I’m studying for my teaching exams. Sorta…
In my study guide for the subject “Teaching Natural Science – Professional Studies”, the distinguished Prof makes some interesting comments about whether or not we should teach evolutionary theory at primary school level:
“An example of a speculative theory is the theory of evolution, which is a hypothetical extrapolation from variations within a species…The theory of evolutionis speculative for, among others, the following reasons:
1) All breeding experimentation has produced only changes within a species…
2) No fossil of any intermediate species (Darwin’s missing link) has ever been found.
3) Mathematicians have calculated the number of selections and/or mutations required for species change… [and found them untenable]…
4) When amino acids combine, to form polypeptides the chemical reactions are reversable… [blah blah blah]… primeval ocean… [blah blah blah]… peptide synthesis will not take place.
5) Evolutionary change would always require an increase in genetic information, but genetic information can only be lost. It can never be gained.”
This entry is not about evolution. It’s about subjectivity in the classroom. You see, in spite of the good prof’s insistence that teaching evolution in the classroom is tantamount to “teaching [children] to accept, passively and unquestioningly, other people’s blind spots”, he does not hesitate to comment later,
“Teach children to appreciate the intricate, orderly and magnificent design in nature and how everything in nature… was created by God as an interrelated, interconnected, and independent whole”.
Now, as an evangelical Christian, I might agree with the Prof’s views, but I have to ask how I might feel if the author of the study guide was an atheist and I would be expected to give exam answers including his double-standard of what should be taught.
The question is not “who is right?”
The question is “Should teachers teach what they believe; or what we believe; or what we can all agree on?”
What do you think?
Tongue In Cheek Stew 
30 comments
Comments feed for this article
November 1, 2009 at 1:53 am
Hugo
First comment, more to come… my first question is, what are we talking about? “Teaching Natural Science?”
Science is a process, one that seeks “objective fact”. It has very little to do with personal worldview, how we approach life / choose to live. It doesn’t provide guidance for our “humanity” thus, it simply provides us with knowledge. How we choose to apply and don’t apply that knowledge is where the subjective element comes in.
Much of science is about defeating our own biases and subjectivity, the process should be unblinkingly critical of everything we hypothesize. Through that “self-criticism” (mostly achieved via peer-review, critiquing one another’s work), subjective biases and “beliefs” are supposed to be removed out of the picture. “What does the evidence show?” is what remains, not politics, not who believes what and where we laypeople agree and disagree.
As a result, in science class, I believe we should be taught science. While people will shoot me for saying it, maybe there is room for discussion about what we believe about the science, but I feel these beliefs should be kept separate from the science itself. (In fact, it probably fits best in a “philosophy of science” class, which is possibly a bit tough to tackle in depth prior to tertiary education? Everyone would do good to understand the basics of philosophy-of-science though.)
Thus, the question shouldn’t be (in my opinion) what who believes, but just what the current scientific understanding is. After all, if you expect anyone to successfully challenge the reigning paradigm, they have to first understand it fully, after which they can aim to scientifically test, and successively disprove it if it is wrong.
Once personal biases and subjective beliefs enter the picture, the result is lies ruin your science (not necessarily conscious lies). Example: of the points above, I can argue (2) is a lie, (3) resonates with lies I’ve heard in the past and I could argue either for it being a lie or just badly deceptive, (5) is a total lie. (4) I’ve not heard much about and can’t really talk about at present. (1) is an argument in semantics, “species” is very hard to define (want links?): you could even argue (or suggest) the Chihuahua and the English Mastiff are a different species.
Apologies for that digression, my intention wasn’t to argue for one being right and the other wrong, rather just for what happens when you contaminate science with beliefs.
Where would you like to take the discussion? I’ll try my best to oblige and contribute from my viewpoint.
November 1, 2009 at 3:18 am
Hugo
(And if any reader feels I come across “too strongly” above, think of it in terms of “that’s what it looks like to an outsider”, then we can continue from there and have us a conversation. 😉 )
November 1, 2009 at 12:21 pm
Michael
Interesting stuff.
I have to agree with you in theory, but I don’t see how it could work in a science class in practice. Expecially in a primary school science class. Children don’t compartmentalize knowledge. What will I do when, for instance, I’m talking to a group of children in grade 7 about a ‘what’ question (eg: adaptation of an animal to the environment) and they ask me a ‘why’ question (eg: why are species different). I know from experience that simple discussion about the survival of the fittest will not satisfy a child. A child wants to know “why is the world the way it is?” which, as you point out, is really a philosophy or metaphysics question. Should I say: “Umm… ask your parents.” Or “ask your life orientation teacher?”
Another distinction is: What if I teach at a private school with a Christian ethos (and I do). Parents have the right to decide what their children are taught (within certain bounds). I believe (tentatively) in theistic evolution. Most evangelicals don’t. Should I teach what I believe, what we believe (meaning the policy of the school or community), or what we can all agree on (my father avoids fighting about origins by saying: the only thing that really matters is – ‘In the Beginning, God created’).
November 1, 2009 at 1:07 pm
Hugo
Good points… I fail to think in terms of *primary school children*. I’ll give it more thought, and maybe chat to a friend that teaches kids in a Montessori school. (They were taught about Darwin this year, and she did bump heads with some creationist parents, and happy I prepped her by having watched a NOVA documentary together 😉 )
I’ll be back.
November 1, 2009 at 6:33 pm
Kenneth Oberlander
Hi there. Hugo asked me to have a look at his answer to your questions. Hope I’m not stepping on toes commenting here.
With regards to the overall question: I actually agree very much with Hugo on this point, don’t have much to add. However, considering your comment about children not compartmentalising, I’ve found it is often very easy to turn a “why” question into a “how” question. So with regards to speciation, if a child asks “why” do lineages speciate, you can answer without stepping on too many philosophical toes by rephrasing it as “how” do lineages speciate. Because “how” lineages speciate is a well-studied area of evolutionary science, such a rephrasing allows you to turn a potential non-science question into one that actually teaches, that is within your mandate, and one that avoids all of the religious issues. Also, because a “why” question is just a teleological “how” question, you’re not changing the subject, just making the question broader and more general.
With regards to those arguments against evolution:
Apart from Hugo’s valid point about species definitions (not a trivial issue: there are more than 20 out there in the literature!), this is a demonstrably untrue statement. A large number of our cereal crops are hybrids between completely different species. I know of at least one recorded inter-genus hybrid in plants, and quite a lot of plant breeding at least is a search for close relatives outside the species boundary that might have potential useful attributes, which we can try and cross into our crops.
It really is the case that if we use one of the more well-known species concepts in the literature, the Biological Species Concept, it is arguable whether certain breeds of dogs, such as say a Great Dane and a Chihuahua, are the same species or not.
Hilariously wrong, I’m afraid.
Does this person provide any references to these mathematicians? Moreover, the concept of quantifying the number of mutational steps between species is quite common. It is a relatively straight-forward exercise (with some caveats). It can take very few mutations to allow lineages to be reproductively isolated ( and consequent incipient speciation), so this argument is wrong right off the bat.
All chemical reactions are to some degree reversible. As for peptide synthesis, this is only really a problem if proteins came before DNA or RNA, which is not the case.
I don’t know where this silly “information must increase” argument comes from. There is no such argument from information content in the modern synthesis. Moreover, it is also objectively wrong. If you accidentally duplicate a piece of DNA, you are increasing both the information in the genome (1 gene to 2 genes), but also the raw material on which mutation and selection can work. This is one of the most powerful mechanisms for evolutionary change.
OK, it occurred to me after I typed this rather long comment that you possibly know all this already. However, I’m a pedant, and couldn’t face deleting it, so if this is all old hat, please do ignore…
November 1, 2009 at 7:43 pm
Michael
Hugo:
Thanks for the comments. I await further insights with baited breath! 😉
Kenneth:
Thanks for the comments. For the sake of staying on topic though, I’m going to ask you to avoid defending or correcting the Prof’s arguments. My question is actually much broader than simply evolution vs. creationism.
I want to know how (and if) we should approach avoiding teaching from our worldviews. The good prof actually also agrees with what Hugo says about keeping it ‘just science’ in the science classroom. The disagreement is about what constitutes ‘just science’ and this will necessarily be based on a combination of how well you are informed, and how your worldview interacts with this knowledge.
I personally believe it’s impossible to separate worldview from teaching. What I don’t know is what we should do in that case.
Are you a teacher? I’m asking because I’m not sure what you mean by “I’ve found it is often very easy to turn a “why” question into a “how” question”. In my experience, primary school learners will simply ignore your rephrase and ask “but WHY?!!!” again until you answer them or shut them up. Shutting them up cannot be the answer.
Anyone:
It’s worth noting that the good prof is quoted from a compulsory module for all students studying a BEd in Intermediate and Senior Phase (Gr 4-9) in certainly the largest university in the country. His sentiment is thus virtually the policy for teaching science at primary school level for our country. That outta put a stick up the butt of frustrated evolutionary theory supporters!
November 2, 2009 at 1:03 am
Hugo
Tricky…
Science is supposed to be completely independent of worldview, especially if you stick to mainstream tested science (as opposed to fringe hypotheses that have yet to be tested, say). But now you are really talking about the separation of worldview from teaching (as opposed to just from science).
A thought about why-to-how: “why does the giraffe have a long neck?” is pretty simple to interpret in terms of how it developed a long neck. Examples you’ve given:
“Why are species different?” A scientific answer might be: because they adapted to different lifestyles, niches, environments, resulting in them adapting differently. There is no controversy about this within science, so if you were teaching people science, that is what you should teach science says… “Because God likes diversity” would not be science.
On compartmentalising, I think I know what you mean. Thinking of my friend teaching in a Montessori school, they flow quite readily from one field to another, everything interconnects. And the way she approached Darwin’s work seemed really smart to me. They were talking about various things like history, geography and the Galapagos islands, then about this guy named Darwin that went on a voyage, and all the things he discovered and the theory he developed.
Such an approach does keep beliefs out of the picture. “This is what Darwin discovered, the theories he came up with, that is what science says, etc”. With this approach, it is supposed to be easy to teach about science and evolution while sticking to the realm of the things we all agree on. Then kids take questions in an uncontrollable direction? More thoughts on this below.
Some creationists tell university students to “learn the material, so that you can pass exams, but you don’t have to believe it”… as icky and horrible as that seems, I must admit I’m effectively suggesting something like it: people can teach what science teaches, irrespective of their worldview.
However, there would then probably enter into the picture the comment “that is what science teaches, but I don’t believe it”. Some teacher would surely mention it. And going from there into philosophy of science, why people trust science (or don’t trust science, which might be more about sociology and psychology), isn’t exactly something you can explore with primary school kids?
Leaving science class for a moment (so I can simplify my thoughts for now): how could one introduce or teach personal worldviews without being biased? I reckon the best way is by then also teaching that others believe differently, and let the kids explore the diversity for themselves and come to their own conclusions. (You read Cobus’ blog I believe? Dan Dennett en ‘n konstruktiewe voorstel vir godsdiens in skole springs to mind as a somewhat related discussion — how’s your Afrikaans?)
Metaphysics… “because if it were any different we wouldn’t be here to observe it” is the anthropic principle 😉 – I guess “because God created it so” is the simplest non-answer from a theistic viewpoint. Neither really tells us anything, both kill further investigation. “That’s what science is all about, figuring out all the complexities of why(how) things came to be as they are! We can explore some of the details, we can increase our knowledge, but to explain absolutely everything will remain out of the grasp of our minds” – I think I took your question too literally? 😉
On evolution in primary school: while it is in one way quite a simple idea, it is simultaneously also a very complicated piece of science, making it rather a tall order. Possibly at most you can introduce some concepts and some illustrative examples. Dig deeply and you quite quickly run into questions that are material for PhD research. 😉
…On kids asking questions the teacher doesn’t have an answer for, other than personal beliefs. Is it always necessary for a teacher to provide an answer? Is “I don’t know, shall we explore together?” an acceptable answer in that school syllabus? I’m falling somewhat under the influence of my Montessori-teaching friend’s school’s approach to this. This comment of mine was a bit “all over the place”, not focused enough and too verbose. Hope you don’t mind, it might help explore some thoughts though. I’ll try to discuss all this with my friend too, for more insights.
Kenneth holds a PhD in botany and teaches university students. I reckon “The good prof actually also agrees with what Hugo says about keeping it ‘just science’ in the science classroom” might just have him super-frustrated, precisely on the grounds of the prof’s suggestions being “not that”. I bet what constitutes “just science” would be crystal clear to him, reducing the question to just a matter of how well teachers are informed. 😉 If he takes part in the discussion where scientific questions are concerned, chances are he’ll thus be unable to restrain himself from doing such informing. Are there any other examples of similar worldview-influenced-bias in the classroom? Maybe not, we’re specifically talking about struggles with natural science here? (Maybe I should remind Kenneth, FWIW: bear SIWOTI in mind! 😉 )
November 2, 2009 at 1:02 pm
Michael
Hugo:
Great comment! My Afrikaans is pretty good (my lovely wife is Afrikaans!) I’ll give that doc a read. I’m sure it’ll help.
I’m still contesting that it’s possible to seperate science from worldview. You say: “Science is supposed to be completely independent of worldview”. That’s true, but can it really be? Do you mean science as a method, or science as a body of knowledge? Earlier you were pointing out that science is not so much a body of knowledge as it is a method of inquiry (and supporting attitudes). This is certainly true.
Science is like an artist’s tools. Different artists use the tools differently. They can’t help it. Immanuel Kant once said: “Two things fill the mind with ever increasing wonder and awe – the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me”. The use of the words “moral law” betray a worldview. If he were a scientist, this would have shaped what he studied, why he studied, and even influenced how he interpreted his findings.
Science apart from worldview is a beautiful, idealistic dream (like a church where no one gets hurt). There’s just no way around the fact – people are people, whether they are scientists or pastors 😉
Your Montessouri friend is in a privileged position because the structure of her classes allows her to do what all teachers are encouraged to do in the classroom today: “I don’t know, let’s explore” is all very well when you have kids for a whole morning, small classes and massive resources. Most teachers would have to say something like: “I don’t know… go find out”. This would result in either a non-science discussion in a later class (after a talk with creationist daddy 🙂 who was only too happy to answer the question straight); or a child shrugging and saying “oh well, if he doesn’t know, it probably doesn’t matter” (which is not an answer that I could always stomach).
My mother (who is also a teacher) was once attacked by a parent for telling a 10-year old child, in science class, in answer to a direct question that there is no such thing as faeries… FAERIES!!! But in primary school education, as in most institutions, the customer is always right… which brings us back to the question of the parent’s right to decide content in keeping with traditions. Students of primary school education are encouraged both to interpret content according to what they feel are most important as well as according to the school’s subject policy (which is decided by the management body and is representative of the feelings of the community on any subject). Old paradigms die hard, and it will be a long time before most schools in this country include anything but strict creationism in the subject policy. As frustrating as that may be for me, or Kenneth, or you, there’s nothing we can do about it. It’s the parent’s democratic right.
Bummer.
Kenneth:
I hope that you are not too frustrated to join in the conversation again. I value your imput (even the science lesson correction in your last post 🙂 I figure it will serve the necessary purpose so we don’t need to get into the details of how stupid some creationist arguments are here again.
November 2, 2009 at 3:33 pm
Michael
Hugo:
I read that article and some of your (Hugo’s) comments on it. Food for thought.
On the subject of presenting alternative views and discussing them: there is an odd tension in the literature about teaching science.
On the one hand, we are told over and over again to teach good ‘scientific attitudes’:
“The attitudinal aims of teaching natural science entail the development of certain desirable dispositions… [including] critical thinking (evaluating ideas and conclusions in terms of science)… [and] the ability to be self-critical (acknowledging that evidence may call for a change in one’s own ideas)”
And again:
“Children must learn that presuppositions determine the path of reasoning. Only when one knows the undergirding
presuppositions of an untestable, speculative theory can one evaluate it and weigh it up against another theory that is based on different presuppositions. By teaching children to delve into the presuppositions undergirding speculative theories, they will learn the importance of forming informed opinions rather than simply endorsing the accepted, majority opinion. True
critical thinkers are people who strive to discover truth and they value truth above majority opinion and group acceptance.”
Sounds like just the loophole we need, right?
On the other hand, we read:
“One must be very careful if one decides to convey the provisional nature or, as Curriculum 2005 puts it, the changing and contested nature, of scientific theories to [primary school] learners… It will only confuse learners and hinder the development of scientific literacy if they come to believe that… scientific knowledge is provisional and possibly subject to change [and possibly interpretation]”.
So… teach kids to question scientific (and other) ideas, but don’t confuse them too much or they’ll think scientific (and other knowledge) is just subjective guess-work? Right…
The quotes come from the Prof’s study guide, but very similar statements are made in both Curriculum 2005 and [R]NCS. Which means that this is the policy for primary school education in our country.
November 3, 2009 at 1:03 am
Hugo
Slightly confused, “an untestable, speculative theory” – we’re not talking about science then?
With regards to conveying “the provisional nature of” science, I understand the trickiness. But “science’s understanding always improves” is a good way of framing it? I’m not sure who (Richard Feynman maybe?) explained with an example of the shape of the earth. The earth isn’t flat. The earth isn’t spherical either. Both are incorrect, but spherical is certainly more correct than flat. When teaching children, I believe it would be best to stick with the well-established basics that we know pretty strongly, rather than exploring the cutting edge stuff.
Example: “teach-the-controversy” proponents often use cutting edge examples to sow uncertainty, when there are some very more basic things they ignore. (I’m thinking about a creationism seminar. They didn’t talk about “flood geology”, but they did dig into intricate cellular machinery…) I’ve heard it suggested that “Intelligent Design” might be worth studying at a higher level, university or late secondary school?, as an example of bad science. Useful for discussion because it already tries to wear a “science-tuxedo”, providing a great case study for what makes science good and what makes it just pseudo-science. But I digress, point was just to agree that I don’t think this would have any benefit on primary school level. (Disclaimer: what do I know about teaching kids…?)
Yea, it’s both… The method is most important to me, but the body of knowledge that forms a part of it is also what it is about. I would suggest on the fringe of new developments, your worldview could have some influence. (I have trouble coming up with a good example though.) However, there is a big body of well-established knowledge that really shouldn’t be influenced. A problem that religious people bump into, that might just cast some light on what we’re trying to grasp here: practising science requires methodological naturalism. Would you consider that a world-view? The “methodological” part is supposed to move it into the “scientific method” part of the equation. As opposed to Metaphysical naturalism. (Naturalism (philosophy) on Wikipedia.) Thoughts? Is this the “worldview-bias” deal-breaker?
On Kant:
What and why he studied, yes! How he interpreted it? Hmmm. How he interpreted the implications, yes! But contrarian me would want to suggest the basic “scientific fact” would be hashed out by peers challenging his work, weighing contrasting hypotheses, and evidence finally ensuring an objective “best theories thus far”. What was studied, yes, there’s bias. So what we learn and what we have not yet learned could be skewed, but further from the edge, it’s still a “this is our best, most likely explanation”.
What you say about Montessori vs “the real world” is very true. Ideals vs economic reality… resource scarcity is a fact of life. Now the weighing of what schools teach vs what parents want… that faerie example does have me dumbfounded. Do you know more about it? Did the parent believe in faeries, or was the parent rather arguing to not shatter a child’s imaginative dreams, the parent believing there’s value in the child’s faerie beliefs?
With regards to curriculum, I have heard that the secondary (high) school biology curriculum now includes evolution. That’s surely a very happy development?
November 3, 2009 at 1:09 am
Hugo
Another blog post I just came across, while looking for bits about flat-vs-spherical-vs-oblate-spheroid, seems to contain material that is relevant to our discussion, so I’m providing a link FWIW (e.g. if I can’t reply tomorrow night and you’re bored 😉 ): The Earth Is Flat – Musings on the Philosophy of Science.
November 3, 2009 at 1:17 pm
Michael
I agree with you about methodological naturalism. The problem (as I said) is not in the method, it’s in the interpretation. A naturalist metaphysics vs. a pantheistic metaphysics vs. a monotheistic metaphysics makes a big difference to how a science book is written.
Conservative Christian scientists (I have one ‘friend’ particularly in mind) will say that an athiest’s ‘religion’ (worldview) gets in the way of good science, and visa-versa (round and round the mulberry bush until the Lord comes back to tell us we’re all wrong! 😉 ). I may be a touch synical, but I don’t believe that the science academy is a bastion of truth. What gets taught or not depends more on who has the money and influence, not on what’s the best science. This is probably as true at university level (or at least pop-culture level) as it is at primary level (but what do I know 😉 ).
Go to any Christian book store (I dare you!) and check out the top ten sellers. Take a few moments to shudder and then note that they are certainly not the best theology. I think it’s arrogant of the academy to assume that it is immune towards the same problem. Exclusive books’s top ten ‘science’ books are probably not the best science either. Naturalist metaphysics has as many dumb books as religious hyper-supernaturalism.
The most culturally powerful worldview (in terms of money) is the one that decides what is believed and taught in the vast majority of situations.
November 4, 2009 at 12:05 am
Hugo
In pop-science books, I can imagine there being some bias. I can think of some “pop-science” books I read that could be interpreted as biased. Then there’s also bias with regards to highly politicised things, say, global warming / climate change / etc: I can think of scientifically-worded denialism, and also scientific-sounding fear mongering. There’s still the bare science that would be considered pure and clean science, but I concur that it is usually presented in a package with a bunch of additional baggage.
Might be interesting to critique some works for such bias. Especially when it comes to books that aren’t supposed to have that problem… like, say, textbooks. (It comes down to the quality of the textbook I guess.) Unfortunately I currently only know of biased unscientific/pseudo-scientific “intelligent design” textbooks, such as “Of Pandas and People”.
Anyway, I think I’ve run out of things to contribute at the moment. I’m meeting my Montessori friend on Thursday, maybe there’ll be more interesting bits coming out of that conversation.
November 5, 2009 at 6:09 pm
Michael
Thanks!
I’ll have to look out for biased textbooks. Obviously my “How to teach Science” textbook is an example, and a more serious one, since it affects the way science is taught at primary level in our country.
Been a fun rant…
November 5, 2009 at 6:19 pm
Hugo
Somewhat similar to the question “what does ‘atheism’ mean?” – belief that there is no god, or just the lack of belief in a god, there is the question:
There exists “biased” religious worldviews, biased by religious beliefs. Is a textbook that is written without “religious bias” (namely, a textbook written in a secular manner) necessarily biased in the other way? Is the lack of religious bias considered a bias?
There certainly exists anti-religious bias in some books, I’m not talking about that. Is taking an agnostic (lack of knowledge/awareness of religious beliefs) stance considered biased?
Wikipedia used to have a “Christian Agnostic” page, that was a cool one. 😉 “Agnostic” was taken as an epistemological position, a Christian that says “I cannot prove that God exists” could arguably be called an “Agnostic Christian”.
November 5, 2009 at 6:24 pm
Natasha Lawyer
That’s definitely interesting hey? Are we teaching kids to think or to just parrot what we’ve told them, and for that matter are we doing the same thing? Hm.
November 6, 2009 at 5:53 pm
Michael
Natasha:
Doesn’t sound like we’re trying to teach kids to think hey? sad… Been loving your blog lately. Sometimes your little animal characters statements are a bit obscure for me though. I end up reading all sorts of wierd stuff into it 🙂
Hugo:
Yes, good point. Some textbooks are more difficult than science because, at least in a science textbook we can say that we have to assume an agnostic approach because we can’t predict or measure the supernatural…
I wrote that exam today! Shock horror! I cringe inside thinking of all the angry atheists who were forced into giving the desired answer even when they couldn’t honestly say they believed what they said.
The very first question (multiple choice section) was:
“Choose the correct statement:
From the point of view of natural science, nature:
a) is disorderly [already contentious!]
b) is unpredictable
c) is secular
d) has a spiritual aspect”
Now I just know that the examinor wanted (d) as the answer based on the study guide, but I just couldn’t bring myself to do it. This is exactly the kind of thing I’ve been talking about. This question has nothing to do with science. It has to do with worldview.
Another doozy that I’m sure would drive Kenneth balmy was something like (I’m paraphrasing because we were not allowed to take the question papers):
“Which statement is not true:
a) An example of an uncontentious ‘missing link’ between two species (ape to man) has never been found.
b) All scientists believe in the theory of evolution.
c) It is impossible for a species to gain genetic information
d) [Something I can’t remember]”
What’s really frustrating is that we are told over and over again that we are trying to teach children to be critical thinking (in fact, that is the prof’s chief argument against teaching “the hypothetical theory” of evolution).
Frustrating.
November 6, 2009 at 7:32 pm
Hugo
Whoah, trippy! Remind me again who is writing this … (grossly incorrect, “in my worldview” :-P) … exam paper?
(Can’t resist: Disorderly… that’s a value judgement, eh. Nature isn’t unpredictable, and it is unpredictable. Nature is “secular”? What does that even mean? Ditto for a “spiritual aspect”, we need definitions! “e) None of the above?” Second question: hmmm, I suppose all “missing links” found are contentious, on the grounds that there are always people that deny. We’d need to define the context in which we want to know whether they’re “contentious”. Still, by the basic intended meaning of (a), scientists would consider it wrong. “Believe” in evolution would have scientists moan about “it isn’t a *belief*!” and result in a sematic argument about whether we “believe” in gravity, say. There are scientists that don’t accept evolution though, consider scientists that don’t work in biology or a related discipline, but can still be considered scientists, so (b) is wrong. (c) is wrong. (d) is uncertain, but this is looking like an “(e) all of the above” question. 😛 “From my worldview”, which I’d say is one where truth does matter?)
On to the more interesting things: at dinner last night, with the Montessori school teacher and a “card-carrying atheist” that is studying law, I was surprised to find little defence of the “in science, you should teach real and clean science” stance. “It’s an employer-employee relationship, you need to teach what your employee expects you to teach” was the primary argument from the lawyer. Authoritarian style. “Ask your employer/boss/manager, they’ll tell you what you must teach”.
The lawyer is also a contrarian, so he aimed to be difficult. Following some discussion on who the employers are (Parents? School board? Tax payers for public schools?), my main counters were that science teachers are typically employed to teach science, with a headmaster or board or whatever placing some trust in the teacher to use their own brain and field-specific expertise to know what that would be. Also, that teaching in a “Christian school” doesn’t make things as clear-cut and obvious as “new atheists” like to stereotype and simplify the situation to. There is academic debate within Christian circles too, there is disagreement, most mainline Christians do accept evolution (ignoring the fundie “they’re not real Christians” no true Scotsman line of reasoning), and there is personal responsibility and morality. I recounted the “guard duty without a gun” story.
That’s an interesting topic for another day: I once asked an atheist how right and wrong is decided. “The law tells us”. Um… yea, and who challenges the law when it is wrong? You get “mindless atheists” just as much as you get “mindless Christians”, subscribing to their culture’s dogma and simply going with the ideological flow. (This particular person was a Dutch person my age.) It doesn’t surprise me that so many “liberation movements” were Biblically motivated, and any atheist that refuses to recognise this just drives me batty, with my mind involuntarily slapping a “fundie” label on them. I digress.
“If you can’t stand by the terms of your employment contract, namely that you have to teach such-and-such, then resign and go work elsewhere”. While that makes sense to my cold-rationalist side, I wouldn’t go down&out without some fight, that goes against my humanity.
All in all, we didn’t resolve much, and I think I don’t have much new to contribute beyond what I just wrote.
November 6, 2009 at 7:37 pm
Hugo
Ah, just one more interesting tidbit: while the lawyer felt teachers must teach what they’re employed to teach, as opposed to “true science”, he very strongly believes (and has me double-check my use of the word “believe”) that science itself is unbiased. (As a lawyer he has very specific and detailed positions, and shot down many of my uses of “bias”, “that is not bias, that is something else”.)
What I understand of his views then: “science is unbiased and objective. The way we are to present/teach science in schools is politically determined”. Or something like that. Hrmph.
November 7, 2009 at 3:49 pm
Michael
I think your lawyer friend is as blind as my lecturer (regarding science as unbiased), but that’s just my opinion. Your breakdown of those questions certainly brought a nice smirk to my face (ag, pride… sigh….).
I think that your lawyer’s mentality (regarding policy as politically determined) is probably a true reflection of actual policy in our country. Whether it’s right (helpful) or not is a different question.
To remind you: this biased (in my worldview 😉 ) exam was part of a compulsory module for all people wishing to qualify to teach gr4-9 at the biggest (by a long way) teaching college in South Africa. Effectively then, in two years, about 60% of all teachers who qualified in the last 6 years (published in 2005), will have had to agree with the prof’s worldview (at least for exam purposes). The vast majority will probably never even think to question his point of view. Which is frightening to me.
November 7, 2009 at 9:37 pm
The Montessori School Teacher
Hi all,
I will try to explain what my opinion is on this subject but I have to warn you that:
1) I am not a native speaker (at all) so I will try my best but might not always be able to say what I exactly mean.
2) I can only give my opinion about parts of the discussion-theme, as I haven’t been raised with a religion (I am Jewish but not raised Jewish). My parents weren’t against any religion, they were just not for one either. And I am not a science teacher, I teach every subject in my classroom. Reason why I do want to reply, is because I can learn from this subject, as much as some others here :-).
By the way, my name is Joëlle (35) and I am originally from the Netherlands. I have been living in Switzerland for the last 3 years. I work at a bilingual Montessori school in Zürich (since the school year of 2008-2009).
One of the special things about Montessori is ‘The Great Lessons’. They are an important and unique part of the Montessori curriculum. These lessons are bold, exciting, and are designed to awaken a child’s imagination and curiosity. The child should be struck with the wonder of creation, thrilled with new ideas, and awed by the inventiveness and innovation that is part of the human spirit.
I will now explain what The Great Lessons are. After that I would like to tell you how I personally feel about it. And let’s see if my comment has been a contribution to this discussion. 🙂
The Five Great Lessons are traditionally presented in lower elementary (grades 1-3), and are presented every year so that children see them more than one time. Unlike the 3-6 environment, where the child is introduced first to “small” ideas that gradually widen into larger concepts, the elementary child is introduced right away to large concepts – the largest of all being the beginning of the universe. Then they can be shown how all the smaller ideas fit into the larger framework.
Traditionally, there are Five Great Lessons that are used to paint a broad picture before moving to more specific study. They consist of:
* First Great Lesson – Coming of the Universe and the Earth
* Second Great Lesson – Coming of Life
* Third Great Lesson – Coming of Human Beings
* Fourth Great Lesson – Communication in Signs
* Fifth Great Lesson – The Story of Numbers
The First Great Lesson is the most memorable and is often done on the very first day of school. It involves the use of a balloon and gold stars to tell the story of the beginning of the universe. This lesson also includes some demonstrations using solids and liquids to show how the continents and oceans first came together.
This lesson leads to the study of:
* Astronomy: solar system, stars, galaxies, comets, constellations
* Meteorology: wind, currents, weather, fronts, erosion, water cycle, clouds, glaciers
* Chemistry: states of matter, changes, mixtures, reactions, elements, atoms, periodic table, compounds, molecules, chemical formulas, equations, lab work, experimentation
* Physics: magnetism, electricity, gravity, energy, light, sound, heat, friction, motion, experimentation
* Geology: types of rocks, minerals, land forms, volcanoes, earthquakes, plate tectonics, ice ages, eras of the earth
* Geography: maps, globes, latitude/longitude, climates, land/water form names, continent and country research
Maria Montessori (August 31, 1870 – May 6, 1952) was devoutly religious, and brought many of her beliefs into the Great Lessons. These lessons came about back when religious beliefs were an accepted, natural part of everyday life (including schools). Things are different today, and they (Montessori studies) say that if someone is teaching at a school, he/she will probably want to stick to a factual account of the beginning of the universe. If a person is home schooling, it will be easier to tailor the lesson to the own family’s religious beliefs.
The Second Great Lesson involves the coming of life. This lesson revolves around the Time line of Life, a long chart with pictures and information about micro-organisms, plants, and animals that have lived (or now live) on the earth. The great diversity of life is emphasized, and special care is paid to the “jobs” that each living thing does to contribute to life on earth.
This lesson leads to the study of:
* Biology: cells, organized groups, five kingdoms, specimens, dissection, observation, use of microscope
* Botany: study of plants, classification, functions, parts of plants (seed, fruit, leaf, stem, root, flower), types of plants
* Habitats: location, characteristics, food chains/webs, symbiosis, adaptation, ecosystems, conservation
* Ancient Life: eras of the earth, evolution, extinction, fossil records, excavation
* Animals: classification, needs, similarities/differences, human systems, nutrition, hygiene
* Monera, Protista, and Fungi Kingdoms: what they are, classification, observation
The next Great Lesson is the Coming of Human Beings. This lesson involves a time line with a tool and a human hand to talk about the three gifts that make humans special: a mind to imagine, a hand to do work, and a heart that can love. This lesson will lead children to study the beginning of civilizations and the needs of early humans.
This lesson leads to the study of:
* History: time lines, prehistory, ancient civilizations, world history, history of specific countries and continents
* Culture: art, artists, music, composers, dance, drama, architecture, design, philosophy, religion, grace and courtesy
* Social Studies: current events, government, economics, commerce, volunteering & charity
* Discovery & Invention: scientists, inventors, scientific method, inventions, simple machines
The Fourth Great Lesson is the Story of Writing, sometimes called Communication in Signs. The Fifth Great Lesson is The Story of Numbers, also called the History of Mathematics.
Now, in the Netherlands you can decide to send your child(ren) to a Christian or Catholic school and I don’t think they will teach the kids about evolution (I say ‘think’ because I can only speak from some schools, I don’t know all of them).
At my Montessori school there are families with many different religions. They have chosen for the Montessori philosophy and so they have accepted that their children will learn about these subjects.
Still, last school year, when I was teaching about evolution, adaptation, Darwin, there were parents that told us that they were a bit shocked about what stories we had been telling their children. One of them said; Evolution is not proven, there is as much proof that it’s true as proof that it isn’t true. (It was tempting to say the same about their belief – Christianity) :-).
How did I deal with this theme in my class? Well, to be honest, I didn’t really have a lot of knowledge about this subject (evolution versus creationism) myself and so I had some discussions with a ‘discussion-monster’ 🙂 friend. That helped. After thinking about it I said out loud that some people believe in a world that have been created and some people that believe in evolution. I got a really loud BOO from all the scientist friends around me (including my partner).
But although I think (know) evolution is proven… facts…. not discussable. Fact is that I have parents at my school that have different beliefs and I rather give the children options to ‘believe’ in than tell them my opinion. Example: If they ask me if I believe in life after death (heaven, reincarnation, whatever) I won’t tell them directly what I believe. I would explain to them what different people believe. I want to raise them (as a teacher) to critical and self thinking human beings that learn to make an own choice. If they ask me what I believe in, then I would tell them.
I think there are schools where you have to teach what the school board tells you to teach. If you don’t, they might fire you. Therefore I think it is important to find a school where the school philosophy is similar to yours. Usually the school has already decided what their philosophy is, even before you started to work there. For example, I would never work at an Islamic school, as I don’t agree with their philosophy.
Now, looking back to what I have been writing. I am not even sure if this has been useful for the development of this discussion. If so, please delete this comment. 🙂 I think it must be difficult to teach something that you don’t believe in, and I couldn’t. But if a school would tell me I could choose what to teach, I would probably STILL choose to teach the children about what different people think. And although that would make it hard to actually teach science, I would teach science as it is – science. I would leave the discussion to what different people think about science for another subject and time.
(Sorry for babbling on!) Joëlle
November 8, 2009 at 4:16 am
Hugo
FWIW, I feel I should point out that my previous comment was written quickly without much care for nuance, explicitly focusing on the views I have not been representing/arguing myself. Thus, it presents as plain and simple a caricature as I could quickly sketch, focusing explicitly on a disagreeing (with me) viewpoint, ignoring the nuance that was indeed present in the conversation.
November 8, 2009 at 12:54 pm
Michael
The Montessori Teacher:
Thanks for the comment. It’s an interesting approach. I think that you made the right choice in spite of all the boos. 😉
Anyone:
From what we have discussed, it seems that that:
1) We should assume a naturalistic stance in teaching science in general, since this is necessary to the nature of science.
2) Questions that go beyond what science can answer on its own should not be brought up as science, but when children bring up these issues, we should explain that this is not so much a science question as it is a philosophical or faith question and that different people believe different things about this.
3) We should respect the parent’s right to decide what their children should learn, as discribed in the subject policy of the given school.
Using evolution as a handy example: The theory of evolution is generally accepted as the means of the origin of life. Thus, a naturalistic approach means that we should assume its truth. However, there are questions regarding the destiny of mankind, the meaning of life etc. and even the source of the origin of life (no source/ Design/ dumb luck) which should not be taught as science, but when brought up, should be discussed as a belief. The teacher’s own conscience, the school policy, and the nature of the school (eg: is it a private evangelical Christian school) will guide the teacher as to how to approach this (non-science) discussion in the classroom.
Fair enough?
November 8, 2009 at 12:59 pm
Michael
Of course, if parents disagree with evolution / creationism entirely, they have the right to object to you teaching their kids on the subject and you will have to respect their wishes.
November 8, 2009 at 1:05 pm
Hugo
Your “Fair enough?” comment has me responding with “that sounds good to me”.
Your amendment has me uncomfortable. 😉 Evolution as a theory exists, “there exists such a theory as evolution” is something you should be able to tell kids? I guess I know what you mean though, if parents don’t want their kids exposed to 40 hours of investigation of the theory of evolution, and the school’s policy supports those parents, you will have to respect that?
And if it is a public school for which it is a known/given fact that they teach evolution in the curriculum, then you need not respect the parent’s wishes, because the parents may instead move their kids into a school where that isn’t the case? (What if all the other options are too expensive, because they’re private? Hypothetical…)
November 9, 2009 at 5:50 pm
Michael
That’s about right! Thanks for following this conversation with me, it has been very helpful!
November 10, 2009 at 12:39 am
The Montessori School Teacher
I think that you can also ‘not respect’ the parent’s wishes at a private school. It’s the choice of the school leaders, who usually have spend a lot of money to build the school. If parents don’t agree with the school’s curriculum, they should find another school. If those parents (I was telling you about before) would tell me to teach about creationism, I would not do this (and I know my school leaders wouldn’t want me to do this either). So, that is black and white. But I am always trying to look for a compromise. And I think that is what I ended up doing.
Hugo: if parents don’t want their kids exposed to 40 hours of investigation of the theory of evolution, and the school’s policy supports those parents, you will have to respect that?
No, you don’t have to respect that. What I meant is that I respect their opinion. So if they tell me that they don’t think evolution theory is a proven thing, I am not going to discuss this. Still, her son had to listen to my lessons and came home with questions and new thoughts. That is something they had to accept. The only reason why we both could raise their child together was because I respect their believe and they respect the school’s philosophy.
Joëlle
November 13, 2009 at 1:02 am
Hugo
Ek het gedink Cobus se blog post gerig aan George Claassen werp dalk nog lig op hierdie onderwerp:
(Ek skryf sommer in Afrikaans, omdat daardie ook in Afrikaans geskryf is…)
November 13, 2009 at 7:57 pm
Michael
Great stuff. thanks!
November 13, 2009 at 9:23 pm
Natasha Lawyer
Michael I think part of the fun of the obscure things my little charachters say is that you can read strange things into it, ha. Glad you’re enjoying the blog.
Also this is a pretty epic comment relpy string.