
training, it has been years since I've even thought about the theory of
evolution, much less any alternatives; so his suggestion sounds very
expedient. Unfortunately, there is a part of me that considers it
somewhat patronizing, so I'm looking for help. Any suggestions, short
references? I'm just looking to field students' questions, not become an
expert.
Thank you,
Barbara Lewis, DVM, MS
Lake Erie College
Painesville, Ohio
bclewis@harborcom.net
(1870-1953)
When I teach intro biology for nonmajors, I try to make 3 points about
evolution vs. creationism:
1. We are frequently presented with the media with a choice between
"atheistic evolution" and "Biblical creationism". But
this is a false
choice, as there are many positions in between these extremes that are held
by people of good faith.
2. Students have to decide where they fall on the spectrum of beliefs, and
how this relates to their personal values. It is not the job of a biology
course to indoctrinate them.
3. However, evolution is a cornerstone of biology, and students must be
familiar with it to have any idea of how real biology is done.
David J. Hicks djhicks@manchester.edu
Biology, Manchester College
Barbara,
I once had a student (in Kentucky) bring me a few books on creation
science (unsolicited). I briefly read through the least inflammatory of
them
and concluded that many of their arguments are reasonable
interpretations of data !! IF !! one can accept the notion that the speed
of light and the rate of radioactive decay has decreased over time.
Personally, I don't accept the assumption that physical contants change.
Their "evidence" for this is that the measured value for the speed
of light
has decreased slightly in the last century (I would argue that today's
measurements are simply more accurate). Thus, the large amount of
isotopic decay measured in older biological materials would reflect less
age if the rate of decay was higher in the past.
I'm looking forward to this discussion (if one arises). I'm sure there are
other arguments, this one just stands out in my mind as a major flaw.
Jeff
Jeffrey D. Newman newman@lycoming.edu
Department of Biology http://lyco.lycoming.edu/~newman/
Lycoming College Phone: 717-321-4386
Williamsport PA 17701 Fax: 717-321-4073
I'm afraid that nothing you assign for reading will convince a creationist
of evolution, just as nothing an evolutionist reads will convince her of
creation. This is because the evolution/creation debate is not one of science
but of faith: does one believe what he sees or what the Bible (or another
scripture) says?
If you can get this past your students, tell them that the purpose of a
science class is to teach we can observe about the world and how we interpret
those interpretations. Today the observable evidence against evolution is
greatly swamped out by the evidence for it. In my opinion, Scientific
Creationism is a bastardization of science and academic inquiry in general.
(hmm...perhaps it has some pedagogical use in teaching what good science
is)
Beyond this, suggest that the students take a course in scientific
philosophy. If they can stand it long enough, they should reach Paul
Feyerabend, and be able to believe whatever they want to.
Good luck. I haven't run into the situation you are preparing for yet,
but
I hope I can handle it well when it pops up.
Doug Jensen
Berea College
Barbara,
With regard to the questions about creationism:
I think your Chair's answer is fine, but further, I think you should
give answers that YOU feel comfortable with. If you've not thought
about evolution in a long while, then, like all of us teaching a
subject or topic when our thoughts have been elsewhere (it's
inevitable, especially in teaching freshman courses) you have some
study to do anyway.
I always simply tell my students (if I'm asked, which is very rare)
that creationism isn't science, but that they will find substantial
discussion of the topic in philosophy, religion, legal circles, and I
point out that the Supreme Court has ruled that schools cannot compel
the teaching of creationism.
I have a creationist colleague, who has some difficulty because of
both his inability to accept normal scientific approaches to proof and
the integration of evolutionary principles into all parts of biology.
I'd guess you won't have nearly the difficulty he faces!
Good luck, and welcome to the the club!
Dave McNeely, Biology, University of Texas at Brownsville, 80 Fort
Brown, Brownsville, TX 78520; mcneely@utb1.utb.edu
I say to my students that the evidence for evolution is tangible and
clear, though our understanding of the mechanisms, like our understanding
of all mechanisms is tentative. This is not to say that I don't have
confidence in it. I doubt evolutionary theory about as much as I doubt
the cell theory ... hardly at all. Nevertheless, we don't talk about
"proving" things in science, because by nature our understanding
is
imperfect.
For me, then, I don't have to rebut all the picky, tricky "evidences"
that
the Christian Right has so very carefully taught their faithful to point
out to me. I just say that biological variability being what it is,
exceptions will always be found, we just have to figure out what the
general pattern is. (I always bring up that I had an aunt who claimed
that she had 3 kidneys, but this does not make it untrue for us to say
that human beings have 2 kidneys.)
I always wear a cross or other bit of religious jewelry on the days I
teach evolution. I do, fairly regularly, have students who are having
actual faith crises come to talk with me in my office. There I can make
the rules a little different and we can be clear that we are talking
person to person and not just science instructor to student. Then I am
comfortable talking about seeming conflicts between historical religious
sources and historical science sources. Nevertheless, I still make it
clear that I see evolution as the organizing principle of biology.
Jean DeSaix, Ph.D.
Department of Biology Coker Hall CB#3280
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3280
Work Phone: 919-962-1068 Home Phone 919-929-1580
FAX 919-962-1625 email jdesaix@email.unc.edu
A reference that I've found helpful is "Science on Trial:The Case for
Evolution" by Douglas Futuyma. It is written for the general reader
and
specifically addresses some of the points brought up by creationists.
Bette Nicotri
Box 355320
Biology Program Phone: 206-543-9621
University of Washington FAX: 206-685-1728
Seattle, Wa. 98195
There is a pretty good discussion of human evolution and defenses against
creationist claims at
http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/faqs/fossil-hominids.html
Many of the points can be applied to evolution vs creationism in general.
Liane Cochran-Stafira
Dept. of Ecology and Evolution
The University of Chicago
1101 East 57th Street
Chicago, Illinois 60637-5415
phone: 773-702-1930
fax: 773-702-9740
e-mail: lcochran@midway.uchicago.edu
Biolabbers,
Many good suggestions have been made already for dealing with questions
regarding creationism etc. There is also an organization, the National
Center for Science Education, that deals with these issues in the public
schools, colleges etc. They also provide information, literature etc on
these issues to help combat the sometimes overzealous tactics of
so-called creation scientists. If you're interested, they can be reached
at NCSE
PO Box 9477
Berkeley, CA 94709-0477
(800)290-6006
On another note, I had a colleague at another school who had a technique
for dealing with really hard core creationists. I don't recommend this,
but here goes. When confronted by an adamant creationist student, he
would state that he had his own theory about the creation of the earth.
He stated that the world was created yesterday! When the student
protested that he had memories from two days ago or last week, this
instructor said no, these were implanted in your brain to test your
faith. He then challenged the student to prove him wrong. The argument
is the same, just the time frame is different. Needless to say the
student, would protest the ridiculousness of the argument, and possibly
recognize the same features in some of the creationist arguments.
I've never tried this myself, and I doubt that it has much chance of
success, but it might make an interesting last resort!
Guy Farish
Biology Department
Adams State College
Alamosa, CO 81102
(719) 587-7969 FAX (719) 587-7242
It's very important to define "evolution". Many mistakenly believe
it includes the origin of life, and since our actual EVIDENCE regarding
the biochemical origin of life is scant, they claim the entire theory
of evolution is weak.
Darwin's theory of evolution is DESCENT WITH MODIFICATION. And for
that, we have so much evidence, scientists can't imagine it NOT being
true [although of course, the "cornerstone" of science is that
indeed
it IS falsifiable]. The strongest evidence is the "genetic record",
comparison of DNA sequences throughout phylogeny.
What this evidence shows, beyond any "reasonable doubt", is that
the existing species all were created from one another, that is, share
common ancestors. If I can get my students to see that, I've come a
long way!
The rest of "evolution", the exact mechanisms for instance, are
indeed
still open for debate. But that doesn't alter the "truth" of the
core, descent with modification.
And there is indeed room for "middle ground". Could "evolution"
have
been God's tool for creation? We certainly have no evidence to suggest
otherwise. I try to leave students with that thought. yes, it often
leaves them with the posibility of a "teleology" to evolution;
but
getting them to see and accept the core of evolution is perhaps more
important!
Final note of emphasis: It is VITAL that we ALL get our students
to understand what EVOLUTION IS, and the distinction between "evolution"
and the origin of life.
*******************************************
Robert Moss, PhD
Wofford College
429 N. Church Street
Spartanburg, SC 29303
Email MOSSRE@WOFFORD.EDU
Fax 864-597-4620
Voice 864-597-4623
Bob, thanks for pointing out this distinction. It is important. I have
begun separating my discussions of "origin" and "descent"
in time. I talk
about origin when I talk about chemistry. I discuss descent later in the
semester. I think that it works OK. I also learned from a master teacher
here at BGSU to put ALL theories of origin on the table including
spontaneous generation and cosmozoic. I can outline the evidence that
disproves spontaneous generation and I explain how cosmozoic begs the
issue. (That was a fun discussion this fall with the Mars stuff!!) We
talk about divine creation and how we don't have the ability to measure,
observe, or quantify faith or a divine being. Perhaps some day we will,
then we can do the experiments. For now we will talk about those areas
where we do have the ability to measure, observe, and quantify. I've only
had one student, who missed the original discussion, complain about my
coverage. I sat down with him and talked person to person and it worked
out fine. --cmw
Charlene M. Waggoner, Ph.D.
Department of Biological Sciences
Bowling Green, State University
Bowling Green, OH 43403
cwaggon@bgnet.bgsu.edu
Jean Desaix comments on "exceptions" to the theory of evolution.
What
are they? I am not aware of a single "exception" to descent with
modification. Is there any organism on earth known to have a
genetic code unrelated to that of all the others? Or to have
genetic material that isn't DNA? Or any other evidence suggesting
[SERIOUSLY suggesting, that is,] that a single organism on the
planet has some other "independent" origin? I kinda doubt it.
[PS: Yes, of course I know about RNA viruses; that's clearly NOT
an exception to evolution... they clearly evolved from the same
stock as the rest of us!]
*******************************************
Robert Moss, PhD
Wofford College
429 N. Church Street
Spartanburg, SC 29303
Email MOSSRE@WOFFORD.EDU
Fax 864-597-4620
Voice 864-597-4623
I agree about 95% with Robert Moss (almost always do 95-100%), and
really appreciate his comments and suggestions, but I have a
concern/question related to his comments shown below:
*******************************************************************
It's very important to define "evolution". Many mistakenly believe
Darwin's theory of evolution is DESCENT WITH MODIFICATION. And for
that, we have so much evidence, scientists can't imagine it NOT being
true [although of course, the "cornerstone" of science is that
indeed
it IS falsifiable]. The strongest evidence is the "genetic record",
comparison of DNA sequences throughout phylogeny.
*********************************************************************
--end quote--
One of my "strong" memories of the Reagan era was a discussion
on
evolution in which the President made a statement
somewhat to the effect that he did not understand all the concern
about the evolution/creationism debate, because "Evolution is just
a theory anyway". (May not be the exact quotation, but the ideas
are the same.)
I am comfortable in talking about evolution as being an observation
not unlike gravity; we see it all around us, from the gross level
to the molecular level. We recognize "changes in organisms", an
"evolution" as it were. Where the word "theory" comes
in, is in
our attempt to explain these observations. Darwin's theory of
natural selection is the best explanation, and with modern
understandings of the mechanisms of population genetics
and of molecular genetics, Darwin's basic "theory" may better
be called a "principle" (or some related term) to explain
these observation of change or evolution.
What I'm suggesting then, is to avoid the use of the phrase
"Theory of Evolution", because a change in organisms over
time should no longer be considered a theory.
Comments/brickbats, please!
Jim Freed
Delaware, OH
Jim, another good point. There is a difference in the definition of the
word theory that the average freshman brings to class and the word Theory
that precedes Evolution. It is important to point out to students that a
scientific theory has the weight of evidence behind it. It is more than
a
proposed mechanism e.g. space aliens made OJ tape Newt's conversation with
Paula to set up Bill. --cmw
Charlene M. Waggoner, Ph.D. "Great art is eternal;
Department of Biological Sciences great science tends to be
Bowling Green, State University replaced by greater science."
Bowling Green, OH 43403
-- John A. Moore
cwaggon@bgnet.bgsu.edu
Charlene
The example use is to remind my students that we always hear people talk
about their own personal theory about why their favorite team is not
winning the pennanat in baseball (or fill in your favorite sport). I point
out that if I really had a theory and not a hypothesis about why they are
not winning, I would be in the baseball dougout rather in front of the
class teaching biology. That then leads into a discussion of the
difference between theory and hypothesis.
Terry Davin
Biology and Allied Health
Penn Valley Community College
Kansas City MO 64111
davin@kcmetro.cc.mo.us
(816) 759-4236 (PHONE)
(816) 759-4553 (FAX)
As a biologist who is also a Creationist, I think the most important
thing in discussing the Creation/Evolution debate is to be as honest
as we can with each other. For example, I recognize that faith is a
foundational part of the Creation Theory. But that doesn't make it
unexceptable or that it shouldn't be discussed in science class.
Evolution Theory (common ancestry) is also based on faith, yet it is
descussed in science class. Both theorys have testable hypotheses
within their grand schemes and both have aspects or assumptions that
can and never will be provable. I think the Creation/Evolution debate
is a great tool for a more multidisciplinary science course.
In reguard to someone's comment about science being limited to only
what is observable, if that were so, then Evolution (common ancestry)
should not be discussed in science classes either since we have never
observed one life form ever given rise to another life form.
Dave Netzly
Hope College
I meant that I don't have to debate whether or not exceptions exist, and
that seems to me what folks want to engage me to do. You know, the old
"missing link" arguments. I just say that having a missing link
(an
exception in the mind of some) doesn't bother me.
Jean DeSaix
Department of Biology Coker Hall CB#3280
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3280
Work Phone: 919-962-1068 Home Phone 919-929-1580
FAX 919-962-1625 email jdesaix@email.unc.edu
I tell my students that evolution is the best SCIENTIFIC explanation for
the diversity & adaptations of living things.
I then point out that science is explicitly naturalistic - from the outset
it refuses supernatural explanations. In contrast, religion embraces and
prefers supernatural explanations. Thus, science will NEVER accept divine
creation through supernatural processes, because even if it did happen it
is "out of bounds" for science.
I use these "ground rules" to make it clear that students don't
have to
choose between evolution and their faith. One of the biggest problems we
have in teaching evolution is telling students that they must give up
their faith & values. That is the choice that the Inst. for Creation
Research wants students to see - it does not serve educational purposes
tell students that evolution and their faith & values are mutually
exclusive. (Some folks like Will Provine are evangelistic athiests when
they teach evolution. I think that's the wrong way to go about it.)
The National Center for Science Ed. has a web site... but I couldn't find
it yesterday. Some of their materials are excellent).
-Frank
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frank R. Hensley, Ph.D. "All a frog wanted was an education,
Dept. of Biology UNC-Greensboro and he could do 'most anything."
FHensley@uncg.edu ___________________ -Twain
910-334-5391 x23
Jim Freed suggested that evolution should no longer be called a "theory"
since we can observe it all around, evidence is strong and so on in an
argument that we can really accept this stuff now. President Reagon's
dismissal of evolution as "just a theory" argues, according to
Jim, that
we should stop calling evolution a "theory," apparently since
evolution is
less tentative than implied (to Jim? to President Reagan?) by the term
"theory."
Well, Jim! I agree that evolution is observed and unarguably is ongoing,
as it has since the begiinning of life (and before - don't forget the
realm of the chemist - prebiotic evolution) by "descent with modification."
But the problem with the dismissive statement, "It's just a theory",
goes
somewhat deeper, or is more fundamental. The speaker means to say that
the theory is tentative and therefore can be dismissed. It's almost as
if the speaker believes that a theory is someones belief or opinion,
or that it has the tentative nature of an hypothesis. The statement
reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of how science works, of how
hypotheses evolve through test into the complex mixtures of observation,
fact, hypothesis, model that is the work in progress that serves to at
the same time explain a phenomenon and provide for its further exploration.
In short, the speaker reveals a lack of respect for the substantial
scientific effort and sophistication that the label "theory" recognizes.
A scientific explanation doesn't get to be a "theory" by someone
espousing it. And that's what President Reagan, and many other laypersons
fail to see, or find confusing about any "Theory of ...." They
seem to
think that theories are like opinions, and everyone has one. One of the
things that I regularly point out to my students is that when one says
"The Theory of ...................." s/he is recongnizing that
as meant
in that label, there are very few "theories" in science. Too few
things
are understood well enough to warrant the term.
So I say let's keep the term "Theory of Evolution," to stand alongside
"The Cell Theory," "Atomic Theory," "Theory of
Relativity,"
"Quantum Theory," and so on.
Dave McNeely, Biology, University of Texas at Brownsville, 80 Fort Brown,
Brownsville, TX 78520; mcneely@utb1.utb.edu
Dave Netzly claims that creationsism is a theory, despite, as he said,
it is based on faith and not on observation. He claims that it is
testable. Scientifically? Rubbish.
The old foolish claim that one life form has never been observed to
give rise to another is simply untrue. Darwin himself used the analogy
of variation under domestication, and we have numerous examples of species
and varieties that are in domestication and differ from their known
progenitors.
Whenever you state from the outset that your "theory" is built
on faith,
you've defined it as outside science.
Now, the fact that evolution has and is occuring is an observation. The
details of how, all the mechanisms involved are being investigated.
If Netzly wants to believe in magic, he can go ahead. The rest of us
have science to do.
Dave McNeely, Biology, University of Texas at Brownsville, 80 Fort
Brown, Brownsville, TX 78520; mcneely@utb1.utb.edu
I am really enjoying this thread and hope that we can respect one
another's position, even if we disagree violently. I am planning
two teacher workshops in the next year dealing with evolution and the
teaching of it, so this conversation is great for me.
I remember reading an artical about lack of scientific literacy
(you've probably seen it) and one evidence was that many science teachers
thought that people and dinosaurs existed at the same time and the other
was that many teachers believed in angels. I consider the first a strong
comment on the lack of science literacy and I consider the second
irrelevant.
I think it is outside of our educational realm as teachers of biology to
deal with what one comes to believe through faith. I have a strong
personal faith. I hope that all of us believe that "love" exists,
but we
would not allow a student to use love as a variable in a controlled
experiment in the lab. (The spinach that was more loved gave a greater
level of photosynthesis????)
So my faith in God is not subject to hypothesis testing and is not
disprovable, and therefore is, as several have agreed, totally out of the
realm of what is appropriate content for my science classroom. I gain my
wholehearted acceptance of and appreciation of evolution in an entirely
different way, a way that is objective and a way that, I think, should be
readily acceptable to most rational folks. Is it the (erroneous in my
opinion) idea that one has to reject faith to accept evolution the crux
of
this being such a "hot" topic?
Jean DeSaix, Ph.D.
Department of Biology Coker Hall CB#3280
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3280
Work Phone: 919-962-1068 Home Phone 919-929-1580
FAX 919-962-1625 email jdesaix@email.unc.edu
It's very important to define "evolution". Many mistakenly believe
Darwin's theory of evolution is DESCENT WITH MODIFICATION. And for
that, we have so much evidence, scientists can't imagine it NOT being
true [although of course, the "cornerstone" of science is that
indeed
it IS falsifiable]. The strongest evidence is the "genetic record",
comparison of DNA sequences throughout phylogeny.
Is that the way my message came through? If so, my apologies....
Of course Darwin's theory IS DESCENT WITH MODIFICAITON.
I had meant to say that many mistakenly believe that Darwin's
theory encompasses the ORIGIN OF LIFE. I hope you all got that from
the context... Sorry for the confusion!
*******************************************
Robert Moss, PhD
Wofford College
429 N. Church Street
Spartanburg, SC 29303
Dave Netz wrote to me off the group, that we have never seen descent,and
thus cannot say it occured. I disagree. I think we CAN see descent whenever
we look at the genetic record. True we can NEVER "see" anything
occur that
ever happened in the past... but its "footprints" are quite clear
int he
present.
I use an analogy in class:
Imagine I assign a large essay, say 3 billion words or so, to my class
of 10 students. I get back one EXCELLENT paper from one student. Another
student gives me the SAME paper, except there's now a MISTAKE at word #512.
Yet another student hands in the SAME paper, except it shares the SAME TYPO
at word #512, plus a NEW ONE at word #5,178,233. And another has those same
two typos, plus a new one... and so on. Is there ANY WAY to interpret this
OTHER THAN "descent with modification"? Make that argument and
then present
the sequence of globin genes from plant through man, and then see if we
aren't
"seeing" descent.
Of course, we can also show descent with modification in the lab by selecting
spontaneous mutants [yes, we can DEMONSTRATE they're NEW mutations, not
just preselection of old ones]. But creationists usually say that these
changes are too "small"... The old catch 22. The changes we can
see over
our lifetimes are too short to be valid, and we can't possibly see the long
ones in our lifetimes. Oh well.
*******************************************
Robert Moss, PhD
Wofford College
429 N. Church Street
Spartanburg, SC 29303
Robert Moss wrote [snip]....
I use an analogy in class:
Imagine I assign a large essay, say 3 billion words or so, to my class
of 10 students. I get back one EXCELLENT paper from one student. Another
student gives me the SAME paper, except there's now a MISTAKE at word #512.
Yet another student hands in the SAME paper, except it shares the SAME TYPO
at word #512, plus a NEW ONE at word #5,178,233. And another has those same
two typos, plus a new one... and so on. Is there ANY WAY to interpret this
OTHER THAN "descent with modification"? Make that argument and
then present
the sequence of globin genes from plant through man, and then see if we
aren't
"seeing" descent.
[snip].....
I argue that you are fitting these 'observations' to the paradigm of
evolutionary theory, and that they are just as easily fit to a creationist
paradigm. It seems perfectly reasonable that a 'creator' would use a similar
design (e.g. amino acid sequence) for similar purposes in different organisms?
Moreover, wouldn't it be logical that the variations in the design increase
as
the overall differences in the organisms increase? In my opinion, these
questions are very strong criticisms of your argument. Your argument is
much
stronger when you bring in the evidence of the stratigraphic record of
fossils and the heirarchical distribution of characteristics (versus convergant
characters) seen in phylogenetic reconstructions. Nevertheless, these data
could still be fit to a creationist paradigm, and I suppose that they are.
Another example of this: I showed my botany class the video 'Sexual
Encounters of the Floral Kind,' which is about different pollination
mechanisms and the interplay between the pollinators and floral morphology.
Beforehand,
one of my colleagues told me that a student of hers had recommended it to
her as first thing he had seen that really allowed him to understand evolution.
On the
other hand, one of the people who saw it with my class is an evangelist
(and I assume a creationist). His comment afterwards was 'Isn't God wonderful?'
Both people interpreted the same examples as illustrating their different
points of view, although my guess is that the arguments for either are not
very strong. When combined with other observations, though, one argument
becomes much stronger to me. This is why I tell my students that science
relies on
'observations,' and what we observe. I agree with David Netzly that we cannot
observe scientific theories; we fit our observations to the theory. We cannot
observe gravity; we observe that a pencil falls, and that fits with the
law of gravity.
The problem is that our observations are bound in theory (Why do I believe
that the pencil is falling just because it appears to fall?). We must define
where science places its faith, and this faith is generally in what we see.
Metaphysical arguments are not scientifically kosher, even though there
is always an element of metaphysics in our interpretation of what we see.
NOW: I am willing to discuss this secret with professionals, but I will
not bring it up in class. Why? (1) It is philosophical, not scientific;
(2) there is not enough time to explore it; (3) I believe our students are
often not mature enough to grasp it (I am still wrestling with it!). However,
our students,can understand the argument in bits and pieces, and perhaps
we should introduce
bring up parts of it without putting all the steps together.
Doug Jensen
Berea College
I personally don't think the choice of words between "theory"
and
"principle" is at all consistent in science, and I can't see that
using "theory" for "evolution" is that much of a problem.
Don't
we have "cell theory"? Yet no one doubts it's "correctness".
More important, I think, is again that we make a serious effort
to DEFINE evolution, rather than just have it be an amorphous
"thing" that is somehow considered "anti-God".
*******************************************
Robert Moss, PhD
Wofford College
429 N. Church Street
Spartanburg, SC 29303
In response to Dave Netzly:
Dave, of COURSE science isn't limited to what we can SEE. But what
we can test, demonstrate, etc. We can't SEE the movement of molecules
in air, yet we can obviously demonstrate it.
I don't mean this to be a PERSONAL comment, I hope you don't take it
so, but I honestly have a tough time understanding how someone can be
a "biologist" and "creationist", if by "creationist"
you mean what I
think you do, which is mutually exclusive of evolution/common origin.
Not only is the evidence for "descent" overwhelming, but evolution
is
perhaps THE central concept to all of biology today. Without it, the
science is to a large degree useless or invalid. Everything from
molecular bio, to development, to ecology incorporates evolution into
it's very core.
*******************************************
Robert Moss, PhD
Wofford College
429 N. Church Street
Spartanburg, SC 29303
To Jean Desaix:
Thanks for the clarification; you're absolutely right. It's also
important for students to understand that just because science doesn't
have ALL THE ANSWERS to a question, doesn't mean that science "can't
explain it", and that we must thus invoke some sort of mysicism!
*******************************************
Robert Moss, PhD
Wofford College
429 N. Church Street
Spartanburg, SC 29303
Frank Hensley suggests we have our students separate their "theistic"
life from their "scientific" one. Although I think that's a reasonable
approach, it's also somewhat of a cop-out.
If it means that we accept what knowledge science has to offer, and then
invoke theistic views that INCORPORATE that, great. We have no evidence
to
disprove that evolution is a tool of God for instance. But if it means that
M-F we can be evolutionists, and on Sunday we damn Darwin, what does that
accomplish but confuse the hell out of everyone?
The only way we can reject "descent with modification", and thus
our
"ape" ancestry, is to reject biology as a valid discipline. Conversely,
if we believe science is a valid discipline and can give valid knowledge,
we cannot reject "descent", even on Sundays!
*******************************************
Robert Moss, PhD
Wofford College
429 N. Church Street
Spartanburg, SC 29303
I usually am a reader of this forum, seldom a writer but I cant leave this
one alone. I just want to comment on one element of this argument and that
is the "we cant see the changes" stuff. Listen, I can get some
fruit flies
and in a couple of weeks select for traits which can be make true breeding
in all further generations. We make corn bigger, apples prettier, viruses
more virulent, bacteria more resistant. This is descent with modification.
I dont see how anyone can see the evidence from genetics, amino acids,
biochemistry, ontogeny, morphology, anthropology, and archeology and say
that there is not the kind of evidence necessary to accept, strongly, the
theory of evolution. If this were any other principle which didn't happen
to contradict some Judeo-Christian gobbledygook, we wouldn't have to spend
half our time defending it. It would be accepted like quantum mechanics
(which cant be "seen" either but doesn't elicit the kind of fervor
in
quantum physics that simple adaptation does in biology) is in physics.
Thomas Pitzer--Instructor/TA Coordinator
pitzert@fiu.edu
Florida International University
305 348-1224
FAX: 305 348-1986
Greetings from Tennessee where "Scopes II" was before our state
legislature
this past spring. Not surprisingly, I had more intro. biology students who
wanted to know if evolution should,indeed, be taught as fact. I have been
to both Dayton, Tenn. and the hallowed grounds of Down House, England (a
former dogmatic evolutionist professor of mine marvelled that I was not
struck by lightning at the latter) and yet I remain unconvinced that we
have enough factual evidence to support what we and our textbooks say about
macroevolution.
I appreciate David Hick's (and others) point about allowing students to
decide for themselves after evolutionary concepts have been presented to
them. Why should biology professors debate their students so aggressively
or even stand in lab doors after evolution (fruit fly) labs and not allow
students to leave until they admit that evolution has occurred? What is
really at stake here? Does everyone really agree with Theodozius
Dobzhansky's "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of
evolution" or can students actually learn biological concepts without
such
an indoctrination?
I suggest that biolab subscribers read Phillip E. Johnson's "Darwin
on
Trial" and especially his recent "Reason in the Balance"
about naturalism.
Both books are well written, address the above questions, and are worthy
of
the brief but valuable reading time that biology instructors enjoy.
Steve, Kay, Steven, Melissa and Daniel Murphree Biology Department
589 Deerfield Drive Belmont University
Murfreesboro, TN 37129 1900 Belmont Blvd.
U.S.A. Nashville, TN 37212-3757
(615) 895-6379 (615) 460-6221
FAX (615) 460-5458
Steve Murphree wrote:
>
> Greetings from Tennessee where "Scopes II" was before our
state legislature
> this past spring. Not surprisingly, I had more intro. biology students
who
> wanted to know if evolution should,indeed, be taught as fact. I have
been
> to both Dayton, Tenn. and the hallowed grounds of Down House, England
(a
> former dogmatic evolutionist professor of mine marvelled that I was
not
> struck by lightning at the latter) and yet I remain unconvinced that
we
> have enough factual evidence to support what we and our textbooks say
about
> macroevolution.
>
> I appreciate David Hick's (and others) point about allowing students
to
> decide for themselves after evolutionary concepts have been presented
to
> them.
SHOULD STUDENTS ALSO DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES WHETHER THEIR BODIES INCLUDE
CELLS, AND WHETHER ENZYMES PROMOTE BIOCHEMICAL ACTIVITY? OR WHETHER
ELECTRONS AND PROTONS CONTAIN ENERGY?
Why should biology professors debate their students so aggressively
> or even stand in lab doors after evolution (fruit fly) labs and not
allow
> students to leave until they admit that evolution has occurred?
I'VE NEVER HEARD OF A PROFESSOR DOING SUCH A SILLY THING, AND DOUBT THAT
ONE EVER HAS. STUDENTS CAN LEAVE WHENEVER THEY LIKE AND CAN FOR THAT
MATTER BELIEVE WHAT THEY LIKE, BUT THEY SHOULD UNDERSTAND THAT A BELIEF
IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC UNDERSTANDING, AND THAT OPINIONS DIFFER FROM
THEORIES.
What is
> really at stake here? Does everyone really agree with Theodozius
> Dobzhansky's "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light
of
> evolution"
YES, EVERYONE DOES WHO PRACTICES LEGITIMATE BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE. FROM
DNA SEQUENCES TO INTERACTIONS AMONG POPULATIONS, DOBZHANSKY WAS RIGHT.
SINCE WE UNDERSTAND SOME ASPECTS OF EVOLUTIONARY GENETICS WE UNDERSTAND
EPIDEMICS BETTER, AND CAN HANDLE THEM BETTER THAN BEFORE WE UNDERSTOOD.
fOR EXAMPLE, WE KNOW BETTER THAN TO USE FLU VACCINES FOR OLD STRAINS.
or can students actually learn biological concepts without such
> an indoctrination?
>
WHAT INDOCTRINATION? WE HAVE AN ACADEMIC RESPONSIBILITY TO TEACH
BIOLOGY AS IT IS UNDERSTOOD BY PRACTICING SCIENTISTS, INCLUDING ALL THE
CERTAINTY AND UNCERTAINTY IT CONTAINS. ACADEMIC RESPONSIBILITY
PRECLUDES OUR INTRODUCTING PSEUDOSCIENCE OR PROPOSING OR ESPOUSING
PSEUDOTHEORIES AS LEGITIMATE ALTERNATIVES.
> I suggest that biolab subscribers read Phillip E. Johnson's "Darwin
on
> Trial" and especially his recent "Reason in the Balance"
about naturalism.
> Both books are well written, address the above questions, and are worthy
of
> the brief but valuable reading time that biology instructors enjoy.
> Steve, Kay, Steven, Melissa and Daniel Murphree Biology Department
> 589 Deerfield Drive Belmont University
> Murfreesboro, TN 37129 1900 Belmont Blvd.
> U.S.A. Nashville, TN 37212-3757
> (615) 895-6379 (615) 460-6221
> FAX (615) 460-5458
Dave McNeely, Biology, University of Texas at Brownsville, 80 Fort
Brown, Brownsville, TX 78520; mcneely@utb1.utb.edu
I am greatly enjoying the evolution banter on biolab. As a textbook author,
writing the evolution unit is a joy but a great challenge. Instead of preaching,
I attempt to present as much evidence as my editors will allow me to cram
in, to
show students that evolution is all around them and happening everyday,
rather
than tell them to believe it because we say so. One way I do this (which
would
work in a lecture too) is to combine the Darwinian material with a look
at
modern epidemiology -- antibiotic resistance, re-emerging diseases, "new"
diseases, etc. Bring the study of evolution into the present.
I'm keeping everyone's comments to guide me when I next write an evolution
chapter. Your ideas are wonderful. We should figure out a way to archive
discussions such as these. Many thanks, Ricki Lewis
Ricki Lewis makes an excellent point, that instructors should
emphasize the application of evolution in modern technology.
A useful full text article at the Medscape web site is titled
Guarding Against the Most Dangerous Pathogens: Insights From
Evolutionary Biology.
Another article that is, quote - detailed documented evolution
of one species into another - was published in Science, 6 November
1981. Title is No Gap Here in the Fossil Record. I have my students
read it.
A beneficial classroom technique is to have groups of students
brainstorm testable predictions of a phylogenetic hypothesis such
as birds evolved from reptiles and also the creationist hypothesis.
The results are interesting as the students must grapple first hand
with the process of science rather than just listening to an instructor.
Another useful discussion for students is to examine parallels between
creationism and flat-earthism. In some parts of the world it is illegal
to teach that the earth is round, as that idea contradicts religious
teachings. This discussion helps students explore the nature and role
of science in society and places science in some social context.
Peter Ommundsen
Selkirk College
Hello Labbers. Happy 1997.
Couldn't resist commenting on evolution/creationism. Several years ago I
resolved that issue in my biology classes, and I have been drawing upon
that
experience for years. While an undergraduate, I took a comparative
religions class. Since that first class, I have thouroughly enjoyed other
social science classes such as various types of philosophy classes. I hope
that some of you have had similar opportunities. Take a survey sometime
(it
can be anonymous) and find out how many different religious expressions
your
students have. You probably have students who neither practice nor know
anything about any religion. You may also be surprised to find that many
religious expressions DO NOT have a conflict with evolutionary theory. it
is
my experience that individuals usually cannot be stereotyped into "accept
vs. reject evolution" based upon their professed religious beliefs.
In my
classes, I have had students who profess a variety of Christian faiths--from
the orthodox to various types of Protestantism. I have also had students
who practice a variety of Eastern ways of life and rites including Jewish,
Muslim, Hindu, Confucism, Shinto, Thaoist,and many others. Native (First)
American tribal beliefs and practices about the origin of life are very
different from one another. After exploring this issue, you may wish to
present the results to your class. Perhaps it would be interesting to
develop an integrated comparative religions/evolution course that explores
Darwinism and later scientific evolutionary studies. It would be
interesting to determine whether various groups of people accept or reject
specific principles of evolutionary theory and why people have these
beliefs. Does anyone know of such a course?
By the way, when the basic principles of progressive biological change
over time are introduced, rarely do people find difficulty accepting the
individual parts. It is when individuals lack sensitivity for individuals'
feelings and beliefs that they set the stage for barriers, confrontation
and
emotionalism. Sensitivity to your students as "people with feelings"
should
be a prescription for presenting any emotional issue--from medical animal
experimentation to contraception. Listen to your students--you can learn
much from them.
Sharron Clark
Golden WEst College, Huntington Beach, CA
Dear Sharron,
In answer to your question, the Templeton Fund does a lot with
religion/science dialogue. It has a lot of resources. Try its site at
www.templeton.org.
Don Serva
Fr. Donald M. Serva, S.J.
Biology Department
316 Washington Ave.
Wheeling Jesuit University 26003-6295
As to whether students must accept the theory of evolution to be
"biologists": I must say yes, they do!! Maybe I care too much,
but when a
student has been in my class for 9 months and can still look at me and say
that I haven't convinced them that there is such a "thing" as
evolution, I
feel I have failed on many levels. If their minds are that closed to all
the
evidence and scientific research that support this theory, to what other
issues are their minds closed? Students are future voters and policy makers.
If they refuse to even consider the idea of evolution, what other ideas
will
they reject? Will they be the voters that refuse the farming community to
use
anti-frost bacteria on the strawberries because that genetic engineering
used
to "create" the bacteria is "interfering in God's great scheme?"
Will these
be the citizens that block the use of genetically altered animals such as
the
sheep/goats that can yield human compounds in milk for use in medicine
because "God would alter the goat himself if he wanted us to do that?"
Maybe
I am being too extreme, but I often find the students that reject evolution
are also very rigid in their thinking about other biological issues. One
very
bright students a few years back told me should would memorize the "right
answers" to the questions on the test about evolution but that she
would
never believe any of it!! I am still disappointed that I never was able
to
reach her and to help her to not be so threatened by the theory of evolution.
This has been a fantatstic discussion! My printer is working over time to
collect everyone's comments.
I use the following question to "break the ice" in one of my evoltuion
lectures: "Which came first? The chicken or the egg?" Somebody
always says
"Well, God made the first chicken" and we kinda take it from there!!
And, no, I am not at a relgion-associated college....just a small campus
in
good old rural Ohio!!
Emily Rock
Wayne College
Orrville, Ohio
Dear Colleagues,
Thanks to all for your generous contribution to my knowledge base
concerning creationist isssues and evolution in the introductory biology
classroom. The various websites, essays, philosophies and dialogues I
followed are of tremendous help to my personal growth, and will hopefully
translate into the academic growth of my students. I am humbled by, and
grateful for all your input! Again as a neophite, I'm sure it won't be
long before I come up with another gee-whizzer...
Barb Lewis
Lake Erie College
Painesville, OH
bclewis@harborcom.net
I have read with great interest all of the comments written on this issue
and have felt pretty good about not entering into the conversation. But,
since this is such a "hot" topic and I have a slightly different
situation
than any of the contributors so far, I thought I would throw in my 2 cents
worth.
I teach biology at an Evangelical Christian liberal arts college... so you
can imagine that this is a big issue here. But (to some of your surprise)
the issue may not be what you think. I know many Christian biologists and
very few of them are Scientific Creationists. Since our school is located
just 10 miles from the Institute for Creation Science, you might imagine
that we have a significant number of incoming students each year that hold
to this philosophy. We therefor have to deal with this issue every year,
in
every class. With regards to this issue, all of our biology faculty (5)
are in agreement that our biggest problem is to challenge the students in
a
way that will enable them to undo what has, by default, been learned from
the Creation Science folks. I personally have more reason for disagreement
with them than most of you because I believe that not only is their science
bad (or absent...I can talk all day about this if you would like), their
religion (ie interpretation of scripture) is bad. Because their science
is
bad and they profess to be Christians, many within the scientific community
lump all Christians and Christianity in general in with these folk. For
example,
>. If this were any other principle which didn't happen
>to contradict some Judeo-Christian gobbledygook, we wouldn't have to
spend
>half our time defending it. It would be accepted like quantum mechanics
>(which cant be "seen" either but doesn't elicit the kind of
fervor in
>quantum physics that simple adaptation does in biology) is in physics.
>
>Thomas Pitzer--Instructor/TA Coordinator
While this is not a fair assumption that is made, it is what happens more
often than not. Did any of you see the show on Junk Science the other night
(20/20 or Dateline or something like that)? How would you like to be lumped
in with the "scientists" represented on that show just because
you are
called a scientist. That does not make much sense does it? In the same way
it does not make sense to lump all Christians into the camp of a small,
minority (albeit very vocal) group of Christians.
I am on a committee that is putting together a conference , with the help
of
the Templeton foundation, that is looking at the issue of Science and
Religion. To drive home the theological minority status of the Scientific
Creationists, we could not find a single theologian within Weslyan circles
to defend or define Creationist theology and interpretation of scripture.
This, quite frankly, shocked me given the makeup of many of out incoming
students. My immediate question was "why do our students think this
way
when our theologins do not? The answer, I believe, is the minority voice
is
very loud and their pens are very prolific. Their material saturates the
bookstores where pastors and lay people alike, by default buy them because
that is what the bookstores carry. There are several Christian books on
this subject that do not come from the Scientific Creationist perspective,
but the forceful machinery is not behind them to get them into wide
circulation. (I apologize...I find myself rambling)
One more point before I briefly summarize what we try to present to our
students.
You might wonder how I as a Christian can teach, support, and believe in
evolution given some of the dialog that has occurred on this issue.
>But if it means that
>M-F we can be evolutionists, and on Sunday we damn Darwin, what does
that
>accomplish but confuse the hell out of everyone? (Robert Moss)
As Robert alluded after this quote, I don't think it means this. For a
moment, pretend (if you must) that you believed that God is the creator
of
all things and that the bible is His written word (or inspired by Him
etc...). Science would represent the study of His creation (ie nature) and
how it works etc... and Religion would be the study of His written word
(ie
the bible). If God is the author of both, and both are truth, how can they
contradict eachother? They could not. Why then is there then all of these
apparent conflicts between the two. My contention is that the only conflict
can come when our interpretation of one or the other is bad. ie God's
creation and His word do not conflict, either there is bad Religion or bad
Science.
The Creation/Evolution debate is fueled by both...Creationists making
dogmatic interpretations of scripture and trying to wave their hands fast
enough to make us believe their skilled rhetoric is science... and
"religious" evolutionists who claim that the scientific evidence
for
evolution in some way elevates it to a postion of creative power that
negates the idea of God (I actually had a VERY well known Evolutionary
Biologist that I was a TA for in grad school that said to the Gen Zoology
class " Evolution has totally refuted the existence of God and anyone
who
believed such religious nonsense is a fool"). Two small, but very vocal
minorites driving what should be a "Non Issue". And then there
is the
majority of us (having differences, yet willing to have an open mind)
caught up in the mess of it all.
What we do with our students is (finally the point) is have them read an
essay by Charles Hummel entitled "Creation or Evolution". This
presents the
issue to the students in a way that most of them have never thought of
(remember our student makeup). We then have them write a reaction paper
to
the essay (this gives them an opportunity to vent, if they must....but more
often than not causes them to open their minds to different ideas). We
then, like many have indicated, talk about the difference between science
and pseudoscience and why we will only deal with science in the course (I
of
course offer to talk to anyone one on one who wishes to). We then proceed
to lay out all of the very convincing scientific evidences that support
the
theory of evoultion and encourage the students to think critically, with
an
open mind. We deal with the issue again in many of our upper division
courses in a variety of ways...books on both sides of issue followed by
discussion etc...) Happily, we have had much success with this approach.
I am sorry that this is so long...I promise to never vent like this again!
I apreciate the exhange of ideas and opinions that goes on here and I do
not
want to take away from that.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Kerry Fulcher
Biology Department, Point Loma Nazarene College
San Diego CA, 92106
Phone = 619-849-2651
Fax = 619-849-2598
E-mail = fulcheBI@ptloma.edu
Kerry Fulcher's post was much appreciated. He did a great job, I think,
of explaining that there is not a forced division between those who have
strong religious foundations and those who can think scientifically.
Stereotypes about those of us who go to church are pretty amazing
sometimes.
When I was a graduate student, our advisor was taking some students to a
meeting in New York. I was, it seemed, not being invited. I said I
wanted to go and asked why I was not invited. (My advisor knew that I
went to church on Sundays, because I sometimes came into the lab to check
on something still in church clothes.) He said, "we might go into the
city." I said, "fine." He said, "we might go to a bar."
I said, "fine."
He said, "when they bring the drinks, you will probably say grace!"
He had actually decided that they might do things that I would find
intolerable, and he had decided this based on the fact that I went to
church! I did, in fact, go on the trip and I acted as outrageous as I
possibly could, just to show him how wrong his stereotypes were!
What a peculiar position!
Jean DeSaix, Ph.D.
Department of Biology Coker Hall CB#3280
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3280
Work Phone: 919-962-1068 Home Phone 919-929-1580
FAX 919-962-1625 email jdesaix@email.unc.edu
Kerry --
Thanks for your response to this continuing dialog. I expect that many on
this list would appreciate a citation for Charles Hummel's article "Creation
or Evolution that you use with your class.
Thanks again,
Al
Al Williams AAWilliams@Manchester.edu
Biology Department Voice 219-982-5308
Manchester College FAX 219-982-5043
N. Manchester, IN 46962