Archive 2010

how biology teachers can respond to intelligent design Alison Campbell Mar 17

No Comments

Creationism is a recurring issue for teachers of biology. It can come in many forms (eg young-Earth creationism, old-Earth creationism, & so on) but – despite what many ‘IDers’ would say – its most recent incarnation is as intelligent Design ‘theory’, or IDT. (I use the quote marks advisedly; Intelligent Design doesn’t offer any evidence that can be explained by a coherent scientific theory, instead preferring to generate a false dichotomy between IDT and evolution: if evolution is wrong about ‘x’, then IDT is correct.) While IDT received a resounding defeat in the Dover trial of 2005, it continues to be promoted around the world as a ’scientific’ alternative to evolution.

Anyway, a colleague has just sent me Jim Mackenzie’s paper, How biology teachers can respond to Intelligent Design, which I thought I’d talk about here. As Mackenzie says, a significant number of authors have already argued convincingly that IDT is bankrupt as far as scientific theories are concerned. He proposes several strategies that science teachers can use in dealing with attempts to introduce IDT into their classrooms, and comments that it’s possible to use these with younger children. I think this is particularly useful given that the 2010 NZ science curriculum makes evolution an organising theme for biology (aka the ‘Living World’) from the earliest years of primary schooling. Mackenzie’s strategies are drawn from a case dating back more than 20 years, from an attempt to mandate the teaching of creation ’science’ – surely an oxymoron - in Arkansas schools. I found this a little surprising given the more recent Dover case, but then it is all creationism under the skin, despite attempts by various ID proponents to claim otherwise.

Just as in Dover, the Arkansas attempt to insert creationism into school curricula claimed that there was strong scientific evidence in support of doing so. The case went to court. In his decision, Judge Overton noted that teachers given the job of producing a curriculum for teaching biology from a creation ’science’ viewpoint could not find any scientific articles in its support. Not one. There was simply no creationism research available to make this a viable alternative to evolution.

Mackenzie suggests that teachers wishing to show that ID is outside science should use a ‘wide’ definition of science. He argues that definitions of science allowing only ‘natural’ (as opposed to supernatural) explanations are too narrow & risk being accused of excluding ‘too much’. He then goes on to state that this definition is ‘inoperative [in any case] because once an explanation comes to be incorporated into science it is seen as natural and matrialist, even if had previously seemed not to be’, & gives Newton’s theory of gravity as an example. Gravitational theory was originally viewed as magical or occult, but because it allowed accurate predications, was eventually accepted. Well & good, but the suggestion that if scientists accepted IDT as scientific, its arguments might be accepted as Newton’s were seems to me to be drawing a long bow. There are many reasons why scientists have already rejected IDT as non-scientific, as Mackenzie himself admits. It is, however, useful to emphasise, as he does, that even when the bar of what is considered ’science’ is set very low, IDT fails to clear it. There is still no ID research published in scientific journals that clearly presents evidence in support of ID (attempting to show that evolution can’t explain something, & claiming that as evidence ‘for’ ID, doesn’t count.)

The second strategy is to make it clear that religion is not the enemy of science. Part of the reason for excludng creationism from US schools lies in the constitutional separation of religion and the State. Show a particular standpoint is religious & it can’t be taught in schools in the USA. That’s not the case in many other places, & here in NZ it’s possible to present religious instruction in state schools, provided parents have the opportunity to opt out. The problem here, as recent mailouts to science departments have shown, begins when attempts are made to present a particular religous viewpoint in the guise of science. (I thought the Ministry of Education’s response to this was a bit of a cop-out: saying that parents can withdraw their children from religous education ignores the fact that this stuff was being sent to science teachers with the obvious hope that it would be incorporated into science classes.)

Nonetheless this is a key point – there’s nothing to be gained, if the question of creationism is raised in a science class, in ridiculing religion. Religious beliefs are often strongly held & denigrating them won’t do anything to convince a student (or their parents) of the validity of evolution & is more likely to set them at loggerheads with the teacher. A more useful strategy might be to point out that major religious leaders – including the last Pope – have indicated that there is no conflict between faith and science on this matter.

Mackenzie’s third key statement is that ’science teachers should trust their own expertise’ – and this means bringing that expertise to the fore. We’re all aware (or we should be!) that in science theories are constantly being tested, added to, modified. There’s much about the current state of evolutionary biology that Charles Darwin would never have recognised: Mendelian genetics, the concept of genetic drift, punctuated equilibrium, horizontal gene transfer… All these new ideas have been tested empirically & subsequently become an established part of evolutionary biology (& after that, they make it into the textbooks). There’s a very strong case to be made for us to talk about all this with our students, rather than treating it all as a fait accompli. As Mackenzie says, ‘[t]here may always be new ideas, new evidence, and every scientific conclusion is open to revision.’ How better to give students an understanding of this key aspect of the nature of science?

And finally, he suggests that ‘alternative theories should not be excluded.’ Well, I’m fine with that, as far as it goes – & as long as we are talking about ‘theory’ in the scientific sense. But what Mackenzie really means is that, faced with a request to include ID in the classroom, teachers should respond that they would intend to look at a wider range of alternative perspectives . This of course assumes that teachers are aware of that range, and are confident in their ability to explain why they do not constitute a scientific explanation for life’s diversity. And that there is actually time in the full-on classroom day to do this approach justice.

J.Mackenzie (2010) How biology teachers can respond to Intelligent Design. Cambridge Journal of Evolution 40(1): 53-67. DOI: 10.1080/03057640903567039

overrun with creepy-crawlies? maybe not… Alison Campbell Mar 16

No Comments

I blog a fair bit about the way science stories are (mis)represented in the press. And when I do, I always wonder what the original press release (from the intitution to the media) would have been like. Now Ben Goldacre’s posted an excellent item on one such release.

The release in question came from a UK pest control firm, & it contained ‘data’ that seemed to show alarmingly high levels of pest infestation on London public transport. (Or, in the case of dust mites, surprisingly low. Only 500 of these tiny critters in a whole railway carriage?) Things like cockroaches, bedbugs, fleas. (Apparently bedbugs are raising their nasty little heads in New Zealand – not something I’d want to see gain a significant foothold here!). Cue a number of rather hysterical media articles.

Ben has done his usual thorough job of investigating this one. And he found – that the company did no studies whatsoever of in-service public transport vehicles. None. Zero. Zilch. Their scary figures were based on a model, which made a whole lot of unsupported & highly unlikely assumptions. As Ben hasn’t been able to track down the original release, we can’t be certain of its contents. But I have to say – to pretend some sort of scientific support for the numbers sent out to the media is to misrepresent what was done as good science. And that does none of us any favours.

 

how do we teach students to question what we say? Alison Campbell Mar 14

2 Comments

This is a re-post of something I’ve written for Talking Teaching. I’ve reproduced it here because I think the notion of teaching things like critical thinking & the nature of science are just as relevant here as they are in a discussion about teaching itself.

I’ve just been reading a post by Tim Kreider, over at Science-Based Medicine. Tim’s talking about the learning experiences of medical students, but a particular phrase caught my eye. I”m reproducing it here because I think it can be applied much more widely: students are in the habit of transcribing and commiting to memory everything uttered by the professors who grade them.

I’ve seen this happen myself. I remember talking with a class about fungi & saying that while most fungi are saprophytes (consuming dead material), some are predatory. And they all (well, all those I could see, anyway) wrote this down unquestioningly. ‘Hang on a minute,’ I said; ‘does this sound likely to you?’ They agreed that no, it didn’t really, it didn’t match with what they already knew about fungi. ‘Well then,’ I said; ‘why didn’t any of you call me on it?’ ‘Because,’ they said, ‘you wouldn’t tell us anything incorrect, would you?’ Which showed a touching faith but also a worrying lack of willingness to question things that didn’t sound right.

(Just as an aside: This was amply demonstrated one year when my class was sitting a lab test. One of the questions asked students to label a section of plant tissue, selecting their labels from a list that I provided. It happened to be April 1st – so I included the word ‘aardvark’ in that list. Rather worringly, about 30% of the class used it for a label – & when asked why they said well, it didn’t sound right, but they just knew I wouldn’t have used a word that didn’t belong… And not one of them questioned it at the time.)

Now, in his SBM post, Tim makes the point that med students in their pre-clinical training have to learn so much content that there isn’t a lot of room for rigorous skepticism (but make no mistake, he’s still arguing of the need to teach critical thinking). And I agree, there is factual content that I want my students to be able to remember (& my colleagues teaching at 2nd-year would like it too!) But at some point we must surely also want our students to develop a healthy skepticism: the ability to think critically about what they’re hearing & learning.  And I certainly don’t like the idea that my science students might regard me as infallible. Not least because that’s not a particularly good model for what science is like. They need to know that scientists can & and do make mistakes, get things wrong, interpret data in ways that subsequently (in the light of further data) turn out to be inaccurate. And they need to feel confident that it’s OK to ask questions. The thing is, how best to get this across?

Speaking for myself, I’m a firm believer in modelling this for my students. If I’m asked a question to which I don’t know the answer, I’ll tell them so, up front. But then I’ll say, but I can hypothesise about this – here’s what the answer might be, & here’s my evidence for thinking this. (If the classroom has web access – & most of ours do these days, we’ll often go on to check what I’ve said on the spot.) If it turns out that I’m wrong (which happens quite a lot, then that’s fine, & we’ve all learned something new.

Plus, I actively encourage questioning during my lectures. (Pop quizzes & concept maps are good for encouraging the sort of conversations that lead to this.) Sure, I mightn’t get through as much content as if I didn’t do this, but the students’ learning experience is surely going to be a better one if they can follow up on things on the spot. And hopefully they learn from this that it really is OK to ask questions :-)

And – I’m all for telling stories. How better to help students learn about the nature of science than to use a narrative approach that lets them see how scientists viewed the world at some past point in time, & how science has led to a change in - or a reaffirmation of – that perspective?

cross-species hanky-panky Alison Campbell Mar 12

No Comments

My first-year students & I are currently studying plants. This is actually something of a balancing act from my perspective as a reasonably large proportion of the class didn’t study the ‘diversity in plant structure & function’ standard back in year 12 (or don’t remember doing so), so I’ve got to bring them up to speed without boring the others.

Anyway, when we get on to talking about flowering plants, one of the topics is adaptations for pollination. Some flowering plants (eg grasses) simply shed their pollen to the wind, but for many successful pollination has required the establishment of a plant-animal relationship. And some of those involve some very kinky activity indeed – the animal ‘vector’ comes to a flower, not for a nectar reward, but because in its eyes the flower looks like a member of the opposite sex…

And thanks to PZ, who always finds these things first!

what makes students stick at science? Alison Campbell Mar 11

No Comments

This is a very relevant question in the light of the government’s recent announcement of its intention to tie a proportion of tertiary funding to student completion and retention rates. (This decision is presumably driven, among other things, by relatively low rates of retention and passing papers/courses, which lead to questions about whether we’re getting value for money from our tertiary system.) Speaking personally, I find this a rather blunt instrument for rewarding performance as at least some of the factors affecting this are beyond the institutions’ control (e.g. Zepke et al. 2005). There’s quite a lot of literature around dealing with the whole issue of student retention, but I thought I’d be self-indulgent for once & discuss a study done here, examining the factors affecting completion & retention of students in science & engineering (Otrel-Cass et al., 2009).

This study used a combination of a questionnaire & focus-group interviews with returning 2nd-year students to examine various factors that could influence students’ decisions to stick with their studies. (One immediately obvious flaw is that we’d got no real way to find out why those who didn’t return, chose not to.) The questions we used in the survey were designed to elicit students’ opinions on their ability to cope with the varying demands they faced during their studies. We were interested in time management, learning strategies, how confident they felt at managing their learning in lectures & labs, communication issues surrounding their studies, information available about their programs of study (provided by staff in particular & the institution as a whole) and about assessment.

Rather alarmingly, only around half of the students we surveyed felt particularly confident about managing the workloads associated with tertiary study, while 70% felt that this was a significant issue in deciding to come back to uni. (And remember, these were second-year students, so they’d already managed to cope with the jump from school to university.). So – those of my readers who are intending to enter uni at some point – be aware that you’ll need to develop some strategies to handle the various demands on your time. I feel it’s also important for us to keep an eye on how our students are doing, & offer support when it’s needed, & in fact we’ve developed a system in my Faculty to do just this for first-year students. We need scientists & technologists & engineers, so it makes a lot of sense to support our budding technicians & researchers & teachers through the rocky patches as best we can.

If you’re studying science you’ll be in the lab, writing essays & reports, & using the library. Yet less than 20% of our respondents felt very confident in their ability to do these things well. (This bothered me more than a bit – we should be teaching them how to do these things in first-year! That’s actually one reason we include an essay in the assessment for first-year biology – to help students to learn the conventions of academic writing. And also to help prepare them for the essay-type answers in their end-of-year exams.) 

I mentioned labs – the students we surveyed placed a lot of importance on their lab work, in terms of learning various techniques but also because of the opportunities lab classes offer to interact with teaching staff. You get the chance to ask questions that you might not have wanted to ask during a lecture, and this helps to develop a more personal relationship with your lecturers. In fact, we found that [students] placed high value on the presence of academic staff in practical sessions,(Otrel-Cass et al., 2009), for thiis very reason.

Our respondents (in both the survey & the focus groups) recognised the value of lectures. They were particularly positive when they felt that lecturers valued what they were doing. They also felt strongly that it was easier to engage with a subject when the lecturers were themselves interested and enthusiastic – and when the teaching staff told personal stories in class. While these gave information about future careers, they also increased the students’ motivation. This was obvious in the students’ comments: One of the best [experiences] that I loved was how they give examples. You know, really amazing little things of weird little animals you never even knew about and you can actually go home and tell people, ‘Oh, I learned this today’ and that’s really cool. I always tell at home what I learned and why things happen too. 

Overall, it seemed clear to us that we (uni academics, & institutions) need to give our first-year students the message that we value them & take their educational needs seriously. This has a big impact on their attitudes to continuing with their studies. Letting students see staff as ‘people’ through personalised lectures, having academics (rather than senior students) in lab classes, being available to talk with students, keeping an eye on how students are handling things like workload – all these make students feel part of the uni community. This finding fits in with research findings elsehwere that stress the significance of staff: student relationships. The trick for us, of course, is to balance all this with the other demands on our time in a funding environment that places a high importance on research & attracting external funding. Achieving success is a juggling act for staff as well as for their students :-) But an act that’s rewarding, if we do it well.

K.Otrel-Cass, B.Cowie & A.Campbell (2009) What determines perseverance in studying science? Journal of Institutional Research 14(2): 30-44.

N.Zepke, L.Leach, T.Prebble, A.Campbell, D.Coltman, B.Dewart & M.Gibson (2005) Improving tertiary student outcomes in the first year of study. NZ Council for Education Research report.

writing that essay Alison Campbell Mar 09

No Comments

Found this today (while procrastinating…)

funny graphs and charts

Now, while the cartoon is funny, the message is not (& hopefully some of my first-year students are reading this – pay attention, guys!). Leaving an assignment to the last minute is not a good strategy for success – not in science, & not in any other area either.

It means you’ll do a rush job, so your formatting, spelling, grammar & so on are likely to suffer. And these do matter, because you’re essentially attempting to communicate with the reader about your understanding of a topic & how you write is part of that. (I’ve had students use – repeatedly, within an assigment – the wrong technical term in a way that makes me wonder if they actually understand what they’re writing about.)

It means you’ll be last to the library & so may miss out on that crucial book; of course, access to on-line journals has changed that more than a little. But if you’re not confident about what you’re searching for, leaving things until the last minute will make it that much less likely that you’ll find that perfect reference (remembering that you actually have to read them as well!). Wikipedia doesn’t count.

it means you probably won’t proof-read your work properly. So you may not pick up the fact that you haven’t properly cited a reference (or haven’t included that source in your References section). Or that you’ve missed out a whole paragraph that presents the crucial information supporting your argument. Or – eek! – that you haven’t actually answered the question at all.

It means you probably won’t have crafted a really good essay. (Trust me on this – I’ve seen an awful lot of them.

And, when crunch time comes & you haven’t finished writing, going to your teachers & saying ‘I ran out of time’ is unlikley to be viewed with favour… I wouldn’t advise trying the following, either.

a blog for talking teaching Alison Campbell Mar 08

No Comments

This is really an advertorial, I guess :-) But Marcus, Fabiana & I have got together to set up a blog for talking about teaching, called – fairly predictably I guess! - Talking Teaching. So for those of my readers who are teachers (secondary, tertiary, whatever) - please feel free to join us there. We’re hoping to get some interesting discussions going, & maybe some sort of on-line teaching community. To give you a bit of background, so you can see where we’re coming from – I’ve got a Trained Teacher Certificate (which has since been eclipsed by the Dip.Tching I think) & both Marcus & Fabiana are working towards a tertiary teaching qualification, & we’re all university lecturers. And science bloggers as well :-)

So maybe we’ll see you there some time soon?

the age of mammals Alison Campbell Mar 06

No Comments

The last 65 million years have sometimes been called ‘the Age of Mammals’ (although I’m inclined to think it should be the Age of Insects, or perhaps – as it’s always been – the Age of Bacteria; after all, in terms of sheer number of individuals, bacteria have got to be the dominant life form on the planet…). This gives the impression that mammals are a relatively recent evolutionary novelty.  But just how old is this class of organisms? Just what is the ‘age’ of the mammals?

Mammals began to diversify after the mass extinction event that marks the boundary between two geological ‘periods’ (the Cretaceous & Tertiary) and which carried off a large number of species, most notably the dinosaurs. But they’ve been around for much longer. Much, much longer – the mammal family tree has its roots way back in the Carboniferous, 350-270 million years ago.

Not that those ancestors wandering through the swampy Carboniferous forests would have looked like the mammals of today. Scientists call these ancestral beasts, ’mammal-like reptiles’ ie they were reptiles, but with some mammal-like features, including features of their skulls. Modern mammals, those early mammal-like reptiles, and everything in between, are described as synapsids.

  

Amniote skull types. a) Anapsid eg turtles b) Synapsid eg mammals c) Euryapsid eg ichthyosaurs & plesiosaurs d) Diapsid eg dinosaurs & birds. (NB the ‘amniotes’ are the reptiles, birds, & mammals – all produce an amniotic egg with a number of membranes associated with the yolk & developing embryo.)
 
The synapsid skull (b) has a single opening in the external bone layer, behind the eye – these diagrams can be a bit confusing & certainly my students sometimes find them so; it looks like the hole might go through from one side of the skull to the other, but in fact that’s not so.
 
Early synapsid reptiles roamed the Earth from the Carboniferous period until the Jurassic, and at one time were the dominant land animals. Many groups of these early reptiles were not in our direct lineage; one group that was, was the pelycosaurs - which included the fearsome predator Dimetrodon. (The name Dimetrodon means ‘two kinds of teeth’ – this is significant as most reptiles have a single type of teeth in their mouths, while modern mammals have 3-4.) One group of pelycosaurs evolved into the mammal-like  ’therapsids’, a group that included Thrinaxodon, and the therapsids in turn produced a number of descendant groups. One of them, the cynodonts, was on the line to modern mammals (but not, as it turns out, directly linked to them). 
 
By the way, it’s actually rather difficult to define a clear instant at which an animal becomes a ‘mammal’, rather than a ‘mammal-like reptile’! Therapsids have a number of mammal-like features: compared to the sprawling stance of reptiles, they held their legs more underneath the body (making locomotion more efficient); they had a distinct neck; their mouths contained several different types of teeth – something described as heterodonty; the beginnings of a secondary palate began to separate the airway from the mouth; and one of the bones in the lower jaw (the dentary) was enlarged compared to that in reptiles. But they definitely weren’t mammals.
 
Many therapsids became extinct during the mass extinction event that marked the end of the Permian, around 225 mya. (Incidentally, this was one of the greatest mass extinctions in terms of species lost – David Raup & Jack Sepkoski estimated that up to 94% of all species then alive, died in the end-Permian event. On the mammalian side the survivors included cynodonts like the herbivorous dicynodont Lystrosaurus (the distribution of Lystrosaurus fossils provided early evidence in support of the concept of continental drift) and the carnivorous ‘theriodonts’. The latter were similar to wolves in size, with large serrated canine teeth and skull modifications that provided larger jaw muscle attachment points.
 
During the Triassic cynodonts gradually became more & more like ’true’ mammals. Eventually their lower jaws comprised just a single bone (called the ‘dentary’ because it bears the teeth). Along with this came a change in the way the jaw articulated with the skull (& associated changes in the tiny bones of the inner ear). Another feature was the obvious presence of a diaphragm. OK, you say – this is so unlikely to fossilise, so how can you say this? The evidence lies in the lack of ribs attached to the lumbar vertebrae (the ones that form the ’small’ of your back) – in modern mammals the diaphram is attached to the lower edge of the ribcage, & there are no lumbar ribs. The therapsid Thrinaxodon didn’t have lumbar ribs either, so the diaphragm must have been an early evolutionary innovation in the proto-mammal lineage.

And these beasts were probably furry :-)  Cynodont jawbones are perforated by small holes, similar to those which in modern mammals carry nerves and blood vessels to the whiskers, which implies furriness. (Cuddliness would be highly unlikely!) And a wonderful fossil from the Jurassic, Castorocauda, includes direct evidence of fur. Not only this, but a range of features tell us that Castorocauda spent a lot of time in the water. So, an immediate predecessor of modern mammals swam in the streams that T.rex would have splashed through: the earliest evidence yet of an aquatic mammal.

But the origins of ‘true’ (modern) mammals remains a bit murky. This isn’t helped by the fact that many of the early forms are known mainly by their teeth. (I’m sure it’s been said by someone before, but you could jokingly say that the evolution of mammals is traced through the matings of teeth with teeth…).So to get back to that original question: what is the age of the mammals? The answer has to be – it depends on how you define them :-) 

the bca vs simon singh Alison Campbell Mar 05

No Comments

Over the last few months many science bloggers have been watching – with considerable interest – a libel case taken agains science writer Simon Singh by the British Chiropractic Association. Singh had used the word ‘bogus’ in describing treatments offered for a range of ailments, including asthma and ear infections. (Similar claims-by-implication are made in NZ.) While the UK’s libel laws allowed the case to proceed (it’s still before the courts), Singh’s view is supported by a number of meta-analyses of availble good-quality studies: for conditions other than musculoskeletal pain (eg asthma, & a range of childhood conditions)  such treatments perform no better than placebo .

Now it seems that the case appears to have sparked somethng of a backlash in the UK, with chiropractors advised by their professional body to remove from their websites & other publicity material any claims of the ability to treat conditions such as whiplash and colic. This is interesting given that the BCA had previously released what it described as a ‘plethora’ of evidence supporting those claims. However, as Edzard Ernst has noted, of the 19 references included in that list, it seems that 4 didn’t even contain data relating to chiropractic treatment. A further 8 are not based on controlled clinical trials, and the remaining 7 are flawed in methodology or conclusion – for example, a lack of double-blinding that doesn’t allow us to rule out the placebo effect, in a comparison of chiropractic vs an anti-colic drug.  (Ernst also points out that several robust, rigorous trials of chiropractic interventions, that don’t show any effect better than placebo, aren’t included in the BCA list.)

If the BCA is now advising that claims concerning ailments other than back pain should not be made, where to next for the case against Singh?

evolution supressed in new zealand? i think not Alison Campbell Mar 02

No Comments

While searching for some background on another post, I happened across this headline on the Herald site: University denies author’s PhD claim. I went on to read the story, as it’s always a bit of a concern to see people claiming credentials and the supposed awarding institution denying that this is the case. And a statement from the person making the claims caught my eye.

“During a period in which ‘evolution’ became a bad word [in New Zealand] punishable by revocation of credentials and confiscation of property [the 1980's], I refused an order from a department chairman to withdraw my books Darwin’s Universe and Time Gate from press,” he told a contemporary writers’ website.

Really? I have to say, that was news to me. The history of attitudes to teaching evolution in NZ has been quite well documented, most notably in works by Numbers & Stenhouse (2000), McGeorge (1992), & Peddie (1995), & it’s an area I’ve followed with interest.. Way bac,k in the 1880s there was an attempt by local creationists to get an Otago academic removed from his post for daring to mention evolution in his lectures (to no avail), and in the 1940s the creationist lobby was successful in getting a radio program for schools that talked about the evolution of life, taken off the air.

But to claim, as this person has done, that in the 1980s you could lose your credentials or even have property confiscated for mentioning the ‘e’ word?! This was the same time that I was teaching evolutionary biology to impressionable young minds in Palmerston North high schools – and I wasn’t run out of town or tarred & feathered ;-) Mind you, the fact that evolution wasn’t taught until the last couple of years of high school, thus exposing the smallest possible number of of impressionable young minds to this dangerous idea of Darwin’s, may have had something to do with that :-) Similar claims have been made in the US, around the infamous movie Expelled. And they’ve been shown to be similarly without substance. (Unless, in some alternate universe…)

Don’t get me wrong – there are problems associated with teaching evolution, particularly in some parts of NZ, as Peddie documented in his 1995 thesis. But they don’t manifest in people being pilloried or losing their belongings. Instead, as Peddie found, teachers may face pressure to skip that part of the curriculum (perhaps made easier to do by the fact that schools don’t have to offer the full number of achievement standards in a subject). Hopefully the fact that evolution is so prominent in the new science curriculum (beginning in primary schools) – being implemented this year, along with all the other curriculum areas – will make it that much harder to avoid teaching about this key biological concept, in state schools anyway.

But as for the claim that began this post? Pure fantasy.

 

 

C McGeorge  (1992) Evolution in the Primary School Curriculum. History of Education 21(2): 205-218

RL Numbers &  J Stenhouse (2000) Antievolutionism in the Antipodes: from protesting evolution to promoting creationism in New Zealand. The British Journal for the History of Science 33: 335-350

WS Peddie  (1995). Alienated by Evolution: the educational implications of creationist and social Darwinist reactions in New Zealand to the Darwinian theory of evolution. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Auckland.

 

 

« Older Entries