Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Addressing controversies in science education: a pragmatic approach to evolution education

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Science & Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Science education controversies typically prove more intractable than those in scientific research because they involve a wider range of considerations (e.g., epistemic, social, ethical, political, and religious). How can educators acknowledge central issues in a controversy (such as evolution)? How can such problems be addressed in a way that is ethically sensitive and intellectually responsible? Drawing in part on pragmatic philosopher John Dewey, our solution is politically proactive, philosophically pragmatic, and grounded in research. Central to our proposal is (1) steps toward creating a philosophical “total attitude” that is democratic, imaginative, and hypothetical; (2) a deeper understanding of how scientific theories can be pragmatically true; and (3) an assessment of differing pedagogical approaches for teaching evolution in the classroom.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. For representative critiques of the correspondence theory see Künne (2003, pp. 126–145) and Davidson (2005, pp. 33–34). A recent and intricate defense of the correspondence theory can be found in Vision (2004).

  2. See, for example, Pennock (1999) and Shanks (2004).

  3. The classic source of these questions is, of course, the work of Thomas Kuhn (1996).

  4. John Dupré (2005, esp chap 4) also argues that evolution poses a challenge to theism in general.

  5. In this regard it is worth noting that Gould first presented his theory of “non-overlapping magisteria” in response to a statement by Pope John Paul II affirming the compatibility of evolution with Catholic doctrine. While Gould’s (and John Paul’s) argument may hold for Catholics, it does not address the continuing tension between religion and science that is still present for many non-Catholic Protestants. Even Gould, in his original 1979 piece, blurred the difference writing, “John Paul...adds that additional data and theory have places the factuality of evolution beyond reasonable doubt. Sincere Christians must now accept evolution no merely as a plausible possibility but also as an effectively proven fact.” Obviously many sincere non-Catholic Christians would bridle at the thought that John Paul’s words should determine their acceptance of evolution.

  6. Earlier Putnam writes that: “the point of view concerning the relation between ‘facts’ and ‘values’ that I shall be defending in this book is one that John Dewey defended throughout virtually all of his long and exemplary career” (2004, p. 9).

References

  • Abd-El-Khalick F, Lederman N (2000) Improving science teachers' conceptions of the nature of science: a critical review of the literature. Int J Sci Educ 22:665–701

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aguillard D (1999) Evolution education in Louisiana public schools: a decade following Edwards v Aguillard. Am Biol Teach 61:182–188

    Google Scholar 

  • American Association for the Advancement of Science (1990) Science for all Americans. Oxford University Press, New York

  • American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993) Benchmarks for science literacy. Oxford University Press, New York

  • American Association for the Advancement of Science (2002) AAAS board resolution on intelligent design theory. Retrieved 1/14/2003, from http:// www.aaas.org/news/releses/2002/1106id2.swhtml

  • Bilica K (2001) Factors which influence Texas biology teachers’ decisions to emphasize fundamental concepts of evolution. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Texas Tech University, Lubbock

    Google Scholar 

  • Bilica K, Skoog G (2004) Ohio teachers on teaching evolution and counter-evolutionary concepts in biology classrooms, 24. Available online http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol24/8949_ohio_teachers_on_teaching_evol_12_30_1899.asp

  • Bybee R (2000) Evolution: don’t debate; educate. Sci Teach 67(7):30–36

    Google Scholar 

  • Cracraft J, Donoghue M (2004) Assembling the tree of life. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidson D (2005) Truth and predication. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey J (1916/1985) Democracy and education. In: Boydston JA (ed) John Dewey: the middle works, 1899–1924, vol 9. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey J (1925/1983) Science, belief, and the public. In: Boydston JA (ed) John Dewey: the middle works, 1899–1924, vol 15. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale, pp. 47–52

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey J (1927/1988) The public and its problems. In: Boydston JA (ed) John Dewey: the later works, 1925–1953, vol 2. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey J (1938/1991) Logic: the theory of inquiry. In: Boydston JA (ed) John Dewey: the later works, 1925–1953, vol 12. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey J (1939/1991) Freedom and culture. In: Boydston JA (ed) John Dewey: the later works, 1925–1953. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale, 13:63–188

  • Dupré J (2005) Darwin’s legacy. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Elgin C (1996) The relativity of fact and the objectivity of value. In: Krausz M (ed) Relativism. University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, pp. 86–98

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellis W (1983) Biology teachers and border state beliefs. Society 20:26–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fahrenwald C (1999) Biology teachers’ acceptance and understanding of evolution and the nature of science. Unpublished EdD dissertation, University of South Dakota

  • Farber P (2003) Teaching evolution & the nature of science. Am Biol Teach 65:347–354

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garrison J (1997) An alternative to Von Glaserfeld’s subjectivism in science education: Deweyan social constructivism. Sci & Educ 6(6):543–554

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gould S (1997) Nonoverlapping magisteria. Nat Hist 106:16–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson P (2000) The wedge of truth: splitting the foundations of naturalism. InterVarsity, Downers Grove

    Google Scholar 

  • Khishfe R, Lederman N (2006) Teaching nature of science within a controversial topic: integrated versus nonintegrated. J Res Sci Teach 43:395–418

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn T (1996) The structure of scientific revolutions, 3 rd edn. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Künne W (2003) Conceptions of truth. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Matsumura M (2001) Eight significant court decisions. Retrieved on 15 January 2003, from http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3333_eight_significant_court_decisi_2_15_2001.asp

  • McComas W (2004) Keys to teaching the nature of science. Sci Teach 71:24–27

    Google Scholar 

  • Misak C (1999) Truth, politics, morality. Routledge, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore R (2001) Educational malpractice: why do so many biology teachers endorse creationism? Skeptical Inquirer 25(6):38–43

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (1996) National science education standards. National Academy Press, Washington

  • National Science Teachers Association (2003) An NSTA position statement: the teaching of evolution. Retrieved on November 2000, from http://wwws.nsta.org/positionstatement&psid = 10

  • Nord W (1999) Science, religion, and education. Phi Delta Kappan 81:28–33

    Google Scholar 

  • Osif B (1997) Evolution and religious beliefs: a survey of Pennsylvania high school teachers. Am Biol Teach 59:552–556

    Google Scholar 

  • Pennock R (1999) The Tower of Babel: the evidence against the new creationism. MIT, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Putnam H (1981) Reason, truth and history. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Putnam H (2004) The collapse of the fact/value dichotomy. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadler T (2005) Evolutionary theory as a scientific guide to socioscientific decision-making. J Biol Educ 39:68–72

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadler T, Amirshokoohi A, Kazempour M, Allspaw K (2006) Socioscience and ethics in science classrooms: teacher perspectives and strategies. J Res Sci Teach 43:353–376

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scharmann L (1994) Teaching evolution: designing successful instruction. J Sci Teach Educ 5:122–129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scharmann L (2005) A proactive strategy for teaching evolution. Am Biol Teach 67:12–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scharmann LC, Harris WM Jr (1992) Teaching evolution: understanding and applying the nature of science. J Res Sci Teach 29(4):375–388

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scharmann L, Smith M, James M, Jenson M (2005) Explicit reflective nature of science instruction: evolution, intelligent design, and umbrellaology. J Sci Teach Educ 16:27–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwab J (1973) The practical 3: translation into curriculum. School Rev 81:501–522

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwab J (1983) The practical 4: something for curriculum professors to do. Curriculum Inq 13:239–265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shankar G, Skoog G (1993) Emphasis given evolution and creationism by Texas high school biology teachers. Sci Educ 77:221–223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shanks N (2004) God, the devil, and Darwin: a critique of intelligent design theory. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Skoog G, Bilica K (2001) The emphasis given to state science standards: a lever for change in evolution education? Sci Educ 86:445–462

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith M, Siegel H (2004) ‘Knowing, believing, and understanding: what goals for science education? Sci & Educ 13:553–582

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith M, Scharmann L (2006) A multi-year program developing an explicit reflective pedagogy for teaching pre-service teachers the nature of science by ostention. Retrieved 11/2/2006, from Sci Educ http:// www.springerlink.com/.

  • Staver J (2003) Evolution and intelligent design. Sci Teach 70:32–35

    Google Scholar 

  • Tatina R (1989) South Dakota high school biology teachers & the teaching of evolution & creationism. Am Biol Teach 51:275–280

    Google Scholar 

  • Vision G (2004) Veritas: the correspondence theory and its critics. MIT, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright C (1994) Truth and objectivity. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman M (1987) The evolution–creation controversy: opinions of Ohio high school biology teachers. Ohio J Sci 87:115–125

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Philosophy, University of Colorado at Denver and Health Sciences Center, PO Box 173364, Denver, CO, 80217-3364, USA

    David Hildebrand

  2. Curriculum and Instruction, Science Education Emphasis, College of Education and Human Development, The University of Texas at San Antonio, 6900 North Loop 1604 West, San Antonio, TX, 78249-0631, USA

    Kimberly Bilica

  3. Department of Philosophy, Rochester Institute of Technology, 92 Lomb Memorial Dr., Rochester, NY, 14623, USA

    John Capps

Authors
  1. David Hildebrand
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kimberly Bilica
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. John Capps
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kimberly Bilica.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hildebrand, D., Bilica, K. & Capps, J. Addressing controversies in science education: a pragmatic approach to evolution education. Sci & Educ 17, 1033–1052 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-006-9066-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-006-9066-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation