|
Get
Involved - Stay Informed
edited
by Bob Rose
PAPER
SESSIONS
Paper
sessions generally consist of two or three 20 minute lectures
from NABT members. Usually a collection of related papers
are presented within the same room during a period of one
to one and a half hours. Presenters include high school
teachers, college professors, other educators, and anybody
with interesting topics to present to biology teachers.
Typical sessions include slide shows, overhead transparencies,
VHS taped segments, handouts, and other standard lecture
paraphernalia and techniques. Presenters are seldom hesitant
to take a definite stand on a position and use this opportunity
to promote their personal and professional opinions.
The
following three papers are examples.
Should
You Debate a Creationist, by Alfred R. Martin, Illinois
Benedictine College, Lisle, IL.
Mr.
Martin (not a creationist) is "interested in creationists
the same way physicians are interested in cancer."
He has made it a personal crusade to attend as many creationist
events as possible. And, thus, feels he has a good understanding
of the creationist position. Debates between creationists
and evolutionists are usually initiated by the creationist
faction. Debates generated in this fashion have some common
characteristics and exhibit some predictable stages.
First,
the title of the debate will pit an evolution "model"
against a "creation" model. An agreement must
be made that only scientific facts will be allowed. Thus,
Mr. Martin contends, an agreement to debate is a concession
by the evolutionist from the beginning and sets up a no-win
situation. As Mr. Martin points out, debate is only rhetoric.
Truth is not a requisite component, though there is often
a perceived winner (and loser) in any debate.
Creationists
often begin a debate with distorted, if not selective, facts
and put the evolutionist on the defensive to explain these
often disjointed facts at the outset. Thus, having been
put on the defensive, the evolutionist has lost to default.
Regardless of the arguments that follow, there will always
be distribution of creationist materials at the end. In
this way the whole function has served to promote the creationist
platform and may or may not result in any dissemination
(not to mention understanding) of scientific evidence for
evolution.
Mr.
Martin clearly states that it is not wise to debate a creationist.
He suggests that instead, you (1) speak unopposed, especially
after a creationist has passed through your community, (2)
attend school board meetings and advocate the teaching of
science, (3) join a committee of correspondence concerned
with the issue, and (4) write letters to the editor of your
local newspapers supporting the scientific "model"
of evolution.
Evolution
and the Church Today, by Neil M. Baird, Millikin University,
Decatur, IL.
Mr.
Baird maintained that "students come to us with a hazy
understanding of science, evolution in particular, and religion."
Representing a religious viewpoint he maintained that, "there
are very valid religious reasons for objecting to equal
time" treatment of evolution and creationism in the
science curriculum. His paper dealt extensively with delineating
the separate domains of science and religion in our lives.
As
an interpretive biblical scholar, he reviewed the period
of 1500+ years in which the Bible was written by its several
authors. That books of the Bible have intermittently been
"voted in" and "voted out" are important
to understanding the role of the book in our changing cultures.
He affirmed that the Bible was certainly inspired, but noted
that it was not guaranteed to be "inerrant."
Quoting a famous [and maligned] scientist, Galileo, he reminded
us that "the Bible shows us how to go to heaven, not
how the heavens go."
There
are three kinds of creationists. "Quick" creationists
maintain that all plants, all animals, the earth, and the
universe were created once and for all during a literal
six day creation week. Thus, the earth is relatively young,
between 6,000 to 10,000 years old. Bishop Usher calculated
that the earth was created in 4004 B.C. "Progressive"
creationists allow that there may have been many separate
but direct creative acts by God through time. There may
have been some microevolution (changes within "kinds"),
but no macroevolution giving rise to different groups of
organisms. They accept the idea of a very old earth. "Gradual"
creationists accept that God created the universe, the earth,
the first organisms. Then, he turned over the process of
creating new species to the mechanisms of evolution. They
easily accept the idea of a very old earth. This viewpoint
is similar to the theistic evolution position. Theistic
evolution maintains that God created the universe. He established
and works through natural laws which govern much of the
activity in the natural world. God relinquishes some direct
control in this process. There are different views as to
the amount of control relinquished and when control is turned
over to natural laws.
Some
Characteristics of Science not Satisfied by "Creation
Science"
1.
Science explains observed phenomena by referring to natural
law.
2.
Science is testable.
3.
Science is potentially falsifiable.
4.
Science is subject to revision. It is self-correcting.
5.
Science is tentative. It is the best working explanation
in the present.
6.
Science findings are repeatable and universal. It is knowable
by other scientists elsewhere.
7.
Scientific conclusions are evaluated by scientific peers
and then published in refereed journals.
"Creation
Science" fails to meet any of the above criteria for
legitimate science.
This
paper session was so popular that there were not enough
handouts to go around. However, the presenter passed around
a sign-up sheet and agreed to mail copies of his overhead
transparencies and handouts to anyone who asked for them.
Thus, some KABTers subsequently received copies of the "Presbyterian
Statement on Evolution and Creationism," Jewish "Statement
on Understanding Creation in Genesis," a "Statement
on Scripture and Science" made by Pope John Paul II,
and a "Partial Bibliography on Creationism and Evolution."
Needless to say, all of the above are used in support of
the valid religious reasons not to include "creation
science" in the biology curriculum.
Human
Evolution in the Biology Classroom, by Professor Martin
K. Nickels, Illinois State University.
Dr.
Nickels, a physical anthropologist (trained at Kansas University)
maintains that not only should evolution be taught in the
secondary schools, but you should begin your unit of study
with human evolution, "the single best example of organic
evolution." He proposed to show teachers how to accomplish
this in a non-threatening manner.
Acknowledging
the innate controversy within this unit, he believes you
should start with human evolution because students will
be fascinated and you can use the lesson to investigate
"what is the evidence for organic evolution" and
"what is the evidence for evolution in general?"
Accordingly,
we are short-changing students if we don't get them to understand
what they object to. Professor Nickels offers fossils as
the best starting point. He flatly states that ".
. . the fossils are there. They must be explained whether
you believe in evolution or not."
Using
his outlined handout titled, "Principle Phases of Human
(Hominid) Evolution," he reviewed human evolutionary
history, as it is currently perceived. He then proceeded
to introduce teachers to a unit of human evolution using
fossils. The Los Angeles public school district has organized
a unit of study called the "Stones and Bones Project."
The package includes a complete set of Student Lab Anthropology
Prints and a set of skull casts, including human, chimpanzee,
and gorilla skulls.
Unlike
19th century biology teachers, you have a wealth of scientific
literature to support your teaching of evolution. Indeed,
the last 50 years have revolutionized the thinking about
evolution. Dr. Nickel's handout, "Recent Books Dealing
with Human Evolution," contains references with discoveries
as recent as 1980, 1981, 1983, 1985, and 1986.
Next
Section: AIDS
in American Society
|
