Genie's Tips on Teaching Evolution

Dr. Eugenie Scott directs the National Center for Science Education, a non-profit organization that defends the teaching of evolution in public schools. In a recent talk at PNU, Dr. Scott offered current and future biology faculty important tips on teaching evolution, especially to students who come in with misconceptions about what evolutionary theory is and whether it poses a threat to their religious faith. I will do my best to reproduce these tips here, with the caveats that 1) all credit is due to her and 2) any inaccuracies are my own fault.

Genie's Approximately Ten Top Ways to Teach Evolution Better

1. Convey the idea that evolution is a core scientific concept, repeatedly tested over many decades and found to be both reliable and fundamental. Its basic premise, that all living organisms are descended from a common ancestor, is universally accepted by biologists. The fine details, those persisting gaps in knowledge most commonly attacked by anti-evolutionists, belong properly to the frontiers of science, where models and explanations are actively being tested and are still subject to major changes.

2. Recognize that evolution can be discussed in terms of A) the major concept (organisms change through time and descend from common ancestors), B) pattern (ordering organisms in terms of how closely they are related, i.e., how long ago they last shared a common ancestor), or C) mechanism (the exact genetic changes responsible for observed differences over time). Opponents of evolution often conflate these, acting as though uncertainty as to mechanistic details of a specific case or the precise relationship between a particular set of organisms deals a huge blow to the basic concept.

3. Realize that scientists and laypersons use a number of common terms with very different connotations. A scientific fact is an observation, repeatedly confirmed and accepted as true. A body of these facts can be summarized as a law, a descriptive generalization of behavior under stated circumstances. A hypothesis is a tentative explanation of these generalized observations. Repeated testing of a hypothesis can confirm it as a scientific theory - a well-substantiated explanation of facts, laws, and so forth. So evolution is not "just" a theory - its status as a theory makes it superior in scientific parlance to any of the other terms defined above.

4. Don't conflate methodological materialism with philosophical materialism. Science is limited by definition to explaining the natural world via natural processes. We can only test material forces using scientific methods, and we do this by holding some factors constant and varying others. However, this does not necessarily mean that this material world is all there is. We are capable neither of constraining nor of manipulating supernatural forces. God *could* be involved in natural processes, but we cannot control Her actions, and therefore we have nothing to say about what role She might be playing.

5. Know that scientists and laypersons talk about causation in very different ways as well. We can generally agree on proximate (directly observable) causes - for example, that New Orleans was destroyed by a hurricane. However, while laypersons might proceed to deeper causes such as inadequate building codes, and finally to non-material ultimate causes, such as punishment of a city for its sins, scientists cannot. Our secondary causes are inferred explanations for observed phenomena, and our ultimate causes are still material. The possibility for non-material causation exists, but it lies outside the realm of science, see #4.

6. Be able to explain that evolution is not unique to biology. Its basic concept of change through time applies to all of science, from the birth and death of galaxies to continental drift to the radiation of Romance languages from common Latin roots. It is only opposed so violently in the area of biology because it threatens the comforting idea that humans are different from all other animals, specially created by God in His image.

7. Know what evolution is NOT.
A) It is not an explanation for the origin of life, the spontaneous self-organization of organic molecules into complex systems. This is a very interesting field, but quite distinct and still largely speculative.
B) It is not equivalent to "Darwinism", that bogeyman of anti-evolutionists who present it as an evil atheistic ideology (helped along by certain scientists who confuse their own lack of belief with conclusions capable of being drawn froms scientific observations and methods).
C) It is not "chance" or a completely random process with an infinitesimal probability of success. Evolutionary adaptation is due to the force of natural selection - that is, the differential success of random variation results in some characteristics becoming more prevalent in a population over time. Even complicated organs like the eye can be generated by incremental steps, each successive version an improvement over the last.

8. Be able to clarify the difference between the outmoded "great chain of being" and evolution. Although we commonly speak of modern day organisms as "primitive" or "advanced," they are all the SAME distance from their last common ancestor! All terrestrial vertebrates are descended from a fish-like ancestor that crawled onto land, so we should not expect to find evidence that, say, modern reptiles are intermediate between ourselves and fish.

9. Understand how evolutionary history determines future as well as present. Terrestrial vertebrates have four legs because we descended from fish-like marine ancestors with two pairs of fins. We will never sprout a pair of wings from our backs like Pegasus - we can only convert one pair of limbs to wings as birds and bats did independently.

Well, that was only nine, but Dr. Scott didn't have time for more because she had to dash to the airport right after the Q & A. If I could sum up her message in one phrase, it would be, "Information - not indoctrination." Given a few more words, I would add that our goal should be to produce a scientifically literate populace as well as future scientists. We should recognize the need to set standards for basic science education over individuals' objections - but also to find ways to teach controversial topics without making kids from different belief systems feel excluded or belittled.