“Evolutionary theory should be taught in public schools because it is one of the most important scientific theories ever generated, and because it is the accepted scientific explanation for the diversity of life.”

…………………………………-Statement from The Society for the Study of Evolution

…

An article published this week in Science revealed the results of a survey of 926 U.S. high school biology teachers. The authors, Michael Berkman and Eric Plutzer of Penn State, found that only 28% of teachers “unabashedly introduce evidence that evolution has occurred and craft(ed) lesson plans… that evolution is a theme that unifies disparate topics in biology” (Berkman and Plutzer, 2011).

…

Shockingly, 13% of teachers advocated creationism or intelligent design in the classroom, but most (who the authors termed “the cautious 60%”) were “neither strong advocates for evolutionary biology nor explicit endorsers of nonscientific alternatives.” The authors suggested that the ambivalence of some biology teachers could be due to a lack of confidence in their knowledge of evolution, a desire to shy away from controversy, or a conviction that students should be exposed to various ideas and then allowed to make up their own minds. These numbers should make biology teachers pause and reflect on where we are as educators, 150+ years after Darwin’s publication of On the Origin of Species.

…

Internationally, the percentage of the U.S. population accepting human evolution remains quite low compared to other developed nations (Miller et al., 2006; see graph below). Those who teach evolution in the U.S. are acutely aware that it remains a controversial topic with the general public (although not among biologists). That reality cannot help but seep into the classroom. A 2010 Gallup poll found that 40% of Americans believed that humans were divinely created in their present form within the last 10,000 years, which is actually a significant improvement from 47% ten years ago.

…

However, for those who accepted that humans had evolved, 38% felt that God had a guiding hand in the process, while only 16% favored a strictly naturalistic view. That itself is a very interesting notion, and is indicative of a rather anthropocentric bias. For many people, the objection may not lie with evolution per se, but perhaps with the notion of viewing human existence as anything other than inevitable and exalted. No doubt, those who accept a guided, theistic version of evolution would have a problem with Stephen Jay Gould’s famous thought experiment on the contingent nature of our existence: “Wind back the tape of life, and let it play again. Would the replay ever yield anything like the history that we know?” (1990: 188).

…

As someone who regularly teaches classes related to human evolution, I am particularly sensitive to this topic. In upper level classes, we do a quick review of the evidence for evolution in the first week and build from there. However, at the introductory level we take a different approach, since students are enrolled for various reasons and have widely different personal and academic backgrounds. In fact, as the only public university in the city, the diversity of UMass Boston students is one of the reasons I enjoy teaching here. But it is important to know from the outset where they are coming from.

…

Most students have certain subjects for which they feel a special affinity or aversion. Occasionally, in class or office hours, a student will say something like “I was never good at science” or “(science/math/other) is evil.” Of course, when they use the term ‘evil’ in this context, it is facetious and merely to convey that they haven’t had much success with it in the past. Few subjects, however, have the potential to be considered to be evil in the literal sense, as evolution sometimes is (erroneously). It is a rarely expressed sentiment here in Boston, but it has popped its head up a few times. Even for those students who aren’t adamantly opposed to the subject, evolution is sometimes stigmatized as controversial because of something they’ve heard at home, in the media, or some other means of memetic osmosis. Obviously, this can present a special challenge when teaching the subject.

…

At the beginning of each semester that I teach “Introduction to Biological Anthropology,” one of the first things I do is distribute an anonymous, one-page questionnaire to the class. This helps me get a feel for student motives for taking the class, their expectations for the semester, and their perceptions of evolution. In the next meeting, we look at the results as a class. Consistently, two-thirds of students indicate that their primary reason for taking the class is to fulfill their natural science requirement (the other third are either majors or taking it as an elective). For many students, fulfilling their NS requirement through biological anthropology is a less intimidating route than a course in physics, chemistry, or straight biology. In fact, many students are not even sure what anthropology is. Those departments’ loss is our gain, however, and I see this as a chance to teach something really important about how science operates, the fossil record, primate behavior and anatomy, and human biological variation. Throughout the semester, evolution is the thread that ties everything together.

…

One of the more interesting survey results from my classes pertains to student opinion on human evolution (below). Over multiple semesters (n = 225), 63.1% of students agreed that “humans evolved from earlier species.” This acceptance rate of human evolution is higher than national rates mentioned above, as should be expected since this is correlated with younger age and higher education. But what is particularly intriguing is that 9.3% were willing to accept the general notion of evolution, with the exception of human beings. For many people, this idea is too close to home.

I think that our primary job as teachers of human evolution is to make the case for the evidence first, but it doesn’t hurt to be mindful that for some students, this is a new idea that can be perceived as potentially dangerous (Dennett, 1995). Even if those students are a relatively small minority, empathy, respect, and humility go a long way in the classroom (and in life in general). Yet, it is also essential to be firm, but fair, in stating that the reasons for accepting evolution are not ideologically driven, but because that is what the evidence overwhelmingly suggests. I follow a similar approach to that of David Jackson, who teaches Science Education at the University of Georgia:

…

It is not my role to ‘convert’ my education students, but to lay before them the difficult choices that they must make for themselves. For creationist and/or relatively scientifically ignorant students, this certainly means trying to teach them in the most effective possible way about evolution and the strong evidence on which it is based. But for students (or teachers, or teacher educators) who have always had a strongly scientific cast of mind, this means raising their consciousness about the very real reasons that “those other people” exist and probably will continue to do so, both among their students and among their colleagues” (Jackson, 2007: 172).

…

Jackson’s message of caution sounds rather anthropological, reminding us as educators to step into other people’s shoes and to ask ourselves why people think the way that they do. Our worldview ultimately boils down to our backgrounds, cultures, environments, and exposure to (and consideration of) various ideas. As a bioanthropologist, I know the logic and evidence for evolution, and am in a position to agree with Richard Dawkins, who has written with his characteristic confidence:

…

Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact… No reputable scientist disputes it, and no unbiased reader will close (this) book doubting it” (2009: 8-9).

…

However, I know it isn’t that way for everyone, and getting there is an intellectual journey. Biologist Ken Miller of Brown University, who is a strong advocate of evolution and a practicing Catholic, has argued that for many people who are unwilling to accept evolution, the primary motive is not a dispute over the evidence, which is vast and ever growing. Rather, it often comes down to a reluctance to relinquish one’s cherished worldview, usually built on a religious foundation (also see: Miller, 1999). As humans, we have a tendency to avoid making radical shifts in thought in a short span of time. For whatever reason –  stubbornness, or simple inertia – a schism from one’s basic worldview is psychologically and emotionally taxing, no matter how convincing the evidence is that we should reconsider our original position.

…

I know this firsthand, having grown up fairly religious myself. Ultimately, what made science and biological anthropology enticing to me as an undergraduate was knowing that despite our human limitations, we CAN use scientific principles to figure out some pretty cool stuff, such as where we come from, why skin color varies among humans, and why we are genetically and anatomically similar to other apes (and other life). Understanding ‘why’ is a powerful, uplifting, and deeply satisfying message to offer our students. Though this may go beyond our charge as educators, I think it’s also important to show students that biologists believe that life is beautiful too. Evolution is not bleak nihilism. To me, the fact that the fossil and genetic evidence points to our species’ recent appearance on an ancient planet leaves me feeling awed and inspired, not degraded, at what we can know and how far life has come.

…

We don’t know everything. We are only naked apes, after all. But even though we are fallible animals with finite intellects, what amazing apes we are.

…

References

Berkman MB and Plutzer E. 2011. Defeating creationism in the courtroom, but not in the classroom. Science 331 ( 6016): 404-5. (Link)

Darwin CR. 1859. On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. John Murray.

Dawkins R.  2009. The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution. Free Press.

Dennett DJ. 1995. Darwin’s Dangerous Idea. Simon & Schuster.

Gould SJ. 1990. Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History. Norton.

Jackson DF. 2007. The personal and the professional in the teaching of evolution. In Jones LS and Reiss MJ (eds.): Teaching About Scientific Origins: Taking Account of Creationism. Pp. 159-78.

Miller K. 1999. Finding Darwin’s God. Harper Collins.

Miller JD, Scott E, and Okamoto S. 2006. Public acceptance of evolution. Science 313: 765-6.