Teaching evolution to the converted

Simon Underdown
Department of Anthropology
School of Social Sciences and Law

An editorial in Nature (“Dealing with design”, 2005) addressed what for many scientists is a growing problem: how to deal with the increasingly verbal minority who challenge evolution? In place of evolution theory, some wish to propagate the biblical idea of the creation, or at least its new manifestation: intelligent design (ID)

‘Intelligent design’ is a more subtle term than ‘creation science’, one that has far broader implications than the genesis of life on a small rock in the corner of a minor galaxy. The argument that the material universe resulted from some external conscious action can sound convincing, even to those who accept biological evolution as established fact. Those who agree that biblical creation is not an appropriate part of the science curriculum, because it is not science, may not object to including material that argues with greater ‘sophistication’ that the universe as a whole shows evidence for design.

The proponents of ID are now forcing their ideas into school science curricula. Although this has primarily taken place in the USA there are movements in the UK which support this concept. Most notably Peter Vardy, the prominent businessman who believes in the biblical myth, has launched several schools which teach a Creationist curriculum, under the umbrella of the Emmanuel School Foundation. One look at the FAQs from the Emmanuel Foundation website demonstrates that they do teach creationism as a very real alternative to evolution.

What I was exploring

For those teaching science, the problem to be addressed is the increase in anti-evolution attitudes and in particular the rise of intelligent design. Essentially what I wanted to test was whether I can assume that students come equipped with a critical faculty developed during A levels or must we, as lecturers, take on the role of instilling that critical faculty rather than merely developing it? Is it enough to teach evolution or should we be addressing why creationism/ID is wrong? If we did this, it would mean a shift in how evolution is taught and would move us towards actively taking on the creationists and pulling apart their arguments rather than just assuming students can see the flaws inherent in the creationists’ arguments.

When we examine the public’s attitude to evolution by level of education, there is an exponential relationship between level of education and acceptance of evolution (“Dealing with design”, 2005). This then presents us with a dilemma when it comes to the teaching of evolution. Can one assume that because someone is studying for a degree that they automatically have the ability to critically evaluate why ID is wrong? Or must we still spend time addressing the inherent – albeit, to quote Basil Fawlty, 'bleeding obvious' – faults of ID? To gain some information on this question, a survey-based analysis was undertaken to determine the views of students and to inform how evolution should best be taught.

The study

Sixth form students from two colleges were asked to complete a simple questionnaire. Each college group subdivided into two with one group from each college asked only to complete the questionnaire. The remaining two groups were asked to read a selection of papers dealing with creationism and its pros and cons before completing the questionnaire. This allowed the study to control to a certain degree the chance that the students had no notion of evolution and creationism. The reading material was intentionally selected to be a mixture of superficial and complex information, thus mirroring the experience students often find themselves faced with when reading about this argument. One college is attached to a Christian faith school and one is not. This was an intentional decision to further broaden the scope of the comparison. After completion the answers to the questions from the two groups were inspected with a view to informing changes in practice. The results from both colleges were analysed together as there was no significant difference between the sets of answers (X2 p= 0.713). This rough statistical analysis does suggest that there is no faith-based school problem in the general sense. This of course cannot be said of the hard-line ID schools that follow the Peter Vardy model.

What was apparent was that there was not a massive amount of difference between the two groups. The students who answered the questions correctly were in a clear minority in both groups. This strongly points towards a great deal of confusion about the nature of evolution and what is meant by the term 'theory'. The group who were given material to read about evolution and ID had an improved percentage of correct answers over the group who read nothing. This strongly points towards the benefits of teaching students about evolution and actively explaining why ID is wrong.

Interestingly both sets of students had relatively high numbers who used the 'don't know' option. This would again point towards a high level of confusion. Within the set of students who undertook the reading, only 3% answered 'don't know' to the question “What is evolution?”, perhaps suggesting that the reading had been of benefit. At the same time 59% answered that evolution was only one of many theories that lacks evidence. This is hardly a percentage that inspires confidence in the biology teaching of secondary schools! On a serious note it does strongly indicate that there is a real problem that needs to be addressed at university level if we are not to fail our students, and one wonders if the biology teachers are merely the result of this problem in the first place! Evolution is not as clear-cut in young people’s minds as we would like it to be; it is not enough to simply teach why A is wrong and B is right, trusting that the inherent logic is taken as read. Teaching methods must evolve to combat a new species of ignorance: intelligent design.

Teaching why evolution is right and at the same time why ID is wrong is not enough by itself but workshops that teach the skills necessary to unpick the right from wrong could certainly be useful. This form of basic study skills teaching is being rolled out as part of the basic first year module Introduction to Biological Anthropology.

Reference

Dealing with design (2005), Nature, 434. Retrieved 19 January 2006 from www.nature.com/nature/journal/v434/n7037/full/4341053a.html