Teaching The Contexts: Why Evolution Should Be Taught As An Argument and How it Might be Done

This article was downloaded by: [Selcuk Universitesi]On: 20 December 2014, At: 00:25Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Religion & EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/urel20

Teaching The Contexts: Why Evolution Should BeTaught As An Argument and How it Might be DoneJohn A. Campbell & Taz DaughtreyPublished online: 11 Nov 2010.

To cite this article: John A. Campbell & Taz Daughtrey (2006) Teaching The Contexts: Why Evolution Should Be Taught As AnArgument and How it Might be Done, Religion & Education, 33:3, 14-39, DOI: 10.1080/15507394.2006.10012382

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15507394.2006.10012382

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/urel20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/15507394.2006.10012382

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15507394.2006.10012382

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Teaching The Contexts: Why Evolution ShouldBe Taught As An Argument andHow it Might be Done

John A. Campbell and Taz Daughtrey

A central problem with our cultural-educational debate over evolution isits framing. All too often, this dispute is framed as a conflict in which oneside seeks to defend its prerogatives against encroachments by the otherside. Science educators rightfully resist attempts by parents and schoolboards to introduce into the science curriculum ideas that are not scientificbut which support values and perspectives held passionately in other com-munities. Parents, on the other hand, have legitimate interests in knowingand to some extent controlling what and how their children are being taught.That conflicts should occur in an education system that seeks to combinethe perspectives of educators professionally trained in specialized disci-plines with active parental participation and support is hardly surprising.

Caught in the middle are students, who deserve not only valid contentbut also appropriate pedagogy, and who may be torn between what is pre-sented in the classroom and what they hear at home and in their places ofworship. The broader but less visible set of stakeholders include the em-ployers of the future – and a democratic culture which demands its citizensbe well grounded in the content and processes of modern science.

In a sense the worst outcome of our ongoing cultural dispute over evo-lution would be the wrong kind of victory for either side. However desir-able might be a decisive court decision favoring the perspective and valuesof professional educators, any legal victory sending a clear message thatthe substantive concerns of parents for the content and form of their children’seducation were unwelcome would be unfortunate, as would a victory thatcompromised the integrity of science and the educational process. Publiceducation no doubt works best when teachers can bring to our children theirbest professional knowledge coupled with sensitivity to what is also hap-pening outside the classroom. To do this, particularly on topics that arecontroversial, requires teachers not only cultivate good relations with stu-dents and parents but also employ inventive pedagogical thinking.

Religion & Education, Vol. 33, No.3 (Fall 2006)Copyright © 2006 by the University of Northern Iowa

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Selc

uk U

nive

rsite

si]

at 0

0:25

20

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Why Evolution Should Be Taught As An Argument 15

We are now in the eighty-second year since the Scopes trial in Dayton,Tennessee in the summer of 1925 made opposition to evolution an embar-rassing icon of the distinctiveness of American education.1 Indeed, subse-quent self-censorship in biology textbooks across the next four decadesmeant that the evolutionists who thought they had won at that trial hadinstead lost as far as teaching Darwin’s theory in the high schools wasconcerned and they “did not even know they had lost.2 Readers of thisessay are no doubt familiar with the statistics of how little has changedsince the events recalled by seemingly endless replays of Inherit the Wind.Surveys have indicated that only about a third of Americans agreed thatDarwin’s theory of evolution has been well supported by evidence; 45%agreed with the statement that “God created human beings pretty much intheir present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so;” and morethan half the American public thinks that early humans lived at the time ofthe dinosaurs. Sadly, these numbers have been virtually unchanged acrossthe last quarter-century that these survey questions have been asked.3 Arecent study published in Science magazine surveying acceptance of evo-lution over the past twenty years in 34 industrialized countries placed Americanext-to-last, just above Turkey, the only other nation in the sample with asignificant population of religious fundamentalists.4

Clearly court decisions, however welcome in turning back unwise localinitiatives, do not address the roots of our problem. The calls of thoughtfulscience educators for new approaches in science education and the effortsof the National Academy of Sciences to provide resource materials for theteaching of evolution are all helpful and timely. Probably no single approachwill address all needs. Our proposal is less a single plan developed in detailbut a perspective which might inform a variety of different lesson plans andteaching strategies.

The idea of “teaching the controversy,” while not without advocates,has met with great skepticism on the part of science educators and manythoughtful citizens.5 There are three central objections.

1.There is no serious controversy among professional biologists onwhether evolution has occurred or of its fundamental significance as theunifying principle of modern biology.

2.The idea that one should give equal time to ideas that are not scien-tific out of a sense of “fairness” is not fair to serious science, is impracticalin its implementation, and is without educational value.

3.While there are arguments or controversies in contemporary science,these are too specialized and arcane for high school students to under-stand.6

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Selc

uk U

nive

rsite

si]

at 0

0:25

20

Dec

embe

r 20

14

16 Religion & Education

Each of these objections has merit. One should not teach as controver-sial ideas that are not controversial and which, to the contrary, enjoy con-sensus among the widest range of professional scientists. Particularly in ascience class, where there is much content for which the educational sys-tem is being increasingly held accountable, one should not give “equal time”to ideas that are not a recognized part of science just because that would be“fair” to those who reject the ideas. Finally every teacher knows there arelimits to what can be taught to beginners—or at any level—and this realiza-tion must be part of any serious educational proposal.

On the other hand, one must meet the students where they are. If themajority of the adult population believes humans coexisted with dinosaurs,then the reality of “deep time” must be conveyed before much more can beprofitably done in handling astronomical, geological, or biological timelines.If students hear harsh, although misinformed, objections to foundationalconcepts and techniques of science, then they must be introduced to andpractice skills for examining evidences offered outside as well as within theclassroom.

Put the objections to the idea of teaching science as a set of argumentsover great scientific questions as strongly as one will, the bare idea thatscience is based not only on facts, techniques of measurement, hypothesesand experiments but on argument is itself as uncontroversial and well con-firmed an idea as one can find in science—or in educational theory.7 Un-acceptable versions of the proposal to teach the controversies should berejected. Versions of the proposal that serve valid educational ends shouldbe encouraged, tested, critiqued and improved. Given the host of dismalstatistics about our national science literacy in general, and our laughing-stock status as a nation on the issue of evolution, it is clear that some kind ofreformation in science education is called for. In that spirit we contend,with apologies to an earlier reformer in another field, “Why should the devilget all the good tunes?”8

While our proposal will be detailed beyond what a high school teachercould realistically do in any one course we hope it will provide an inventionalperspective from which lesson plans, smaller teaching units and new, locallyappropriate, course ideas could be developed. Indeed, this approach to sci-ence education can and should be incorporated from the earliest grades andwoven through the progression of age levels and subjects. Compartmental-ization is arbitrary and unrealistic, both in the small – such as segmentingout a standalone evolution unit within a biology course – and in the large –such as singling any particular topic for “critical analysis” or special skepti-cism.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Selc

uk U

nive

rsite

si]

at 0

0:25

20

Dec

embe

r 20

14


We will address our theme in three stages: 1) a rationale for an argu-ment and context-centered approach to teaching evolution; 2) a discussionof how the context of the Origin and the text itself might foster the learning(and teaching) of Darwin’s theory; 3) a brief discussion via the work ofTimothy Shanahan of how our historical, argument- and Origin-centeredapproach might be used to help students make the transition to the contextof contemporary evolution theory.

A Rationale for Teaching Science As Argument

No stronger rationale for a program of science education centered inargument, particularly in biology, can be given than that supplied by Darwinhimself. In the opening line of the final chapter of the Origin Darwin ob-serves “this whole volume is one long argument.”9 Now an argument, ofcourse, has at least two sides. By our count approximately 108 times in thefirst edition of the Origin Darwin contrasts the cogency of his theory withthe then-widely accepted argument from design (what today is styled “in-telligent design”).10 Darwin’s approach was both patient and stern. Darwin’spatience with his reader is the dominant note and can be seen almost any-where in the book. Darwin’s son and intellectual executor Francis got itright when he observed that the reader of the Origin is made to feel “like afriend who is being talked to by a courteous gentleman, not like a pupil beinglectured by a professor.”11 One can see Darwin’s courtesy and his pa-tience with his skeptical reader particularly in the introduction of the sixthchapter. Darwin observes “Long before having arrived at this part of mywork, a crowd of difficulties will have occurred to the reader. Some ofthem are so grave that to this day I can never reflect on them without beingstaggered.”12 Darwin then proceeds to organize the sixth, the seventh andthe eighth chapters to address these objections. When one turns to chapternine “On the Imperfection of the Geological Record” expecting Darwin tohave moved beyond rebuttal, one discovers to the contrary that this and theremaining chapters are as polemical as were the previous ones—they areorganized around various combinations of what in classical oratory is called“confirmation” and “refutation.”

Darwin, of course, is not always patient with the presumed skepticismof his reader. In chapter five having supposed that one who denied com-mon ancestry would regard the stripes that sometimes appear on colts notas indicative of a an ancestor the colt shares with “the ass, the hemionus,quagga, and zebra” but as given for symmetry of design he says such aview “makes the works of God a mere mockery and deception…”13 In thefinal chapter he gets in a particularly memorable dig at his detractors in his

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Selc

uk U

nive

rsite

si]

at 0

0:25

20

Dec

embe

r 20

14


prediction that when his theory is accepted “we [will] no longer look at anorganic being as a savage looks at a ship, as at something wholly beyond hiscomprehension;”14

Our point is not that Darwin is always and unfailingly a paragon ofpedagogic patience. Our point is that our current debate is being conductedby science educators as if the only legacy from Darwin to be defended wasthe conceptual content of his theories, as updated and mediated by ourcurrent understanding of them. Of course the substance of Darwin’s sci-ence as we currently understand it must be presented and defended. Whatis in danger of being lost, indeed for practical purposes has been alreadylost, is Darwin the teacher—the person who wasn’t so sure. What weneed to recover is the Darwin who from his first notebook through all sixeditions of the Origin thought and wrote in strategic terms for skepticalpeers and a skeptical public.

One of the few professional science educators to see this point clearlyis William Cobern. In a remarkable essay which recommends a pedagogyparallel to our own, Cobern sees “Science as An Exercise in Foreign Af-fairs” and notes that what is needed in the science classroom is mediationbetween world-views.15 Using Arthur Eddington’s famous example of aballoon to illustrate the hard to grasp cosmological idea of the universeexpanding in all directions but having no center of expansion Cobern makesthis observation. “This metaphor is remarkably effective because it uses anordinary, well known object from one culture to demonstrate a very differ-ent way of seeing.16

Following Cobern, a first step in thinking of what teaching Darwin’sscience as argument might mean requires that we see Darwin’s achieve-ment not merely as a matter of substance only but of both substance andform. In this union of substance and form, form is central to the culturalcoherence and to the understanding and potential acceptance of the sci-ence itself. Darwin’s great contemporary Edward Ewart Gladstone put thematter well when he observed that “the truth is not always loved when seenand it is not always seen when shown.” 17 Taking Darwin seriously meansmore than simply repeating—even with warranted indignation—that evolu-tion is FACT, FACT, FACT.

There must be mediating narratives on the order of Eddington’s balloonto make it possible for those who do not think as do modern scientists atvery least to see what Darwin is saying. Darwin has bequeathed us twoequally important legacies. Darwin’s greatness is not only the conceptualgreatness that allowed him to see the world in terms radically differentfrom those of his contemporaries, but also the equal greatness in his under

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Selc

uk U

nive

rsite

si]

at 0

0:25

20

Dec

embe

r 20

14


standing of what would be required for his ideas to gain at least partialacceptance from his contemporaries both professional and lay.

Yogi Berra is credited with the observation “In theory there is no differ-ence between theory and practice, but in practice there is.” Just so withStephen Jay Gould’s Nonoverlapping Magisteria,18 a favored theoreticalmodel of the intersection between science and religion. If it were but so! Inthe US at least it seems that, in practice, the magisteria overlap quite a bit.Our educational approach has to recognize and respond to these overlap-ping magisterial. A dogmatic pedagogy has failed to teach science effec-tively and has been rejected repeatedly and consistently by many elementsof the culture. It is clear that students — no tabulae rasae — bring manypreconceptions into the classroom and also have plenty of countervailinginfluences working on whatever they experience there. An argument-cen-tered approach to education recognizes that students often have to unlearnbefore they learn. We would be well advised to monitor what studentsrepeatedly bring into the classroom. We should not be surprised that moststudents think only in terms of Aristotlean physics and struggle to internalizeNewtonian much less Einsteinian worldviews, to cite another scientific dis-cipline.

Two senses of “contexts” must be considered. We should teach explic-itly about the historical context of Darwin’s theory and the original contro-versy. (For example, the National Academy of Sciences presents a lessonplan on the historical context of Darwin, Lamarck, and Wallace.)19 Theother context is contemporary. It is unrealistic to ignore opposition to evolu-tionary ideas. We need to understand a wide range of religious and philo-sophical responses to evolution so we can address them in teaching Darwin’stheory. To simply “define away” anti-evolutionists as unscientific may tidyup one’s own snug little world of “true science” but its lack of educationalvalue by now should be evident—denying the controversy in the minds ofthe students has done nothing to address their skepticism or that of half ourpublic.

At this point an obvious objection suggests itself. Is there not a dangerthat in following the pattern of the Origin, which was written when evolu-tion truly was controversial in science, that students might receive the im-pression that Darwin’s theory is as questionable today as it was in his owntime?

Indeed there is.And this is why “teaching the contexts” is as central to our proposal as

teaching the Origin as argument. No one has made the case that Darwin-ism itself—from Darwin’s time to our own—is “one long argument” morecogently than Timothy Shanahan.20 Shanahan notes that on the one hand

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Selc

uk U

nive

rsite

si]

at 0

0:25

20

Dec

embe

r 20

14


“Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection is among the simplestscientific theories ever advanced.”21 As every reader of this essay is awareone can summarize the entire theory in a few sentences. The late StephenJay Gould organized the logic of natural selection syllogistically, around threecentral propositions.

1. Organisms vary, and these variations are inherited (at least in part)by their offspring.

2. Organisms produce more offspring than can possibly survive.3. On average offspring that vary most strongly in directions favored by

the environment will survive and propagate. Favorable variation will there-fore accumulate in populations by natural selection.22

One might wonder what the difficulty is with this “simple” theory wereit not for the way the theory is so intimately connected to ourselves aspersons and to the larger questions of meaning and purpose that we inevita-bly ask. In fact, in light of Gould’s summation one might ask where is theargument? These three points are propositions and together they amount toa demonstration. Teach the controversy indeed! Set out the propositions,point out the inevitable inferences, and be done with it! What’s there toargue about? Here is where Shanahan makes an historical point withpedagogic implications we think are difficult, and inadvisable, to refuse.

Alas, the apparent simplicity of Darwin’s theory is deceptive. From thevery beginning Darwin’s great idea has been subject to differing interpreta-tions, and even now professional opinion is sharply divided on a range offundamental issues. These are not challenges to Darwinism from without(such as “scientific creationism”) that question the entire project of givingnaturalistic explanations of living things but, rather, debates within Darwin-ism about the most basic causes, processes, and expected outcomes ofnatural selection. Central among these are debates about the nature andoperation of natural selection, the scope and limits of adaptation, and thequestion of evolutionary progress.23

Under the catchy rubric “Selection, Perfection, Direction” Shanahanthen cites what in legal terms one might call a “controlling” passage thatappears in all six editions of the Origin. “As natural selection works solelyby and for the good of each being, all corporeal and mental endowmentswill tend to progress towards perfection.”24 He then presents as the orga-nizing topic of his book what we think could also be the organizing topic ofan excellent contemporary biology class suitable for high schools. ‘Whathe meant by this claim, how later biologists have treated the issues it ad-dresses, and whether (or in what sense) this claim might be true, are thesubjects of this book.”25 Shanahan’s book, in concept (as with Darwin’stheory), is simplicity itself. Following his rubric the book has three sections

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Selc

uk U

nive

rsite

si]

at 0

0:25

20

Dec

embe

r 20

14


‘Selection,” “Adaptation,” and “Progress.” We will examine the implica-tions of Shanahan for extending an argument-centered approach to teach-ing contemporary evolution later. First we will start with Darwin himself.

Reading Darwin Pedagogically Darwin’s Notebooks As A Contextfor Teaching his Ideas

All Darwin scholars are familiar with the special notebooks, the first ofwhich Darwin opened in the Spring of 1837 following his return from hisfive year round-the-world voyage in October of 1836. Labeled B, C, D, E,and M and N (the special notebooks on man and society Darwin opened inthe late summer of 1838) along with various expository fragments (e.g.“Old and Useless Notes”), it was from these that Darwin arrived at hisinsight into natural selection, developed his Sketch of 1842 and Essay of1844 and the partially finished tome Natural Selection and ultimately theOrigin.26 Copies of Darwin’s notebooks are readily available in librariesand simply bringing them to class, having them available for students to lookat, especially Darwin’s celebrated early drawing of a phylogenetic tree innotebook B, would be as instructive as (and a great complement to) themore usual science exhibits of plants, animals, skeletons, rocks and shells.27

One of the greatest scientific lessons afforded by presenting the Origin asan argument and placing that argument in the context of its own develop-ment out of Darwin’s diverse notes (and marginalia) is the opportunity thisapproach affords the teacher to say something about what one might callthe ordinariness of scientific life and the systematic habits of mind, observa-tion, reflection—and recording—that it entails. The saw “insight happensto the prepared mind” was never better illustrated than by Darwin’s ownapproach to science. Having students read Darwin’s entry from Septem-ber 28, 1838 in notebook D of his first insight into Malthus could be a greatstimulus to discussion28 —particularly if the teacher contrasted that formu-lation with the one found in the Origin twenty years later. Precisely be-cause we know more about Darwin’s work habits than almost any othermajor scientist placing his theory in the context of development provides theteacher an opportunity to say something useful, “untextbooky” and poten-tially inspirational about scientific methods and observation.

To the obvious objection that high school science teachers do not knowenough about how Darwin’s notebooks and early writings are part of thecontext of his ideas we offer three responses. First, historians and philoso-phers of science apparently for some years have offered modules for use inbiology classrooms and there have been few takers.29 Second, we believean approach to the education of science teachers that stresses the facts and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Selc

uk U

nive

rsite

si]

at 0

0:25

20

Dec

embe

r 20

14


not the historical context is actively contributing to our current educationalproblem and should be changed. Finally resources on all the themes wehave mentioned are so abundant online and elsewhere that biology teachersshould have little trouble finding material useful to their purposes. Besides,the story is fascinating—parson in training goes on sailing cruise, makesobservations and collections that impress his teachers back home and findshis aptitude for science. He begins taking voluminous notes. So can you!“When on board HMS Beagle I was much struck….” 30

Darwin’s Religious References As A Context for Teaching his ideas

Even as the internal and external contexts of the world in which Dar-win developed his ideas can been seen in the fragmentarily telegraphicjottings of his notebooks, those same contexts are even more obvious (andgenerally much easier to understand) in the Origin. Nowhere is this clearerthan in matters dealing with religion—the topic of topics in our current andongoing evolutionary discontents. A teacher could present some backgroundor just jump in to key parts of the text. We favor just jumping in. One hasno more than to open the book to realize that Darwin’s science entered aworld in which science and religion were very differently related than in ourown.

The first tantalizing oddity which would stand out in the Origin to acontemporary high school student or teacher appears before the first sen-tence of the introduction, even before the title. The fly-leaf of the Origincontains two (and starting with the second edition three) citations fromworks in the tradition of English natural theology.

But with regard to the material world, we can at leastgo so far as this—we can perceive that events are broughtabout not by insulated interpositions of Divine power, ex-erted in each particular case, but by the establishment ofgeneral laws.

W. Whewell: Bridgewater Treatise.

To conclude, therefore, let no man out of a weak con-ceit of sobriety, or an ill-applied moderation, think or main-tain, that a man can search too far or be too well studied inthe book of God’s word, or in the book of God’s works;

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Selc

uk U

nive

rsite

si]

at 0

0:25

20

Dec

embe

r 20

14


divinity or philosophy; but rather let men endeavour an end-less progress or proficience in both.

Bacon: Advancement of Learning.

The only distinct meaning of the word ‘natural’ is stated,fixed, or settled; since what is natural as much requiresand presuppose an intelligent agent to render it so, i.e., toeffect it continually or at stated times, as what is super-natural or miraculous does to effect it for once.

Butler: Analogy of Revealed Religion.31

Just as odd, or even odder, (from the perspective of our sometimesedgy secular present) is an advertisement placed just after his table of con-tents for a tract written by Asa Gray (which Darwin secretly financed)reconciling natural selection with natural theology.

An admirable, and, to a certain extent, favourable Re-view of this work, including an able discussion on the Theo-logical bearing of the belief in the descent of species, hasnow been separately published by Professor Asa Gray asa pamphlet, about 60 pages in length. It is entitled, ‘Natu-ral Selection not inconsistent with Natural Theology. AFree Examination of Darwin’s Treatise on the Origin ofSpecies, and of its American Reviewers.’ By ASA GRAY,M.D., Fisher Professor of Natural History in Harvard Uni-versity.32

What is oddest yet is that Darwin did not himself even accept Gray’s argu-ment but, in characteristically generous (or some might say calculating)fashion, thought it might be a help to others!33 It certainly was.34 Holding inhis personal coalition such oppositely tempered supporters as the mercurialThomas Henry Huxley, coiner of the term “agnostic,” and the Harvardbotanist and orthodox Christian Asa Gray meant allowing even his closestdefenders to go their own ways on issues dealing with religion.35

Two further points and we will take a closer look at the scientific andreligious contexts that would explain why there is so much religion in a textthat has such a reputation for irreligion. First, the word “God” appears inthe Origin once—in the passage in the fifth chapter we have already cited.The famous final line of the Origin, the first phrase of which served as the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Selc

uk U

nive

rsite

si]

at 0

0:25

20

Dec

embe

r 20

14


title for the late Stephen Jay Gould’s column in Natural History, is a worthybookend to the opening citations of the work. “There is grandeur in thisview of life with its various powers having been originally breathed into afew forms or into one….” In the third edition the line has been altered toread “breathed by the Creator”.36 The passage continues “and that, whilstthis planet has gone cycling on, from so simple a beginning endless formsmost wonderful and most beautiful have been and are being formed.”37

What we have here first in “breathed” and then as strengthened by “Cre-ator” is a specifically Biblical image. This image is then followed by acelebration of the orderliness and calm of natural laws the motions of whichhave engendered the origin of species and the diversification of life. Whileit is clear from his Autobiography (though not from the Origin) that Dar-win is no Christian, in the Autobiography he also claims to be a theist.38

Darwin says that when he looks at the cosmos as a whole he sees it in somesense as the product of mind. Second, what can be said and should bestressed just from this much alone is that Darwin is no one’s paragon of areligious thinker. He is just one of us doing what he can. His rejection ofChristianity seems less motivated by anything he found as a scientist andmore by a conventional Enlightenment view that considered the doctrine ofhell “damnable.”39 When we look at Darwin’s supporter Asa Gray ortoday at Francis Collins (a truly eminent geneticist and evangelical Christianwho headed up the human genome project), Keith Miller (a Roman Catho-lic and strong critic of ID) or Richard Dawkins (a militant atheist) it is clearno single religious or metaphysical conclusion follows from acceptance ofDarwin’s theory. People of various religious persuasions or dissuasionshave always been found in Darwin’s camp. What a teacher can say withconfidence and authority is that religious and metaphysical pluralism havealways characterized the extra-scientific contexts of Darwin’s theory.

Darwin’s Training in Natural Philosophy As A Context for Teachinghis Ideas

What we have said so far is only part of the story. So why were these“religious” references in the Origin at all? Didn’t people back then recog-nize that any reference to religion or “God” in a work of science was “inap-propriate” and “a science stopper?” The short answer is “No.” The longanswer, which we will try to make short, is that the relations between sci-ence and religion were entirely different in Darwin’s day than they are inour own. Using the Origin itself as the context for teaching Darwin’stheory helps the teacher explain this. Not least of the beauty of an histori-cally contextualized and argument-centered approach to teaching Darwin’s

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Selc

uk U

nive

rsite

si]

at 0

0:25

20

Dec

embe

r 20

14


theory is that it reminds us that natural and human history are equally aboutchange. An historical and contextual approach stresses that to understandDarwin’s theory we need to see how Darwin and his colleagues and suc-cessors came to see things that way—and how their arguments and rea-soning set the agenda for modern science.

Even as today science has a close relation with the state because of itsreliance on government funding so modern British science developed in thecontext of the restored monarchy of 1660. King Charles II is the originalRoyal behind the Royal Society.40 Part of what was “restored” in 1660was not just the executive branch of government in the sense of King.Integral to “government” in those days was the State Church. So… is itany wonder that British science far from being hostile to religion was rec-ommended to the King on grounds of its support to religion?41 Well obvi-ously having just come through a bloody civil war in which differences overreligion were central you could not have the state supporting Presbyterianor Baptist, Catholic or even Anglican science. But you could have sciencesupport the general notion that even as the state has a supreme governor sodid the world! The argument from design was so much a part of the ideol-ogy of the British state that we might be tempted to call it a “secular”doctrine.42 In the context of the time it was.43 Contexts matter. And theychange.

In fact the branch of study that today we call “science” in Darwin’sday was called “Natural Philosophy.” While we call Darwin a “scientist”Captain Fitzroy and his fellow shipmates aboard the Beagle called him“Philos”. What else could they have called him? He was on the Beaglefrom 1831-1836. The word “scientist” was not coined until 1840!44 Wewould not urge teachers to paint too uniform a picture of intellectual history.Obviously there were other voices questioning the common assumptionsabout design—one of them was the philosopher David Hume and anotherwas Darwin’s grandfather, Erasmus. These voices were not culturally orscientifically persuasive at the time. There were popular rebuttals to theseviews—the most influential being Paley’s Natural Theology (1802).45

Most important from the perspective of our context and argument-cen-tered approach to teaching Darwin is the impact of Paley’s version of thedesign argument not just on Darwin’s time but on Darwin personally. Dar-win thought Paley was one of the best parts of his University education. If,as Daniel Dennett has claimed, Darwin’s is the best idea anyone ever had46

then arguably Paley’s Natural Theology was the greatest science starterever written.

Of his studies at Cambridge where Paley’s Evidences of Christianityand Natural Theology were required texts Darwin claimed Paley’s work

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Selc

uk U

nive

rsite

si]

at 0

0:25

20

Dec

embe

r 20

14


was “the only part of the academical course… of the least use [that is tosay the greatest impact] to me in the education of my mind.”47 The reasonwhy these books, despite whatever errors we now see in them, could havehad such an impact on the mind of Darwin is central to the thesis of thisessay. Darwin tells us that taking Paley’s premises “on trust, I was charmedand convinced by the long line of argumentation.”48 Why? Because ittaught him how to argue and gave him a challenge. Paley had facts—anda thesis to support by using them. (And if you want to see both Paley’sfacts and his thesis don’t bother with the Natural Theology read the Ori-gin—they are both there and then some!) Integrating his prior learningwith his subsequent learning, with his reading, experience and observationon the Beagle, and his scientific work after the voyage Darwin came upwith a counter-interpretation of Paley. No wonder Darwin could claim“this whole volume is one long argument.”49 It was. Paley not only gaveDarwin a problem to think about but specific examples and tools of logicand exposition to make his thinking productive. Obviously things were morecomplicated than this, and there were many contributors besides Paley (notleast of them Charles Lyell) to Darwin’s intellectual development.50 But theimportance of Paley as an icon of a point of view commonly held (eventoday) which had its own complications and variants, can hardly be exag-gerated.

None of this is to say that in Darwin’s time there was no distinctionbetween Natural Philosophy and Revealed Religion. There was. It wascommonly recognized that it was not the business of Natural Philosophy toprove revealed religion—the Bible—in point of detail. Fair enough. Butthat still left intact what we might call the general social contract betweenNatural Philosophy and the British state. If anything was part of that greatunwritten document we call the British Constitution (the tenor of whichmight be summarized as “the way we do things around here”) even as lateas 1859 (the year the Origin was published), it was the design argument.51

No clearer indication of this can be given than in the book from whichDarwin learned the scientific method—and to which all of us owe an enor-mous debt: John Herschel’s Preliminary Discourse. Darwin said of thisbook and of Humboldt’s Narrative (which latter work gave him the itch totravel around the world) that they “stirred up in me a burning zeal to addeven the most humble contribution to the noble structure of Natural Sci-ence.”52 Why we should find such ardent language from Darwin aboutHerschel is easily explainable. On the title page below a bust of Baconappears the motto Naturae Minister et Interpres (man minister and inter-preter of nature) and following the table of contents is a citation from Ciceroon (of all things!) the dignity and necessity of pursuing truth. (Oratory and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Selc

uk U

nive

rsite

si]

at 0

0:25

20

Dec

embe

r 20

14


science, we might add, also had a different relation back in Darwin’s day—to say nothing of the relation between good writing to scientific exposition.)As for religion “No doubt, the testimony of natural reason, on whateverexercised, must of necessity stop short of those truths which it is the objectof revelation to make known; but, … it places the existence and principalattributes of a Deity on such grounds as to render doubt absurd and atheismridiculous…”53

All this is from the pen of the man who, in the same book, summarizedfor us pretty much what we today understand as the “hypothetico-deduc-tive method” of modern science.54 But this is not all. Herschel thought thatthere was some natural law that could explain that “mystery of mysteries”the origin of species. (Darwin uses Herschel’s phrase but not his name—which everyone knew—in the opening paragraph of the Origin.) ButHerschel, much to Darwin’s disappointment, rejected Darwin’s explanationand called natural selection “the law of higgledy piggeldy.”55 How come?Well, to put it bluntly, given the model of science he and his colleaguesaccepted, Darwin’s explanation just seemed flat out unconstitutional.56 Bythat we mean Darwin’s was not the kind of law that the science of Darwin’sday was either looking for or, right off, was prepared to accept.

All of which tells us something about science education as it is actuallyoccurs in the observable world. Some people, even highly qualified people,such as Herschel, are going to reject new ideas because they are so revo-lutionary and because they have spent their careers, and earned their repu-tations, seeing the world differently. But other people—scientists and lay-persons alike in their different ways—sometimes just need time to get usedto new ideas and to work them through. Nothing surprising there—particu-larly when the idea challenges everything one thought one knew about one’splace in the universe. A key strength of a context and argument-centeredpedagogy grounded in the Origin is that it allows our students, whose gen-eral world-outlook has many more points in common with the audience(both professional and lay) for whom Darwin was writing than with theviewpoint of modern evolutionary science, to do exactly that—to get usedto a new idea and work it through. In his private correspondence Darwintold one of his skeptical scientific interlocutors “if …you keep the subjectin mind…you will go further.”57 It is not that the rhetoric or argumentativestrategies of the Origin were not clear. It is rather that to understandDarwin’s theory one really must work through his questions and examples.In fact why not have the students read some of the letters Darwin wrote tohis peers who didn’t get it either—or who continued to be skeptical? Thetime has come for a new “Darwin Industry” to take Darwin’s now anno-tated and provenanced letters and make use of the teaching strategies with

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Selc

uk U

nive

rsite

si]

at 0

0:25

20

Dec

embe

r 20

14


which so many of them abound. We say—Darwin For the People! And bythat we mean Darwin both for the students and for the teachers!

The Argumentative Strategy of the Origin As A Context for Teach-ing Darwin’s Ideas

Darwin learned what today we regard as the scientific method (oneversion of it anyway) from John Herschel. According to Herschel, to showthat something counted as a true cause, a vera causa, one had to showthree things. One needed to show that the proposed cause one wanted toestablish (in Darwin’s case selection) existed independently of the phenom-ena one wished to explain (the origin of varieties and species and the diver-sification of life), that the cause was competent or able to bring about theresult, and that it was reasonable to believe that the cause really had broughtabout the result. The tests of a true cause then were three: 1) existence, 2)competence, and 3) responsibility. J.M.S. Hodge has shown how, thoughhe notes it was clearer in his Sketch of 1842 and Essay of 1844, this basicpattern can also be seen in Darwin’s Origin.58 A teacher could point outthis very pattern in the Origin and in doing so explain something useful,interesting, and non-threatening to her students about the nature of science.

The first four chapters of the Origin show that selection exists. Chap-ter five, Inheritance, along with chapters six through eight show compe-tence, and, the chapters on geological succession and geographic distribu-tion along with chapter thirteen (“Mutual Affinities, Morphology and Rudi-mentary Organs”), all argue that natural selection, despite the difficulties,really is responsible—it is the best explanation of the patterns that we seein nature. The argumentative/expository spine of the Origin thus is orga-nized to address the question—how do we know that natural selection is thetrue cause of the origin of species and the diversification of life? Explainingto students ‘Well, how did Darwin try to show that we can know that?”could be the core of a promising teaching strategy. A teacher could lay outthe Origin as though it were the outline of a debate case. Which it is. Shecould treat what looks like this big and formidable book as though it werewhat in fact it is— an “abstract” of the larger work Darwin broke off toproduce because he did not want to be aced out by Alfred Russel Wallace.High School students can understand both Darwin’s vera causa logic andwhy he would condense his case into an abstract to beat the other guy out.

The first four chapters of the Origin provide a perfect foundation tobuild on. A teacher could draw stairs on the board (one of us does this allthe time) and place a chapter title on each starting with the bottom stepChapter I “Variation Under Domestication,” going to Chapter 2 “Variation

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Selc

uk U

nive

rsite

si]

at 0

0:25

20

Dec

embe

r 20

14


Under Nature,” to Chapter 3 “Struggle for Existence,” and ending withChapter 4 “Natural Selection” which provides a view from the top step ofthe whole theory. (Better yet the teacher could actually make a set ofDarwinian stairs and have students walk up them!) The teacher could thenmake a few simple points from each chapter and cite, explain, exemplifyand otherwise inventively develop particularly telling passages. Finding thesepassages is not hard. At its best Darwin’s writing is really good and anynumber of passages would be productive and fun to read and discuss.Here are some obvious ones.

In chapter one the teacher could simply ask Darwin’s question “wheredid our domestic flocks and herds come from?” And point out that Darwindoes not really raise the question of the origin of species in the first chapterbut, following good scientific method on a difficult question, starts with ex-perience. In fact, the teacher could note Darwin does not give the reader atour of exotic plants and animals from around the world but takes the reader(in effect) down to a British farm. The example of the pigeons was acrowd pleaser in Darwin’s time and in our experience works just as welltoday. Since there is probably no school anywhere that does not havepigeons under its eaves and the pigeon is the ubiquitous park bird the ex-ample is perfect. As Darwin put it “The diversity of the breeds is somethingastonishing.”59 The teacher could talk about “pigeon fanciers” and the ex-otic changes breeders produce for their own sport.The kids will love to hear about “pouters” and “tumblers,” “carriers,” and“barbs.” The teacher could underscore Darwin’s point that if a personbrought a naturalist the bones of the varieties of pigeon that fanciers havemade and told her they were the remains of wild birds she would say theywere each a distinct species. In fact the whole passage on pigeons60 couldmake a lesson—and a very concrete one—in itself. Not to be missed isDarwin’s point about how breeders do not themselves always realize thepotential power of selection in the wild and though “they win their prizes byselecting such slight differences, yet they ignore all general arguments andrefuse to sum up in their minds slight differences accumulated during manysuccessive generations.”61 Yet the breeders know full well just what selec-tion can do in their own hands. “Youatt…speaks of the principle of selectionas … the magician’s wand, by means of which he may summon into lifewhatever form and mould he pleases.”62

In chapter two the teacher could raise the question—but is there innature the same kind of variation that one finds under domestication? Pointingout that Darwin himself had doubts and that this was one of the reasons hedelayed publishing his theory underscores the value of teaching the Originas an argument. The chapter, as in the first, provides plenty of opportunity

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Selc

uk U

nive

rsite

si]

at 0

0:25

20

Dec

embe

r 20

14


for the teacher to make use of concrete questions—questions any studentcan understand and observations (most of which at any rate) the studentherself could make. Not of least interest in this chapter is Darwin’s use ofhis own curiosity and surprise—qualities science educators should wish toencourage. “I should never have expected that the branching of the mainnerves close to the great central ganglion of an insect would have beenvariable in the same species!”63 And, possibly most important of all is Darwin’sinvariably adroit talent for connecting really small observations with reallybig generalizations. (The whole book in a sense is a series of inferentialstair-steps!) “Many of the cases of strongly-marked varieties or doubtfulspecies well deserve consideration;” Then notice where this innocent sen-tence leads. He notes that evidence “from geographical distribution, ana-logical variation, hybridism, & c., ha[s] been brought to bear on the attemptto determine their rank.”64 Here, already in chapter two he has set thestage for what is to come in the chapters where he will argue responsibil-ity. In the later chapters in particular Darwin will show what his sometimementor Whewell called “consilience of inductions,” that when we see howevidence from the most diverse and unexpected sources converges on ourconclusion that it really does appear selection did the job.65 But look at theeasy way Darwin prepares the way for this inference. “I will here giveonly a single instance,—the well-known one of the primrose and cow-slip….”66 It is pigeons all over again. Budget? The meanest school districtwill spring for a dozen primroses—with as many cowslips thrown in forgood measure! (Or grow your own. You could have a living exhibit “Plantsof the Origin.”) But notice what he does with this low-budget example—the whole lesson is right here.

These plants differ considerably in appearance; they have adifferent flavour and emit a different odour; they flower atslightly different periods; they grow in somewhat differentstations; they ascent mountains to different heights; theyhave different geographical ranges; and lastly, according tovery numerous experiments made during several years …they can be crossed only with much difficulty. We couldhardly wish for better evidence of the two forms being spe-cifically distinct.

Now the “gotcha!” the sudden unexpected reversal—not because theteacher says so but because in our example, teacher and student discovertogether that the real thrust of their mutual reasoning up to this point actu-ally points in another direction. “On the other hand, they are united by manyintermediate links, and it is very doubtful whether these links are hybrids;

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Selc

uk U

nive

rsite

si]

at 0

0:25

20

Dec

embe

r 20

14


and there is, as it seems to me, an overwhelming amount of experimentalevidence, showing that they descend from common parents, and conse-quently must be ranked as varieties.”67

Chapter three “Struggle for Existence” brings up all the questions aboutevolution that science teachers generally want to avoid—or get through asquickly as they can. But why mumble, dissemble or fumble one’s waythrough? Consider how differently these questions appear if science teach-ers were to embrace them—along with the Darwinian pedagogy of ex-amples and arguments too familiar not to understand. And notice howDarwin’s hard-nosed science and well advertised terrifyingly bleak worldview—right here in the belly of the beast “Struggle for Existence”—sud-denly becomes light, airy and fascinating like literature or a mid-summerreverie.

How have all those exquisite adaptations of one part of theorganization to another part, and to the conditions of life,and of one distinct organic being to another being, beenperfected? We see these beautiful co-adaptations mostplainly in the woodpecker and missletoe; and only a littleless plainly in the humblest parasite which clings to thehairs of a quadruped or feathers of a bird; in the structureof the beetle which dives through the water; in the plumedseed which is wafted by the gentlest breeze; in short, wesee beautiful adaptations everywhere and in every part ofthe organic world. 68

The chapter that follows is full of ecological lore on the odd and unexpecteddependency of one being on another, and of beings remote in the scale oflife from one another. Contemporary environmentally conscious studentswould just love this stuff. His example of the relation of cats, bees, miceand heartsease in a particular district in England is simply not to be missed!69

And, of course, above all, the thought-experiment which ends the chap-ter. Darwin asks his reader to think of a plant at the end of its range and toimagine what kind of variation or adaptation it would take to extend thatrange. Darwin says that we probably could not figure it out and that ourfailure would be an important lesson. But what sounds like a conceptualdefeat is actually a self-effacing way of summarizing the days’ (the chapter’s)lesson. “All we can do, is to keep steadily in mind that each organic beingis striving to increase at a geometrical ration; that each at some period of itslife, during some season of the year, during each generation or at intervals,has to struggle for life, and to suffer great destruction.”70 In other words

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Selc

uk U

nive

rsite

si]

at 0

0:25

20

Dec

embe

r 20

14


you, oh reader, now know perfectly well the kind of thing that would have tohappen for the “failed” thought experiment to succeed. If we but had moreteaching “failures” such as this in high school biology classes we would bewell on our way to putting our evolutionary and science illiteracy discon-tents behind us.

Space alone prohibits us from continuing—and we are loathe to breakoff for most of the richest examples yet lie ahead. The logic of the teachingstrategies one can derive from the Origin by now though should be suffi-ciently clear. Students could be asked to think and work through and discussDarwin’s examples, and duplicate his observations where feasible throughlocally appropriate field observations. If examples were taken from chap-ters representing the various steps of Herschel’s vera causa (true cause)logic, 1-4 (existence) 5-8 (competence) and 9-13 (responsibility) the stu-dents could be both drawn in by the fascination of the examples—and ingood John Dewey fashion go out an see them (or things like them) forthemselves. At the same time they would be learning something about therigor of scientific method and how science is not just about facts but aboutputting them together and adding them up to make a case.

We will make but two further points. One of the features of the Originthat inevitably impresses those who read it is Darwin’s welcoming of doubt.Darwin knows his theory requires explaining for anyone to accept. “Tosuppose that the eye…could have been formed by natural selection seems,I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. Yet reason tellsme…”71 Second, in working through the objections in the welcoming con-text of the Origin, at very least the student can see Darwin’s candor andhow he came to think the way he did. But even more, and at best, thesechapters—precisely because they are not written from the invariablytriumphalist perspective of modern science—provide the mediating cogni-tive structures necessary for students to grasp Darwin’s point. These struc-tures are present not merely in the chapters where Darwin is rebuttingwhat seem like fatal objections, (chs. 6—8) but in the chapters (esp. chs. 9-13) where Darwin is urging that—difficulties and all—natural selection shouldbe accepted as the best explanation for the fossil record, geographic distri-bution etc. Of course there is more and better evidence available today.The point is to show Darwin’s intellectual insight, and courage, in bringingtogether—as would an attorney or a detective—classes of evidence andargument no one line of which alone was decisive. Teaching the fallibilityof scientific reasoning is just as important as teaching its strength—and itsvery strength is built upon its fallibility. In Darwin’s Origin we see both thestrength and the fallibility of science in one and the same examples, and wesee it again and again.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Selc

uk U

nive

rsite

si]

at 0

0:25

20

Dec

embe

r 20

14


A Variant/Alternative Proposal

Even if one elects not to adopt the strong historical context(s) and Ori-gin-centered approach which we have urged (for example because of thelimits of time) we believe it is fully possible to preserve in a high schoolbiology class the spirit of Darwin’s teaching strategy. Specifically webelieve it is possible to: 1) integrate the student’s prior learning with subse-quent learning, 2) honor the student’s doubts, 3) provide the heuristic struc-tures the student needs to grasp the modern theory and 4) exemplify theessence of science as argument. A good example of this approach has beenpublished by Steven Verhey of Central Washington State University.72 Inselected sections of a multi-sectioned lower division introductory biologycourse Verhey included ID and other literature critical of contemporaryevolution as part of the assigned course material. Though Verhey is carefulnot to generalize his findings beyond this case, he did find some significantmovement toward evolution in those sections of the course where the stu-dents discussed and debated modern evolutionary theory and its critics.Although the editor of Bio-Science published a note in the edition carryingVerhey’s study warning against applying his approach in high schools, weare unpersuaded. While no doubt Professor Verhey and his university col-leagues are better prepared to address the doubts of their students aboutevolution than would be the average high school biology teacher, we returnto the simplicity of Darwin’s theory and the intelligibility of the central propo-sition on either side. Can natural processes create complex organs andstructures like the eye etc. by natural selection? Since Darwin the defaultposition of modern science is yes. That is not hard to understand. Nor arethe contemporary arguments, for example for “irreducible complexity” orthe rebuttals hard to understand. Clearly the educational debate over theappropriateness of Verhey’s curriculum to high schools is ongoing. Thetrend of this debate, in our judgment, clearly favors reforming the high schoolscience curriculum to help students develop critical skills of reasoning andargument. A recent newspaper report on high-school education in Wash-ington State where one of us lives seems pertinent “Washington Learns [aneducational steering committee chaired by the governor] called for bettercurriculum alignment between high schools and universities saying that toomany high school graduates start college inadequately prepared for rigor-ous course work.”73 If students are going to be asked in university classesto rebut ID or explain why most scientists do not think it is truly scientifichigh school classes should prepare them to think critically about the natureof science—not just tell them the answer.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Selc

uk U

nive

rsite

si]

at 0

0:25

20

Dec

embe

r 20

14


The Argument Continues: Darwin and Contemporary Biology

Our approach differs from Verhey’s in that by historically contextualizingthe debate over design we clearly demarcate it, and any question of whetherevolution by one naturalistic means or another occurred, from the preoccu-pations of contemporary science. What our approach would leave behindare the theological questions that were centrally part of Darwin’s text andof his scientific and cultural context. What would be continued in our laterunit(s)) would be the spirit of inquiry centered in argument. We are notsaying that the teacher in our hypothetical curriculum would hereafter refuseto discuss the kinds of questions that were proper to the nineteenth-centurycontext—or that are raised by contemporary critics of neo-Darwinian evo-lution. We are saying that these questions would no longer play an organiz-ing role in the curriculum because they no longer play an organizing role incontemporary science.

This is where Shanahan fits in. Shanahan’s questions would then be anexcellent resource for continuing the argument-centered focus of the coursewhile making the transition from a context in which whether evolution oc-curred was a question to one in which the only question is “how?” Studentscould then address the questions Shanahan identifies as properly internal toour contemporary theory—questions about the units of selection, the de-gree of perfection of adaptation and the apparent “direction” of evolutiontoward biological complexity. We will not here develop in even the shortdetail we did with the Origin the levels of argument traced in Shanahan’sbook. Briefly, however, it can be said that the symmetry between Shanahanand our Origin-centered approach is very strong. Each of the units inShanahan’s book begins with a Darwinian text and with Darwin’s veryexamples. He then shows how these texts and examples have been vari-ously interpreted. Of particular interest in our ecologically minded time isthe difference in view on the unit of selection between V.C. Wynne-Edwardswho spent his career studying fluctuations in ocean fish populations andDavid Lack who, famously, studied Darwin’s finches.74 The title of thenext chapter “For Whose Good Does Selection Work?” just pulls in anyonenot brain dead. The same can be said for his examples of adaptation andhis reprise of the Lewontin/Gould vs. Dawkins debate.75 The final questionof whether or not evolution by natural selection entails progress is evenmore compelling whether one accepts Shanahan’s progressionist interpre-tation or not.

What Shanahan’s book proves, and that is not too strong a word, is thatDarwin’s theory from its inception to the present has never ceased to be thecenter of argument and vigorous contestation. To deny that relentless argu-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Selc

uk U

nive

rsite

si]

at 0

0:25

20

Dec

embe

r 20

14


mentation has been central to understanding and shaping Darwin’s theoryseems to us indefensible historically, philosophically, culturally, scientificallyand pedagogically. With proper attention to contexts we believe the possi-bilities for misinterpreting this fact by high school students can be mini-mized—and the opportunities for them gaining a proper understanding ofDarwin’s theory, of the nature of science, and of the centrality of argumentto them both, can be measurably advanced.

Notes

1 E. J. Larson, Summer for the Gods: The Scopes Trial and America’sContinuing Debate Over Science and Religion, (New York: HarperCollins, 1997).2 V. Grabiner and P.D. Miller, “Effects of the Scopes Trial: Was it a victoryfor evolutionists?” Science, vol. 185 (6 September 1974), 832-837.3 NSF. National Science Foundation, “Science and Technology: Public At-titudes and Understanding” in Science and Engineering Indicators 2006,accessed 18 September 2006, at http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind06/c7/c7s2.htm4 J. D. Miller, E. C. Scott, S. Okamoto, “Public Acceptance of Evolution,”Science 11 August 2006 Vol. 313 no. 5788, 765-766.5 The most complete statement is J. A. Campbell, “Intelligent Design, Dar-winism and the Philosophy of Public Education,” in J. A. Campbell and S.C. Meyer, eds.,Darwinism, Design, and Public Education, (East Lan-sing: Michigan State University Press, 2003):3-44. Supporters of an argu-ment-centered approach to teaching science include William Provine, LarryArnhart and David Depew.6 E. C. Scott and G. Branch, “Evolution: What’s Wrong with ‘Teaching theControversy,’ Trends in Ecology and Evolution 8 (10):499-502; R. T.Pennock, “Should Creationism Be Taught in the Public Schools,” Scienceand Education, II, No. 2. (March, 2002): 111-133.7 For the centrality of argument to modern science see M. Pera, The Dis-courses of Science, Clarissa Botsford, trans., (Chicago: University of Chi-cago Press, 1994). For a succinct summation of the aims of traditional lib-eral education see T. M. Conley, Rhetoric in the European Tradition,(New York: Longman, 1990):37.8 The saying is associated with M. Luther but is probably apocryphal. Onthe problem it addresses see Donald Jay Grout, and Clade V. Palisca, AHistory of Western Music (New York & London: W.W. Norton & Com-pany, 2001), 225-227; Robin A. Leaver, “The Lutheran Reformation,” inIaian Fenlon, Man & Music: The Renaissance: From the 1470s to the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Selc

uk U

nive

rsite

si]

at 0

0:25

20

Dec

embe

r 20

14


end of the 16th Century (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall,1989), 263-285.9 C. Darwin, On The Origin of Species: A Facsimile of the First Edition,(Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1964): 459.10 J.A. Campbell, “Why Was Darwin Believed? Darwin’s Origin and theProblem of Intellectual revolution, Configurations, 11 (2004):231.11 C. Darwin, Charles Darwin’s Autobiography, Sir. F. Darwin, “Remi-niscences of My Father’s Everyday Life,” New York: Collier Books,1961):115..12 C. Darwin, 1964, 171.13 Ibid, 167.14 Ibid, 485.15 W. W. Cobern, “Science as an Exercise in Foreign Affairs,” Scienceand Education, 4 (1995): 287-302.16 Ibid, 293.17 W.E.Gladstone, “Public Speaking,” 267. Reprinted with an introductionby Loren Reid, “Gladstone’s Essay on Public Speaking,” Quarterly Jour-nal of Speech, 39 (October, 1953):265-272.18 S. J. Gould, “Nonoverlapping Magisteria,” Natural History 106 (March1997): 16-2219 National Academy of Sciences, Teaching About Evolution and theNature of Science (Washington, D,C: National Academy Press, 1998).“Proposing the Theory of Biological Evolution: Historical Perspective,” ac-cessed 18 September 2006 at http://bob.nap.edu/html/evolution98/evol6-g.html>20As equal candidate is: E. Mayr, One Long Argument: Charles Darwinand the Genesis of Modern Evolutionary Thought (Cambridge, MA.:Harvard University Press, 1991).21 T. Shanahan, The Evolution of Darwinism: Selection, Adaptation,and Progress in evolutionary Biology, (Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-sity Press, 2004):2.22 S. Jay Gould, Ever Since Darwin: Reflections on Natural History,(New York: W.W. Norton, 1977):1123 T. Shanahan, 2004, 2-3.24 Ibid, 3. C. Darwin, 1964, 489.25 T. Shanahan, 2004, 3.26 P. H. Barrett, P. J. Gautrey, S. Herbert, D. Kohn, and S. Smith, CharlesDarwin’s Notebooks: 1836-1844, (London & Ithaca, N.Y.: British Mu-seum (Natural History) Cornell University Press, 1987).27 Ibid, 180.28 Ibid, 374-376.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Selc

uk U

nive

rsite

si]

at 0

0:25

20

Dec

embe

r 20

14


29 Personal communication, Professor Keith Benson, historian of scienceand Principal, Green College, University of British Columbia.30 Darwin, 1964, 1.31 M. Peckham, The Origin of Species By Charles Darwin: A VariorumText, (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1959): 57.32Ibid.33 F. Darwin, ed., The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, (New York: S.Appleton & Co., 1911 Vol. 2, 146.34 F. Darwin, 1911, 163. See also J.A. Campbell, “The Invisible Rhetori-cian: Charles Darwin’s ‘Third Party’ Strategy,” Rhetorica 7 No.1 (Winter,1989):70-74.35 J.A. Campbell, 1989, esp. 63-74.36M. Peckham, 1959, 759. See lines 270:b and 270:f.37 C. Darwin, 1964, 490.38 Biology teachers should be aware of the myth of Darwin’s deathbedconversion. The definititve study of this hoax is James Moore, The DarwinLegend, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1994):21-27.39 N. Barlow, ed., The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, 1809-18882.With Original Omissions Restored, (London: Collins, 1958):85-9640 R. Westfall, The Construction of Modern Science: Mechanisms andMechanics, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977):112. Westfallnotes, however, that the title “Royal” was the King’s most important gift forit threw behind the society the prestige of the state. As for money when itcame to the choice between his mistress Nell Gwyn or science Charles IIfavored the lady. In fact the Royal Society depended on private funding—and from this we can see the origin of the “amateur” character of muchBritish science that only began to change in Huxley’s generation.41 Obviously things were more complicated than this. The connection be-tween science and religion was of great concern to naturalists themselves—particularly in England. What grew up under the auspices of the RoyalSociety was what Dobbs and Jacob have called “Newtonian Christianity.”Betty Jo Teeter Dobbs, and Margaret C. Jacob, Newton and The Cultureof Newtonianism, (Atlantic Highlands, New Jersey: Humanities Press,1995):95-101.42 Ibid, 98. The epitome of Newtonian Christianity was Samuel Clarke.Under Clarke’s lead British science facilitated “a way of viewing the worldthat permitted science and could be seen to retain divine authority.”43 Two classic introductions to the ubiquity of the design argument in thescientific world before Darwin are: C. C. Gillispie, Genesis and Geology:The Impact of Scientific Discoveries Upon Religious Beliefs in theDecades Before Darwin, (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1959); and J.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Selc

uk U

nive

rsite

si]

at 0

0:25

20

Dec

embe

r 20

14


C. Green, The Death of Adam: Evolution and Its Impact on WesternThought, (New York: Mentor Books, 1961).44 The word was coined by William Whewell. W. Whewell, Philosophy ofthe Inductive Sciences, founded upon their history, Vol. I (London: JohnW. Parker & Sons. 1840, Reprint of Second edition, 1967, New York: JohnsonReprint Co.):113.45 W. Paley, Natural Theology: or, Evidences of the Existence and At-tributes of the Deity, Collected from the Appearances of Nature, (Bos-ton: Gould & Lincoln, 1863).46 D.C. Dennett, Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, (New York: Simon & Schuster,1995):21.47 C,Darwin, 1961, 35.48 Ibid.49 C. Darwin, 1964, 490.50 For an account of Lyell’s impact on Darwin’s scientific method and argu-ment see: J.A. Campbell, “The ‘Anxiety of Influence,’—Hermeneutic Rheto-ric and the Triumph of Darwin’s Invention Over Incommensurability,” inR.A. Harris, ed., Rhetoric and Incommensurability, (West Lafayette, In-diana: Parlor Press, 2005):334-390.51 See note 62 above. A penetrating philosophic analysis is: D. J. Depew &B. H. Weber, Darwinism Evolving: Systems Dynamics and the Geneal-ogy of Natural Selection, (Cambridge: MIT Press,1997): esp. 106-111 andall of Ch.4.52 C. Darwin, 1964, 40.53 J.F. W. Herschel, A Preliminary Discourse on The Study of NaturalPhilosophy, With new forward by Arthur Fine, (Facsimile of the 1830 edi-tion published as volume I of Dionysius Lardner’s Cabinet Cyclopaedia),(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987):7.54 Ibid, Introduction by Arthur Fine, xii.55 F. Burkhardt and S. Smith, eds., The Correspondence of Charles Dar-win, v 7 1858-1859, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991): 423Letter to Charles Lyell 10 December, 1859.56 The most thorough discussions of why the vera causa principle was notinterpreted in Darwin’s favor by his colleagues is V. Kavalovski, “The VeraCausa Principle: A Historico-Philosophic Study of a Meta-Theoretic Con-cept from Newton Through Darwin,” (Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago,1974): esp. 2-4. See also Depew & Weber above note 51.57 F. Burkhardt, et. al., Correspondence 8, (1860):25. To L. Jenyns 7January, 1860.58 M.J.S. Hodge, “The Structure and Strategy of Darwin’s Long Argu-ment,” British Journal of the History of Science, 10 (1977):242-245.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Selc

uk U

nive

rsite

si]

at 0

0:25

20

Dec

embe

r 20

14


59 C. Darwin, 1964, 21.60 Ibid, 20-29.61 Ibid, 29.62 Ibid, 31.63 Ibid, 45.64 Ibid, 49.65 W. Whewell, History of the Inductive Sciences from the Earliest tothe Present, (London: Parker & Sons, 2 1837):489.66 Ibid.67 Ibid, 49-50.68 Ibid, 60-61.69 Ibid, 73-74.70 Ibid, 78-79.71 Ibid, 186.72 S.D. Verhey, “The Effect of Engaging Prior Learning on Student Atti-tudes Toward Creationism and Evolution,” Bio Science 55, No.11 (Novem-ber, 2005):996-1003.73 Chad Lewis, “Higher State Learning,” Kitsap Sun, (Wednesday Sep-tember 13, 2006):A6. As this essay was going to press the following state-ment was released from the National Academies. “Improving science edu-cation in kindergarten through eighth grade will require major changes inhow science is taught in America’s classrooms, as well as shifts in com-monly held views of what young children know and how they learn, says anew National Research Council report.” For full statement see: <http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=1162574 T. Shanahan, 2004, 44-45.75 Ibid, 207-219.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Selc

uk U

nive

rsite

si]

at 0

0:25

20

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Documents

Teaching The Contexts: Why Evolution Should Be Taught As An Argument and How it Might be Done