 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|||
 |
 |
|
||
 |
|
You
are here: Intelligent Design, or Not:
Dr. Strangescience, or How I Learned to Stop Worrying
and Love the Wedge
by Mark Terry
Biology teachers are in the spotlight. As they begin this school year, they know that whenever they introduce evolution, the word will ring in students' ears. The national media (Time, Newsweek, ABC's Nightline, most major newspapers, the President's press conferences…) have brought what's happening in Dover, Pennsylvania, Cobb County, Georgia, and the State of Kansas to the front of checkout stand magazine racks -- and it all has to do with the E word. Students who've been paying attention will be asking "Isn't evolution a theory in crisis?" "Isn't there a big controversy about evolution?" "Can't we learn about Intelligent Design instead?" And who could blame them?
This is precisely what Philip Johnson (2000) and the Discovery Institute planned as the mid-term outcome of their Wedge Strategy: to manufacture a public relations and public policy controversy to masquerade as a scientific revolution, in order to place the Christian God at the center of American public life -- the schools, the sciences, religion itself (Wedge Strategy). Sounds crazy, but it's off to a good start (Mooney 2005).
What's a biology teacher to do? Many who already refrain from dealing with evolution because of their own misunderstandings or lack of background or local religious objections will be confirmed in the wisdom of their strategy (NSTA 2005). But I want to recommend a different approach in which the Wedge Strategy itself is brought into the curricular spotlight.
The "contribution" of the Discovery Institute to quality science education has been critiqued in detail in several recent publications (Forrest 2001; Forrest and Gross 2004; Terry and Linneman 2003; Terry 2004). But as the national turmoil has intensified, I've begun to realize how well the Institute's efforts, and the public's response to them, can fit into an interdisciplinary, historical approach to the study of evolution. At the Northwest School, just a few blocks up the hill from Institute headquarters in Seattle, we've always studied evolution as a central idea in biology while also looking at its cultural roots, uses, misuses and relationship to religious thought. We're able to put Pennsylvania, Georgia and Kansas and all the other related activities of the Discovery Institute into an already rich context, meanwhile studying good, solid, contemporary evolutionary science. Details of our approach have been recently published as noted below, but here's a brief overview.
The History of Science
Historical context helps students understand any scientific idea. Science is done by people as wrapped up in the beliefs and culture of their time as any of us. While teaching the "scientific method" has value, the highly idiosyncratic path of any particular scientist to any particular insight is far more interesting. In the case of Darwin and evolution, it's especially worth studying the historical background, since the idea manifestly grows out of a passion to understand the natural world that was initially fully entwined with Judeo-Christian religious beliefs (Bowler 2003; Brooke 1991; Eiseley 1958). This observation alone is an eye-opener for many students.
10th graders are fully capable of understanding the intellectual history that leads up to Darwin's insight. We get to this efficiently by using images and text from a Medieval Bestiary (White) and a close inspection of the first Animal Kingdom page from Linnaeus's Systema Naturae (1st edition). Students are asked to look at both what is being said in each about the creatures and the strategic order in which the creatures are presented.
In one or two brief classroom discussions, this examination sets the stage for understanding the freedom with which Enlightenment scientists began to examine nature for its own sake. As we move on to introduce evolutionary thinkers, especially Lamarck, Lyell, Darwin and Wallace, students see that the kinds of questions being asked shift to processes of nature, rather than simple classification. The fascination with living creatures is ancient (Bestiary). Intense examination of their physical characteristics (Linnaeus) ultimately led to questions of their organic interrelationships and evolution (Darwin and Wallace) (Terry in press).
As students study Darwin and Wallace's theory of natural selection, and later Darwin's work on sexual selection, they learn that these ideas have stood the test of time as the greatest contributions of the 19th century to understanding evolutionary processes and relationships. Introducing the Great Chain of Being (Lovejoy) through their study of the Bestiary helps students see a strong thread through history. Students see a progression in which evidence shapes scientific ideas, even though those ideas began with non-scientific, even contradictory beliefs, and even though the final meaning and interpretation of the scientific ideas awaits the further development of the culture and more scientific investigation.
In our biology program, we believe so strongly in this historical approach that we postpone the study of genetics until after our introduction to evolution. This way Mendel's insights and the subsequent genetics/DNA revolution stand as independent investigations that could have undermined, but instead provided profound underpinning for, natural and sexual selection. This delay also helps students see the limitations of the scientist in any age -- and why evolution is considered so central to biology today (Mayr 1982).
Contemporary Science
The historical approach helps students see that science continues to unfold by its very nature. It also helps demystify Darwin to see how he most certainly did not "figure it all out," as friend and foe incorrectly sometimes claim he did. He missed far and wide of the mark in his ideas about inheritance. It's instructive for students to see how far off Darwin was, and how his own notion of a hereditary mechanism would have made his mechanism of natural selection impossible -- whereas the genetics that was proposed by Mendel and matured into today's DNA science has beautifully supported natural and sexual selection.The real controversies in evolutionary science today have to do with increasingly sophisticated understanding of the sources of diversity and change. A sampling of current lively debates: How important is symbiotic acquisition of whole genomes? How important is gene duplication, allowing drift of useful protein structures without losing original functions? How important is inheritable epigenetic imprinting? How important is the role of micro-RNA's in controlling gene expression in inheritable patterns? How important is the "channeling" of embryonic developmental patterns by families of ancient patterning genes? These and other productive research questions require extensive study of genetics before they can even be introduced, and, following our evolution unit, we spend as many weeks as we can building toward this level of understanding. Needless to say, these are not the controversies the Discovery Institute has in mind when it urges educators to "Teach the Controversy."
Interdisciplinary Approaches
The historical approach can all be undertaken in a biology course, but it can be more fun and more effective if undertaken interdepartmentally. Students pick up the importance of the idea of evolution from the willingness of teachers from separate departments to share time and energy in introducing this topic. Our evolution unit is planned anew each year by a team of humanities and biology teachers who share in the decision making and the teaching roles across departmental boundaries (Terry in press). The tenth grade year at Northwest School focuses entirely on the 19th century. Typical planning discussions each year revolve around what is most important for students to read: excerpts from Darwin's journals? "Inherit the Wind"? Scopes Trial transcripts? authors influenced by Darwin? And who wants to be in charge of what portion of our two-week-long combined unit? Social Darwinism is always an important topic, but which examples to use, what videos to show? Which Humanities teachers can participate in which labs? Which science teachers can participate in literature seminars?For the biology teachers involved, it is valuable to hear what the Humanities teachers think is most important. Their participation automatically ensures that more students will hear more perspectives that might touch their own interests. And since the biology course will continue on through genetics with an evolutionary focus, we don't have to worry about every hour of biology "coverage" during the two weeks.
One of our most effective strategies is to invite one of our visual arts faculty, herself a master of detailed scientific illustration, to speak from her own experience about what it takes to see what is actually there, then convey it on the canvas. Enlightenment representations of nature, which we highlight through an examination of the work of Maria Sybilla Merian, were critical to opening eyes to the true diversity and, again, the interrelationships of living things (Terry 2005).
It helps us that Northwest School's already richly integrated Humanities program has touched at several points on the history of world religions, beginning in the 9th grade (Northwest School). Students who have a context for comparative religions can much more readily understand how scientific investigation is something different. This can free students (and teachers) to see that evolutionary science has a life, in science, all its own.
What to do about Intelligent Design?
The current challenge to teaching evolution is a worthy study in its own right as a cultural and political phenomenon. As we have introduced the Great Chain of Being as an important pre-Darwin idea, we have also always introduced the Argument from Design, best put forward by William Paley a generation before Darwin. Though not original in the 19th century, this idea was strengthened by Paley to the point that Darwin himself initially subscribed to it and had to write a good deal about it in On the Origin of Species. Paley's Natural Theology (1802) was full of good descriptive passages, good anatomy and natural history, which was then used to justify a belief in God. Current Intelligent Design authors dwell on molecular structures rather than gross anatomy, but the message is the same (Behe 1996). In both cases the useful language of analogy, human-designed machines, is taken to be adequate proof of a physical process, the creation of sophisticated structures in nature by a supernatural machinist, best known to most of us as God. This still makes a fine belief today, but our students see how and when science parted company with this sort of thinking mid-nineteenth century. Individuals, including scientists, continue to be free to worship a deity, of course; but that's not what the science is about.Today the Intelligent Design campaign derives all its energy, public appeal and funding from its focus on a Designer outside nature, a God, (Mooney 2005) not from its descriptions of natural processes leading to natural phenomena -- i.e., science (Ruse 2004). Studying Paley's position in history can help students understand where all this energy keeps coming from and why it is never likely to go away. Who can deny the possibility that all of nature is the result of Intelligent Design? Science surely can't. Science works on the questions of natural processes leading to natural phenomena, period (Scott 2004).
As evidenced in part by the successes of the Wedge Strategy, Intelligent Design has a life, a life of faith, all its own. But we live by Constitutional principles that have so far prevented imposing such a belief on others, who are free to believe there was never such a designer if they so choose. Our students spend the beginning of their 10th grade year learning about the U.S. Constitution, including formal debates on Constitutional questions. Some of these invariably relate to religious freedom and church-state separation. It's instructive for them to see that the issue they studied in September in Humanities is once again on the table due to new pressures to insert religious ideas into science teaching. The text of the Wedge Strategy and many statements by its proponents leave no doubt about the religious nature of this issue.
We hope our students would answer the Wedge's questions along the following lines: "Isn't evolution a theory in crisis?" If by crisis you mean, does evolutionary theory continue to stimulate startling and productive research questions, then sure!
"Isn't there a big controversy about evolution?" Sure, religious and political campaigns to oppose the teaching of evolutionary science in public schools have waxed and waned over the decades since 1859. Currently they're experiencing a lot of success around the country, thanks in large part to the astute public relations campaign of the Discovery Institute
"Can't we learn about Intelligent Design instead?" Of course, we did! It was a 19th century theological idea that many still believe, but evolutionary science is different, pursuing the natural processes that lead to natural phenomena.
The Fate of the Wedge
At its worst, the Wedge Strategy will succeed in "purifying" American public life according to the tenets of one body of religious beliefs, thus betraying the great American experiment in separation of church and state. More likely, it will temporarily alienate much of the public from a solid understanding of science, as in the current case of Kansas, which is about to re-write its definition of science as though all biologists for the last 150 years have been barking up the wrong tree of life (Kansas 2005).But if educators seize on the Wedge Strategy as worth studying in its own right, and develop better interdepartmental sharing that leads to better science teaching, the Wedge may pop right out, as sometimes happens when you're trying to split wood but hit a knot. There have been some excellent recent contributions to science teachers' arsenal for teaching evolution well, including several by the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS) and, most notably, the award winning website of the University of California Museum of Paleontology's project (UCMP). There's no doubt that some of these efforts are in response to the Wedge's penetration of the public mind. If science educators turn to resources such as these and sharpen up their evolution curricular offerings, we may all be able to thank the industrious Fellows of the Discovery Institute and their deep pocket donors for helping re-energize science education. The loud hammering of the Wedge may backfire on its designers.
References
Behe, M. J. (1996). Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. New York: Free Press.
Bowler, P. (2003). Evolution: The History of an Idea. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Brooke, J. H. (1991). Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
BSCS. Biological Sciences Curriculum Study. Evolution programs: http://www.bscs.org/page.asp?pageid=0|31|53|363&id=0|evolution_programs
Discovery Institute. http://www.discovery.org
Discovery Institute. Teach the controversy: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2633&program=CSC%20-%20Science%20and%20Education%20Policy%20-%20News%20and%20Articles
Eiseley, L. (1958). Darwin's Century. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Forrest, B. (2001). The Wedge at work: How Intelligent Design creationism is wedging its way into the cultural and academic mainstream. In Pennock, Robert T. (Ed.), Intelligent Design Creationism and its Critics. (pp. 5-53). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Forrest, B, and P. R. Gross. (2004). Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004.
Johnson, P. E. (2000). The Wedge of Truth: Splitting the Foundations of Naturalism. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
Kansas Department of Education. (2005). Proposed science standards: http://www.ksde.org/outcomes/scstdworkingdoc892005.pdf
Linnaeus, C. (1753, 2003). Systema Naturae (Facsimile of the 1st edition, 1753). Utrecht: Hes and De Graff.
Lovejoy, A. O. (1936, 1960). The Great Chain of Being: A Study of the History of an Idea. New York: Harper and Row.
Mayr, E. (1982). The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity, Evolution and Inheritance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Mooney, C. (in press). The Republican War on Science. New York: Basic Books.
Mooney, C. (2005). Inferior design. American Prospect Online. August 10. http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=10084
NSTA. National Science Teachers Association. (2005). Survey indicates science teachers feel pressure to teach nonscientific alternatives to evolution. March 24. http://www.nsta.org/pressroom&news_story_ID=50377
Northwest School. Humanities: http://www.northwestschool.org/academics/upper/u_humanities.shtml
Paley, W. (1802) Natural Theology: or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity Collected from the Appearances of Nature. Whitefish, MT: Reprint, Kessinger Publishing.
Ruse, M. (2003). Darwin and Design: Does Evolution Have a Purpose? Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press.
Scott, E. C. (2004). Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Terry, M. (2004). One nation, under the Designer. Phi Delta Kappan, 86, 264-270. http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/k_v86/k0412ter.htm
Terry, M. (2005). Art and evolution. The Science Teacher, 72, 22-25.
Terry, M. (in press). Tending the tree of life in the high school garden. In Evolutionary Science and Society: Educating a New Generation. Colorado Springs: Biological Sciences Curriculum Study/American Institute of Biological Sciences.
Terry, M, and S. Linneman. (2003). Watching the Wedge: How the Discovery Institute seeks to change the teaching of science. Washington State Science Teachers' Journal, 43, 12-15.
UCMP. University of California Museum of Paleontology. Evolution website: http://evolution.berkeley.edu
Wedge Strategy: http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html
White, T.H. (1954). The Bestiary: A Medieval Book of Beasts. Mineola, NJ: Dover Books.
Mark Terry has taught biology in public and private schools for over thirty years in New York, Oregon, California and Washington. He was co-founder and served as Head of The Northwest School in Seattle, where he has been Chair of the Science Department since 1990. A keynote speaker at the National Conference on the Teaching of Evolution in Berkeley in 2000, he has continued to write and lead discussions on this issue with educators around the country. Author of Teaching for Survival (New York: Ballantine 1971), he holds an M.A.T. in science education from Cornell University. He can be reached at Northwest School, 1415 Summit, Seattle, WA 98122 and at mark.terry@northwestschool.org.
For more about Mr. Terry, see http://www.northwestschool.org/community/faculty/p_mark.shtml
©September 2005 New Horizons for Learning
http://www.newhorizons.org
info@newhorizons.orgFor permission to redistribute, please go to:
New Horizons for Learning Copyright and Permission Information
