Question for Intelligent Design Advocates from a High School Biology Teacher

[Stellalarella]

I think sometimes students are taught to think of evolution as a rival and heretical theological construct, rather than simply a well-established piece of science. They approach it as they would theology, not as they would science. Just learning how science differs from religious beliefs can sometimes help them compartmentalize 

 

Yes.  And I would add that another thing that helps students in their understanding of evolution is an instructor that does not take a derisive tone towards metaphysical questions (purpose, design, beginnings, agents) or religious beliefs.  I appreciate the idea of this hypothetical class (which teaches E. and explores ID) and I also appreciate the approach the L's nephew is taking in his class.    The first time I've ever thought deeply about evolution was when I was able to ask honest questions and have someone patiently answer me--without taking a negative tone towards my ignorance or religious views.  

 

I think the potential syllabus is good--but, even so,  I believe that if a professor taught an evolution class in a patient, understanding way towards evolution skeptics, there wouldn't be a need to spend much time on the  concept of intelligent design as a means of helping skeptics feel supported, heard, validated in the classroom.  

 

Teaching is both delivering the facts and also opening minds.  This is why teaching science is an art.  

[Ipsey]

There are a few scientists (as in 5) who believe in ID and are able to get through peer review and publish in good biology journals. These are some of the abstracts that I read last night (if I had access to the papers themselves, I would have read them too). The papers themselves do not draw ID conclusions (although the ID websites do), but clearly the questions they ask are driven by a desire to build support for ID. Their questions are valid and interesting, and I am sure that there are many evolutionary biologists who are studying them also. They are #2 in the ID unit created above.

 

If I were to teach the unit, I would discuss the experiments you would need to create, and what the results would look like if they supported ID or if they supported evolution. And how then you would need for your work to go through peer review (from a good journal) and then be replicated. There would need to be many many such clever experiments needed to figure out the answers to even one of these questions. Finally, I would discuss how scientists must accept their findings even if they are not what they want to see. How that is what science is all about.

 

Here they are:

 

What would be needed for a working genetic code to originate?

What would the simplest possible metabolic system for a free-living organism look like?

What would the simplest force transducing molecular machine look like?

How would new protein folds appear in working form?

 

The ID scientists are clearly looking for irreducible complexity with these questions.

 

 

If you tell me what the papers are, I can probably get them for you, if they're online.  I have plenty of access to scientific journals where I am.

Let me know. 

[lewelma]

Have to run to another concert.

[WishboneDawn]

Wow, I am not sure how to take this. If you are trying to be helpful by educating me, I think I already have that covered. I hold multiple upper level science degrees including a doctorate in the sciences. My DH holds multiple science degrees as well. We have enjoyed sharing the comments of this thread. We both are employed in the medical sciences and are required to continue our education and engage in seminars with other scientists and medical professionals on an annual basis.

 

If you were trying to be condescending, then please start another post.

 

Bottom line, a true scientist is always re-examining what is thought to be true as well as the unknown. And in regards to whether or not ID is a theory, one only needs to ask the state of Texas. Yet, this also should be on another thread.

I think the fault may lie with your language. I've never heard a person in science assert that a scientific theory is, "merely a theory." You may have meant something different but it usually implies that someone doesn't understand what a scientific theory demands or the weight the term has in the scientific community.

 

I'm not sure what the comment about Texas is supposed to mean though. Texas, like most states, makes political decisions, not scientific ones. What they have decided about evolution or ID means nothing in a discussion about science.

[[email protected]]

Stay on topic, please.

 

Moderator

[[email protected]]

Stay on topic, please.

 

Moderator

[Scarlett]

Late to the party....but I was apparently taught about evolution in high school.....my mom confirms it...but I have zero recollection of it.

 

If my kid were in your class I would not care if you taught ID or not. In the end, to me, it is a religious matter and I don't rely on anyone else to teach my ds religion. It is part of why I homeschool, so I can be here to point out what is fact, what is theory, and how facts of science are not in conflict with our religious beliefs.

[lewelma]

Lewelma, I'm glad you offered this thread for a number of different reasons.

 

One in particular is just that you are an educator, and I'm certainly up for being educated.

 

What have been the most fascinating findings, in your personal view, that help illustrate evolution and that you use as examples in your own classroom?

 

What are the things that surprise your students the most?

 

 

These are the ideas that my 9th-grade students have had the most trouble with:

 

1) 4.5 billion years is a very very long time. They don't get it, so they cannot see how complex things could evolve.

 

2) They have some strange sense that 'microevolution' is different than 'macroevolution' and cannot reconcile the two. They cannot extrapolate that small changes can add up to large changes.

 

3) They have trouble accepting any processes they cannot see.

 

4) They cannot accept that differences between small organisms ( e.g., different phyla of bacteria) or similar looking organisms (e.g., round worms compared to segmented worms) are as great as the differences between the phyla of large things (e.g. spiders compared to monkeys). This makes it very difficult to show them proof of evolution, because they need to see it on vertebrates whose lifespans are too long for it to be seen in human history.

 

5) They cannot understand how DNA could dictate complex behaviours like socialization or memory. So they cannot accept that these behaviours could evolve.

 

6) They do not have the background in population genetics, which is the mechanism for evolution. So they end up only studying the vague process and the outcome, and can't understand how it could happen.

 

7) They do not have the sophistication to understand the experiment/studies that have been done, so they do not trust the scientists or their results.

 

There are a lot of mis-perceptions, but these are the underlying problems to teaching 9^th graders about evolution.

 

As for best examples, I wish I knew. I feel that the above underlying problems make the real understanding of the Theory of Evolution virtually impossible to young teens.

[lewelma]

No. You have reenforced the notion that ID may be (in some measure) valid.

 

I have been heartsick today over this comment, and I truly hope that in my quest for connecting to students that I have not done a major disservice to the WTM board. I am an evolutionary biologist but I am also a teacher. Sometimes it seems like an impossible task to reconcile the two.

 

I have spent all of today trying to decide if I could actually teach the unit I proposed. And Bill is right. I cannot teach it. If I was ever forced to teach ID (as in lose my job and starve), I could teach the unit I proposed, but I would need to be in a very difficult situation.

 

So now I am back to where I started. The Texas thread has made me very frustrated this week with people in ivory towers who want to propose changes without consideration of the practical problems. As a teacher, the practical is my problem, and it is a huge one.

 

Others in this thread have suggested a very scientific approach, simply telling the students to separate their religious beliefs from their scientific knowledge. And what I will say to this is that biology is typically taught in 9^th grade, and in my experience the typical 14-year old cannot do this. Their brain is just not wired to handle it. I will also say that many of them are prepped with questions from their parents and the ID sites to derail any discussions about evolution. Just look at any ID site and you will see the questions listed. It is not that these questions cannot be answered, it is just that they just take class time away from explaining the science. These questions also confuse the other students. I have given a lot of thought to Andrea's metaphysical questions, and I definitely think that 14 year olds have them, and they need time and an understanding adult to help process them. How I can be that adult, I am not sure, but I want to be. Unfortunately, I just think that Bill is right, I cannot be that understanding adult in a science class.

 

Now to all you ivory tower types, let me give you a picture into my first experience teaching evolution to 9^th grade biology students. I was a senior at Duke, and working on my teaching certificate (this was obviously before my PhD). My practicum was at a local high school in Durham, teaching 5 sections of 9^th grade biology with 30 students in each class – so 150 students. The practicum was 6 weeks long. My supporting teacher was the well-loved football coach of a very successful team. He had no interest in teaching me how to teach, but simply handed the class over to me and went and spent 6 weeks in the men's coaching lounge (for which he was paid extra). The unit I was to teach was Evolution. It was not until the first day of class, when at least one student in every. single. class. informed me that Mr Smith had told them that Evolution was not true and that they did not have to learn it. Imagine it, 150 students prepped to harass a student teacher for 6 weeks. I was 21 and idealistic. It was a very rude awakening.

 

So let me be clear to those who would critique me, that the actual implementation of any evolution curriculum is always difficult. Perhaps not as difficult as a student teacher setup to fail, but always difficult. Let me also say that we are talking about high school biology, not university. 9^Th graders are still discipline problems -- they still throw things, talk back, and play class clown. Simple stated, they are not mature. In addition, most of them (in my experience) have taken physical science in 8^th grade (because they need to be older to handle some math), earth science in 7^th grade (because most will not take it in high school), and biology in 6^th (because it is considered the easiest). So their preparatory work for biology is often covered 3 years previously and at a basic level. 9^Th grade biology is the only biology class many will ever take in high school. So basically, I have only one opportunity to get them to understand.

 

So mix this immaturity with lack of biological knowledge, and insert 20-40% of the class who are ID proponents, many of whom have been prepped by their parents to disrupt the class, and an idealogical approach is basically useless.

 

While talking to my neighbor here in NZ, he said 'you teach kids the science that they are receptive to learning at their age.' When he went through school, science was integrated, and evolution was reserved until 11^th grade. This is interesting to me. So having spent all of yesterday and today thinking about this and mulling over Bill's comments, I have come to some new conclusions. Plain and simple, you cannot teach evolution to 9^th graders. In fact, I am beginning to think that attempting to teach evolution to 9^th graders actually might cause more harm than good. Put simply, they are not ready.

 

So my new practical plan (yes, I am all for practical). Biology must be delayed to 11^th grade for a few reasons.

1) The kids are more mature

2) The kids can handle higher level math, which means that I can actually teach population genetics, the mechanism for evolution. Teaching just the outcome of evolution to a skeptical 14-year old is very different than teaching the underlying mechanism to more mature 16 year olds.

 

Although there is a push for 'physics first,' anyone knows that the older the students the more advanced material they can handle. So physics in 9^th grade is conceptual physics, but physics in 11^th grade is algebra based. So if biology is to be delayed until 11^th grade, the physics teachers must agree to it.

 

So if I had the chance to teach 11^th-grade biology to first time students, I have decided that I would focus on computer simulations as a way to make evolution more real. I have found that kids (and adults) need to see in order to believe. I think that 11^th graders can handle population genetics and all the math that it entails. And I think that simulating the math of evolution would be an incredibly effective method of teaching the mechanism, thus making it come to life. Seeing is believing.

 

I'm not sure that the hive really wants to hear all my thoughts and questioning, but I do think that some do. I will say, however, that this process has helped me to clarify my thoughts on a very difficult practical problem.  And I do appreciate everyone's help and ideas.

 

Ruth in NZ

[Ipsey]

Hi, Ruth.

I only have time for a very short reply right now, not that I have much that is particularly useful to say, but I'm still really enjoying this thread, and I check it every morning to see what I can learn every day when I wake up. I may have more later this afternoon when I have more time.

 

[flyingiguana]

You sound like you would like something visual -- I went looking on youtube for something like "evolution model".

 

This is the best I've found -- which isn't at all what you'd want:

it's a population of sheep over running vegetation and then being followed by their predators.

 

Do you have access to the computer simulations of evolution that you would hope to use?  Or does someone else know about any?  Something that maybe included drift and adaptive landscapes and all that cool stuff.

 

I knew a population geneticist who had a series of overhead slides with cockroaches drawn on them with various characteristics.  He'd draw X's through the ones that didn't produce.  Then he'd put the next slide up with fewer of those in the next generation.  It was pretty low tech, with no math involved.  He'd use it for his talks to non-scientists.  My impression was it would get the point across pretty effectively.  However, that's still micro evolution.

 

But I wouldn't count on being able to teach population genetics to 11th graders.  Most college students, for reasons I don't understand, seem to struggle with it.  A lot of them never get it.  It seems pretty straightforward to me, but I think a lot of people come to it with preconceptions that make it difficult to switch their thinking.  Things like having a deep underlying belief that recessive traits are always rare can really make it difficult.  Or maybe there just are a lot of people who can do math in a rote way, but they don't really have a gut understanding of it.

 

 

 

It sounds to me as if you are running into the same problems Darwin and Wallace had in explaining evolution to their contemporaries (and even to themselves, when you get right down to it).  No one thought there was enough time for the process to have given rise to all the species.  Or that inheritance worked in a way that would allow change in that way.  And they'd all grown up with a certain view of the world that was difficult to change.

 

That might argue for trying to teach the concept of evolution earlier rather than later. 

[flyingiguana]

I'm sorry. This is totally off topic.  But I find it hilarious.

 

Is this the newest trend in scientific publishing?  Pink type on black background.  Epic music.  Visual re enactments.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_cZWElHiXo

[flyingiguana]

This is part of a series done on scientific method and evolution (and debunking of creationism).  I recall the videos being pretty good.  I just can't find the whole set in one place.  But here's one, if you want to look for the rest (unless you already have these):

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcavPAFiG14

 

 

 

I found a list of more or them:

[Spy Car]

I have been heartsick today over this comment, and I truly hope that in my quest for connecting to students that I have not done a major disservice to the WTM board. I am an evolutionary biologist but I am also a teacher. Sometimes it seems like an impossible task to reconcile the two.

 

I have spent all of today trying to decide if I could actually teach the unit I proposed. And Bill is right. I cannot teach it. If I was ever forced to teach ID (as in lose my job and starve), I could teach the unit I proposed, but I would need to be in a very difficult situation.

 

So now I am back to where I started. The Texas thread has made me very frustrated this week with people in ivory towers who want to propose changes without consideration of the practical problems. As a teacher, the practical is my problem, and it is a huge one.

 

Others in this thread have suggested a very scientific approach, simply telling the students to separate their religious beliefs from their scientific knowledge. And what I will say to this is that biology is typically taught in 9^th grade, and in my experience the typical 14-year old cannot do this. Their brain is just not wired to handle it. I will also say that many of them are prepped with questions from their parents and the ID sites to derail any discussions about evolution. Just look at any ID site and you will see the questions listed. It is not that these questions cannot be answered, it is just that they just take class time away from explaining the science. These questions also confuse the other students. I have given a lot of thought to Andrea's metaphysical questions, and I definitely think that 14 year olds have them, and they need time and an understanding adult to help process them. How I can be that adult, I am not sure, but I want to be. Unfortunately, I just think that Bill is right, I cannot be that understanding adult in a science class.

 

Now to all you ivory tower types, let me give you a picture into my first experience teaching evolution to 9^th grade biology students. I was a senior at Duke, and working on my teaching certificate (this was obviously before my PhD). My practicum was at a local high school in Durham, teaching 5 sections of 9^th grade biology with 30 students in each class – so 150 students. The practicum was 6 weeks long. My supporting teacher was the well-loved football coach of a very successful team. He had no interest in teaching me how to teach, but simply handed the class over to me and went and spent 6 weeks in the men's coaching lounge (for which he was paid extra). The unit I was to teach was Evolution. It was not until the first day of class, when at least one student in every. single. class. informed me that Mr Smith had told them that Evolution was not true and that they did not have to learn it. Imagine it, 150 students prepped to harass a student teacher for 6 weeks. I was 21 and idealistic. It was a very rude awakening.

 

So let me be clear to those who would critique me, that the actual implementation of any evolution curriculum is always difficult. Perhaps not as difficult as a student teacher setup to fail, but always difficult. Let me also say that we are talking about high school biology, not university. 9^Th graders are still discipline problems -- they still throw things, talk back, and play class clown. Simple stated, they are not mature. In addition, most of them (in my experience) have taken physical science in 8^th grade (because they need to be older to handle some math), earth science in 7^th grade (because most will not take it in high school), and biology in 6^th (because it is considered the easiest). So their preparatory work for biology is often covered 3 years previously and at a basic level. 9^Th grade biology is the only biology class many will ever take in high school. So basically, I have only one opportunity to get them to understand.

 

So mix this immaturity with lack of biological knowledge, and insert 20-40% of the class who are ID proponents, many of whom have been prepped by their parents to disrupt the class, and an idealogical approach is basically useless.

 

While talking to my neighbor here in NZ, he said 'you teach kids the science that they are receptive to learning at their age.' When he went through school, science was integrated, and evolution was reserved until 11^th grade. This is interesting to me. So having spent all of yesterday and today thinking about this and mulling over Bill's comments, I have come to some new conclusions. Plain and simple, you cannot teach evolution to 9^th graders. In fact, I am beginning to think that attempting to teach evolution to 9^th graders actually might cause more harm than good. Put simply, they are not ready.

 

So my new practical plan (yes, I am all for practical). Biology must be delayed to 11^th grade for a few reasons.

1) The kids are more mature

2) The kids can handle higher level math, which means that I can actually teach population genetics, the mechanism for evolution. Teaching just the outcome of evolution to a skeptical 14-year old is very different than teaching the underlying mechanism to more mature 16 year olds.

 

Although there is a push for 'physics first,' anyone knows that the older the students the more advanced material they can handle. So physics in 9^th grade is conceptual physics, but physics in 11^th grade is algebra based. So if biology is to be delayed until 11^th grade, the physics teachers must agree to it.

 

So if I had the chance to teach 11^th-grade biology to first time students, I have decided that I would focus on computer simulations as a way to make evolution more real. I have found that kids (and adults) need to see in order to believe. I think that 11^th graders can handle population genetics and all the math that it entails. And I think that simulating the math of evolution would be an incredibly effective method of teaching the mechanism, thus making it come to life. Seeing is believing.

 

I'm not sure that the hive really wants to hear all my thoughts and questioning, but I do think that some do. I will say, however, that this process has helped me to clarify my thoughts on a very difficult practical problem.  And I do appreciate everyone's help and ideas.

 

Ruth in NZ

 

Ruth,

 

Please do not feel heartsick. You have been driven by good intentions (asking "hypothetically" how to reach students whose minds are currently closed to learning about evolution). There is no harm in this, or in being open-minded. The WTM adults can certainly handle the public discussion, and you may even get some folks thinking.

 

In the end you concluded there is no scientific evidence to support ID, and don't feel you can rightly teach it as science in a classroom. Trying to think through if there was another option, or if there was evidence that might merit some discussion of ID, and doing it in a "public process" has not done any harm.

 

Over the years, your patient well-reasoned articulation of what the ToE really says (and how it works) has been truly outstanding. You have gifts as a teacher and are a respectful communicator of information.

 

People like you are desperately needed. In the United States, at least, very few people have a good hold on what the ToE really says and how evolution "works." I imagine you are dealing with the same thing (which is why your mind went down this path in the first place). Often evolution is taught badly, skipped over due to pressure, deliberately distorted into something unrecognizable by groups like AiG, or otherwise not laid out as something young minds can comprehend.

 

If you are asking for my advice. I would look at the "issues" (difficulties) you've posted about in the thread above, and ask "how can I make these ideas concrete in young peoples minds?"

 

So if they can't grasp 4.5 billion years, I would turn to a Cuisenaire Rod-like demonstration, "if this mark represents your 14 years of life thus far, then the length of the history of the world is X (and maybe start with X to give you the "scale" and work backwards before the demo)." That might shock them, even if their life is a chalkline thick, and help put things in perspective. Maybe even hike the timeline? Maybe even hike the timeline "as the history of the universe" and then do their life-spans as a "big reveal" after? Maybe they guess the distance of their lives first?

 

In any case, you have made great contributions to this community. I, for one, always enjoy reading your interesting and informative posts. While I was forthright in being critical of your plan, it in no way diminishes the respect, affection, or admiration I have for you, and I'm pretty certain those are the feelings all around.

 

Please don't feel bad :)

 

Bill

[AK_Mom4]

Keep your head held high, Ruth!  You are doing fine!

 

I am also in the "Biology Later" camp, though not for evolution reasons, but rather because I think Biology makes more sense with a background in Chemistry and Physics.  I think it was regentrude who converted me.  I can absolutely agree that evolution is a complex subject and 14yos may not be ready for it.  DS17 tells me that they spent ZERO time in his public high school 9th grade biology on evolution. Zero.  They spent the majority of their year on microbiology. 

 

I would encourage you to continue to chime in on these WTM discussions.  We may not always agree, but I always find your contributions worth reading.

[livetoread]

Ruth, I think those are very good points. I appreciate learning from your experiences.

 

I don't know what the answer is, but I do suppose that, given all the cultural and psychological resistance to evolution, maybe the most a high school teacher can do is plant a few seeds. But it is going to take more than a high school biology class to counteract that resistance.

 

Personally I understand those who resist it due to religious reasons better than I understand those who maintain that it does not conflict with Christianity. I think evolution offers profound challenges to traditional faith, and it is difficult to counter existential threats with facts. It might be possible to correct some of the deliberate misconceptions about evolution that are marketed about, but acceptance is still going to be tough.

[Scarlett]

Ruth, I think those are very good points. I appreciate learning from your experiences.

 

I don't know what the answer is, but I do suppose that, given all the cultural and psychological resistance to evolution, maybe the most a high school teacher can do is plant a few seeds. But it is going to take more than a high school biology class to counteract that resistance.

 

Personally I understand those who resist it due to religious reasons better than I understand those who maintain that it does not conflict with Christianity. I think evolution offers profound challenges to traditional faith, and it is difficult to counter existential threats with facts. It might be possible to correct some of the deliberate misconceptions about evolution that are marketed about, but acceptance is still going to be tough.

Scientific facts do not conflict with my faith. And I know many people who feel the same way.

[livetoread]

Scientific facts do not conflict with my faith. And I know many people who feel the same way.

Oh yes, I know many as well. It all depends on what you consider scientific fact and what your faith is, and that's a pretty personal thing.

[lewelma]

Thanks everyone for your kinds words and suggestions. This is the last day of term for us, so we are off to a history fair, be back in a few hours.

 

Also

 

I think evolution offers profound challenges to traditional faith,

Scientific facts do not conflict with my faith. And I know many people who feel the same way.

Oh yes, I know many as well. It all depends on what you consider scientific fact and what your faith is, and that's a pretty personal thing.

Let's not go down this path.

[Rosie_0801]

I was listening to some lectures on evolution a few months back and an example given was that the differences between a great dane and a pekinese developed in only 200 years. 200 years isn't too long for a high schooler to comprehend.

[Ipsey]

Oooh, Science Friday!

http://www.sciencefriday.com/audio/index.html#page/full-width-list/1

 

Just a short half-hour, but it's on how human's are evolving "faster than ever."  Great stuff. I bet high schoolers would enjoy it.

 

Also, they addressed something I'd learned about in my audiology classes, (ear wax being more common among Asians than in Westerners--in fact, it's strongly selected for genetically!)  Plus, lactase perseverance and other neat things. :)

 

I wanted there to be more.  Maybe in archives later, as this is being recorded this weekend.

 

I.

[Renee in NC]

Thanks everyone for your kinds words and suggestions. This is the last day of term for us, so we are off to a history fair, be back in a few hours.

 

Also

 

 

 

 

Let's not go down this path.

 

Ruth, I won't weigh in on the topic, but I just wanted to pop in here and say that you are awesome.  :hurray:

[lewelma]

Hi Renee!  Glad to see you!

 

 

[lewelma]

The article at the link says that theoretical partical physics is based on a bunch of math, but some of the the "tentative theories" are only now becoming possible to test experimentally. So, was "They Might Be Giants" wrong about the scientific definition of the word "theory", that it means "more like a question that has been put to a lot of tests?" quote: "But like all tentative theories of quantum gravity, loop quantum gravity has never been experimentally tested."

 

Is it the math involved that makes one unexperimentally tested idea a theoretical science "tentative theory" but makes the Intelligent Design idea "lacking in scientific form".

 

Theoretical physics theories have always bugged me,  so I posted your question on the High school board for Regentrude who is a theoretical physicist.  Here is the thread http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/489634-regentrude-question-about-string-theory/

 

Basically, in theoretical physics a scientific theory must be able to be disprooven, but it does not have to be generally accepted to be called a 'theory.' 

 

It is currently uncertain whether String Theory is a scientific theory or not because it is unknown if it is even possible to experimentally test it.  This is under debate.

 

 

[garddwr]

Instead of saving biology for 11th grade, couldn't we do integrated or parallel science like so many other countries do? I actually had three years of biology in high school--10th, 11th, and 12th grades. 11th and 12th were IB biology, and I took IB chemistry at the same time. I think you might be right about 9th graders not being ready to really grasp the ToE. I remember my understanding of it really clicking in 12th grade, when I read a book outside of class that just laid everything out very clearly. I didn't know at the time whether I believed it, but I understood it and was able to set aside theological questions when dealing with science.

[La Texican]

It sounds like what you need is a movie series that takes up the two weeks and leaves only a little bit of time for discussion and questions, and that evolution is grammer stage in highschool- just telling the story so they can get acquainted with hearing it for the first time?

 

eta: you need a 2 week mini-series dvd telling the story of evolution along with a mini book answering all the questions on the ID website that you can hand to whoever asks those questions.

(since studying evolution seems to further scientific thinking and studying ID contributes nothing to scientific thinking) But I would still want to email the biologists who support ID, not the website people (like the guy studying gut bacteria) and ask them specifically what they think ID contributes to their other research to see if you're missing anything. The only thing I can see from a superficial glance is that they believe all of the next mutations are already in the dna code, which, to me, they would be there eithdr way because evolution takes so long. oops, or is dna like the rings in a tree and it shows up after the mutation? (really showing my ignorance of the subject)

[Stellalarella]

Ruth, I agree with your assessment that ToE would be very challenging to teach to your average 14yo. 

 

I'm much, much older than a 14yo, much, much better read than a 14yo, and despite the fact that in my eagerness to understand I've read several books about it, I still don't feel secure in explaining it satisfactorily.  Or at least not convincingly.  

 

But anyway, if it is OK, here are some ideas that I think would help build an environment/community culture where students could be prepared to learn about ToE, even if they had to learn it in 9th grade.  

 

1)  Better teaching in previous grades about the age of the earth.    Learning about the earth's magnetic fields and how they flip-flop was a big eye opener for me.  This book helped:  http://www.amazon.com/North-Pole-South-Mystery-Magnetism/dp/1615190317/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1380510299&sr=8-1&keywords=north+pole+south+pole+earth+magnetism    I understood it well enough to explain to my then 13yo.   And from that point, because he could concretely see how old the earth is, he was open to thinking about evolution.  In contrast, I did not teach that concept to my then 9 yo.  In the present day, she starts to feel emotional when her brother and I talk about evolution and her thinking, evaluating brain shuts down.  From this limited experience, I think pre-teaching underlying concepts in a sensible way is very helpful for later understanding.  

 

2) I wish that teachers would considering avoiding the use of phrases that are misleading (even unintentionally so)--such as "a dog-like mammal walked into the water, grew fins, and become a whale."  Phrases like this are a good short hand for people who are well-versed in ToE or people who are inclined to accept the scientific authority without question, but those phrases make it harder for those who perceive ToE as unlikely.  

 

3) Having the biology teacher present ToE in a class for parents.  Not a debate, and tight parameters to keep it from becoming a debate, but a class.  This would take some doing, but I think it could work.  It's not just American students who need the education...

 

4)  A convincing teacher will not make students feel stupid for having religious views, big questions about how ToE could be true, or big questions about how we know we can trust the scientists (some of whom are really antagonistic toward people of faith).  A thoughtful teacher sets parameters for the class on what will be discussed and provides opportunities for questions/statements outside the parameters to be discussed in another way.  

 

I  think of a a time in college when I disagreed with a professor.  I thank God that she looked through my 18yo immaturity, understood my limited cultural/religious background, listened to me, and then told me the truth.  Of course, she was right, something easy to see now that I am older, better schooled, and more experienced, but I didn't then.  I am very grateful to the seed she planted, though.  Planted with kindness.  I would have tossed out anything she would have said to me if I had felt like she hated me for what I believed to be true.

 

No 9th grader, no 11th grader, for that matter is going to remember every single thing they are taught in a science class.  Many people are going to go on to have lives that will not require a deep understanding of ToE.  Other than the fact that I have had to deal with a mutating antibiotic resistant staph infection!  I don't think much about evolution in my daily life.  I don't need it to balance my checkbook, teach grammar, read Shakespeare, grocery shop.  My husband doesn't need it to drive a cab, write screenplays, edit video, or fix the car.  All that to say, I want all my kids to have a basic understanding of ToE, to be able to think about it and ask questions about it, and to go on to do college science as they desire, but they don't need to grasp all of it.  And what I'm hearing from your conclusions is that they couldn't understand it anyway.  

 

The deepest need is that they would not be afraid of it.  

 

 

 

 

[nmoira]

To no one in particular :) 

 

A good resource for middle school and interested elementary children is The Sandwalk Adventures by Jay Hosler, a rather charming story of two follicle mites living in Darwin's left eyebrow. They think Darwin is a god and have a creation myth based on his time on The Beagle. Darwin spends the bulk of the book disabusing them of this and other notions. (Here are some reviews for an older edition, as well as a "Look Inside." There are detailed end notes for each page as well.)