Download Understanding and Teaching Evolution, University of California

Understanding Evolution, and Evolution website for teachers
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evohome.html
Misconception: “Evolution is a theory about the origin of life.”
Response: Evolutionary theory deals mainly with how life changed after its origin. Science does try to
investigate how life started (e.g., whether or not it happened near a deep-sea vent, which organic
molecules came first, etc.), but these considerations are not the central focus of evolutionary theory.
Regardless of how life started, afterwards it branched and diversified. Whether or not we understand
how life began, we do understand a lot about what happened during the history of life—though there is
still much to learn.
Misconception: “Evolution is like a climb up a ladder of
progress; organisms are always getting better.”
Response: It is true that natural selection weeds out individuals that are unfit in a particular situation,
but for evolution, “good enough” is good enough. No organism has to be perfect. For example, many
taxa (like some mosses, protists, fungi, sharks, opossums, and crayfish) have changed little over great
expanses of time. They are not marching up a ladder of progress. Rather, they are fit enough to survive
and reproduce, and that is all that is necessary to ensure their existence.
1
Other taxa may have changed and diversified a great deal—but that doesn’t mean they got “better.”
After all, climates change, rivers shift course, new competitors invade—and what was “better” a million
years ago, may not be “better” today. What works “better” in one location might not work so well in
another. Fitness is linked to environment, not to progress.
Misconception: “Evolution means that life changed ‘by chance.’
Response: Chance is certainly a factor in evolution, but there are also non-random evolutionary
mechanisms. Random mutation is the ultimate source of genetic variation, however natural selection,
the process by which some variants survive and others do not, is not random.
For example, some aquatic animals are more likely to survive and reproduce if they can move quickly
through water. Speed helps them to capture prey and escape danger. Animals such as sharks, tuna,
dolphins and ichthyosaurs have evolved streamlined body shapes that allow them to swim fast. As they
evolved, individuals with more streamlined bodies were more likely to survive and reproduce.
Individuals that survive and reproduce better in their environment will have more offspring (displaying
the same traits) in the next generation. That's non-random selection. To say that evolution happens “by
chance” ignores half of the picture.
Misconception: “Natural selection involves organisms ‘trying’ to
adapt.”
Response: Natural selection leads to adaptation, but the process doesn’t involve “trying.” Natural selection
involves genetic variation and selection among variants present in a population. Either an individual has
genes that are good enough to survive and reproduce, or it does not—but it can’t get the right genes by
“trying.”
Misconception: “Natural selection gives organisms what they
‘need.’ ”
Response: Natural selection has no intentions or senses; it cannot sense what a species “needs.” If a
population happens to have the genetic variation that allows some individuals to survive a particular
challenge better than others, then those individuals will have more offspring in the next generation, and
the population will evolve. If that genetic variation is not in the population, the population may still
survive (but not evolve much) or it may die out. But it will not be granted what it “needs” by natural
selection.
Misconception: “Evolution and religion are incompatible.”
Response: Religion
and science (evolution) are very different things. In science (as in science class),
only natural causes are used to explain natural phenomena, while religion deals with beliefs that
are beyond the natural world.
The misconception that one has to choose between science and religion is divisive. Most Christian and
Jewish religious groups have no conflict with the theory of evolution or other scientific findings. In fact,
many religious people, including theologians, feel that a deeper understanding of nature actually
2
enriches their faith. Moreover, in the scientific community there are thousands of scientists who are
devoutly religious and also accept evolution
Misconception: “Evolution is ‘just’ a theory.”
Misconception: “Evolution is a theory in crisis and is collapsing
as scientists lose confidence in it.”
Response: Scientists do not debate whether evolution (descent with modification) took place, but they
do argue about how it took place. Details of the processes and mechanisms are vigorously debated.
Antievolutionists may hear the debates about how evolution occurs and misinterpret them as debates
about whether evolution occurs. Evolution is sound science and is treated accordingly by scientists and
scholars worldwide.
Misconception: “Gaps in the fossil record disprove evolution.”
Response: The fact that some transitional fossils are not preserved does not disprove evolution.
Evolutionary biologists do not expect that all transitional forms will be found and realize that many
species leave no fossils at all. Lots of organisms don’t fossilize well and the environmental conditions for
forming good fossils are not that common. So, science actually predicts that for many evolutionary
changes there will be gaps in the record.
Also, as predicted, scientists have found many fossils that show the presence of new, complex
structures. For example, there are fossils of transitional organisms between modern birds and their
theropod dinosaur ancestors, and between whales and their terrestrial mammal ancestors.
Misconception: “Evolutionary theory is incomplete and is
currently unable to give a total explanation of life.”
Response: Evolutionary science is a work in progress. New discoveries are made and explanations
adjusted when necessary. And in this respect, evolution is just like all other sciences. Research
continues to add to our knowledge. While we don’t know everything about evolution (or any other
scientific discipline, for that matter), we do know a great deal about the history of life, the pattern of
lineage-splitting through time, and the mechanisms that have caused these changes. And more will be
learned in the future. To date, evolution is the only well-supported explanation for life’s diversity
Misconception: “The theory of evolution is flawed, but scientists
won’t admit it.”
Response: Scientists have examined the supposed “flaws” that creationists claim exist in evolutionary
theory and have found no support for these claims. These “flaws” are based on misunderstandings of
evolutionary theory or misrepresentations of evidence. Scientists continue to refine the theory of
evolution, but that doesn’t mean it is “flawed.” Science is a very competitive endeavor and if “flaws”
were discovered, scientists would be more than glad to point them out.
3
Misconception: “Evolution is not science because it is not
observable or testable.”
Response: Evolution is observable and testable. The misconception here is that science is limited to
controlled experiments that are conducted in laboratories by people in white lab coats. Actually, much
of science is accomplished by gathering evidence from the real world and inferring how things work.
Astronomers cannot hold stars in their hands and geologists cannot go back in time, but in both cases
scientists can learn a great deal by using multiple lines of evidence to make valid and useful inferences
about their objects of study. The same is true of the study of the evolutionary history of life on Earth,
and as a matter of fact, many mechanisms of evolution are studied through direct experimentation as in
more familiar sciences.
Lines of Evidence for Evolution
Avoid pitfalls by:
1. Using Appropriate Terminology
In casual conversation we might say, “I think the Niners are gonna’ win the big game,” rather than,
“I’ve got a hypothesis about who is going to win the football game this weekend.” Socially, the second
version may seem stilted, but etymologically it is quite correct. While in the classroom, in contrast to our
time off-campus, we should use appropriate terms, particularly when words have both popular and
scientific definitions that are not necessarily in synch.
Function not purpose
The purpose of a hammer is to pound nails. One function of a hand is to hold a hammer. Designed tools
have purposes. Structures and behaviors of living things have functions. This is an important distinction
in the science classroom.
Evidence not proof
We often hear news stories in which the narrator refers to having “enough proof.” This is an example of
confusing the terms, “proof” and “evidence.” In addition, the term, “proof,” is used in geometry and in
courts of law, but does not belong in science. Scientists gather evidence to support or falsify
hypotheses. Hypotheses and theories may be well supported by evidence, but never proven.
4
Primitive and advanced
The average person might see an opossum as more primitive than a cat. Life forms that are more highly
specialized tend to be viewed as more advanced. However, even though opossums retain some
conspicuous ancestral features, they are well adapted to their omnivorous habit and are every bit as
successful and modern as cats. Saber-toothed cats were even more narrowly adapted than present-day
cats and a change in their environment put them on the fast track to extinction.
Theory vs. hypothesis
A theory is an explanation. The validity of a theory rests upon its ability to explain phenomena.
Theories may be supported, rejected, or modified, based on new evidence. Gravitational theory, for
example, attempts to explain the nature of gravity. Cell theory explains the workings of cells.
Evolutionary theory explains the history of life on Earth.
A hypothesis is a testable idea. Scientists do not set out to “prove” hypotheses, but to test them. Often
multiple hypotheses are posed to explain phenomena and the goal of research is to eliminate the
incorrect ones. Hypotheses come and go by the thousands, but theories often remain to be tested and
modified for decades or centuries. In science, theories are never hunches or guesses and to describe
evolution as “just a theory” is inappropriate.
Believe or accept
“Do you believe in evolution?” is a question often asked of biology teachers by their puzzled students.
The answer is, “No, I accept the fact that the Earth is very old and life has changed over billions of
years because that is what the evidence tells us.” Science is not about belief—it is about making
inferences based on evidence.
2. Avoiding Confusing Terms & Phrases
Some terms have particular meanings in evolutionary biology that are different when used in the
vernacular. So, there are several words that we need to make sure that our students understand and
use correctly
Adapt
We adapt to cold weather by putting on more clothing. This is an example of one definition of the term,
“adapt.” Unfortunately, students may apply this definition to evolution. This results in the erroneous
impression that evolution consists of individuals adapting to fit changes in their environments .
Evolution proceeds by selection occurring within populations containing large numbers of genetically
varying individuals.
Randomness and evolution
Variation is random, selection usually is not. Selection of favorable traits within a population occurs
when living things meet all the challenges presented to them. These pressures are not random, but are
determined by physical laws. Barring the occasional tree randomly falling on an organism, or a volcano
wiping out a population, selection is not random and evolution does not happen by chance.
Ancestor versus relative
When we fail to distinguish between a common ancestor and a relative we set our students up for
confusion. You and your cousin are related. You share a common ancestor. You did not evolve from
your cousin. Similarly, humans and chimps are related, but humans did not evolve from chimps any
more than chimps evolved from humans.
5
Confusing evolution with development
Development is the process that occurs as a living thing grows up (ontogeny). Evolution is change of
form or behavior of a population over time (phylogeny).
Simple to complex
In viewing the entire history of life on Earth, it is true that the first life consisted of relatively simple
cells and that aggregation of cells led to larger organisms. However, the rule that living things always
become more complex is erroneous. Insects evolved from arthropods with more than six legs. Birds and
snakes have lost parts. Humans no longer have tails. The direction of evolution is often toward the loss
of parts or behaviors—becoming simpler, not more complex.
Design
Use of the word “design” may imply that living things are designed and there is a plan at work. Use of
such terms “structure” and “adaptation” are more appropriate. Example: “How is an aardvark designed
to eat ants?” could be replaced by, “How is an aardvark adapted to eating ants?” or, “What structures
and behaviors aid an aardvark in eating ants?”
3. Avoid Confusing Activities
Evolution is more difficult to observe than, for example, Newtonian physics. Thus, we often conduct
activities in the classroom that are intended to be analogous to evolution and to the scientific
enterprise, but which can lead to misconceptions.
Making fossils
A very common activity for young children is to have them make “fossils” by pressing shells into clay or
plaster of Paris. While this clearly shows how a rock can contain molds and casts, it may well mislead
children about the process by which fossils are formed in nature. In most cases, shell fossils are formed
when shells are covered by sediment and over time the sediment hardens. This is very different from
the process of squashing shells between two slabs of clay. It may be well advised to only conduct this
activity with older students who can recognize how it contrasts with actual processes in nature.
Design an animal
When we ask students to design an animal to fit an ecosystem, on paper or out of pipe cleaners, we
may be sending the message that living things are designed or that an individual animal can “adapt” to
its environment by choosing to do so. This is far from the scientific view that living things are adapted
over time to their environmental situations through genetic variation and natural selection.
Voting on scientific issues
Asking students to vote on a scientific issue misleads them about the nature of science. Scientists don’t
vote on issues—they debate, discuss, argue and compete. But, in the end, answers to scientific
questions are determined by consensus based on inference derived from evidence. Science is not
democratic.
Having students hypothesize (guess) before they know anything
Hypotheses are based on prior knowledge. It is a meaningless exercise to ask students to guess the
outcome of an investigation or the answer to a question without possession of adequate information.
Debating creationism vs. evolution
There are some topics that youngsters should be encouraged to think about, but not to debate in
school. Conspicuous examples include evolution and abortion. Young people have very limited
experience in such topics and tend to take whatever position the most influential adults in their lives
take. The role of teachers is to provide information and opportunities to build conceptual understanding.
6
The detached perspective necessary for sorting through information is not promoted by a contentious
climate. Educate, don’t debate.
Teaching Evolution
So you want to know how to teach evolution? It’s easy!
1. Focus on the fundamentals.
The mechanism of evolution is based in these four fundamentals: variation, inheritance,
selection, and time. At the same time, always keep in mind the nature of science – how we
know what we know.
2. Think of what you would like your students to know.
Concepts guide your planning to the ideas that are central to the understanding of evolution.
3. Find the resources to support their learning.
Once you have identified the concepts, select the appropriate lessons.
Nature of Science: science uses only natural causes (not supernatural )
History of Life:
Evidence for Evolution: fossils, homologies, geophysical relationships, experiments
Central ideas of evolution: variation, inheritance, selection, time (VIST)
Mechanisms of evolution:
7
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/9213_the_creationevolution_continu_12_7_2000.asp
National Center for Science Education
Defending the Teaching of Evolution in the Public Schools
Home | On the Road | NCSE Store | Links | Journal | Resources | About NCSE | Press Room | Search
The Creation/Evolution Continuum
by Eugenie C. Scott
Click here for the Creation/Evolution Continuum graphic
The first page of the "Members Centerfold" section of this issue of RNCSE presents a graphic that I have
used in many of my public presentations. So many people have requested copies of the graphic and
supporting information that I decided to make it available in RNCSE. Now anyone can make a
transparency from page 17, and use it with the information in this article to present some very important
information to audiences.
Many -- if not most -- Americans think of the creation and evolution controversy as a dichotomy with
"creationists" on one side, and "evolutionists" on the other. This assumption all too often leads to the
unfortunate conclusion that because creationists are believers in God, that evolutionists must be atheists.
The true situation is much more complicated. I encourage people to reject the creation/evolution
dichotomy and recognize the creation/evolution continuum. It is clear that creationism comes in many
forms. If a student tells a teacher, "I´m a creationist", the teacher needs to ask, "What kind?"
THE CREATION/EVOLUTION CONTINUUM
Page 17 presents a continuum with creationism at one end and evolution at the other. The strictest
creationists are the Flat Earthers.
Flat Earthers -- Members of the Flat Earth Society believe that the shape of the earth is flat because a
literal reading of the Bible demands it (Schadewald, 1991). Charles K. Johnson is the head of the
International Flat Earth Society, headquartered in Lancaster, CA, and he is very serious about the planet´s
shape being as the ancients perceived it: circular and flat, not spherical. The earth is shaped like a coin,
not a ball. References in the Bible to the "four corners of the earth" refer to the cardinal directions; more
relevant are references to the "circle of the earth", implying a 2-dimensional, flat plane. The International
Flat Earth Society has only about 200 members (Schadewald, 1980) and is insignificant in the
antievolution movement. However, it represents the most extreme biblical literalist theology: the earth is
flat because the Bible says it is flat. Scientific views are of secondary importance.
Geocentrists -- Geocentrists accept that the earth is spherical, but deny that the sun is the center of the
solar system. Like flat earthers, they reject virtually all of modern physics and chemistry as well as
biology. Geocentrism is a somewhat larger, though still insignificant constituent of modern
antievolutionism. At the Bible-Science Association creationism conference in 1985, the plenary session
debate was held between two geocentrists and two heliocentrists (Bible-Science Association, 1985).
Similarly, as recently as 1985, the secretary of the Creation Research Society was a published geocentrist
(Kaufmann, 1985).
Both flat-earth and geocentrist views reflect the perception of the earth held by the ancient Hebrews, that
the earth is a flat disk floating on water, and the heavens are held up by a dome (or firmament) with the
sun, moon, and stars attached to it (Cartmill, 1998). The waters above the firmament, flowing in through
8
the windows of heaven, were the source of the forty days and nights of rain of Noah´s Flood.
Figure. 1: The Ancient Hebrew Conception of the Universe (from Robinson, 1913, p. 13)
The next group of creationists on the continuum are less strictly literal in their interpretation of the Bible,
but they still hold to Special Creationism.
Young-Earth Creationism -- The term "Young-Earth Creationism" (YEC) is usually reserved for the
followers of Henry Morris, founder and recently-retired president of the Institute for Creation Research
(ICR), and arguably the most influential creationist of the late 20th century. Few classical YECs interpret
the flat-earth and geocentric passages of the Bible literally, but they reject modern physics, chemistry,
and geology concerning the age of the earth, and they deny biological descent with modification. In their
view, the earth is from 6 to 10 thousand years old.
Henry Morris defined antievolutionism in its modern form. In 1961, he and John C Whitcomb published The
Genesis Flood, a seminal work that claimed to provide the scientific rationale for Young Earth Creationism
(Whitcomb and Morris, 1961). As the title suggests, the authors accept Genesis literally, including not only
the special, separate creation of humans and all other species, but also the historicity of Noah´s Flood.
9
The Genesis Flood was the first significant 20th century effort to present a scientific rationale for special
creationism. "Creation Science" was fleshed out by subsequent books and pamphlets by Morris and those
inspired by him.
The Institute for Creation Research (ICR) remains the flagship creationist institution to which all other YEC
organizations look. Most literature promoting "creation science" originates with the ICR, and promotes
YEC. The National Center for Science Education provides information refuting the scientific claims of
creation science. Criticisms of creation science from a pedagogical standpoint can be obtained from the
National Association of Biology Teachers and the National Science Teachers Association. The US Supreme
Court has declared the teaching of creation science to be an illegal advancement of sectarian religion
(Edwards v. Aguillard). More information on YEC can be found in Scott, 1997, Scott, 1994, and Scott and
Cole, 1985.
Old Earth Creationism (OEC) -- That the earth is ancient was well-established in science by the mid1800´s, and was not considered a radical idea in either the Church of England or the Catholic Church
(Eiseley, 1958). From the mid-1700´s on, the theology of Special Creationism has been harmonized with
scientific data and theory showing that the earth was ancient.
Theologically, the most critical element of Special Creationism is God´s personal involvement in Creation;
precise details of how God created are considered secondary. The present may indeed be different from
the past, but OECs see God as an active causal agent of the observed changes.
Gap Creationism -- One of the better-known accommodations of religion to science was Gap or
Restitution Creationism, which claimed that there was a large temporal gap between Genesis chapter I:1
and chapter I:2 (Young, 1982). Articulated from about the late 18th century on, Gap Creationism assumes
a pre-Adamic creation that was destroyed before Genesis I:2, when God recreated the world in six days,
and created Adam and Eve. A time gap between two separate creations allows for an accommodation of
the proof of the ancient age of the earth with Special Creationism.
Day-Age Creationism -- Another attempt to accommodate science to a literal, or mostly literal reading of
the Bible, is the Day-Age model, which was more popular than Gap Creationism in the 19th century and
the earlier part of this one (Young, 1982). This model accommodates science and religion by rendering
each of the six days of creation as long periods of time -- even thousands or millions of years instead of
merely 24 hours long. Many literalists have found comfort in what they think is a rough parallel between
organic evolution and Genesis, in which plants appear before animals, and human beings appear last.
Progressive Creationism (PC) -- Although some modern activist antievolutionists may still hold to DayAge and Gap views, the view held by the majority of today´s Old Earth Creationists is some form of
Progressive Creationism. The PC view blends Special Creationism with a fair amount of modern science.
Progressive Creationists such as Dr. Hugh Ross, of Reasons to Believe ministries, have no problems with
scientific data concerning the age of the earth, or the long period of time it has taken for the earth to
come to its current form. Astronomer Ross, a University of Toronto Ph.D., cites the Big Bang as evidence
of the creative power of God. Although modern physical science is accepted, only parts of modern
biological science are incorporated into PC.
PCs generally believe that God created "kinds" of animals sequentially; the fossil record is thus an
accurate representation of history because different animals and plants appeared at different times rather
than having been created all at once. PCs reject the inference that earlier forms are genetically related to
later ones; kinds are separate creations: descent with modification does not occur. The definition of kinds
is inconsistent, but usually refers to a higher taxonomic level than species. Most PCs accept that God
created creatures containing at least as much genetic variation as a Family (such as Felidae, Canidae, etc)
and then considerable "evolution within a kind" occurred. A created cat kind thus would have possessed
sufficient genetic variability to differentiate into lions, tigers, leopards, pumas, bobcats, and house cats,
through the normal microevolutionary processes of mutation and recombination, natural selection, genetic
drift, and speciation. The "basic body plans" of major phyla which appear in the Cambrian "explosion" are
seen by most OECs as evidence of Special Creation. In PC, God is seen as acting through natural law (i.e.,
10
microevolutionary processes) but also as an active creator.
Intelligent Design Creationists (IDC) -- Intelligent Design Creationism is a lineal descendent of William
Paley´s Argument from Design (Paley, 1803), which asserted that God´s existence could be proved by
examining his works. Paley used an analogy: if one found a watch, it was obvious that such a thing could
not have come together by chance; the existence of a watch implies a watchmaker who has designed the
watch with a purpose in mind. Similarly, the finding of order, purpose, and design in the world is proof of
an omniscient designer.
The vertebrate eye was Paley´s classic example of design in nature, well known to educated people of the
19th century. In IDC, one is less likely to find references to the vertebrate eye and more likely to find DNA
structure or cellular complexity held up as "too complex to have evolved by chance." The high school
biology supplemental textbook, Of Pandas and People (Davis and Kenyon, 1989), weaves information
theory into an exposition of the "linguistics" of the DNA code in an attempt to prove that DNA is too
complex to explain by means of natural causes.
In the PC tradition, IDC allows for a fair amount of microevolution, but supporters deny that mutation and
natural selection are adequate to explain the evolution of one kind from another, such as chordates from
echinoderms, or humans from apes. Major body plans and the origin of life are phenomena supposedly
"too complex" to be explained naturally, thus IDC demands a direct role for the "intelligent designer" -God. There have been calls for IDC to be taught with evolution, much as equal time for creation science
and evolution was promoted before the Supreme Court disallowed the advocating of creationism in 1989.
IDCs vary considerably in their attitude towards evolution. Most IDC activists are not scientists, but
philosophers or historians. The few biologists among them actually accept a fair amount of evolution. In
1996, Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behe published the most scholarly and scientific IDC book to
date, Darwin´s Black Box (Behe, 1996), which offers little comfort to typical antievolutionists. Behe
accepts that natural selection produces most of the complex structural adaptations of plants and animals,
and even accepts that modern living things descended with modification from common ancestors. In a
debate with Brown University biologist Kenneth Miller during the summer of 1995, Behe agreed with
Miller´s point that common pseudogenes between apes and chimps is strong support for their having
shared a common ancestor (Miller, 1996).
Still, Behe asserts that some biological phenomena can´t be explained through natural processes. He
claims that at the level of cell biochemistry there are "irreducibly complex" processes and structures, such
as the blood clotting cascade and the rotor motor of a microorganism´s flagellum. Such structures cannot
be broken down into individually-functioning component parts, says Behe, and therefore cannot be
explained through the incremental activity of natural selection. Therefore they could not have evolved, and
because they could not have evolved, they must have been specially created. Behe argues, as did Paley,
that complexity is proof that there must be an intelligent designer, but his examples of complexity are
biochemical rather than anatomical.
Because Behe is a research scientist with a track record of legitimate publications (although not in
evolutionary biology), his book has been reviewed by scientists. (Coyne, 1996; Miller, 1996, reviews may
be found at a web site: http:www.world-of-dawkins.com/Catalano/box/behe.htm ) The response of the
scientific community has been decidedly tepid. Reviewers were quick to point out flaws in Behe´s
reasoning, and factual and conceptual understanding, especially concerning the cumulative nature of
natural selection.
The Creation/Evolution Continuum, like most continua, has few sharp boundaries. There is a sharp division
between YEC and OEC, but less clear cut separation between the various OEC persuasions. Even though
OECs accept most of modern physics, chemistry, and geology, they are not very dissimilar to YECs in their
rejection of descent with modification.
In this continuum, Intelligent Design Creationism overlaps YEC and OEC. Most proponents of IDC are old
earthers, but several of the more prominent advocates of the position are associated with YEC. Because
IDC studiously avoids making fact claims regarding the age of the earth, common ancestry, or specific
11
phylogenies, its views are, as they put it, "compatible" with YEC or OEC. This "compatability" necessarily
results in an incoherent scientific position --how can a scientific claim support both YEC and OEC?
Proponents present IDC as making only minimal claims about the existence of design and its detectability,
but in actuality, IDC is a form of PC. Whenever irreducible complexity of a biological structure is
encontered, there is evidence of direct design -- or creationism.
Evolutionary Creationism (EC) -- Despite its name, evolutionary creationism is actually a type of
evolution. Here, God the Creator uses evolution to bring about the universe according to his plan. From a
scientific point of view, evolutionary creationism is hardly distinguishable from Theistic evolution, which
follows it on the continuum. The differences between EC and Theistic evolution lie not in science, but in
theology, with EC being held by more conservative (evangelical) Christians (D. Lamoreaux, p.c).
Theistic Evolution (TE) -- Theistic Evolution is the theological view that God creates through evolution.
Astronomical, geological and biological evolution are acceptable to TEs They vary in whether and how
much God is allowed to intervene -- some come pretty close to Deists. Other TEs see God as intervening
at critical intervals during the history of life (especially in the origin of humans), and they in turn come
closer to PCs. In one form or another, TE is the view of creation taught at mainline Protestant seminaries,
and it is the official position of the Catholic church. In 1996, Pope John Paul II reiterated the Catholic TE
position, in which God created, evolution happened, humans may indeed be descended from more
primitive forms, but the hand of God was needed for the creation of the human soul. (John Paul II, 1996).
Materialist Evolutionism (ME) -- Theistic Evolution is followed on the continuum by a nonreligious view,
Materialist Evolutionism. It is important to distinguish two ways that "materialism" is used. One is in
science, which is described as a "materialist" enterprise, focusing on matter and energy and their
interactions. Modern science operates under a rule of methodological materialism that limits it to
attempting to explain the natural world using natural -- matter and energy -- causes. Science in and of
itself is neutral to religion: by definition, it lacks the ability to hold constant supernatural forces. It is
neither antireligious nor pro-religious: it is neutral because supernatural forces are outside of what it can
consider as causation. MEs go beyond the methodological materialism of science to propose that the laws
of nature are all there is: the supernatural does not exist. This is a form of philosophical materialism
(naturalism or scientism), which is distinct from the practical rules of how to do science.
Antievolutionists such as Phillip Johnson criticize evolution and science in general as being philosophically
materialistic (Johnson, 1995). This is a logical error. It is very likely the case that all philosophical
materialists are also methodological materialists. The converse is not necessarily true: that all
methodological materialists are also philosophical materialists. It may be the case, but this would have to
be determined empirically, it does not follow logically. In fact, such a claim is empirically falsified, as there
are many scientists who use methodological materialism in their work, but who are theists and therefore
not philosophical materialists. In addition to many living scientists, Gregor Mendel is a classic case of a
scientist who was a methodological materialist but not a philosophical one.
Teachers of both high school and college have told me that many students come into a class with the
attitude that evolution is somehow unacceptable for a religious person. Such students are reluctant to
learn about evolution. One way to assuage their concerns is to use the "creation/evolution continuum" to
illustrate the wide range of opinion within Christianity towards evolution, which helps religious students
understand that there are many options available to them as people of faith. Most students will recognize
themselves somewhere on the continuum, whether believers or nonbelievers; it makes for an engaging
lecture. It is perfectly legal for teachers to describe religious views in a classroom; it is only
unconstitutional for teachers to advocate religious ideas in the classroom. I have also presented the
"creation/evolution continuum" in public lectures to general audiences, and they have also found it of
interest. Many people are unaware that there is far more variation among creationists as to how things
came to be than there is among evolutionists!
References cited
Bible-Science Association. Bible-Science Association Conference Schedule. August 14 -15, Cleveland, OH:
12
Bible-Science Association; 1985.
Behe M. Darwin´s black box. New York: Free Press; 1996.
Cartmill M. Oppressed by evolution. Discover 1998, March.
Coyne JA. God in the details. Nature 1996;383:227-228.
Davis P, Kenyon DH. Of pandas and people. Dallas, TX: Haughton; 1989.
Eiseley L. Darwin´s century. Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, Inc; 1961.
John Paul II P. Magisterium is concerned with question of evolution, for it involves conception of man.
L´Osservatore Romano 1996.October 30; 3, 7.
Johnson P. Reason in the balance. Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity; 1995.
Kaufman SA. The origin of order. New York: Oxford University Press; 1993.
Miller KR. Darwin´s black box: the biochemical challenge to evolution. Creation/Evolution1996;16(2):3640.
Paley W. Natural theology: or, evidences of the existence and attributes of the deity, collected from the
appearances of nature. London: Faulder; 1803.
Robinson GL. Leaders of Israel. New York, NY: Association Press; 1913.
Schadewald RJ. Earth orbits? Moon landings? A fraud! Says this prophet. Science Digest 1980 July:58-63.
Schadewald RJ. Introduction. In: De Ford CS, editor. A reparation. Washington: Ye Galleon; 1991. p 62.
Scott EC, Cole HP. The elusive scientific basis of creation "science". Quarterly Review of
Biology1985;60(1):21-30.
Scott EC. The struggle for the schools. Natural History 1994 July:10, 12-13.
Scott EC. Antievolution and creationism in the United States. Annual Reviews of Anthropology 1997;
26:263-289.
Whitcomb JC, Morris HR. The Genesis flood: the biblical record and its scientific implications. Phillipsburg,
NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed; 1961.
Young DA. Christianity and the age of the earth. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan; 1982.
Reprinted with modifications from Eugenie C. Scott, The Creation/Evolution Continuum, Reports of the
National Center for Science Education, 19(4):16-17,21-23. Continuum graphic changed 12/22/03;
addendum added to text on IDC.
December 7, 2000
13
Links
National Science Teachers Association resources for evolution teaching
http://nsta.org/evresources
National Center for Science Education is a reputable resource for information on Evolution
teaching. It has links to many types of resources. Go to
http://www.ncseweb.org/link.asp?category=1 to see the kinds of links. Includes links to
creationist sites.
http://www.talkorigins.org/ A website devoted to discussion of evolution/creation controversy.
http://www.eskeletons.org/ The e skeletons project. Look at bones from various primate taxa,
view, examine, rotate.
http://tolweb.org/tree?group=Life_on_Earth&contgroup= Tree of life project at Arizona
Phylogeny of many groups
14