While God Is Watching:

Teaching Scientific and Critical Thinking to Young Teens

Every classroom is an incredible mix of students from many different personal, cultural and religious traditions.  Teachers have to teach to all of these traditions and disrespect none of them.  Carefully sticking to subject matter avoids many conflicts in these areas but inquisitive students have a way of bringing the ideas that matter most to them (their traditions) to the classroom, whatever the official subject matter.

Consider for a moment all the individual creation stories, particular to each religion.  How does one teach the scientific “creation” story and other aspects of science to these many different students?

It is common in skeptical and scientific circles to argue with and disparage belief in God (e.g. Richard Dawkins’ book, “The God Delusion” and Michael Shermer’s article, “Is God Dying?” scientificamerican.com/article/is-god-dying/).  There are hundreds of books and thousands of articles in which scientists question the belief in God.  For scientists and especially for science educators, this is a fool’s errand, but this kind of confrontation is very popular right now.

The rationale is that if one is going to question ideas and beliefs for which there is no measurable scientific evidence, like flying saucers, ghosts and psychics, then why not go to the heart of the matter and question a basic belief of most people, the belief in God.

This is all well and good when adults get together to question, explore, educate, argue different points of view and learn.  Dr. Harriet Hall does a good analysis of how to talk to someone who is mixing their personal beliefs and science in this post:  https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/answering-cancer-quackery-the-sophisticated-approach-to-true-believers/

However, questioning and arguing basic belief systems is absolutely not appropriate when teaching children. Teaching young children is sacred ground, a careful intrusion into the relationship between parent and child.  Parents and society have let teachers enter this sacred ground only after a careful vetting process.

A young teen has usually developed their sense of self into a belief system of some sort.  It may be religious or it may not but it explains their world and their relationship to their world.  What these children don’t have at this age is an adult system of knowledge, a large amount of experience and a variety of different technical skills, so their belief systems are more important and essential to them because that’s how they make meaning at this point in their lives.

In this context, arguing with a child over personal beliefs is not appropriate for two reasons:

–  Childrens’ beliefs are tied to their sense of self which no teacher has any business questioning and which is properly the realm of parental influence.

–  Teachers should be teaching subject matter, technical skills and how to use that subject matter in practical application and should not be teaching their personal opinions and beliefs about religion or politics.

In past years, there have been Young Earth Creationist students in my classes.  These religious beliefs are antithetical to the study of biology, since the scientific theory of Evolution is the cornerstone of biology.  So what happens in these situations?  The teacher must draw clear lines between personal belief and the scientific discussion of evidence.  Also, the teacher must defend the student’s right to their personal beliefs even while curtailing their discussion in science class.

As a society, we are very careful to separate church and state (that is, religion and politics) because of the obvious pitfalls that this has caused historically and even presently (Crusades and Jihads).  In addition, we also separate out the relatively new “third rail” of American life: Science.  We have a wonderfully tolerant society in which scientists can be deeply religious, religious people can be expertly scientific and anyone can be of any political party.  Most people in our society, who are not radicalized by their belief system, will usually take evidence based, scientific explanations as far as they will go and then assign any further explanations to the Deity.  This relationship, between science and religion, seems to work pretty well for many people.

This paragraph from Steve Novella’s article, “Trying to Impose Religion on Medicine”, (https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/), correctly outlines the separation between science and religion:

“One of the major themes of science-based medicine (unsurprisingly) is that medicine should be based on science. We consider ourselves specialists in a larger movement defending science in general from mysticism, superstition, and spiritualism. We are not against anyone’s personal belief, and are officially agnostic toward any faith (as is science itself), but will vigorously defend science from any intrusion into its proper realm.”

Some teachers can divert from course material to teach their personal religious beliefs and political opinions.  Their personal beliefs might be great ideas like the political environmental movement or the religious Great Peace of Gandhi but the specifics don’t really matter.  The course, whatever the subject, can quickly become an opinion and belief class, to the detriment of the students’ learning the course methodology and material.

In college, my son was repeatedly told in History and Political Science classes that he should vote the Democratic Party line and that if he didn’t, he was beyond ignorant and consigning the country to a fate worse than death, etc.  The fact that most college professors identify as Democrats should not affect the teaching of historical or political science material and methodology.

Good teachers teach methodology and skills and then leave it up to the students to find their way, questioning and balancing opposing points of view.

At a recent science conference, a young college professor asked a panel, “How does one keep from arguing beliefs when trying to teach a science class?” My answer to that question would be to create a safe, non-threatening environment for class discussion and never to argue with students about their beliefs. This is how I do it:

“Your beliefs are your own.  No one can tell you what to believe, least of all me”.

“This is a class about evidence, how to examine it and how to question it.  The entire process of science is directed at attempting to remove belief, opinion and personal experience from the examination of evidence.”

“Learn the Science and believe what you want.  You’re going to do that anyway.”

This works well with children but the larger point here is that science oriented people shouldn’t be arguing against people’s deeply held beliefs, whether those people are children or adults.  Arguing against a person’s life long belief in their God or their religion is a lose/lose, zero sum argument and pointless conversation.  As Neil deGrasse Tyson said, when chiding Richard Dawkins about his acerbic style in his role as a science educator, “You can attract more bees with honey than with vinegar”.

Even when Jehovah’s Witnesses come to my door (two or more adults, ready, willing and able to talk about religion), I don’t argue with them about their religion or their bible.  I try to engage them about how they know what they know and how they are examining evidence.  Topics like circular reasoning, self-validation and removing personal bias from an investigation form the core of my discussion.  My wife says that we are the only home from which the frustrated Witnesses eventually flee, “He’s more committed than a Mormon: he’s a scientist!”

Most people are very willing to separate Science and how the world works from their personal religious beliefs.  Talking about scientific methodology, how it works and how it doesn’t work, how to examine evidence and how we can often deceive ourselves by confirming our own biases, leaves an adult or a child with the proper tools to make their own meaning out of their relationship to the world.

 

Victor Dominocielo, M.A. 7/1/2015

Victor Dominocielo, M.A., a California-credentialed teacher for 38 years, is the human biology and health teacher at a local school.  He earned his Master of Arts degree in Education from UCSB.  The opinions expressed are his own.

 

 

 

 

Scientific Literacy

 

Two scientists from Lawrence Livermore Labs (LLL) excitedly called James Randi (James Randi Educational Foundation) and said that he would have to forfeit the one million dollar prize money that he offers for proof of any psychic phenomenon.  In this case the scientists had “verified” an instance of telekinesis using only the power of the mind.  Randi listened to their description and was immediately able to duplicate the trick that had fooled the PhD physicists.  That video is available here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbwWL5ezA4g.

 

LLL is chock full of the best scientists on earth.  It is the poster child for Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) education which is currently emphasized in our school system.  The scientists who were fooled by the magicians trick are outstanding engineers, chemists and physicists in their particular fields of study.

 

But isn’t there something very wrong with this situation: PhD level scientists who can’t tell the difference between an astounding brain function discovery and a simple magic trick?  My 13 year old students would have known immediately that they were observing a trick.  They might not have known how to explain the trick but they would have known that it was a trick by simply asking the, “What’s more likely?” question.  What am I more likely observing, a new superpower of the mind or a magicians trick?

 

I can only conclude that being awarded a PhD in a scientific field of study is no guarantee of scientific literacy.  I can only fault myself and other science educators for producing PhD level scientists who are not able to distinguish between scientific and non-scientific processes.  This is a blatant lapse of basic science education.

“It is possible for a student to accumulate a fairly sizable science knowledge base without learning how to properly distinguish between reputable science and pseudoscience”. (“Science Education Is No Guarantee of Skepticism”, Walker, Hoekstra, Vogel), http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/12-03-07/#feature

Instead of being taught a broad understanding of the use of scientific thinking in everyday life, these scientists are the product of an educational system that focuses on the narrow application of laboratory skills.  Experimental laboratory skills are certainly very important but not at the expense of ignoring the application of scientific thinking in all areas of life.  What is needed is an appreciation and an in depth understanding of Scientific Literacy.

 

Scientific literacy is a functional competency in the methodology of science.  In a practical sense, it is comprised of:

 

• Awareness of the strengths and weaknesses of the basic tool used to gather scientific information: your brain. Includes common cognitive mistakes and fallacies which influence the gathering of scientific evidence.
• Ability to recognize the difference between scientific and non-scientific processes.
• Ability to apply the scientific process in the observation and examination of evidence.
• Ability to evaluate the quality of scientific information on the basis of its source and methods.

Ask any science teacher about the most important and critical skill in science and each and every one of us would definitively say, “experimentation”.  As this rationale became incorporated into our educational system over the last forty years, experimentation became the be all, end all, must do all, hands-on splinter skill.  Sacrificed on the altar of “laboratory experimentation” was the rich history, development and the how and why of scientific thinking in everyday life that is, scientific literacy.  “Science education, in its current form, seems to do little to offset pseudoscientific beliefs, and may in fact give students reason to accept science fiction as science fact”, (Walker, et. al, 2012).

Every science course at every educational level should be teaching scientific literacy.  Even   coursework in non-science courses like English, history and social studies should include a generalized scientific methodology that can be applied to any question, investigation and the gathering of evidence in any field of study.  Questions like: “How do historians gather evidence?”; “What are the hypotheses surrounding the writings of Shakespeare?”; “How do psychologists gather evidence given that people feel, believe and misperceive?”.

In sciences courses, after being exposed to the specific experimental methodology in that field, students should learn the developmental history of that science, how mistakes were made and how scientific methodology kept pointing scientists to a more accurate understanding of our world.

The next stage of a deep and robust science education should include how the brain processes information and the strengths and weaknesses of this incredible tool.  Understanding the limits of perception, memory and common cognitive fallacies produces a student less likely to fool themselves and confuse their beliefs and emotions with evidence.

Throughout every science class, students should learn how to examine the quality of evidence that they see every day on TV, computer and social media in the form of advertising that makes unsupportable claims.

Let’s give everyone a good “Baloney Detection Kit”, originally penned by Carl Sagan in his book, “The Demon-Haunted World” and refined here by Michael Shermer:

http://www.michaelshermer.com/2009/06/baloney-detection-kit/

1. How reliable is the source of the claim?
2. Does the source make similar claims?
3. Have the claims been verified by someone else?
4. Does this fit with the way the world works?
5. Has anyone tried to disprove the claim?
6. Where does the preponderance of evidence point?
7. Is the claimant playing by the rules of science?
8. Is the claimant providing positive evidence?
9. Does the new theory account for as many phenomena as the old theory?
10. Are personal beliefs driving the claim?

 

There is so much lack of scientific literacy in our world today.  Sheer nonsense is given such credibility on the Discovery Channel, the History Channel and even National Geographic TV.  Everything from ghosts, witchcraft, Bigfoot, space aliens, drinkable sunscreen, magical alternative medicine, crop circles, astrology, psychic readings, pyramid powers, crystals and energy auras are given pseudoscientific plausibility.

Let’s start changing this situation by teaching our children sense from nonsense.  Let’s teach our children Scientific Literacy at every age and at every opportunity.

 

Victor Dominocielo, M.A.  7/18/14

Victor Dominocielo, M.A., a California-credentialed teacher for 37 years, is the Human Biology and Health teacher at a local middle school. He earned his Master of Arts degree in Education from UCSB. The opinions expressed are his own.

 

Scientific Literacy Definition from Wikipedia

“According to the United States National Center for Education Statistics, “scientific literacy is the knowledge and understanding of scientific concepts and processes required for personal decision making, participation in civic and cultural affairs, and economic productivity”.^[1] A scientifically literate person is defined as one who has the capacity to:

• understandexperiment and reasoning as well as basic scientific facts and their meaning
• ask, find, or determine answers to questions derived from curiosity about everyday experiences
• describe, explain, and predictnatural phenomena
• read with understanding articles about science in thepopular press and to engage in social conversation about the validity of the conclusions
• identify scientific issues underlying national and local decisions and express positions that are scientifically and technologically informed
• evaluate the quality of scientific information on the basis of its source and the methods used to generate it
• pose and evaluatearguments based on evidence and to apply conclusions from such arguments appropriately^[2]

The OECD PISA Framework (2015) defines scientific literacy as “the ability to engage with science-related issues, and with the ideas of science, as a reflective citizen.”^[3] A scientifically literate person, therefore, is willing to engage in reasoned discourse about science and technology which requires the competencies to:

• Explain phenomena scientifically – recognize, offer and evaluate explanations for a range of natural and technological phenomena
• Evaluate and design scientific inquiry – describe and appraise scientific investigations and propose ways of addressing questions scientifically.
• Interpret data and evidence scientifically – analyze and evaluate data, claims and arguments in a variety of representations and draw appropriate scientific conclusions.

Scientific literacy may also be defined in language similar to the definitions of ocean literacy,^[4]Earth science literacy^[5] and Climate Literacy.^[6] Thus a scientifically literate person can:

• understand the science relevant to environmental and social issues
• communicate clearly about the science
• make informed decisions about these issues

Finally, scientific literacy may involve particular attitudes toward learning and using science. A scientifically-literate citizen feels concerned about environmental and social issues, responsible to act on these issues, and empowered to use science as a tool in addressing these issues.”

 

The Science Creation Story

 

I asked my 13 year old science students, “Where is everything?”  They looked back, knowing that I hadn’t given them enough information.  I said, “Not just the pencil sharpener, the stapler and the scissors in the room, but in the whole school.  Wait…  How about showing me everything in Santa Barbara…and California…and the planet…and in the solar system, the Milky Way galaxy and even the entire universe?  Where is everything?  You can point to something in this room and show me everything in the universe.”

After looking around a bit and calling out the first thing that came to mind, someone pointed to an inconspicuous chart on the wall and said, “The Periodic Table of Elements”!

It is a startling revelation for many of them.  There is invariably some disbelief and questioning. “But that’s not everything.”  I don’t have to say a word.  I just nod my head that, “Yes, actually it is”.  I can see the wheels clicking and turning.  “But the other planets…The stars millions of light years away?  Are you sure?”

I wait.  The discovery is mind-boggling and beautiful.  Some of the other students confirm that the elements and combinations of elements is, sure enough, everything:  “Plants, animals, burgers and curly fries, the nose on your face and the color of your eyes”.

“But how do we know that the elements of the stars millions of light years away are the same elements here on earth?”  Then I teach the students, very briefly and simply, about the science of spectrographic analysis and “Fraunhofer lines” and how this can tell us the composition of far away stars.  But we must move on.  We are on a tremendous journey of 13.7 billion years, the Scientific Creation Story.

Every culture has their very own Creation story.  They are beautiful, poetic, awe inspiring and emotionally uplifting.  The ancient Greeks and Christians had God’s Son come down to earth in the form of Hercules and Jesus. The Jewish Creation story in the Old Testament tells of God’s work day by day and was also adopted by the Christians.  The Islamic Creation Story incorporates many biblical accounts including Adam and Eve as the first parents who live in paradise until they eat the fruit from a forbidden tree.  The Chumash have their “Rainbow Bridge” from their Earth Goddess, Hutash, which took them from Santa Cruz Island to the mainland.  The stories go on and on and are as rich as the cultures that birthed them.

Science has its own Creation Story and it is every bit as fantastic as all the other Creation Stories.  At the beginning, about 13.7 billion years ago, there was an initial singularity in which all the matter and energy of the universe was collapsed in on itself.  Then the Big Bang occurred, which was not an explosion at all, but a great inflation/expansion of all the matter and energy to create the universe as we know it today.  Stephan Hawking describes these first few seconds of the universe in his now famous book, “A Brief History of Time”.  At first there was no light or gravity but these basic forces soon “kicked in” and there was a great deal of heat, about 10 billion degrees Fahrenheit, which began the thermonuclear fusion to create the lighter elements in the Periodic Table.  Bill Bryson in, “A Short History of Nearly Everything”(p.10), describes it like this:  “In less than a minute the universe is a million billion miles across and growing fast…In three minutes 98% of all the matter there is or will ever be has been produced.  We have a universe.  It is a place of the most wondrous and gratifying possibility, and beautiful too.  And it was all done in about the time it takes to make a sandwich.”

The universe was about 75% hydrogen and 25% helium at the beginning and it is still close to that percentage today.  Soon the four forces of nature began.  There are only four: gravity, electromagnetism (the EM spectrum including radio, light, micro, infrared, ultraviolet, gamma and X ray waves), the weak nuclear force (radiation) and the strong nuclear force (which holds atomic nuclei together and which, if you split it, you get an atomic explosion).  The universe is very simple: four forces of nature and twelve elementary sub-atomic particles (including electrons, quarks, leptons, muons, tau and the elusive but now observed, Higgs Boson, etc).

There is a star life cycle, from birth to death, observable at its different stages out there in the wide universe.  Over the last 13.7 billion years there have been births and deaths of stars and when a star goes supernova the lighter elements combine to form the heavier elements in the periodic table.

Brian Cox, a “rock star” physicist working on the Large Hadron Collider at CERN describes the Science Creation Story with wonderful enthusiasm during a TED conference here: http://www.ted.com/talks/brian_cox_on_cern_s_supercollider?language=en

The scientific creation story is different from the other creation stories in that it was not created by any cultural expression of the hopes and fears, dreams and emotions of a great people.  No one need believe it.  This story stands on its own.  It is as observable as the night sky and yet completely fantastic and magical.  Carl Sagan explained the Scientific Creation Story in the most elegant and simple terms: “This is what hydrogen atoms do, given 13.7 billion years”.  Indeed.

Victor Dominocielo, M.A. 10/4/14

Victor Dominocielo, M.A., a California-credentialed teacher for 37 years, is the Human Biology and Health teacher at a local middle school. He earned his Master of Arts degree in Education from UCSB. The opinions expressed are his own.

New Community Science Standards

 

This is actually not about Common Core or Common Snore or Apple Core (because of Bill Gates funding) or even Obamacore as some have called this latest cycle of Federal Education Programs.  However, I will digress for just a moment to mention this latest in a long line of Federal Education Programs.

Every president wants to be the “Education President”.  Unfortunately, centralized planning reform in our gargantuan public education system always falls short which creates the need for reform and further reform during each presidential cycle. Every president has millions of education budget dollars to reform their predecessor’s reforms.

President G.W. Bush uttered the now famous words, “In return for Federal Dollars…” the states would sign on to his No Child Left Behind program.  Bush’s comments explain how presidents get compliance on their signature programs.  If the states don’t endorse the President’s program, they don’t get the money.  This explains why the 45 states who appear to be “Racing to the Top” for Obama’s efforts are not giving Common Core a rousing endorsement because it’s a great educational program.  The states are endorsing whatever program Washington is producing because they are being blackmailed with federal extortion/education dollars: “In return for Federal dollars…”  “Common Obamasnore” is just the latest incarnation of the States’ struggle to get Federal education dollars.

The real test of Common Core by education professionals would be for the Federal government to disperse education funds to the states with no strings attached.  Then we would see which states and educational institutions would endorse Common Core without the threat of losing money.

Now on to the new community science standards.  These are personal science education standards which have to do with how well our high school and college graduates are doing in applying science in everyday life in our society.  What is our Scientific Literacy Index?  I propose that we open up the online phone book and look at how many psychics there are in town.  Then we look at how many bookstores cater to Bigfoot and UFO investigations.  We might also include sales of sensationalistic “National Enquirer” type papers in our standards.  Certainly, looking at the number of ghost hunting and alien autopsies shows on the Discovery and National Geographic channels would also be an indicator of how well we are training our science students.

If we find that the community has a lot of these supernatural outlets then we know that the science education in that community is lacking.  I’ve gone to beautiful Sedona, Arizona many times and when I visit the grocery store, there is a giant bulletin board filled with every imaginable psychic expression.  From the famous humming vortexes, to energy pyramids, crystalline matrix light healing, Star Families, Tarot, astrology readings and chakra balancing, these people have you covered.  So the science educators in Sedona should be having a field day with all the readily available examples of differences between fantasy and scientific methodology.

Locally, our very own Ojai, while not having quite the reputation of Sedona, is noted for its variety of interesting practices.  If you pick up a copy of the, “Ojai Quarterly” (Fall, 2014, pages 134-5), you will be amazed.  They have all the normal, healthy yoga and massage practices but they also advertise Chrystal Light Healing developed by John of God (or JOG, as I like to call him).  JOG practices psychic surgery in Brazil and calls himself a healer.  He sticks sharp objects up peoples’ noses and into their sinus cavities and then claims that this mother of all distraction techniques cures everything from migraines to cancer.  You can watch him stick a 7 inch hemostat way, way up into a person’s sinuses as he performs his “psychic” surgery here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYF0SWma000.  (The clip is about 9 min.  Skip to 4 min to see the distraction technique)

Continuing on, there is advertising for chakra balancing, shaman dream weaving, crystal healing, miracles, psychics, Tarot, channeling and past life trauma release.   The absolute top of the heap, though, has got to be the person who does energy healings for humans and animals…with Jesus of Nazareth…over the phone!  You could go to the website and for $125 (paypal) you get a 30 minute phone consultation with Jesus.  This is sort of “upping the bar” on the common psychic claim (psychic John Edward also “talks” to the dead and does phone consultations) of being able to talk to dead relatives: who ya gonna call, Uncle Bob or Jesus of Nazareth?

My interest in all this activity is that someone is actually paying these people.  Having a strange belief, (for instance, that you can talk to dead), is one thing.  Creating a business out of it and taking money from emotionally vulnerable people is something else entirely.  Many people in our complex society need professional psychological help at one time or another during their lives.  There is a robust psychological/medical care system where people can get professional help.  However, being emotionally vulnerable and needing psychological help is not the time to consult a psychic, Tarot reader, or energy healer who will use a simple “cold reading” procedure to tell you what you want to hear and charge you major bucks for something that any 12 year old could do.  Anyone can learn the 10 easy steps to performing a psychic reading here: http://www.skeptic.com/downloads/10_Easy_Psychic_Lessons.pdf.

The clients of these psychics graduated from high school and college and their science teachers completely and utterly failed them.  Somewhere along the educational line, their science teachers didn’t give these psychic clients, alien autopsy people, Bigfoot believers and ghost hunting specialists the common science sense that evolution gave a gnat.  If you can listen to a Homeopath (or health food store clerk) tell you that diluting a solution makes it stronger, then your chemistry teacher failed to teach you the simple mechanics of serial dilution.   If your biology teacher didn’t explain evolution by natural selection as the fundamental theory of all biology and how all living things change and evolve over time, then your biology teacher failed.   If you can look at this Star Trek “transporter” in the mall video and believe that scientists invented teleportation and didn’t tell anyone, then your physics teacher failed to teach you scientific methodology and how to examine evidence for scientific plausibility.  (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4RbF2tjTt0)

So let’s get science educated so that we, as a society, don’t pay people to connect us to Jesus of Nazareth over the phone.  Let’s get our collective scientific literacy and understanding to the point where we can easily recognize parlor tricks, scams and frauds in everyday life.

Victor Dominocielo, M.A. 11/12/14

Victor Dominocielo, M.A., a California-credentialed teacher for 37 years, is the human biology and health teacher at a local middle school.  He earned his Master of Arts degree in Education from UCSB.  The opinions expressed are his own.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Around this time of year, Biology curriculums nationwide usually turn their focus toward the central tenant of all life on earth, Darwin’s scientific theory of Evolution by natural selection.  Also at this time, some states and school districts embarrass themselves tremendously by attempting to inject religious belief into the Science curriculum in the form of Creationism and Intelligent Design.  School districts in 15 states over the last forty years have tried to inject religion into science classes.  In 2005, a Kansas school district went so far as to attempt to change the definition of Science to accommodate their Creationist beliefs.  The Supreme Court routinely knocks down these challenges as violating the “establishment clause” of separation between church and state.

Approximately 46% (Gallup poll) of the American people do not believe in Evolution (a more recent poll puts the number around 40%).   In 2011, U. Penn researchers, Berkman and Plutzer, polled 926 high school biology teachers and found that only 27% taught Evolution as the central, unifying theme of all biology.  13% actually advocated Creationism/Intelligent Design in their public school classrooms.  The remaining 60% are described as “cautious” because they are not educated enough in the subject (a course in Evolution is, shamefully, not required to obtain a biology degree at many universities) or because they want to avoid controversy with parents and administrators.  Unfortunately, this “cautious” 60% of biology teachers fail to explain the differences between religious thought and the nature of scientific inquiry.  In doing so, these teachers actually undermine established experts and over 150 years of scientific research in the field of Evolution.  The cautious 60% even encourage students to get other explanations for life on earth and so legitimize religious arguments in a scientific field of study.  It is a confusing juxtaposition to suggest to students that well-established, evidence- based, scientific theories can be debated as if they were personal opinions and beliefs.

Every Science teacher has to deal with teaching scientific methodology to students who have a variety of different secular and religious beliefs.  One of the foremost evolutionary biologists, Richard Dawkins, has taken a decidedly abrasive tone when categorizing those who don’t share his appreciation of Science.  He calls these religious people “ignorant, stupid, wicked and insane” and has even written a book, “The God Delusion”, in which he soundly trounces his religious critics.  Although brilliant, Dawkins is making an elementary mistake by “talking out of school” or outside his area of expertise about religious belief and philosophy.  Dawkins was even chided by astronomer Neils degrass Tyson, for using his position to pick a fight and expound on his personal beliefs and feelings instead of sticking to his outstanding evolutionary research.

I could not imagine having such an attitude in my biology classes.  I have a very simple and direct method to clearly establish the lines between science and religion for my impressionable 14 year olds.  On the first day of class, on the first page of their notebooks, I have them write the following concepts:

• “No one can tell you what to believe, least of all me”
• “My job is to give you the tools to think critically and scientifically about biology”
• “Learn the science and then believe what you want”.

These simple “rules of the road” put the students at ease and establish an atmosphere of mutual respect.  I’ve had very religious, Creationist and ID students in my classes and I feel it’s important to be very respectful of their beliefs.  At the same time it’s important to distinguish between personal beliefs and scientific research and evidence during classroom discussions.

In the process of teaching biology to these young people over the years, I have made an important discovery: almost everyone “believes” in evolution.  While the word “belief” is questionable to use in the context of science, I use the term since it is routinely used by opponents of Evolutionary theory.

The general understanding for the development of evolutionary theory proceeds in the following manner: since the beginning of agriculture and herding some 10,000 years ago, farmers and ranchers have used selective breeding to pick the parents of the next generation in order to produce healthier plants and animals.  These small changes from generation to generation, which produced longer growing seasons for corn, larger pigs and faster horses, are the observable evidence for evolution.  This process of small changes over observable time periods is called microevolution.  While great philosophers and religious leaders debated the origins of Man, farmers and ranchers were using practical genetics and basic evolutionary theory long before Darwin and Mendel codified their observations.  Darwin’s great addition to this common knowledge was to reason that if the farmers and ranchers didn’t select the parents of the next generation, then, by what natural process, were the parents selected?  He then described the five part process (overpopulation, non-random survival of the fittest, environmental adaptations, random genetic mutations and species isolation) in which nature selects the parents of the next generation.  Given enough time and many generations, the billions of years of the development of life on earth, one species could accumulate enough small changes to become a different species.  Evolutionary biologists call this process macroevolution or speciation.

Now it is very obvious to my 14 year old students that they are not exact copies of their parents and that they may have inherited Mom’s hair color and Dad’s eyes with changes and combinations of these characteristics.  So, the process of microevolution is quite evident to them every time they look in the mirror.  However, the great realization for these 14 year old biology students is that the microevolution they see every day, over a very long period of time and many generations, is also macroevolution, one species slowly evolving into another.  Evolution is evolution, whether that time period is a single generation or many generations.  If you acknowledge and “believe” in changes from one generation to the next, changes that you have inherited from your parents and have given to your children, then you are observing Evolution in action.

So, we are not that different in our beliefs after all.

 

By Victor Dominocielo, 2/22/14

Victor Dominocielo, M.A., a California-credentialed teacher for 36 years, is the human biology and health teacher at a local middle school. He earned his Master of Arts degree in education from UCSB. The opinions expressed are his own.