How should evolution be taught differently?

[Jose]

Of course, we need to do a better job of teaching the science, and we need to teach evolution differently so that it makes sense...but that's another issue.

That's an interesting statement, "we need to teach evolution differently so that it makes sense". Are you implying that current methods of teaching evolution does not make sense? If so, what changes should occur to have it make sense?

I have claimed that we should teach evolution differently. I have my own opinions about current methods, and about alternative methods (which I use), but first let's think about it more fully:

• How many of us think that our high school classes gave us a good understanding of evolution? Maybe if we all think we understand it perfectly, and thus accept it as valid, then we don't need this thread. It doesn't seem that we all feel this way, however...
• What are some specific problems with current teaching of evolution? Let's be specific here, rather than just say "it's a fairy tale" or "it's a religion" or "it's not how God did it."
• What parts of evolutionary theory do you feel are unsupported, vague, or simply "asserted to be so"?
• What do you think needs to be done to fix this? Creationists may say "throw it out," but this isn't a likely option. Nor is it useful to say "teach creationism alongside," because that doesn't improve the teaching of evolution. We need recommendations for how to solve the problems revealed by the answers to the first questions.

[juliod]

How many of us think that our high school classes gave us a good understanding of evolution?

Well, I do, but I was intending to be a biologist since 3rd grade and took AP Bio in high school for which I recieved 4 college credits. So my experience isn't typical.

There is a real problem here though. Teaching evolution is a political issue, and a fairly hot one. I think it is difficult to do anything posative about it in the current climate. School boards do not want to be in the limelight, and so will always seek an appeasment solution.

I think science education is in a defensive holding pattern, and will be for the forseeable future in the US. Eventually there will be demographic movement where a clear majorityof the nation will favor one solution or the other. I don't know when or what the choice will be made.

DanZ

[Jose]

I think science education is in a defensive holding pattern, and will be for the forseeable future in the US. Eventually there will be demographic movement where a clear majorityof the nation will favor one solution or the other. I don't know when or what the choice will be made.

I fear you are right. The Texas GOP platform, and of course, the actions of the Bush administration in removing data from government websites, makes it clear that the Righteous see no need to listen to science, and believe that they should ignore any hard data that shows they are wrong. Unless we, as educators, try very hard and very fast to do something about it, we may find the next generation required by law to teach a mix of religion and alchemy.

...which brings me back to the point, here. That so many people don't understand evolution, which is one of the most fundamental principles of all of biology, says that we are not teaching evolution or science in general very well. Hence, the need for this thread. Educators generally don't know, or have been trained to ignore, the difficulties that creationists have with evolutionary science. If we don't know the problems, how can we address them? When we say "creation is religion," never mention it again, and then produce some information about evolution, many people think it seems like handwaving. Why?

[juliod]

That so many people don't understand evolution, which is one of the most fundamental principles of all of biology, says that we are not teaching evolution or science in general very well.

You have a lot of problems in dealing with this:

1) Science is hard.
2) Kids don't like hard subjects.
3) Kids don't like to study.
4) Their parents didn't either.
5) etc etc...

All worthy issues, but outside the scope of this forum. And few (if any) of us have experience in education (teaching, that is).

Educators generally don't know, or have been trained to ignore, the difficulties that creationists have with evolutionary science.

It's an impossible position to put an ordinary teacher in. Usually, when a student has a wrong notion, it is up to the teacher to explain it as well as they can. Then if the student still doesn't "get it" then the teacher deducts points in tests and quizzes. Science classes, unlike huamnities, do have right and wrong answers, and although leeway is available it is limited. If Johnny can't get is algebra equations correct he gets a bad grade.

But creationism presents to a teacher in an entirely different way. Little Sarah says "My daddy says this is all wrong!" What is the teacher to do? If she is honest she says "Well, your daddy has been lying to you like Satan in brown socks." But of course teachers can't do that.

Teachers can't deal with the problem creationists think they see. In the rare case that a student could clearly ask questions based on such problems, the teacher would merely be distracted in running down one red herring after another. In the end, there aren't any valid creationist arguments.

DanZ

[YEC]

The problem for evolutionis the ability for mutation to add up over time...to date this has not been demonstrated or proven...it is currently sheer assertions and speculation taught as fact in our schools.

[youngborean]

My view is that more time should be spent teaching Genetics and Ecology (Metodological) in biology. This could provide fertile ground for discussions of theories of Evolution. To me, too much time was spent in high school on general descriptions of Phylogeny. This only has importance within the theory itself and teaches students very little about working as a real biologist. High school biology seemed more aimed at teaching students to be palentologists or taxonomists, rather then Cell Biologists and Geneticists. Although the former are scientific disciplines, they are a little out of touch with the direction that Science is heading in terms of work. Now there may be nothing wrong with that. But the truth is, there is no money in the foundation that that level of Biology gives you. So lets give students working science, rather than theories. That is my proposal.

[Jose]

The problem for evolutionis the ability for mutation to add up over time...to date this has not been demonstrated or proven...it is currently sheer assertions and speculation taught as fact in our schools.

Regrettably, YEC, it has been shown. I've even done it myself. X-ray the flies, collect the mutants. X-ray 'em again, collect more mutants. You can do this a lot. It has been done over and over and over, with flies, worms, yeast, mice, etc. It's one of the ways that genetic interactions are studied. It is so trivially obvious that it boggles the mind that people can say that it hasn't been demonstrated and that it's entirely speculation--unless you are using a private definition of "mutation."

My view is that more time should be spent teaching Genetics and Ecology (Metodological) in biology. This could provide fertile ground for discussions of theories of Evolution. To me, too much time was spent in high school on general descriptions of Phylogeny. This only has importance within the theory itself and teaches students very little about working as a real biologist. High school biology seemed more aimed at teaching students to be palentologists or taxonomists, rather then Cell Biologists and Geneticists. Although the former are scientific disciplines, they are a little out of touch with the direction that Science is heading in terms of work. Now there may be nothing wrong with that. But the truth is, there is no money in the foundation that that level of Biology gives you. So lets give students working science, rather than theories. That is my proposal.

And a very insightful proposal it is, too. I agree fully. Unfortunately, there are very large numbers of people who think we should teach what we were taught, which results in very slow change. The "march through the kingdoms" is still pretty common. I suspect that it is some people's way of teaching evolution without ever teaching evolution--you know, avoid the angry parents by sticking with the mere results of evolution.

If we could talk about genetics and cell biology, we could actually get into the details of how it works. We could talk about the real data, and not have to stick with vague generalities due to insufficient understanding of cell biology and genetics.

And, as you say, students would be better trained for dealing with current science, rather than what was fashionable in 1929. I find it rather odd that it's so difficult to change our teaching methods. I suspect that part of it is that the textbook publishers often use committees to rewrite old books, rather than start from scratch about "what we should know now." Another part of it is those darned multiple choice tests that focus on memorized "facts." They don't lend themselves to interesting assessments, and the statistical requirements result in many of the questions being very old.

All of the hurdles aside, you're right. It's what we should do.

[juliod]

Let's keep this thread on the subject of education and not YEC's mistaken notion.

My view is that more time should be spent teaching Genetics and Ecology

That's an interesting point, considering that biology has almost entirely been taken over by molecular genetics (except at a very few specialized programs).

When I was an undergrad (way back in 1988) my class was the last one at my University to be required to take Population Biology. Ecology was already absent from the curriculum.

When I was in grad school up at Columbia there was only one surviving member of the defunct Botany department.

I think it is quite right that an emphasis on old traditional biology would help the teaching of evolution at all levels. Maybe now that the genomes are being finished up it will end the tyranny of the gene and let us get back to the real issues.

(I got my degree studying the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. We used to say "I don't know anything about yest except that you grow them at 30 degrees.")

DanZ

[Jose]

I think it is quite right that an emphasis on old traditional biology would help the teaching of evolution at all levels. Maybe now that the genomes are being finished up it will end the tyranny of the gene and let us get back to the real issues.

Quite right. We who study genes are kinda the guys looking at the gears and pulleys, largely unaware of what the whole thing does. But, I'm reminded of phage lambda, which was all an alphabet soup of gene names (each one given a letter) and abstruse genetic manipulations (thereby making little overall sense to me as a graduate student), and then Mark Ptashne put it together as The Genetic Switch. All of the rest of it fell into place. So, maybe we'll get there. Of course, people and soybeans are a wee bit more complex than lambda.

So we need the gears and pulleys. We also need the ecological interactions, which are the basis of much of selection. We also need embryology, in order to understand how gene changes can be translated into morphological changes that selection can act upon. As I've studied the issues, I've become convinced that this last part is really important, because it gets us past the "wild speculation" arguments about how organisms develop new structures.

[Titan]

How many of us think that our high school classes gave us a good understanding of evolution?

Well, I'm taking and advanced placement class so I get a pretty good understanding. Our book has about 10 chapters on it.

What are some specific problems with current teaching of evolution?

I feel that they treat it too much like a fact and if someone disagrees with a point they are considered ignorant. Remember, this happened in the past and we don't have a time machine.

What parts of evolutionary theory do you feel are unsupported, vague, or simply "asserted to be so"?

Certain formations are never addressed. I have a quick question, my class didn't give a good response to this: How were cells able to become specialized, what triggered it? Because from what I heard the theory is that they were bumping into each other. I thought that there had to be a better explanation.

What do you think needs to be done to fix this?

Remind kids that it is a THEORY, not a fact.